Women, the Assembly of the Saints, and the Modern World

[Steven Yeadon]

I am asking a question, since I am very literal on this issue, and I want to see what those on the Baptist Board believe.

It seems to me that feminism is winning in the church. Men and women have a gender they are born into, a natural way of expressing sexuality in marriage between opposite sexes, and primary familial roles to which their physiology points to. Men and women also have a gender role revealed in Eden.

Women are mothers by biology. However, a woman of noble character labors physically to provide for her household and give praise and honor to her husband (Proverbs 10:31). Men are natural physical laborers that provide for a family, but of course fathers also help the mother raise children and bring them up in the fear of Yahweh.

This is hard enough for people to grapple with in our culture today. However, the bible has some things to say about the role of women in the church that show it is thoroughly against the modern idea of women.

The good news is Ephesians 5:22-30 is taught in many churches to show that a man is to care for his wife as to his own body, even to the point of death as Christ died for the church, and that a woman is to obey her husband in everything.

The bad news is that we dodge the so called hard bible verses on women. These verses seem to be 1 Peter 3:1-7, Titus 2:3-5, 1 Timothy 2:9-15, 1 Corinthians 14:34-38, and 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. It seems most people in church have enough of a hard time just loving their wife and following their husband to move onto more meaty doctrines.

That said, a literal reading of these verses reveals far meatier food. However, such a reading must chuck out much of our modern notions of what it means to be a woman.

Some of the harder lessons in scripture are that:
1. Women are to be submissive to their husband, the 'submit' word is controversial though, because it actually points out what it is to obey a husband in all things. Another word used is being 'subject' but to be 'subjected' to a husband is again controversial.
2. Women with a gentle and quiet spirit are precious to God.
3. Women are (generally) physically weaker than men.
4. Women are to learn in the church assembly with submissiveness without teaching or holding authority over men.
5. The command for women to dress modestly is in a section on how we conduct ourselves in the church assembly. In Proverbs 31 the woman of noble character dresses her family in fine clothes.
6. The created order is that women are the glory and help-mate of their husband for his sake.
7. In the church assembly, women are not to speak, but women can pray or prophesy in the church assembly if they have a symbol of authority on their head, because they should not otherwise speak. This may seem "stupid" but Paul says it is a tradition for the church, and this tradition is handed down by an apostle of Jesus Christ in the bible.

Although, as the bible says man and woman are not independent of each other in the Lord since man is born of woman and all originate from God.

But, one verse in particular is pointed to as a counter to these notions, what of Phoebe who brought one of the epistles to a church (Romans 16:1-2)? Note that behavior in the assembly of the saints is what is often being taught in these teachings. In Proverbs 31, the wife of noble character is a leader under subjection to her husband. That said, Phoebe is a "helper" according to the scriptures and this does not invalidate the idea women are to be submissive to their husbands and in the church assembly. She was likely not allowed to read the epistle to the church in Rome, given the plain, literal teachings of scripture.


So, what say the Baptist Board on this issue? Am I off with my exegesis?

 

[church mouse guy]

Big government and big business have persuaded women that working in the business world is better than being a housewife. Rich white surburban women want high taxes and high welfare and low wages. They are exempt from the drudgery of low-paying jobs. Unions have lost buying power so that the working man cannot afford to buy a house and car and send his children to college. The church has been asleep or in favor of the changes. Even worse the church has sided with Islam to a large degree, especially people such as J.D. Greear and Pope Francis as well as the Episcopal Church.

 

[church mouse guy]

Steven, one more thing. Here is a short beautifully illustrated version of a pithy comment by 20th century English Roman Catholic theologian G.K. Chesterton about what the West has done to women (although women have voted to go along with the lesbians, feminists, leftists and monopolists who have sought to enslave women):

 

[Shoostie]

But, one verse in particular is pointed to as a counter to these notions, what of Phoebe who brought one of the epistles to a church (Romans 16:1-2)?

Phoebe delivering a letter is somehow counter to the Bible's "notion" that women should be submissive???

 

[Shoostie]

It seems to me that feminism is winning in the church.

Yes, feminism is winning. In the SBC, a rebellion against the turn-of-the-millennium warmongers in leadership has brought in relatively liberal leadership. The current SBC president, Greear, said, "Failure to include [women] in proportionate measures at top leadership roles have hindered our ability to see sin and injustice and call it out." He openly wants half of the SBCs top leaders to be women. Obviously, he believes women should be pastors, he's just not honest enough to say it now.

