The role of women in the church

[joyinhim]

BJ,

thank you for your honesty and testimony

I am a woman with bad experience with disobedient men Christians. I understand your point of view.

We certainly can learn from our experiences and use it for our spiritual growth.

I hope you won't let any one get you down for your practice of Christianity.

 

[Imagican]

NRoof,

You missed the most important point: Eve's sin was not simple disobedience. She desired the fruit for what it offered. The serpent convinced her that if she ate it that SHE would become like GOD. Pride was the sin that brought about her punishment. Adam's sin was simple disobedience. We have NO indication that Adam's response to Eve upon eating the fruit had ANYTHING to do with PRIDE.

So, the indication here is that Eve's punishment of 'submission' was declared because of the NATURE of her sin versus Adam's. Yes, they both sinned, but Eve did sin first and then convinced Adam somehow to do the same. While Adam's punishment was banishment and toil, Eve was given a greater punishment INCLUDING submission to her husband.

Kwag, I didn't write the Bible. If I am to base my understanding of God on something however, I am left with two alternatives. 1. I can accept what the Bible teaches, or 2. I can reject it for something else. You are absolutely right in your observation of un-righteous men. But that doesn't change ANYTHING that God has given us to understand. There is MUCH written about the man's responsibility too. But trying to justify women usurping the authority of men because of their inability to exercise it is nothing short of creating your own religion because the one written of in the Bible doesn't suit YOUR needs.

You know guys, I think that the biggest problem here lies in the fact that we all have it too easy. Christ and His apostles warned us that to follow Him would be to suffer and sacrifice ourselves. It's been so long since people in this country have had to suffer that I think anyone under the age of seventy or so has absolutely NO comprehension of what suffering is. Yes, we have TV and books, but learning of the suffering of others is NOTHING compared to the actual suffering.

We are challenged to sacrifice of ourselves for our neighbors. Do you think that we are challenged any less to sacrifice for those that we love? What use is freedom for self if it leads to self destruction? I mean really. We are here on this earth but a minute. Could women being submissive to their husbands be THAT much of a BURDEN, when our NUMBER ONE maturing process and PROOF of it is serving OTHERS than ourselves.

This lack of understanding is EXACTLY what Paul was speaking of to the Corinthians when he scolded them for still feeding on milk. It's NOT ABOUT YOU people. It's about EVERYONE BUT YOU. Learn this and you will begin to understand what LOVE really is. NO, not self love and what makes YOU happy, but the love towards OTHERS that is SO much more important. This is the LOVE that God is, and the love that we will understand when our understanding becomes perfect.

 

[BJGrolle]

And since you like quotes: 1Corinthians once again, but read it carefully.

36 What? came the word of God out from YOU? or came it unto YOU ONLY?
37 If ANY man think HIMSELF to be a prophet, or SPIRITUAL, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are THE COMMANDMENTS of the LORD,
38 BUT if ANY MAN BE IGNORANT, let him be IGNORANT.
40 Let all things be done DECENTLY AND IN ORDER.

Boy, does it get any plainer than this? OBVIOUSLY there were those in Corinth that were suffering from the same problem that we are dealing with here on this thread. Women wanting to run the show when they were SUPPOSED to be learning from the Spirit instead of their OWN WILL. If ANY MAN, see that? ANY MAN even THINK himself to be a prophet, or EVEN spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the COMMANDMENTS OF THE LORD. NO, not just my words, is what Paul is saying, BUT THE COMMANDMENTS OF THE LORD.

I see that. Are you suggesting that because that verse addresses men specifically, that only men were to be spiritual? Since 99% (just a guess) of the Bible specifically addresses men, speaks in terms of the male gender, etc., then what place do women have in any of it? Not much, if you're determined to look at it in the most literal terms.

The Bible speaks over and over of "sinful man". Should we infer then that only men are sinful and not women? No, that would be ridiculous. But if you want to use the literal word MAN or MEN as justification for your interpretations, then you have to go all the way with it.

Thanks NRoof, I look forward to it.

I think my point about Adam and Eve was that it's foolish IMO to say that women can't be considered trustworthy enough to teach or hold a leadership position in the church because she was tricked by the serpent.

I like the way you have put it. Eve may have been fooled, but Adam disobeyed willfully.

So, that makes men more trustworthy and qualified to preach and teach, be President of a congregation, etc., because it was willful disobedience rather than feminine stupidity or ignorance (my words)?

Foolishness and willfull disobedience are both just as bad IMO.

 

[BJGrolle]

]

I hope you won't let any one get you down for your practice of Christianity.

I'm trying not to, thanks.

But trying to justify women usurping the authority of men because of their inability to exercise it is nothing short of creating your own religion because the one written of in the Bible doesn't suit YOUR needs.

The Bible suits my needs just fine. As I've proven, whether you want to believe it or not, Paul's writings are all over the place on this issue. But feel free to only read the ones that convince you that I'm trying to usurp the authority of men. I do like it though that you've admitted that many men won't exercise it. This is very true. So if the men won't exercise it, or abuse it as in the case of ungodly pastors and priests, then who is to step forward? Who is left?

We are challenged to sacrifice of ourselves for our neighbors. Do you think that we are challenged any less to sacrifice for those that we love? What use is freedom for self if it leads to self destruction? I mean really. We are here on this earth but a minute. Could women being submissive to their husbands be THAT much of a BURDEN, when our NUMBER ONE maturing process and PROOF of it is serving OTHERS than ourselves.

Who is arguing about being submissive to husbands? I was speaking of a woman's role in the church. But other people chimed in and starting saying that a woman's place was in the home, being submissive to her husband, not being allowed to talk on Christian forums, etc.

Believe me, pain in childbirth is worse than submitting to one's husband - I can attest to that after having been through it twice. But the end result was worth it.

This lack of understanding is EXACTLY what Paul was speaking of to the Corinthians when he scolded them for still feeding on milk. It's NOT ABOUT YOU people. It's about EVERYONE BUT YOU. Learn this and you will begin to understand what LOVE really is. NO, not self love and what makes YOU happy, but the love towards OTHERS that is SO much more important. This is the LOVE that God is, and the love that we will understand when our understanding becomes perfect.

I agree 100%. This issue shouldn't be about me. It shouldn't be about men vs. women. It should be about someone loving the Word of God enough to want to discuss it, share it, try to understand it better, try to use it to help others through their low points in life, and so on.

Does it really matter whether a man or a woman does it, especially if it brings someone to Christ?

 

[BJGrolle]

On a very serious note, I've been told many times that there aren't enough pastors to go around. Many Lutheran churches are without a pastor, ours now included. My aunt is Catholic and they have the same problem. Since Lutherans are allowed to marry, it's not just a celibacy issue.

I don't know what factors are involved or what the solution might be.

As I said earlier, we can't even get a man to step forward to serve as President of the congregation - and the health of our current President is none too good lately. It's a shame, he is a dear, dear man, so well-liked and respected.

God may have initially given men authority over women - I cannot argue that, but in many cases, the men are dropping the ball. I'm not trying to accuse the men here of doing that, probably the opposite is true of the men on this forum.

But this is the reality as I've seen it in my church life for a long time now.

 

[Klee shay]

AVBunyan, while I can understand your perspective on this scripture, I must say that your delivery lacks the influence of Christ. You disrespect your wife by talking as if she were an object, and you disrespect the wives of other husband's who happen to think differently to you.

Christ often showed men how to value women in the OT. It is a shame that the Lord's own words are now being used to devalue women again. Loving Christ is never about oppression or subjection. Why do you contradict the Lord who showed you how to treat a woman properly?

 

[Imagican]

BJGrolle,

I just finished reading the post offered of your past. I commend you on your courage to offer this testimony. God does love us so, doesn't he. So few get to REALLY understand this that you should certainly count yourself fortunate to have been touched in such a way. God Bless You and Yours.

Please allow me to clarify something that you have refused to see. Please read these two pieces of scripture again and see if what I offer doesn't make sense:

Rom 5:14 Yet, death ruled from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin in the same way Adam did when he disobeyed. Adam is an image of the one who would come.

Note the contrast with the other passage that is often used as justification:

1Ti 2:11 A woman must learn in silence, in keeping with her position.
1Ti 2:12 I don't allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. Instead, she should be quiet.
1Ti 2:13 After all, Adam was formed first, then Eve.
1Ti 2:14 Besides that, Adam was not deceived. It was the woman who was deceived and sinned.

