Should women 'really' be silent in the Church?

[Heidi]

I also want to add that if it is the wish of men for women NOT to be silent in church, shoyld we not obey them?

 

[Angelic Being]

Hi

I also want to add that if it is the wish of men for women NOT to be silent in church, shoyld we not obey them

Its not about what Man wants , its what is directed in God's word that we should obey, read Wayne Grudems, systematic theology it explains it to a tee

 

[Eve777]

Eve, i don't think Paul is talking about women standing up in front of the congregation & opposing the clergy because not even men are supposed to do that

You misunderstood me Heidi.....I was not talking about standing up in front of the congregation to do that.....as you said,,,,no one can challenge a preacher's authority as long as he is going by the word of God.
Here is what I said: I think I was not clear on my second statement...sorry.


If you don't like what he is preaching, you can call a board meeting and discuss it or leave.....

 

[Free]

That's an interesting point, Free. But what i think Paul is saying is that women must not be GRANTED authority over men in positions of teaching. A woman is still free to give her opinion if asked for it, but not to see herself has a final worldly authority. Even if a woman is right & her husband or the clergy are wrong, she must remain silent unless asked for her opinion.

But Paul is likely not saying what you think he is saying. The Bible must be interpreted to mean what the author's meant to say. If Paul is speaking to a specific situation in a specific church, then this is not a universal command for women to keep silent in the church.

Your interpretation does not take this into account, so it is less likely to be the correct one.

 

[Angelic Being]

Hey

I dont believe it is a cultural thing, why would he say in regards to man being made before Eve and be his companion?? Also he did not specify a few woment but all women. I believe there are many reasons for this, this is only been brought up in this society not in any other time in History, does anywhere in the Bible show that Women taught publically and not special circumstances as some have been???/ Not at all, it only comes up now as the Feminist movement as grown stronger..

But Women in the past have been oppressed and it is good Women get the respect they deserve, we are made equal, but our roles in the Church and the home are totally different

 

[Eve777]

but our roles in the Church and the home are totally different

You have it right.... It is not that women are not important enough to speak, it goes deeper than that. God made us as helper to the man. We are not less than....but equal to....we are to work as a team....we fulfill what roles God gave us to do. He made man as head of household and bread winner and women as the child bearer and homemaker....things get a little messed up when we try to switch roles....who are we to question God?

Now I know some of you have to work outside the home to pay the bills, when your husband leaves you with children to raise on your own or your husband dies...I'm not sure what they did in the Old days when this happened. I guess they had to do the same things you do..take what job they could find and take help from where ever they could get it. Relatives were quicker to respond then...when I was growing up, nearly everyone had taken in some poor relative,,,like a sister, aunt, grandparents...... orphans....I grew up with my Grandparents and it was wonderful having them with us.


.... but God never intended it to be that way.....In ages past, women did not work away from home and it seems to have worked just fine....there was more of a family unit and more togetherness...I'm not sure Women's Lib was a good thing at all....most women I know who went to work to "Have it All", regretted it later....they missed watching their children grow up and they found the family had become accustomed to a life style that forced them to keep working....I lived through that period and a lot of women wanted to stay home but they thought they were somehow less of a woman if they did....We were brainwashed...

God made man as head of the house and woman as his wife and companion. A home works better where there is only one boss in the home........ I l think God got it right and the world messed it up....don't you?

 

[Angelic Being]

Yep

Eve 777 i couldnt agree with you more

 

[Imagican]

Free,

I think you should study the religious history of the Romans as much as you seem to have studied the religious history of Ephesus. What you offer sounds good but I don't really believe that what you offer is what Paul is saying. He is not only refering to women in a particular place but to ALL Christian women. He refers all the way back to Eve in this message and that in essence includes ALL women.

As Eve and Angelic Being have tried to point out; it's not so much about speaking in the Church as authority. Eve, when given the chance to exert her authority with regards to Adam is a prime example of what Paul was refering to. When left to her own will she was deceived and with her offering to her husband brought him into the deception also. If this isn't a sound example of the need for men to lead women instead of the opposite, then I don't know where we could find one better. For Adam was created first then Eve from Adam. It's pretty straightforward. Adam was created in the image of God. Eve was created from Adam therefore being a part of him. Not lesser, nor greater but subject to that from which she came.

 

[Shana]

Emotions have to do with wants and desires. Truth has nothing to do with our desires. It just is and it does not bow to our wants and desires. Generally speaking, and if we are honest with ourselves, we know that this is the reality of things.

I am not sure that I really agree with this statement. One can be emotional about the truth and I don't think that emotions are only in relation to our wants and desires. For example, the Lord was emotional on many occasions in regard to the truth. On the other hand, someone can be unemotional and operate in relation to his or her wants and desires.