The NASB translation's next update will include gender-neutral alterations.

 

[church mouse guy]

Yes, feminism is winning. In the SBC, a rebellion against the turn-of-the-millennium warmongers in leadership has brought in relatively liberal leadership. The current SBC president, Greear, said, "Failure to include [women] in proportionate measures at top leadership roles have hindered our ability to see sin and injustice and call it out." He openly wants half of the SBCs top leaders to be women. Obviously, he believes women should be pastors, he's just not honest enough to say it now.

The NASB translation's next update will include gender-neutral alterations.

Greear is not very smart but then neither is Russell Moore and neither is Pope Francis.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

Oops! I meant Proverbs 31:10-31 in the original post instead of Proverbs 10:31. Also I should say that the modern idea of womanhood is off base, not the modern idea of women.

 

[Calminian]

I am asking a question, since I am very literal on this issue, and I want to see what those on the Baptist Board believe.

It seems to me that feminism is winning in the church. Men and women have a gender they are born into, a natural way of expressing sexuality in marriage between opposite sexes, and primary familial roles to which their physiology points to. Men and women also have a gender role revealed in Eden.

Women are mothers by biology. However, a woman of noble character labors physically to provide for her household and give praise and honor to her husband (Proverbs 10:31). Men are natural physical laborers that provide for a family, but of course fathers also help the mother raise children and bring them up in the fear of Yahweh.

This is hard enough for people to grapple with in our culture today. However, the bible has some things to say about the role of women in the church that show it is thoroughly against the modern idea of women.

The good news is Ephesians 5:22-30 is taught in many churches to show that a man is to care for his wife as to his own body, even to the point of death as Christ died for the church, and that a woman is to obey her husband in everything.

The bad news is that we dodge the so called hard bible verses on women. These verses seem to be 1 Peter 3:1-7, Titus 2:3-5, 1 Timothy 2:9-15, 1 Corinthians 14:34-38, and 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. It seems most people in church have enough of a hard time just loving their wife and following their husband to move onto more meaty doctrines.

That said, a literal reading of these verses reveals far meatier food. However, such a reading must chuck out much of our modern notions of what it means to be a woman.

Some of the harder lessons in scripture are that:
1. Women are to be submissive to their husband, the 'submit' word is controversial though, because it actually points out what it is to obey a husband in all things. Another word used is being 'subject' but to be 'subjected' to a husband is again controversial.
2. Women with a gentle and quiet spirit are precious to God.
3. Women are (generally) physically weaker than men.
4. Women are to learn in the church assembly with submissiveness without teaching or holding authority over men.
5. The command for women to dress modestly is in a section on how we conduct ourselves in the church assembly. In Proverbs 31 the woman of noble character dresses her family in fine clothes.
6. The created order is that women are the glory and help-mate of their husband for his sake.
7. In the church assembly, women are not to speak, but women can pray or prophesy in the church assembly if they have a symbol of authority on their head, because they should not otherwise speak. This may seem "stupid" but Paul says it is a tradition for the church, and this tradition is handed down by an apostle of Jesus Christ in the bible.

Although, as the bible says man and woman are not independent of each other in the Lord since man is born of woman and all originate from God.

But, one verse in particular is pointed to as a counter to these notions, what of Phoebe who brought one of the epistles to a church (Romans 16:1-2)? Note that behavior in the assembly of the saints is what is often being taught in these teachings. In Proverbs 31, the wife of noble character is a leader under subjection to her husband. That said, Phoebe is a "helper" according to the scriptures and this does not invalidate the idea women are to be submissive to their husbands and in the church assembly. She was likely not allowed to read the epistle to the church in Rome, given the plain, literal teachings of scripture.


So, what say the Baptist Board on this issue? Am I off with my exegesis?

For sure feminism and leftism in general are sneaking into the church.

The irony is, a strong moral wife is a key qualification for an elder or deacon. They implication seems to be, that single men are not qualified. They need to prove they can live in harmony with a wife. Also, the implication seems to be that ministry is a couple's job. Leadership is not something for men to do on their own. All this is lost when the church compromises on this issue.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

For sure feminism and leftism in general are sneaking into the church.