No where does it say in 1Ti that Adam DIDN'T sin. What it says is that Adam wasn't DECEIVED LIKE EVE when she sinned. If you will read my previous post concerning the NATURE of Eve's sin, maybe it will explain the difference.

And let me further add that NOWHERE does the Word indicate that Adam was with Eve when the serpent deceived her. It simply says that she took fruit, ate fruit, and gave Adam fruit when she was with him. You are perhaps reading a bit more into what you are reading than what is actually written.

I personally have no problems with you teaching a Bible study class or posting Blogs on this or any forum. All I was trying to do is offer an understanding. What you or me or anyone else does with the truth is their particular choice.

I must be honest here myself. Some of the statements that I made, I made in order to see what your reaction, (and others), would be. Forgive me if I seemed harsh, but I was curious if you were serious or just another woman unhappy with being such. I think that you have proven, at least a little, that you are serious. That certainly makes a difference in my opinion.

BJGrolle, not to seem uncaring or judgemental, but perhaps the time of the church that you attend is past. Maybe God is trying to tell you something if there are no men there that are worthy of being leaders. Many civilizations of the past and churches themselves have been defeated by God. This is nothing new. Those that refuse to follow the truth will eventually be incorporated into a universal type church and we are seeing this take place before our very eyes. That means that ALL religions that are not based on the 'truth' will eventually become non-existent except for one. This we have been told.

For someone that doesn't seem to agree with organized religion, why would you want to be part of the organization of it to begin with? The nature of organization is power. We were never meant to have an organized Church like the ones we have today. Big buildings with big electric bills. Fancy carpets and expensive pews. Pastors getting paid like the Pharisees and music directors making more than those that we pay to teach our children. What time does that leave for them to do their jobs? And mostly what I see in the churches that I have attended is a whole lot of taking by those that run it and a whole lot of giving by those that are members.

You say that God offers you guidance in your walk. This is most important. He also works in mysterious ways. When we are often least likely to receive His instruction He sometimes lays it on us. Sometimes we see it and other times we don't. In this context, I mention once again for the sake of 'truth'; Perhaps it's time for you to move on. Maybe you were led to the answer that you were looking for but it's not what you expected?

 

[Solo]

This article says it better than I can but emulates my understanding:

Should Women Be Pastors and Elders?

In a social climate of complete equality in all things, the biblical teaching of only allowing men to be pastors and elders is not popular. Many feminist organizations denounce this position as antiquated and chauvinistic. In addition, many Christian churches have adopted the "politically correct" social standard and have allowed women pastors and elders in the church. But the question remains, is this biblical?
My answer to this question is, "No, women are not to be pastors and elders." Many may not like that answer, but it is, I believe, an accurate representation of the biblical standard. You make the decision after reading this paper.

First of all, women are under-appreciated and under-utilized in the church. There are many gifted women who might very well do a better job at preaching and teaching than many men. However, it isn't gifting that is the issue, but God's order and calling. What does the Bible say? We cannot come to God's word with a social agenda and make it fit our wants. Instead, we must change and adapt to what it says.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, the garden of Eden, and Adam and Eve. He put Adam in the garden and gave him the authority to name all the animals. Afterwards, God made Eve as a helper to Adam.(1) This is an important concept because Paul refers to the order of creation in his epistle to Timothy when he discusses the relationship between men and women in the church context. Let's take a look.
"But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression" (1 Tim. 2:12-14 -- all quotes from the Bible are from the NASB). This passage has several interesting areas of discussion, but for our purpose we will focus on authority. At the very least, there is an authority structure set up by God. The woman is not to have authority over the man in the church context. But this does not extend to the political/economic world. In the Old Testament Deborah was a judge in Israel over men. Also, in the New Testament, Phoebe played an important role in the church at Cenchrea (Romans 16). There is no doubt that women supported Paul in many areas and were great helpers in the church (Act 2:17; 18:24; 21:8). But what Paul is speaking of in 1 Tim. 2 is the relationship between men and women in the church structure, not in a social or political context.
When we look further at Paul's teachings we see that the bishop/overseer is to be the husband of one wife (1 Tim. 3:2) who manages his household well and has a good reputation (1 Tim. 3:4-5, 7). Deacons must be "men of dignity"(1 Tim. 3:8). Paul then speaks of women in verse 11 and their obligation to receive instruction. Then in verse 12, Paul says "Let deacons be husbands of one wife..." Again, in Titus 1:5-7, Paul says, "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might set in order what remains, and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, namely, if any man be above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. For the overseer must be above reproach as God's steward..." Notice that Paul interchanges the word 'elder' and 'overseer'.
In each case, the one who is an elder, deacon, bishop, or overseer is instructed to be male. He is the husband of one wife, responsible, able to "exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict" (Titus 1:9). We see no command for the overseers to be women. On the contrary, women are told to be "dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things" (1 Tim. 3:11). Why is it that it is the men who are singled out as the overseers? It is because of the created order of God that Paul references (Gen. 1-2; 1 Tim. 2:12-14). This is not merely a social custom that fell away with ancient Israel.
Additionally, in the Old Testament in over 700 mentions of priests, every single one was a male. There is not one instance of a female priest. This is significant because priests were ordained by God to hold a very important office of ministering the sacrifices. This was not the job of women.
Therefore, from what I see in Genesis 1-2, 1 Timothy 2, and Titus 1, the normal and proper person to hold the office of elder/pastor is to be a man.

What About Galatians 3:28?

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus," (Gal. 3:28).
This verse is often used to support the idea that women can hold the offices of elder and pastor because there is neither male nor female in Christ. The argument states that if we are all equal, then women can be pastors.
Unfortunately, those who use this verse this way have failed to read the context. Verse 23 talks about being under the Law "before faith came" and how we are brought closer to Jesus and have become sons of God by faith. We are no longer under law, but grace and we are "Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise," (v. 29).(2) The point of this passage is that we are all saved by God's grace according to the promise of God and that it doesn't matter who you are, Jew, Greek, slave, free, male, or female. All are saved the same way, by grace. In that, there is neither male nor female.
This verse is not talking about church structure. It is talking about salvation "in Christ." It cannot be used to support women as pastors because that isn't what it is talking about. Instead, to find out about church structure and leadership, you need to go to those passages that talk about it: 1 Timothy 2 and Titus 1.

Being a Pastor or Elder is to be in Authority

God is a God of order and balance. He has established order within the family (Gen. 3:16; 1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:22-33; Col. 3:18-21 ) and the church (1 Tim. 2:11-14; 1 Cor. 11:8-9). Even within the Trinity there is an order, a hierarchy. The Father sent the Son (John 6:38) and both the Father and the Son sent the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 15:26). Jesus said, "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me," (John 6:38). It is clear that God is a God of order and structure.
In creation, God made Adam first and then Eve to be his helper. This is the order of creation. It is this order that Paul mentions in 1 Tim. 2:11-14 when speaking of authority. Being a pastor or an elder is to be in the place of authority. Therefore, within the church, for a woman to be a pastor or elder, she would be in authority of men in the church which contradicts what Paul says in 1 Tim. 2:11-14.

But Doesn't This Teaching Belittle Women?

No, male leadership does not belittle women. Jesus was given his authority by God the Father (Matt. 28:18). He was sent by God (John 6:38). He said the Father was greater than He (John 14:28). Did this belittle Jesus? Of course not. Women are of great value in the church and need to be used more and more according to the gifts given them.
Does the wife's submission to the husband mean that she is less than the husband, less important, or belittled? Again, not at all. Not having a place of leadership in the church does not mean a woman is less of a person, less important to God, or inferior. All are equal before God whether it be Jew, Gentile, free, slave, male, or female. But in the church, God has set up an order the same way he set one up in the family. The chain of command is Jesus, the man, the wife, and the children.

What About Women Who Say They are Called By God to Be Pastors?

There are women pastors in the world who love their congregations and have stated that they are called by God to be pastors. Of course, I cannot agree with this considering the previous analysis of the biblical position. Instead, I believe they have usurped the position of men and gone against the norm of scriptural revelation. Additionally, those who state that they are called by God because of the great job they are doing and the gifting they have received are basing their theology upon experience and not scripture.
The issue is simple: are they submitting to the word of God or are they making the word of God submit to their desires?