It is interesting to read the various perspectives on this topic. I understand that the man is in the leadership role and personally, I do not feel comfortable in being in congregations during worship services where women have positions of leadership and authority. This to me is the role of the Christian brother.

Iremember in one congregation that there was an older woman who had some difficulty with a suggestion that women should totally keep silent in Sunday school class, Bible studies ect. She brought up the point that if she had been married, she would have asked her husband, so since she wasn't, she had questions and she was there to learn.

Personally, in my own experiences I have not seen much leadership as far as men assuming the role in the home, so I don't have anything to really compare it to. What keeps coming into my mind is, it takes a man to be a man, so does this have any bearing, as far as assuming the role of leader? Just asking. God bless.

 

[nuhmmie]

Personally, in my own experiences I have not seen much leadership as far as men assuming the role in the home, so I don't have anything to really compare it to. What keeps coming into my mind is, it takes a man to be a man, so does this have any bearing, as far as assuming the role of leader? Just asking. God bless.

you raise an interesting idea. I wonder if it isn't also to address the temptations that face women. Women are naturally inclined to "get the job done". and when they see a job that's given to someone else and it's not being done or done well enough (in their minds) they naturally will take the reigns. Men naturally will give up the reigns unless it's a job they are intersted in doing. It seems to go back to the curse. Men don't want to toil and women don't want to be ruled.

so, even if the men aren't doing the leading like they are supposed to, the women are being told not to "jump in and get the job done", because it's not their responsibility. It's the mens. If the men don't do it, it falls on their head, if the women jump in they share the guilt.

God is so smart! LOL

nature vs. spirit

 

[Shana]

nuhmmie, this is a good point, but what happens if no one assumes the role? I mean, for example, in my experience, if the women had not have assumed some type of leadership role where children are involved, we might not be here today (speaking of myself and my siblings, and others in the home who have been in this position) The major role models that I had as far as leadership in the home that I had were women, and if I had not been for these women, who were Christian women, I might not be here today. Is it wrong for women to assume this role if it is not assumed by the male, and I am basically speaking of where children are concerned. For example, there may be alcholism or some other type of addiction, income which is supposed to be going for support of the family , used for the addiction, ect. As I say, I don't really have anything to compare it to, so I am just asking. I know that this thread is about the silence of women in the church, which I understand to be the ekklesia or body of Christ. God bless.

 

[nuhmmie]

nuhmmie, this is a good point, but what happens if no one assumes the role? I mean, for example, in my experience, if the women had not have assumed some type of leadership role where children are involved, we might not be here today (speaking of myself and my siblings, and others in the home who have been in this position) The major role models that I had as far as leadership in the home that I had were women, and if I had not been for these women, who were Christian women, I might not be here today. Is it wrong for women to assume this role if it is not assumed by the male, and I am basically speaking of where children are concerned. As I say, I don't really have anything to compare it to, so I am just asking. I know that this thread is about women in the church, which I understand to be the ekklesia or body of Christ. God bless.

sorry, I was thinking about in regards to "the church" issue. There was a time when Moses didn't perform the circumcision he was supposed to and if his wife hadn't, he would have been 'poofed' on the road. So, she saved his butt. But I think we may be comparing apples to oranges when we apply authority being given then usurped vs. being abandoned and having no choice but to do the work. see what I mean? undertandable, you can't let children go unraised. I don't think that has to do with usurping authority issues.

 

[Shana]

I agree, and I am not really speaking of authority being usurped but of the situation where it may be assumed because there may be a lack, even in a home where there are believers. Thanks for your feedback. God bless.

 

[xsearnold]

I also want to add that if it is the wish of men for women NOT to be silent in church, shoyld we not obey them?

I'll bet the pastor's wife put him up to instituting such a policy.

 

[kwag_myers]

Paul means that women should keep silent 'while' the teaching is going on, not to ask questions and interrupt . If they have questions , they should ask their husbands at home. The reason Paul said this is because the women at that time were doing just this.

The question isn't whether "Paul was right or wrong," but "what was Paul saying?" Paul was right in what he said, but what exactly was he saying?

The word "teach" used in I Timothy 2:12 can also be translated "to instill doctrine into one" which is something we all need to be careful of. Look at the next part of what Paul writes, "...nor to usurp authority over a man...". This all gives me the impression that Paul is talking to those who were abusing the privilege of their new freedom in Christ. Many scholars agree that Paul was addressing a specific situation concerning the influence of the worship of Artemis (a.k.a. Diana). There's a brief outline here: http://www.churchofgoddfw.com/women/paul&women.shtml on all that under the heading "What was Ephesus like?". Christian women were no longer being treated as baby factories and maids. I suspect that some women crossed the line and started treating men in the same manor as the men had treated them before. Just like when Jewish Christians went from law to grace. Some started to practice sin with no regrets. And Paul had to have a talkin' to with them, which is the book of Romans (see chapters 5 & 6).