The irony is, a strong moral wife is a key qualification for an elder or deacon. They implication seems to be, that single men are not qualified. They need to prove they can live in harmony with a wife. Also, the implication seems to be that ministry is a couple's job. Leadership is not something for men to do on their own. All this is lost when the church compromises on this issue.

We have to be careful since single elders like the apostle Paul and his friend Barnabus exist. Also I was in the NAR and the wife of a pastor was often treated as a pastor. This makes no sense since as a woman she is not to lead or teach men in the church assembly, let alone the arguments against women pastors. But I do see your point that an elder who knows he needs to marry should have a help mate before taking on such responsibility.

 

[Calminian]

We have to be careful since single elders like the apostle Paul and his friend Barnabus exist. Also I was in the NAR and the wife of a pastor was often treated as a pastor. This makes no sense since as a woman she is not to lead or teach men in the church assembly, let alone the arguments against women pastors. But I do see your point that an elder who knows he needs to marry should have a help mate before taking on such responsibility.

The question is, was Paul an elder, technically? and was Paul ever married?

If living in harmony with a wife is a qualification for an elder and deacon, then a widower is qualified. I just don't know if a single man, never married is qualified. Every implication, is that a godly partner in wife, is essential for a successful leader.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

The question is, was Paul an elder, technically? and was Paul ever married?

If living in harmony with a wife is a qualification for an elder and deacon, then a widower is qualified. I just don't know if a single man, never married is qualified. Every implication, is that a godly partner in wife, is essential for a successful leader.

Let's take a closer look at the scriptures to figure this out.

There are two sections on the qualification of elders.

1 Timothy 3:1-7 NASB

1 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. 4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), 6 and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. 7 And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Titus 1:5-9 NASB

5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, 6 namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. 7 For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, 8 but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.

OK, since managing one's household, wife, and children are brought up, and because he is not to be a new convert, it makes sense that a man who knows he must marry, should be married to be an elder. He will have opportunity to do so as he grows in the faith.

That said, the ability to be single is a gift of God (1 Corinthians 7:7) to devote oneself to pleasing Yahweh in an undivided way (1 Corinthians 7:32-35). Thus there are those gifted to feel no need to marry at all. For everyone else, our passions, especially sexuality, force us to marry. Additionally, Paul here requests singleness of those that can live that way as superior to marriage. It would thus seem against the spirit of the text to ban lifelong singles from elder, if they are following a superior path requested by the Spirit of those that can live it.

 

[church mouse guy]

There is nothing wrong with being single and nothing wrong with being married--one is not better than the other.

 

[Calminian]

....OK, since managing one's household, wife, and children are brought up, and because he is not to be a new convert, it makes sense that a man who knows he must marry, should be married to be an elder. He will have opportunity to do so as he grows in the faith.

That said, the ability to be single is a gift of God (1 Corinthians 7:7) to devote oneself to pleasing Yahweh in an undivided way (1 Corinthians 7:32-35). Thus there are those gifted to feel no need to marry at all. For everyone else, our passions, especially sexuality, force us to marry. Additionally, Paul here requests singleness of those that can live that way as superior to marriage. It would thus seem against the spirit of the text to ban lifelong singles from elder, if they are following a superior path requested by the Spirit of those that can live it.

You make a good case. I'm still going to disagree, but without dogmatism. The qualifications that require an elder to be a married man, in no way denigrate women or single men. It's just a matter of qualifications for a specific role. That's all. It's not a question of worth.

Bottom line for me, Scripture lists married man as a qualification. It's explicit. Yes, there are other passages that say singleness doesn't denigrate worth. I agree with that also. But I would no more use that to justify single never married pastors than I would female pastors. It's not a matter of worth, it's a matter of role.

 

[MartyF]

Some of the harder lessons in scripture are that:
1. Women are to be submissive to their husband, the 'submit' word is controversial though, because it actually points out what it is to obey a husband in all things. Another word used is being 'subject' but to be 'subjected' to a husband is again controversial.
2. Women with a gentle and quiet spirit are precious to God.
3. Women are (generally) physically weaker than men.
4. Women are to learn in the church assembly with submissiveness without teaching or holding authority over men.
5. The command for women to dress modestly is in a section on how we conduct ourselves in the church assembly. In Proverbs 31 the woman of noble character dresses her family in fine clothes.
6. The created order is that women are the glory and help-mate of their husband for his sake.
7. In the church assembly, women are not to speak, but women can pray or prophesy in the church assembly if they have a symbol of authority on their head, because they should not otherwise speak. This may seem "stupid" but Paul says it is a tradition for the church, and this tradition is handed down by an apostle of Jesus Christ in the bible.