What About a Missionary Woman Who Establishes a Church?

Scripture establishes the norm. As Christians we apply what we learn from the word, to the situations at hand. So, what about the situation where a woman missionary has converted a group of people, say in the jungle somewhere, and she has established a church? In that church, she is then functioning as a pastor and teacher having authority over men in the church. Should she not do this?
First of all, she should not be out there alone. She should be with her husband or, at the very least, under the oversight of a church body in the presence of other women and men. Missionary work is not a lone endeavor to be handled by single women.
Second, if in some highly unusual set of circumstances there is a woman in a lone situation, it is far more important that the word of God be preached and the gospel of salvation go forth to the lost than not. Whether it be male or female, let the gospel be spoken. However, I would say that as soon as there is/are males mature enough to handle eldership, that she should then establish the proper order of the church as revealed in scripture and thereby, show her submission to it.

Does this also mean that women shouldn't wear jewelry?

"Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments; 10 but rather by means of good works, as befits women making a claim to godliness. 11 Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve," (1 Tim. 2:9-13).

Some argue that if we are to forbid women to be elders then the context of 1 Tim. 2:9-13 demands that we require women to no have braided hair, wear gold, or have costly garments. Since no one wants to put that sort of a demand on a woman (since it is cultural), then why should we also demand that they not be elders since it would logically follow that it was also a culturally based admonition?
The problem here is that multifaceted. First, the objection ignore what the scriptures plainly teach about the elder being the husband of one wife. Second, it fails to address the real issue of biblical headship residing in the male. Third, it fails to properly exegete the scripture in question.
In 1 Tim. 2:9-13 Paul tells us that women should be modestly dressed. He uses the example of then present day adornment as an example of what not to do, definitely culturally based assessment by Paul. Notice that Paul emphasizes good works and godliness as a qualifier (as does Peter, see 1 Pet. 3:2). This is not a doctrinal statement tied to anything other than being a godly woman in appearance as well as attitude.
In verse 11, Paul says that a woman should quietly receive instruction. Please note that "The word, heµsychia, translated “quietness†in 1 Timothy 2:11 and silent in verse 12, does not mean complete silence or no talking. It is clearly used elsewhere (Acts 22:2; 2 Thes. 3:12) to mean “settled down, undisturbed, not unruly. A different word (sigaoµ) means “to be silent, to say nothing†(cf. Luke 18:39; 1 Cor. 14:34).â€Â3 Paul is advocating orderliness in this verse.
Then in verse 12-13, Paul says, "But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve." Notice that Paul directly relates the authority issue with the created order. He does not do this with the woman's dress code. Therefore, the dress code can be seen as cultural and the authority issue as doctrinal since the later is tied to the creation order and the dress code and authority issue are not, especially since they are separated by the conjunction "but" which is showing contrast, i.e., here we have one thing, but over here we have another.

Conclusion

God's word clearly tells us that the elder is to be the husband of one wife. A woman cannot qualify for this position by virtue of her being female. Whether anyone likes it or not is irrelevant to the fact that this is what the Bible teaches.


_______________________

1. An important note here is that the Holy Spirit is also called the Helper and is no less God than Jesus and the Father.
2. The Promise is God's promise to Abraham to bless all the nations in Him (Gen. 12:3; Gal. 3:8).
3. Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.) 1983, 1985.

Retrieved from http://www.carm.org/questions/womenpastors.htm

Also read "Women pastors / preachers? What does the Bible say about women in ministry?" at http://www.gotquestions.org/women-pastors.html

 

[kwag_myers]

God's word clearly tells us that the elder is to be the husband of one wife. A woman cannot qualify for this position by virtue of her being female.

1 Timothy 5:1, "Rebuke not an elder, but intreat [him] as a father; [and] the younger men as brethren;"

1 Timothy 5:2, "The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity."

The word "elder" in both of these verses is presbuteros.

The verse that I believe you make reference to is 1 Timothy 3:2, or perhaps verse 12. Here the word is episkopos (overseer), verse 12 is diakonos (one who executes the commands of another).

I haven't been able to find where the Bible says that an elder (presbuteros) is to have one wife. I looked at all 67 times that presbuteros is used. Did I miss it?

Oh, I almost forgot. Getting back to 1 Timothy 5:1-2, isn't it true that the original Greek had no punctuation? This would explain Paul's tendency toward run-on sentences. Anyway, if this is true, the text would read,

""Rebuke not an elder, but intreat [him] as a father; [and] the younger men as brethren; the elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity."

This would indicate that you could be either gender, and that you didn't necessarily need to be elderly to be an elder.

 

[Solo]

1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; 9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. 10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. 11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. 12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

14 These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: 15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. 16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
1 Timothy 3:1-16


http://www.gotquestions.org/qualificati ... acons.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/duties-elder-church.html

 

[AVBunyan]

1. You disrespect your wife by talking as if she were an object,

2. Why do you contradict the Lord who showed you how to treat a woman properly?

1. Would you be so kind as to show me where I disrespect my wife and others and treat her as an object?

2. Would you be so kind as to show me where I don't treat my wife properly?

Thank you

 

[Klee shay]

1. Would you be so kind as to show me where I disrespect my wife and others and treat her as an object?

2. Would you be so kind as to show me where I don't treat my wife properly?

1...

When Eve got to dicussing doctrinal things she got messed up - God never called women to be theologians.

Opinion. This is not how God handled the situation when it came to Eve's mistakes. Certainly it is not how Christ spoke to women about their mistakes either.

Now, let's stir it up a bit - if I ever caught my wife on forums discussing doctrinal issues it would stop immediately - she wouldn't and I am thankful for that but if she did it would start having a negative affect on the home.

An object to be stopped immediately - not a woman with feelings. You discuss her as if she has no opinion but YOUR own.

When I see the likes of Joyce Meyers, Mrs. Copeland, etc. up "preaching" (gag me with a spoon) and "teaching" then two things come to mind:

1. Confusion and chaos.
2. Men who listen and follow these women have the backbone of a jelly fish and french fries for ribs!

You speak as if these people are objects to be scorned rather than people with feelings and their own way of understanding things. You don't have to agree with them but you certainly don't have to degrade them to beef up your position.

Now - go ahead and tell me I'm against women and I treat my wife like a doormat - won't keep me awake enough to yawn.

It seems that if you don't agree; then it doesn't exist. This is precisely what fueled feminism. Perhaps the movement wouldn't have gotten so out of hand if men were prepared to listen to their wifes (or other's wive's opinions) rather than treating them like something to yawn at.

The highest calling the women can have is to be keepers at home and to raise godly children who are prepared to be godly citizens under the headship of the head of the house.

Are you talking about an idol on a pedistal here or a woman? A woman's highest calling is to God.

And women today who don't like that are rebellious and don't like the labor invloved in doing that so they turn their children over to the state and go out into the workplace when they don't really have to (I quailified myself here!). As soon as you reverse the roles then chaos exists - you get masculine, confused women and whimpy men who make for poor soldires of Jesus Christ!

You're speaking about men and women who are real - not objects to poke your personal barbs into.

Don't shake your fist and gnash yoru teeth at me - go complain to God about it.

In other words - go away object - you're clouding the view of my perfect world; let God and your husband deal with you. Funny, I don't recall Christ ever treating a woman like that.

2...

I'm a woman and I'm offended about how you treat the "gender". I happen to think speaking on behalf of your wife without actually sharing what she has said herself; is not treating her properly. It's like she's an object you describe but she has no life or personality of her own that you are proud to share. Just that she's obedient to you.

The "if you caughter her" comment got to me as well. Like you expect she sneaks around on you. The way you have addressed women and other men in this discussion speaks more about your stance, than your actual scriptural representation.

 

[BJGrolle]

BJGrolle,

I just finished reading the post offered of your past. I commend you on your courage to offer this testimony. God does love us so, doesn't he. So few get to REALLY understand this that you should certainly count yourself fortunate to have been touched in such a way. God Bless You and Yours.

Please allow me to clarify something that you have refused to see. Please read these two pieces of scripture again and see if what I offer doesn't make sense:

Rom 5:14 Yet, death ruled from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin in the same way Adam did when he disobeyed. Adam is an image of the one who would come.