I have (if you haven't guessed by now) a real problem with this whole "let's keep women in their place" teaching. It contradicts Galations 3:28, "There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female. For you are all Christians--you are one in Christ Jesus." Women have the SAME HOLY SPIRIT as men. I have sat under the anoited teaching of both.

Looking at Genesis 3:16, God does not say specifically that He is cursing woman. In the Old Testament Prophets, God usually says when He is cursing someone. If Genesis 3:16 is a curse, it seems out of character for God not to be specific, but that's subject to discernmnet. My point is, the possibility exists that this may be a prophetic word, like false prophets arising in the last days, etc.

Which leads me to the submissive wife teaching. I've heard, from a trusted source, that the word "head" as it is used in reference to the husband, can also be translated as "source". I've never studied Greek, so perhaps someone who has can confirm or discredit this. But if so, this means that wives should look to their husbands for nurturing and other emotional needs. If one spouse treats the other disrespectfully, it's likely to set up barriers between them. Also, if the wive doen't look to her husband for love and affection, she may look to have these needs met by other unGodly sources. And that's true for husbands as well.

No one ever seems to look at what Paul says about husbands laying down their lives for their wives. If my wife and I are riding in the car and I happen to have one of my Phil Keaggy CDs in (which my wife doen't care for), and I say, "Too bad, it's my car, I'm the husband, blah, blah, blah...", where's the love in that? But because I love my wife with the love that the Lord has given me for her, I'm willing to change CDs to something we both enjoy.

Someone once told me that, "Someone has to make a final decision. Every corporation has a CEO. The husband is the CEO of the family". No, that responsibility belongs to God. If my wife and I disagree on a decision, it only means that we haven't heard the voice of the Lord yet and we need to spend more time in prayer.

 

[Imagican]

[quote="Rose of Sharon":8fa01]Paul means that women should keep silent 'while' the teaching is going on, not to ask questions and interrupt . If they have questions , they should ask their husbands at home. The reason Paul said this is because the women at that time were doing just this.

The question isn't whether "Paul was right or wrong," but "what was Paul saying?" Paul was right in what he said, but what exactly was he saying?

The word "teach" used in I Timothy 2:12 can also be translated "to instill doctrine into one" which is something we all need to be careful of. Look at the next part of what Paul writes, "...nor to usurp authority over a man...". This all gives me the impression that Paul is talking to those who were abusing the privilege of their new freedom in Christ. Many scholars agree that Paul was addressing a specific situation concerning the influence of the worship of Artemis (a.k.a. Diana). There's a brief outline here: http://www.churchofgoddfw.com/women/paul&women.shtml on all that under the heading "What was Ephesus like?". Christian women were no longer being treated as baby factories and maids. I suspect that some women crossed the line and started treating men in the same manor as the men had treated them before. Just like when Jewish Christians went from law to grace. Some started to practice sin with no regrets. And Paul had to have a talkin' to with them, which is the book of Romans (see chapters 5 & 6).

So, your belief is that Paul was writting about something specific that has absolutely no bearing on man's future, (our present)? Funny how this Artemis isn't mentioned by Paul if this was the reason for what he wrote. That's awful strong liberty that you and others choose to exercise concerning the words of the Bible.

I have (if you haven't guessed by now) a real problem with this whole "let's keep women in their place" teaching. It contradicts Galations 3:28, "There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female. For you are all Christians--you are one in Christ Jesus." Women have the SAME HOLY SPIRIT as men. I have sat under the anoited teaching of both.

What I have also guessed is that you like to pick and choose those pieces of scripture that support your personal feelings and beliefs and ignore the rest. Ephesians 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

So, my question to you is this: Is the problem you have with women being in 'their place' based on the Word or on your own feelings and what you've been taught by society?

And I suppose that you would view slavery of a BAD thing too. I'm quite sure that if I were a slave then I wouldn't like it, but: I Timothy 6:1 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. 2. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.3. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness:.......................

Looking at Genesis 3:16, God does not say specifically that He is cursing woman. In the Old Testament Prophets, God usually says when He is cursing someone. If Genesis 3:16 is a curse, it seems out of character for God not to be specific, but that's subject to discernmnet. My point is, the possibility exists that this may be a prophetic word, like false prophets arising in the last days, etc.