I’m sorry for the delay. I’ve been busy. Let’s go through this.

My overall emphasis about this is that you need to look at the narrative in the Bible, not just the expository text. If you decide to only to only gain insight through the expository text, you’re reading the Bible like a Pagan and might end up following the teachings of Plotinus.

Jesus taught in narrative as well and God generally has communicated to us in stories. That’s why he sent Jesus down and not some golden disks.

So I will go ahead and point out the stories you left out with are pertinent to women. Obviously, I’m not perfect but I will try to give a good listing.

1. Women are to obey their husband. The story that immediately comes to mind is the Comedy Esther. When reading it as a story I laughed so hard at this one point:

Esther 1:19-20 NLT
[19] "So if it please the king, we suggest that you issue a written decree, a law of the Persians and Medes that cannot be revoked. It should order that Queen Vashti be forever banished from the presence of King Xerxes, and that the king should choose another queen more worthy than she. [20] When this decree is published throughout the king's vast empire, husbands everywhere, whatever their rank, will receive proper respect from their wives!"

Declaring a rule, law, or whatever for a wife to obey the husband and expecting that that law will make it so is silly. It is a complete misunderstanding of how rulership works.

Jesus ruled by washing his disciples feet. His disciples submitted to his rule by letting him do it. Submission needs to be understood from the viewpoint of Jesus’s upside-down kingdom.

2. Reminds me of Ruth.

Ruth 3:7 NLT
[7] After Boaz had finished eating and drinking and was in good spirits, he lay down at the far end of the pile of grain and went to sleep. Then Ruth came quietly, uncovered his feet, and lay down.

Being quiet can lead to good things.

3. Duh.

4. I guess we have to rip this chapter out of the Bible if we can’t ever let women teach.

Proverbs 31:1 NLT
[1] The sayings of King Lemuel contain this message, which his mother taught him.

You also have the problem of Deborah and Huldah.

Generally speaking, I think women should avoid to temptation of wanting to control men and they should therefore want to avoid leadership positions over men. However, in cases where the men won’t stand up like Deborah, then it should be fine for a woman to take charge, at least temporarily. And women could definitely help with the teaching.

I do believe care must be taken to not invoke the curse in Genesis.

Paul was generally talking to Romans who were use to a patriarchal society and he always tried his best not to provoke the Romans by overthrowing tradition.

Jesus used the woman at the well to spread the news.

Women are not meant to just be a man’s arm decoration in the Bible.

ran out of time. Continue later.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

do believe care must be taken to not invoke the curse in Genesis.

This makes no sense since Paul does invoke it in 1 Corinthians 14:33-38. What other OT command of the Lord fits? 1 Corinthians 14:33-38 reinforces this, since where else does the Lord command women to be in submission?

Also Genesis curses affect everyone, we die of old age, everyone should know why.

 

[MartyF]

This makes no sense since Paul does invoke it in 1 Corinthians 14:33-38. What other OT command of the Lord fits? 1 Corinthians 14:33-38 reinforces this, since where else does the Lord command women to be in submission?

Also Genesis curses affect everyone, we die of old age, everyone should know why.

Sorry, you misunderstood me or maybe I didn't write well. I think I didn't write well. Running out of time again. I was referring to

Genesis 3:16 NLT
Then he said to the woman, “I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy, and in pain you will give birth. And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you. ”

(emphasis added)

In other words, I believe the desire to control the husband is not a good desire and that women should not be placed in a position or place where this desire will become a difficulty for them or a stumbling block.

I didn't fully develop the last part. Sorry. Just posted and went to sleep.

Yeah, I think invoke was the wrong word - my apologies.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

Sorry, you misunderstood me or maybe I didn't write well. I think I didn't write well. Running out of time again. I was referring to

Genesis 3:16 NLT
Then he said to the woman, “I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy, and in pain you will give birth. And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you. ”

(emphasis added)

In other words, I believe the desire to control the husband is not a good desire and that women should not be placed in a position or place where this desire will become a difficulty for them or a stumbling block.

I didn't fully develop the last part. Sorry. Just posted and went to sleep.

Yeah, I think invoke was the wrong word - my apologies.

That's all right. I look forward to your full development of the text then.