Note the contrast with the other passage that is often used as justification:

1Ti 2:11 A woman must learn in silence, in keeping with her position.
1Ti 2:12 I don't allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. Instead, she should be quiet.
1Ti 2:13 After all, Adam was formed first, then Eve.
1Ti 2:14 Besides that, Adam was not deceived. It was the woman who was deceived and sinned.

No where does it say in 1Ti that Adam DIDN'T sin. What it says is that Adam wasn't DECEIVED LIKE EVE when she sinned. If you will read my previous post concerning the NATURE of Eve's sin, maybe it will explain the difference.

And let me further add that NOWHERE does the Word indicate that Adam was with Eve when the serpent deceived her. It simply says that she took fruit, ate fruit, and gave Adam fruit when she was with him. You are perhaps reading a bit more into what you are reading than what is actually written.

I personally have no problems with you teaching a Bible study class or posting Blogs on this or any forum. All I was trying to do is offer an understanding. What you or me or anyone else does with the truth is their particular choice.

I must be honest here myself. Some of the statements that I made, I made in order to see what your reaction, (and others), would be. Forgive me if I seemed harsh, but I was curious if you were serious or just another woman unhappy with being such. I think that you have proven, at least a little, that you are serious. That certainly makes a difference in my opinion.

BJGrolle, not to seem uncaring or judgemental, but perhaps the time of the church that you attend is past. Maybe God is trying to tell you something if there are no men there that are worthy of being leaders. Many civilizations of the past and churches themselves have been defeated by God. This is nothing new. Those that refuse to follow the truth will eventually be incorporated into a universal type church and we are seeing this take place before our very eyes. That means that ALL religions that are not based on the 'truth' will eventually become non-existent except for one. This we have been told.

For someone that doesn't seem to agree with organized religion, why would you want to be part of the organization of it to begin with? The nature of organization is power. We were never meant to have an organized Church like the ones we have today. Big buildings with big electric bills. Fancy carpets and expensive pews. Pastors getting paid like the Pharisees and music directors making more than those that we pay to teach our children. What time does that leave for them to do their jobs? And mostly what I see in the churches that I have attended is a whole lot of taking by those that run it and a whole lot of giving by those that are members.

You say that God offers you guidance in your walk. This is most important. He also works in mysterious ways. When we are often least likely to receive His instruction He sometimes lays it on us. Sometimes we see it and other times we don't. In this context, I mention once again for the sake of 'truth'; Perhaps it's time for you to move on. Maybe you were led to the answer that you were looking for but it's not what you expected?

Thank you so much for your kind understanding. Yes, God does love us, more than we are capable of loving anyone ourselves with our limited human frailties and understanding. I had the opportunity to experience God in ways that many people will never know, but can only imagine. Maybe that is part of what makes my convictions so strong in certain matters.

I can understand that Eve was deceived. More than that as I think about it. My interpretation is that she didn't trust God enough. So, I can understand why God would put man over her as an authority figure, commanding women to submit to men. She showed herself to be untrustworthy when she faced her first important challenge. She might have been acting like an airhead, who knows?

I am serious, as you understand now. But I am very happy being a woman. I never had any wish to be a man. I have a traditional marriage - my husband supports us and I take care of things at home. That's the way we both want it.

Going back to airheads for a moment - maybe the women in Corinth were brainless idiots, spouting off without true knowledge, understanding, or thought. We can't know for sure.

I don't like being treated like a brainless idiot - I'm not accusing anyone here of doing that. I'm just speaking of the general idea that women should remain silent always in church matters.

Personally, I have an IQ of about 130. I spent most of my school years in advanced classes for the gifted. My daughter is also gifted, perhaps even more than I am. My son is autistic. Overall, he is of average intelligence, but he is below average in some areas and way-off-the-chart gifted in other areas. My husband is an embedded software engineer who is no slacker himself in brains, but he is far more gifted than me when it comes to practical and social matters.

I sat on the Women's Council at my church for 3 sessions. I quit in disgust! Matters such as you have pointed out. Too much hypocrisy, wasteful spending, time spent on minor issues that are more for cosmetics and show than of real lasting importance. A major unwillingness to incorporate changes that would bring lasting improvement to the church. You get the point I trust, without me going into exact detail at this time.

I agree with you 100% about organized religion. Why do I care? That is a good question and I will give you my most honest answer. Because it is important to my husband. (Oh, there I go, being submissive to him, I'd better watch that, wouldn't want to ruin my public reputation as a silly woman rebel. :wink: )

Seriously, my husband was raised in a loving Christian home. He has attended church his whole life. I'm more concerned about the effect it would have on him if we stopped going. Sometimes I think I have a more spiritual connection with God than he does - because of the horrible things I went through; because I wasn't exposed to any religious doctrine as he was. I think people get so wrapped up in the "rules": what color should be on the altar this week (I recently overheard a discussion about this), whether everything should be printed in the bulletin vs. using a worship hymnal with a general outline, etc. The important stuff gets lost.

We discussed this just last week in Bible class. One elderly woman asked if someone could be a Christian without going to church. I shared some of my testimony - leaving out the parts about the sexual immorality of the men in my family - and explained why I didn't feel it was necessary for me personally to attend church services at all. Whereas, if this elderly women has to miss a Sunday because she's sick, it ruins her whole day. She needs to go to church to feel some sort of connection to God, obviously. I don't, because I've felt it without that, not just during my earlier years without church, but even since then in recent years and months.

My kids like children's church, which is during our service. We've had it going on 3 years now. A family started it up, then they left after a year because they were disgusted with some other issues. The pastor's wife took it over and she was wonderful. But when the pastor left, she decided it would no longer be proper for her to continue with it. So now 5 people rotate in teaching it - my husband is one of them, the rest are women.

So, I go for the sake of my husband and kids.

The Bible class gives me a special purpose in going, which makes me feel good, like I'm not wasting my time. Before, I felt like...why bother, this service and these rituals don't mean anything to me spiritually. The people in my class are getting something good out of it and so am I.

It's incredible to me to learn that so many of these people in my class who are retired and have spent their entire lives in an organized religion upbringing, have so little knowledge of the Bible. It's like they don't bother reading it. They only know what they've heard through preaching. But they never gave it a thought beyond that before.

With the pastor's class, they never had to think too much either. He ordered preprinted Bible study lessons with preprinted questions that didn't really allow for in-depth discussion or enlightenment. He followed the script very closely. He was very strong on Biblical history - he studied intensely the history of the times and places in the Bible - he traveled regularly to Biblical places. Except for us taking turns reading passages, there wasn't a lot of interactive discussion - more like a weekly lecture. Don't get me wrong - I liked him. But we were working within a box and not learning.

Anytime I've suggested that maybe we should just shut down the church - well, you'd swear they would crucify me if they could. : They are so attached to their precious building it's pathetic. Most of them have been attending their whole lives. They resist change vehemently, even as they see the ship sinking. There is some money involved, too, that they don't want to give up. Money issues are what drove our pastor away - he kept wanting more and they didn't want to give it to him.

I'm sure there will come a time when we will be moving on. My husband may not want to forgo going to regular church services. But I think he is more open now to not sticking with LCMS when this church fails, as I'm sure it will. I don't know what pastor is going to want to come and serve a congregation made up of 90% retired seniors that is operating in the red.

 

[AVBunyan]

1.

1. Would you be so kind as to show me where I disrespect my wife and others and treat her as an object?

2. I happen to think speaking on behalf of your wife without actually sharing what she has said herself; is not treating her properly.

3. It's like she's an object you describe but she has no life or personality of her own that you are proud to share.

4. Just that she's obedient to you.

5. The "if you caught her" comment got to me as well. Like you expect she sneaks around on you.

1. You didn't show me - you just went after my attitude.

2. You are wrong here - how do you know we haven't shared the issues anyway? Just because other couples may not know one another doesn't mean we have to be that way. My wife trusts me to speak on her behalf for I know what she would say and think. We both know each other's convictions on issues - we trust each other.

3. You are terribly wrong here. I believe my wife to be one of the finest, faithful, and knowledge Christian women you will meet. She was straight A's in high school and college and is homeschooling 10 children - with half of the materialsl she wrote herself (with one enrolled with full scholarship in civil engineering). She is no doormat and she knows the scriptures quite well and can defend them quite well if need be. With the views of some of the women here you would have a hard time convincing my wife your stand is scriiptural.