Obviously you not only like to pick and choose scripture to back up your personal beliefs but you like to alter it for the same purpose. God stated from a specific point and there is no reference to a 'future time' when he commanded the distinct differences between the place of man and that of woman. What he commanded was from that point on. There is no indication that he is refering to a 'future time' in which things would change.

And as far as a specific curse, it is perfectly obvious when read in context that ALL THREE; the serpent, Eve and Adam were all cursed for their misbehavior. You can certainly say that since the actual word isn't used then it changes the outcome but this would mean that we are to take every scripture and it's meaning without comparing it to anything else. If we were to accept this idea then the Bible is nothing but a series of contradictions. This isn't the case however.

Which leads me to the submissive wife teaching. I've heard, from a trusted source, that the word "head" as it is used in reference to the husband, can also be translated as "source". I've never studied Greek, so perhaps someone who has can confirm or discredit this. But if so, this means that wives should look to their husbands for nurturing and other emotional needs. If one spouse treats the other disrespectfully, it's likely to set up barriers between them. Also, if the wive doen't look to her husband for love and affection, she may look to have these needs met by other unGodly sources. And that's true for husbands as well.

You seem to confuse man being the head as giving him the right to abuse or disrespect his spouse. WRONG. We are to respect and honor women as the weaker vessel. This doesn't give man the right to abuse or disrespect. And any woman that isn't willing to submit to their husband doesn't have Christ or God in their lives so how could you expect there not to be barriers between her and her husband. Those that choose to live in the world instead of following Christ will always look for thier needs to be met by unGodly sources.

What God does say is: "and thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule over thee."

No one ever seems to look at what Paul says about husbands laying down their lives for their wives. If my wife and I are riding in the car and I happen to have one of my Phil Keaggy CDs in (which my wife doen't care for), and I say, "Too bad, it's my car, I'm the husband, blah, blah, blah...", where's the love in that? But because I love my wife with the love that the Lord has given me for her, I'm willing to change CDs to something we both enjoy.

God nor Jesus ever commanded men to abuse women. We were never commanded to take advantage of women. We are to love our women and respect them as ourselves, BUT, we are also to lead them and not allow them to lead us again as Adam allowed Eve to lead him. We are to love our women and children enough to force them to do the right thing whether they want to or not.

Any man that doesn't love his wife enough to fight her in order to help her has no REAL love in him for his spouse. This isn't what the law of American teaches but it is certainly what God teaches. If you would allow your children to do drugs because it was easier than fighting them then you don't really love them. You love their love for you but refuse to offer your love to them. "But, they are to be submissive to thier husbands". This means that someone has to be the head in any group and God commanded that women accept their place and follow thier husbands. God is the head of man, and man is the head of woman. Not only was Adam created first, but Eve was created FROM Adam, FOR Adam.

In todays society, women are certainly not taught to be submissive any longer. Children are not taught respect their elders either. There is very little respect for God taught in our society. Are these changes that we've brought about right? Are they in line with the Word? Laziness is no excuse for not following the Word.

Of course it's easier to let homosexuals 'do what they wilt', but is this what God wanted? Easier to let women take on the responsibilities of men and for men to take on the roles of women, but is this God's will, or man's?

Someone once told me that, "Someone has to make a final decision. Every corporation has a CEO. The husband is the CEO of the family". No, that responsibility belongs to God. If my wife and I disagree on a decision, it only means that we haven't heard the voice of the Lord yet and we need to spend more time in prayer.[/quote:8fa01]

You are a funny guy and I hope that what you offer doesn't have an influence on others to follow. So, while a couple's world may be falling apart for lack of your responsibility to stand up and be a man, you would choose to sit in prayer and wait for "God to speak to you"? Funny, but this seems to be the course that Adam and Eve chose. God had spoken, yet Eve chose to ignore what had been spoken and then convinced Adam to do the same.

Prayer is a good thing but there is no need to pray for answers that have already been offered. The important thing is to follow God's will and be obedient to his Word. If you and your spouse read it and follow it then there won't be an awful lot of room for disagreement. As far as the CD thing is concerned that's not a question of men and women and their place, Christ said that we are to serve our brother, (and sister), PERIOD. So in this case the RIGHT thing to do is "NOT CAUSE YOUR BROTHER TO STUMBLE". That means that with something as simple as which CD one listens to, you should be more than glad to allow the pleasure of another over your own. Hardcore huh? Yes it is, but true nevertheless.

You offer select scripture of Paul in your arguments but leave out other parts of the same scripture that is needed to decide what Paul was saying.

Most of you people have bought into the teachings of our society and choose to alter your definition of the Word in order to justify it instead of standing up for and defending the Word of God. Do you have a Bible? Do you read it? Then the answers are relatively simple.

Society, (man's teachings), have always been and always will be WRONG. We are to follow the teachings of God and Christ regardless of what our governing fleshly lawmakers teach. And that goes for the Church that you attend also. If their teachings are not from the Bible then you are in the wrong Church. If your Church allows women pastors then it teaches against the Word of God, (unless you have a different Bible than I).

 

[kwag_myers]

Imagican, I appologize. I was under the impression that I could share the revelation of God's Word in my life. I see by your post, specifically the capitalized words, that I do not have that liberty here. Good-bye.

edit: Or would you prefer that I delete my post before I leave?

 

[Imagican]

Imagican, I appologize. I was under the impression that I could share the revelation of God's Word in my life. I see by your post, specifically the capitalized words, that I do not have that liberty here. Good-bye.

edit: Or would you prefer that I delete my post before I leave?

kwag_myers,

No need to apologize. You are certainly free to express any ideas or beliefs that you would like and can not offend ME by them. I only offer that the scriptures are there and state what they state regardless of one's personal beliefs.

I was simply pointing out that you have specifically stated PARTS of scripture and refused to consider the whole. If you do not believe what Moses or Paul stated or only believe in part, that is your choice. I offered what I offered to those that might be swayed by your personal opinion rather than scripture. It's really unfair to those that don't know any better to be swayed by opinions or personal feelings rather than what we have in the Word.

I apologize if my difference in understanding offended you. That certainly wasn't the intention.

I started this thread not to learn what the Bible states but what others thought of it. I find it amazing that people who say that they believe in the Bible can totally disregard what it states when that information doesn't please their feelings on certain issues

Paul didn't only state that women were to remain silent in the Church or be submissive to their husbands but he also explained WHY. You offered that this was subjective, yet there is absolutely NO indication in his writtings that this was so. These were statements by Paul, not ponderings. You either accept it or don't, but trying to change it won't work from a scriptural standpoint.

I am perfectly aware of the state of the modern Church and it's teachings. Most have opted to accept change rather than maintain adherence in order to appeal to the masses and obtain a larger congregation. So be it. Regardless of their teachings to the contrary, Paul stated what he stated and it's up to us to uphold this doctrine. When you choose your way, instead of that commanded of us, then there is no need for the Bible to begin with.

Eve obviously didn't follow God's command and because of this, she and all preceeding women were given additional commandments in the form of punishment and in order to prevent repetition. The fact that some women today are no different than her is not surprising. There have been, and always will be, women and men that rebel against the authority of God and his will.

We are forced to do nothing physical but die. We have a choice in our actions. The commandments of God do not prevent us from making these choices. The commandments are there to prevent the seperation of us from God. Women, just like men, certainly have the capability to refuse the Word and what God has commanded, but never forget that when this becomes the choice then the relationship suffers.

 

[Imagican]

I also want to add that if it is the wish of men for women NOT to be silent in church, shoyld we not obey them?

I'll bet the pastor's wife put him up to instituting such a policy.

You're a funny guy. I didn't realize from your previous posts that you had such a sense of humor.

 

[Imagican]

Imagican, I appologize. I was under the impression that I could share the revelation of God's Word in my life. I see by your post, specifically the capitalized words, that I do not have that liberty here. Good-bye.

edit: Or would you prefer that I delete my post before I leave?

Hey kwag,

No one is crucifying anyone here. Don't flatter yourself so. I don't mean to further offend, but if you choose to offer a reply, don't be surprised if there is someone that doesn't agree with it. I don't know you or anything about you so I refuse to allow you to indicate to others that this is personal. It's not. I love you brother, I just disagree with some of what you've stated.

And no, I don't believe that you should leave or that your post should be deleted. The purpose of this thread was to offer discussion of beliefs concerning women and scripture. I think that you took what I said in a much more personal way than it was meant. I was condemning no one. I was pointing out that I believe that you have ignored much scripture and offered opinion instead.

This thread was not meant to be one in which everyone agrees with it's initial statement. Obviously there are those that choose to ignore what scripture states and what I was hoping to do was allow those that offer to disagree with it to tell me why they choose to do so. In the process I hoped that there would be some that didn't understand the scripture and that they might begin to reevaluate their belief and begin to understand that our society has much more influence now days than the word of God.

Disobedience brought about the seperation of man and God to start with and there's no reason to believe that it will end any time soon. It has obviously become more important to man than ever to rebel against the Word. The saddest part is that most Churches have chosen to bend to this same spirit of rebelion.