4. She would use the word "submissive" like the bible says - not obedient. You use obedient for it appears you are trying to make me a dictator. Children are told to obey and she is no child.

If she wanted to (and she wouldn't by her own choice) she would get on this forum (and she wouldn't because she wouldn't care to for she feels forums are of little use and I can't argue with her here plus she doesn't have the time) and she would defend my and her views quite well - I don't make my wife do anything - she got the above convictions on her own by reading the scriptures and being under sound preaching for over 22 years thank you kindly.

5. Hypothetically speaking - I trust my wife 100% and trust her judgment in all areas - she has more liberty than most wives - she wouldn't even think of doing such a thing - not because I "told her not to" but because she knew it would be improper to discuss doctrinal things with men without me being aware of it. Her conviction - not just mine.

Now - you indicated my attitude was less than acceptable and I judged men and women - please re-read your response to me and tell me you didn't judge me or my wife - which doesn' really bother me a bit - this is a forum.

And with the last point (#5) I feel uncomfortable even talking about these matters with another women and quite possibly violated my own convictions here so I willl cease but I also responded so others to view also.

Now - really - I apprecaite your thoughts and can understand why you would have such a hard time with me and my stand so no hard feelings here.

Good day 8-)

 

[BJGrolle]

This article says it better than I can but emulates my understanding:

Should Women Be Pastors and Elders?

In a social climate of complete equality in all things, the biblical teaching of only allowing men to be pastors and elders is not popular. Many feminist organizations denounce this position as antiquated and chauvinistic. In addition, many Christian churches have adopted the "politically correct" social standard and have allowed women pastors and elders in the church. But the question remains, is this biblical?
My answer to this question is, "No, women are not to be pastors and elders." Many may not like that answer, but it is, I believe, an accurate representation of the biblical standard. You make the decision after reading this paper.

(Omitted the rest of the text for brevity - refer to Solo's original post for the full text.)

Thank you for posting the full text - I did read it yesterday, but this prompted me to read it again. I can understand where you stand on this issue and the author of this paper agrees with you on the matter.

Here is a commentary that I found by clicking on the link in your post for 1 Timothy 2:11 (bolding mine):

(Note that position 2 as explained in this paper supports my interpretation, while position 1 supports your interpretation.)
****************************************

Men and Women in Worship

How are men and women to behave and relate to one another in the church? This question and this particular passage have been on the minds of many in recent times. For many, the passage before us has been regarded as a major hill to be taken in an interpretive battle. But the teaching of 2:11-15 is just one piece in a larger puzzle, and by itself it is incapable of providing a complete answer. Specific circumstances required Paul to answer the question asked above in specific ways. The concern here will not be to generalize those specifics but rather to set out the issues that Paul addressed and those that we must consider in the church today.

When Paul instructed men and women (some think husbands and wives were specifically in view) in his churches (see also 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:33-35), the immediate problem was disturbances in the worship service. On the one hand, changing attitudes about the man-woman relationship led women to assert themselves in the worship service in ways that threatened unity and perhaps also reflected a disregard for biblical and cultural distinctions between men and women. Disruptions by women included inquiring about the meaning of prophecies (1 Cor 14:33-35) and teaching men (1 Tim 2:11-12). But the present passage also reveals that the anger and arguments of some men were contributing to the disruption of the church's worship service. As pointed out above (see on 2:1), Paul drew upon certain material in such cases in order to restore peace to the community by encouraging appropriate behavior. In this his concern both for biblical patterns and for the perceptions of those outside of the church is evident.

His instructions are given in two parts. First, they encourage cooperative behavior among men in the worship service in relation to the specific task of prayer outlined above. Second, women are instructed concerning appropriate dress and then concerning appropriate behavior in the worship setting in relation to teaching.The Appropriate Demeanor of Men (2:8)


The NIV omits the word "therefore," which in the original Greek sentence connects the instructions to men with the preceding instructions about prayer. A connection is intended, as in fact Paul now lays down two principles to ensure the effectiveness of the church's prayer.

First, prayer that is acceptable must come from holy, purified hearts. The physical lifting of hands was important in the Jewish act of prayer. But the purity of the hands, originally a physical prerequisite to be fulfilled before one approached God (Ex 30:19-21), came to be symbolic of the condition of the heart. The early church understood such purity to be a condition of acceptable prayer (Jas 4:8). When we pray, our communication is with a holy God. He requires of us that we deal with our sins before making our approach.

Second, prayer that is acceptable must come from people in right relationship with one another. For this reason Paul adds the stipulation that our prayer be without anger or disputing. This principle too was widely known in the early church and goes back to Jesus' own teaching (Mt 5:23; 6:12, 14-15; Jas 4:3; 1 Pet 3:7). Simply put, difficulties in our relationship with God or in our relationship with fellow believers can hinder our prayer. The reference to arguments has the dissension caused by the false teachers in mind (1 Tim 1:6-7; 6:4-5; Tit 3:9-10). A divisive spirit had invaded the worship service, where unity was to be most evident. Interpersonal harmony is a resource of incalculable value for the prayer life of the church.The Appropriate Demeanor of Women (2:9-15)


As is customary in this type of "household code" teaching, instructions to one member of the pair are followed by corresponding instructions to the other (Eph 5:22--6:9; Col 3:18--4:1; 1 Pet 3:1-7).

Appropriate adornment (2:9-10). One source of the disruption being caused by women was their dress. Paul addresses this by drawing from the church's accepted teaching about the adornment of women (compare 1 Pet 3:3-5). He prescribes a manner of dress with three very similar terms stressing modesty and discretion (NIV modestly, with decency and propriety). Some commentators suggest that the tone of this instruction is "sexual," Paul's intention being to discourage women from dressing in a way that would distract men in the worship service. But perhaps the more acute problem was that of insensitive women flaunting their dress, jewelry and hairstyles in a way that hurt the feelings of the poor and disturbed the church. The kinds of adornment mentioned (braided hair . . . gold . . . pearls . . . expensive clothes) all belonged to that culture's critical caricature of wealthy women.

While today this manner of dress is not nearly as exclusive as it was in Paul's day, nor indeed restricted to women, its effects can be the same. I am reminded of a visit to a large, upper-middle-class church in Dallas (it could have been any large city or suburb). When I entered the sanctuary, the first thing that struck me was the glitter of jewelry, the expensive clothing and the fashionable hairstyles. The craning necks as people sized one another up gave the impression that for many the purpose of gathering together that Sunday morning was to display economic status. A newcomer of modest economic means could not help but feel a sense of exclusion.

According to Paul's instruction, what is to be noticeable about Christian women (and men) is not showy apparel, which sends an unsettling message (even to outsiders), but the power of God in spiritual deeds. Good deeds (v. 10) speaks of genuine Christianity, the observable lifestyle that flows out of faith in Christ. This is the appropriate "adornment" for those who profess to be genuine Christians. Among other things, Paul sought to prevent Christian women from being typed by those outside. In some parts of the world today, the "prosperity gospel" has put showy apparel at a premium and minimized good deeds, but the discerning unbeliever can tell the difference between genuine and nominal Christianity. At the same time, it is the invisible force behind good deeds, love for others, that creates and sustains unity.

The woman-man relationship in the worship service (2:11-15). Today, among those who take the Bible seriously, two main positions have emerged in the discussion of this passage and its implications. As the following brief outline of each position will show, the passage needs to be considered as a whole, for the instructions of verses 11-12 (and also vv. 9-10) are grounded in some way by verses 13-15.

One position (here called position 1) generally maintains that verses 11-12 prohibit women from teaching and holding authority over men. Within the worship setting their appropriate role is that of the learner. Women will be quiet during the teaching portion of the service--that is, they will not teach or question. And they will be fully submissive to men's authority. Furthermore, on the basis of the Genesis material in verses 13-14, the arrangement sanctioned by Paul is held to be permanent. Verse 13 grounds the subordinate position of the woman in the order of creation, the man having been created first. The allusion to Eve's deception in verse 14 presents an illustration of the negative consequences that result when the divinely willed structure is disturbed. In one way or another verse 15 then refers positively to the acceptable role of women.

The second position (which I shall call position 2) insists that the passage contains a temporary restraining order issued to curb the activities of a group of women who (most argue) were teaching the heresy in Ephesus. Thus the relegation of women to the role of learners, who must be quiet and submissive to the imposed (male) authority structure, represents a local rather than a universal rule. Similarly, the prohibition from teaching in verse 12 was a stopgap measure, and the reference to holding authority over a man is better understood as "wrongfully usurping" his authority. As far as Paul's use of Genesis goes, verse 14 provides an example or explanation, showing how just as the deception of Eve had drastic results, so also did the deception of some women in Ephesus. Verse 13 is somewhat problematic for this position.

The contemporary debate seems to turn on the question of the rule's limits of applicability, local and temporary versus universal and timeless. And the determining factor usually ends up being the interpretation of Paul's use of the Genesis allusions. But there is more to be considered.

First, the passage must be assessed within the whole of Paul's teaching, and particularly in light of other statements he made about the relationship of men and women (and husbands and wives). Those of position 2, in attempting to understand the relevance of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 for today, have rightly pointed to a Pauline theme of equality within the social structure, as registered by the triad of texts Galatians 3:28, 1 Corinthians 12:13 and Colossians 3:11. Further, it is certainly arguable that Paul's acknowledgment of the role of women in his ministry (Rom 16:1; Phil 4:3) and in the church's worship (1 Cor 11:10) is the outworking of that principle of equality. The apparent discordant note struck in the present passage (and in 1 Cor 14:33-35) should alert us to the fact that Paul's program of social equality was not unconditional, but it does not necessarily nullify the basic principle. As F. F. Bruce explained, in Galatians 3:28 "Paul states the basic principle . . . if restrictions on it are found elsewhere . . . they are to be understood in relation to Gal. 3:28, and not vice versa" (1982:190).

But Galatians 3:28 was almost certainly not meant as a proclamation of liberty to be experienced immediately and fully in all dimensions of life. If it were this simple, Paul would have been far more forthright in urging the abolition of slavery. Also, Galatians 3:28 addresses three kinds of fundamental relationships or distinctions (racial, economic [perhaps], gender), but they do not have the same origin. Slavery was already common to Hebrew culture when God claimed his people. What he did was provide guidelines for its regulation. It may be argued that racial distinctions between Jews and Greeks (Gentiles) were encouraged for a time, but clearly bigotry and exclusive claims to spiritual superiority have human origins. Of the three pairs, only distinctions related to gender trace directly back to God's creative activity. This by no means automatically substantiates position 1. It merely suggests that Galatians 3:28 is not a simple declaration of the immediate eradication of all social distinctions. Paul's own approach to the three relationships ought to be evidence of that.

There are at least two other factors that need to be considered in discussing Paul's approach to these institutions and to movement in the direction of freedom. The first is his understanding of and sensitivity to culture. On the one hand, Paul and other New Testament writers seem to have viewed their world and its structures as a part of God's design. They could encourage the church to "submit to" the institutions of the world (1 Pet 2:13) and (as far as possible) through generally acceptable behavior to make a redemptive impression in it (1 Thess 4:11-12; 1 Tim 3:7; 6:1). But this was a view held in tension with a firm belief that the world is an evil force at war with God. Consequently, the church was by no means to allow culture or society to dictate its policies; however, where possible, peaceful coexistence would be a help to the church's evangelistic mission. The New Testament household codes give some evidence of social awareness and cultural sensitivity, but they never advocate conformity for conformity's sake, and when we are reading them, we need to distinguish between categories of relationships as we do in Galatians 3:28. Ultimately, it is reasonable to think that Paul or any other New Testament writer would have stopped short of advocating the immediate abolition of slavery because the culture might perceive it as a threat. But it does not automatically follow that his concern was precisely the same when he addressed the woman-man relationship.

The second factor is Paul's (and the New Testament's) understanding of salvation. It leaves us in a state that has been described as "already and not yet." Salvation is a combination of things to be realized progressively in this life (victory over sin, growth in godliness) and promises to be fulfilled only with the return of Christ (resurrection, the final victory over sin). Salvation in relation to the social structure within the church and in relation to personal sanctification is progressive, under way but not finished, "already" but "not yet." But that the distinctions inherent in the female-male relationship belong to the category of things that may or should pass away in this age (as it is argued in the case of slavery or racial distinctions) is a proposition in need of theological demonstration. Jesus' statement in Matthew 22:30 may have been misinterpreted to mean that all significant male-female distinctions will eventually disappear; but whatever it means, it applies to the resurrection and remains a promise. To judge simply from Paul's teaching elsewhere, it is doubtful that Galatians 3:28 implies that all male-female distinctions ought to be done away with as soon as the church is able to carry this program out. But even if Paul means more, it does mean that, with respect to value and position as heirs, no cultural distinctions that might support male superiority have a bearing on salvation or usefulness in the church. With respect to function and authority in the church, it is probably ill-advised to draw conclusions directly from either Galatians 3:28 or 1 Timothy 2:11-15. A broader theological program is needed.

A final question bearing on the interpretation of the passage is the degree to which Paul is countering effects of the false teaching. Two views should be introduced briefly.

1. At a bare minimum, it is reasonable to understand the rise of women to teaching positions as the indirect result of the false teaching. The doctrine of a realized resurrection (2 Tim 2:18; see introduction) was current and may have led women (and perhaps slaves) to enact promises (even if they misunderstood them) such as those connected with the well-known teaching of Galatians 3:28. Even Jesus' teaching (Mt 22:30) could have figured in their thinking. Some scholars have suggested that the women in mind had actually been enlisted by the false teachers to teach the heresy. The latter is difficult to prove, but it remains a possibility.

2. It is also within the realm of possibility that the passage speaks with even more precision to false doctrines that affected the thinking and behavior of women. In this case too the resurrection misunderstanding and the connected overrealized view of salvation would be central. Perhaps the false teachers drew on Jesus' teaching on marriage in the resurrection (Mt 22:30) to support their doctrine of celibacy (1 Tim 4:3). They may have construed their present "resurrection existence" in terms of pre-Fall existence. From the first three chapters of Genesis they might have concluded that since sexual distinctions, sexuality and childbearing came after the Fall, they no longer pertain to the new age. In the same way, they might have argued that "subordination" was enforced only as a result of the Fall (Gen 3:16) and that the eating of meat was a sign of depravity (Gen 9; 1 Tim 4:3). In this case, the myths and endless genealogies Paul mentions (1:4) might have included proof texts of such doctrines drawn from the creation materials. And in this case, 2:13-15 may take up and correctly apply the Old Testament material.

We cannot be certain of either view. But it is extremely likely that the false resurrection doctrine had an effect on views of sexuality and perhaps blurred distinctions between the sexes, affecting marriage and certain functions in the church. It seems all the more likely in view of the close parallels between the resurrection misunderstanding and questions about marriage, men and women, and foods in Corinth and Ephesus (see introduction).

These considerations provide a framework within which to explore the meaning and intent of the instructions to women. However, the complexity of the whole issue and the range of texts involved suggest that we should think in terms of possibilities rather than certainty at several points.

Paul actually encourages women to learn, which sets him apart from his contemporaries in Judaism. But it is the manner in which they learn that will settle the disturbances they have been causing in the church: in quietness and full submission (v. 11). Paul does not mean that women are to be absolutely silent during the service (compare 1 Cor 11:5). Rather, he instructs them to exhibit quietness (in spirit) instead of taking the lead, or to "be silent" in the sense of not teaching. Even as learners, perhaps, they are to refrain from entering into public discussions about interpretation of the Old Testament and prophecies (1 Cor 14:33-35).

Full submission is the more general description of the appropriate demeanor of the woman learner. It seems clear from this passage that to be in full submission meant for those women to refrain from teaching (men) and probably also to dress in appropriate ways. Certain questions, however, continue to be asked: Is this a universal or temporary rule? Does the teaching here need to be understood as an exception to the principle of Galatians 3:28, necessitated by the imprudent actions of some women? Positions 1 and 2 answer these questions in different ways (see above). Below we will consider the matter further.

Teach and have authority over a man (v. 12) may be references to separate activities that Paul restricted to men. Or the first term might represent a specific example of activity that falls under the general rule that follows: women's teaching in the public assembly would violate the given authority structure. In either case, we should notice that Paul did not employ his usual term for "the normal exercise of authority" (exousia). He chose an unusual word (authenteo) that could carry negative connotations such as "to usurp or misappropriate authority" or "to domineer." The unusual term probably signifies an unusual situation. In the Ephesian context at least, women had misappropriated authority by taking upon themselves the role of teacher.

Thus verses 11-12 aim to restore peace in the worship service by placing certain limits on the role of women. Probably as a result of the influence of the false teaching, some women had assumed the role of teacher. This step led Paul to invoke a subordination rule; it seems to have precluded women from teaching men, since to do so constituted authenteo--that is, the wrongful appropriation of authority over men.

In handling the supporting material that follows, verses 13-15, our first concern should be whether any special significance is to be attached to Paul's citation of material from the creation narrative of Genesis to support some argument or other. It is difficult to establish a hard and fast rule. On the one hand, Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:7-9 alludes to the same Genesis passage (2:21-23) that 1 Timothy 2:13 does in order to ground the covering of the woman's head in worship. But this practice, most would argue, was bound to a particular culture. On the other hand, the reference to Genesis 2:24-25 in Ephesians 5:31 is indeed meant to remind Christians that marriage is an institution to be continually honored (compare Mt 19:5). Therefore, the allusion to Genesis 2 in the words for Adam was formed first, then Eve (v. 13) is best considered on its own.

What are the possibilities? First, it can hardly be denied that Paul appeals to the order of creation. While it is usually thought that this statement substantiates the prohibition of verse 12 (Knight 1992:142-43), it may ground all of verses 9-12, with full submission understood as encompassing aspects of dress and function (Fee 1988:74). But the question of precise intention remains. Did Paul intend the Genesis allusion to mean that the created order still pertained and that distinctions between the sexes and an authority structure existed even prior to the Fall (compare 1 Cor 11:7-9)? Did he mean that the conditions of the curse, which promised painful childbearing and placed the wife under the husband's rule (Gen 3:16), were still in effect? Was he addressing the false teachers' twisted interpretations of the creation accounts which had influenced the thinking of women (see above)?

Verse 14 is almost certainly a local reference to the deception of some women in the Ephesian church (see the notes for other explanations). The deception of Eve had become a model to illustrate the dangers posed to the church by false teaching (compare 2 Cor 11:3). Paul's use of the model here probably sent the signal that by taking the role of teachers (and possibly in what they taught) these women had been deceived by heretics. It also implies that this activity was sinful.

Verse 15 sounds strange to the ears in any version: But women will be saved through childbearing. Not surprisingly, its meaning is debated. The NIV has rightly interpreted the singular verb (literally, "she will be saved") as a general reference to women. But as the promise continues, a condition limits its applicability to those women who continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. That is, the promise applies to women whose conduct (here propriety refers back to the appropriate conduct prescribed in vv. 9-12) bears the marks of genuine Christian existence. But what does saved through childbearing mean? With original sin and the pronouncement of the curse as the background, some have understood the definite article ("the") which precedes childbearing in the Greek sentence to denote "the birth"--that is, the birth of the Christ. Following the guilty verdict of verse 14, saved would then mean primarily salvation from sin, and the allusion would be to the "protoevangelion"--the promised seed of the woman who will crush the serpent's head (Gen 3:15). While this reading is possible, one wonders why such an ambiguous reference to Christ would be made (unless Paul here is simply making use of the false teachers' language and text to adjust their teaching). The same background perhaps leads more naturally to a promise that God will provide physical protection for godly women under the curse, an emblem of the final complete removal of the curse to come. Finally, some point to 5:14, where the term childbearing describes a part of the life appropriate for young widows, to argue that Paul endorses here the domestic life of the housewife as the normative, acceptable role that women are to pursue. Serving God in this capacity, they will "work out their salvation."

Clearly, none of these interpretations is free of problems, and the best we can do is to narrow down the possibilities. It may be that what seems to us as allusiveness in Paul's references to the creation material actually represents his counterarguments using the kinds of texts the heretics themselves employed. But while we have no way of knowing the precise lines of the false theology, we can be reasonably sure that it was triumphalistic in thrust (2 Tim 2:18). Consequently, we can at least see that 2:15 does pull the readers back to reality, either (from the theological perspective) by asserting that this life is still marked by the curse/sin and God's promise to save or (from the ethical perspective) by teaching that life must yet be lived in the confines of a mundane social structure that still awaits the eschaton.

We run the risk of misusing 2:8-15 if we make it a proof text in our modern debate. The passage as a whole calls for men and women to relate to one another in the church according to the standards of acceptability, in awareness of the theological realities of the age in which we live. Although Paul's reference to the creation story cautions against viewing his teaching as simply suited to his culture, his sensitivity to culture should also be considered in addressing questions related to the role of women in the church today. There is a need to explore the degree to which there existed in the apostle's thinking about the female-male relationship a difference between nonnegotiables (aspects of this relationship that seem to stem from God's creative will) and negotiables (aspects of behavior within the relationship that may be expressed differently from one culture to the next). If 2:15 envisions an acceptable role for women, then, depending on the culture within which we find ourselves, verse 15 may well need to allow room for astronauts, surgeons and business executives in addition to missionaries, church workers of various sorts and, indeed, housewives. But in any role godliness will need to be found in this incomplete age through our reliance on God's promise in the continuing struggle with sin. As for the role of women in ministry, the church must continue to wrestle with this issue, and this passage will have its place. But easy answers that either simply impose culture on God's will or neglect culture altogether must be resisted.
*************************************

Here is the link to the source.

 

[Solo]

Culture and its ramifications on society do not alter God's Word or God's workings throughout time. His Word is to be utilized by his chosen throughout all generations just as he spoke it. His covenants change with mankind over the ages, but his Word does not. Paul writes to believers of all ages as inspired by the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit interprets his Word without any bias that us humans would like to infer.


Does this scripture still hold true today?

16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. Genesis 3:17-19

Are the roles of men and women as created the same or different? Were women created to mirror the roles of men, or were they created to compliment the roles of men? Perhaps the authority that was given to men in the service to the Lord is different than that which was given to women? Perhaps the roles were laid out in Genesis because of the sin that is still in effect on the whole creation including mankind's flesh.

 

[Quath]

I just read your testimony, BJGrolle. I am sorry you had to go through that. You didn't deserve it. {{{Hug}}}

As you may or or may not have noticed, I am an atheist, so I tend to have a different perspective than many on this board. So I don't believe you heard God, but I also do not think you are crazy. What I think on this is probably better expressed as an PM.

But I am curious about something. Why do you think God let you get abused? After all, God send angels to helo Lot live. He sent plagues to people that questioned Moses. He struck people down with fire that approached His ark wrong. So why do you think He chose to just talk to you instead of actually help you out? If you loved someone, would you watch them get abused and not stop it if you could? Do you think that God loves you? I am not trying to disprove God, I am just curious as to how you reconcile this.

The Adam and Eve story makes little sense to me. The only way it makes sense is if God just wanted an excuse to punish people. After all, God could have made the tree inaccessible or made Adam and Eve have some kind of fruit-phobia. Or God could have kept the snake from corrupting innocents. So it seems like a set up.

But it also seems to contradict the Bible where it says that the sons shall not bear the punishments from the sins of the fathers. If that were true, than Cain and Able (and all children) should have access to Eden and should not have been barred from it. I have heard people try to reconcile this, but I find the explanations poor. The children are cused by God for a sin they did not commit.

You sound like a strong and smart woman, so I am glad you are not falling into submission. I hope it all goes well for you.

Quath

 

[BJGrolle]

This article says it better than I can but emulates my understanding:


What About a Missionary Woman Who Establishes a Church?

Scripture establishes the norm. As Christians we apply what we learn from the word, to the situations at hand. So, what about the situation where a woman missionary has converted a group of people, say in the jungle somewhere, and she has established a church? In that church, she is then functioning as a pastor and teacher having authority over men in the church. Should she not do this?
First of all, she should not be out there alone. She should be with her husband or, at the very least, under the oversight of a church body in the presence of other women and men. Missionary work is not a lone endeavor to be handled by single women.
Second, if in some highly unusual set of circumstances there is a woman in a lone situation, it is far more important that the word of God be preached and the gospel of salvation go forth to the lost than not. Whether it be male or female, let the gospel be spoken. However, I would say that as soon as there is/are males mature enough to handle eldership, that she should then establish the proper order of the church as revealed in scripture and thereby, show her submission to it.

I'd like to address this issue, focusing on purely practical matters.

Men may be present, but they may be unable or unwilling to take the leadership roles. Sometimes there may be no good excuse for this. Sometimes there is a valid reason, like poor health, or lack of spiritual gifts in certain areas.

At the call meeting I attended several weeks ago, some interesting things were revealed.

At one point, our church had weekly attendance of 250 people! I don't know what year that was, probably way before my time. Among 250 people, certainly there should be more than a handful of men able and willing to take all the leadership roles.

Our church has current weekly attendance of maybe 60 - 70 people on a good week. The pool of available men is rapidly dwindling. 90% are 60, 70, 80 years of age. No offense to them, but they're old. They know it. They admit to being tired, the women also. They are crying out for young people to take up the work. My husband and I are among the youngest at 42. There aren't enough of us to go around to take up the work.

God has not bestowed everyone with the same spiritual gifts. The ideal would be to have the right mix of spiritual gifts within any church body. But as the church body gets smaller, the number of people with the right mix of spiritual gifts dwindles. What good is it to have 25 women who are awesome in the kitchen, if you can't find one man able to preach a sermon? That is an exaggeration, of course, but you get my meaning.

These people have serious health problems. Election time comes and there are chronic complaints that no one new is stepping forward to hold these church offices of congregation President, elders, vestry, whatever.

Seriously, there was a huge shouting match at one of the voter's meetings over this issue. One elderly man stood up and said that he would not serve anymore because he was tired of doing it. He said that he shouldn't have to serve all the time - it was time for someone else to stand up and serve for a change. At other voter's meetings, this same man has objected to allowing younger men to serve unless they had been members for a period of 5 years. This is not logical of course - crying out for help and then placing ridiculous restrictions so that people can't help!

Until recently, not every member of the congregation could be a voter. The President of the congregation approached me about a year ago and said that he wanted me and my husband to become voting members. So we did. Again, keep in mind that the members are dying off, literally. So a motion was made to allow anyone 18 or over to automatically be a voting member. This same man stood up and objected strenuously on the grounds that he hadn't been able to be a voting member until he'd been a member for 5 years, so why should some young kid who is still wet behind the ears get to vote right away? (Seriously, that is what he said.) He was outvoted and the change was made anyway.

But, you see the difficulties, don't you? The men are to serve, but they don't want to serve. He may have been the most vocal about it, but I know for a fact that he is not the only man who feels that way. I've overhead enough comments from both the men and the women to know that much.

Going back to the call meeting: the elders of our church were rebuked in a very kind, diplomatic way by Reverend Bergen for not doing their jobs. It took a woman (not me) to point out to him, publicly during the meeting I might add, that the elders had done nothing to get the call process going or to even form a call committee since our pastor had left. Rev. Bergen seemed a bit taken aback that we were so in the dark as to what we were supposed to be doing to get a new pastor. All of the elders weren't even at the meeting and that was pointed out to him also. He was very diplomatic, but I could tell he wasn't pleased to hear of the deficiencies. He made a point of stressing to the elders who were there that it was their job to see that pastoral care services continued, that we had a pastor to preach during every service, and to appoint a call committee.

This is not the first time I've heard complaints that the elders aren't doing their jobs. I once asked one of the elders what the elders did. He told me "nothing". I thought he was kidding, but he assured me he was serious.

Several women have told me they want me to be on the call committee. I've prayed about it, but I don't feel that God wants that for me. It defies logic to them, since Rev. Bergen stressed that both young people and older people, both men and women, needed to be on this call committee. He wants a good mix involved in choosing a new pastor. But, I must follow God's will in this, not the desires of the church members.

As I said, no man stepped forward to teach Bible study class. Is it better to not have one, than to suffer a woman to teach a man?

They would have liked me to teach children's church. I've taught children before and I know that I'm not well-suited for it. I'm a first degree black belt in Chinese kenpo karate - I taught for 2 years about 10 years ago. I was best suited to teach men, families, and group classes. I didn't like teaching women alone, most weren't serious enough and acted like they were afraid of breaking a nail. I didn't have the patience for teaching kids alone, only if a parent was also taking the lessons with the kid. I liked being a teacher, not a babysitter.

My husband is more suited to teaching children's church - he has more patience and creativity than I do. So, he teaches the kids and I teach the adults - maybe that's backwards according to the Bible, but that's where our strengths lie. Yet at home, our roles are traditional. Go figure. :

 

[BJGrolle]

3. You are terribly wrong here. I believe my wife to be one of the finest, faithful, and knowledge Christian women you will meet. She was straight A's in high school and college and is homeschooling 10 children - with half of the materialsl she wrote herself (with one enrolled with full scholarship in civil engineering). She is no doormat and she knows the scriptures quite well and can defend them quite well if need be. With the views of some of the women here you would have a hard time convincing my wife your stand is scriiptural.

...........

If she wanted to (and she wouldn't by her own choice) she would get on this forum (and she wouldn't because she wouldn't care to for she feels forums are of little use and I can't argue with her here plus she doesn't have the time) and she would defend my and her views quite well - I don't make my wife do anything - she got the above convictions on her own by reading the scriptures and being under sound preaching for over 22 years thank you kindly.

Well, with homeschooling 10 kids, I can see why she doesn't have the time. :

Has your wife considered trying to get some of her homeschooling materials published? Those materials are very much in demand these days.

I disagree that forums are very little use. I've been an avid user of forums for many years now. I've been able to help others - not necessarily regarding Christianity issues - and I know that others have helped me out from time to time. I've gotten very valuable info from forums. It's a very important vehicle that I use to seek out information and connect with people in this world.

But I agree that if people feel that forums are no use, they should stay away from them.

You can't quite seem to though. : Bad, bad forums, stay away! :smt075

 

[Imagican]

BJGrolle,

I am not as confused now as I first was when you posted this thread. You indicated at first that you were a hard-headed woman that didn't understand. I must retract that first impression and agree that within you is MUCH understanding.

Don't know what else to offer but this: Isn't it amazing when you first begin to realize that those members that you so wanted to emulate in the beginning are so lacking in anything other than attendance? And please understand that this is NOT entirely their fault. Yes, they have been lazy, but they have also been encouraged to be so by the organization that they have entrusted their Salvation to. Scary isn't it?

I don't know this for a fact but, I have been told by MANY members of the Catholic faith, that their churches DON'T even encourage their members to read the Bible and most don't even carry one to services. It must be really easy to teach whatever you wish to a group that is so trusting with the liberty they have offered.

I too have played the church game for my wires sake. Fortunately for me she has finally began to understand how deceptively dangerous they are. One easily sets into the routine and stops growing in their walk. I believe that most never even develope the understanding of God as you have learned, they just keep going back in hopes of finding something that they are missing.

What the church rarely teaches is that Salvation is a personal issue and the kingdom of God does not dwell with the walls of a temple or buildings built by men. They often refer to themselves as 'the house of God' but this is not true either as I hope you well know. The temple of God is within the individual not without. And since the crucifiction and death of Christ, God no longer dwells within a structure made by the hands of men but within the men themselves through the Spirit of Jesus Christ. Thank you Jesus.

We have been freed from the law that bound us to earthly men of the past and there is a new covenant now that allows us each the communion with God through Christ. There are those that can lead us closer now than ever before, but we are no longer bound to them as in the past.

I offer this as encouragement, NOT to cause dissention. I see that you have begun to learn this and only hope that this seed that God has planted within you will be nourished and grow. YOU DON'T NEED ANYONE to develope a 'true' relationship with the Father through Christ and anyone that tells you otherwise is doing so our of their will and not the Fathers.

You are certainly on the right track. And yes, BJGrolle, you are doing the right thing by following your husband. He will find it difficult to accept any thing other than that which he has already learned. The dangerous part of believing in a church instead of God. But let your relationship flourish and grow and be an example to him and this alone will perhaps show him the Way. Don't get your hopes up though. His relationship with God is his responsibility just as yours is yours.

Just don't get lazy and fall back on what you have been offered and let it stagnate. It's been given to you an understanding and ability to grow closer, do so with all your heart.