Elevation of women in the church and in society

[Filmproducer]

FP, I wonder if Christianyouth has any idea of how well he insulted his own mother with those remarks?




Rufus, this question is for you and maybe Dale, but mostly you cause it was you who quoted the few verses there seem to be on how a woman should behave. This verse in particular:

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. " - 2 Timothy 2:11-14​

Notice how Paul uses the word "I" in this verse. Is this not telling us how how he feels about women in the church? Much the same as how he gave his own opinion on marriage? (remember Paul thought everyone should stay single to better serve God without the encumberances of family responsibilities) If he had been giving us commands from God wouldn't he have simply said "the Lord suffers not a woman...."? Instead he says "I" and then goes on to give his reasons for doing so. btw, it's first Timothy not Second.

Then there is the Corinthians passage:



You snatched that one right out of a discussion that Paul was giving on head coverings. There is another verse in the same passage that might also shed some light on our discussion:

"In the Lord, however, the woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God." I Cor 11:11-12

Even with these verses, the passage is NOT about authority, but about how one should dress their heads while praying! Should we be pulling verses out of context this way?

The verses in Titus are also not about authority or secular jobs, but about what the older ladies should be teaching the younger ladies (by example as well direct teaching)

The other verses you have quoted indeed show the order of authority within the home, but no where do they show the authority outside the home and church.

Dale, why are bothering to educate your little girl if you don't plan on her ever using her education? Is it not your plan that she go from your provision to her husbands? Do have any idea how frightingly close your words sound to my grandfather's (Freewill Baptist preacher) who only allowed his girls to be educated through the 6th grade for exactly that reason?

drwthohh you are a breath of fresh air!

Another excellent post MK. I notice that none of the brothers here have addressed your points. I wonder why? :laugh:

I can't help but think about CY's mother and what she would do if she read his posts. For some reason I can't seem to get the image of a woman grabbing her son by the ear and giving him a good talking to. If you know what I mean.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Dale the problem is that you are contradicting yourself.

You agree with/take the side of those who agree with the OP and then you turn around and say "well it's okay that my wife works because I approve of it". Then you turn around and say you wouldn't work for a woman supervisor because women should never be in authority over a man even in a secular setting, but this position can't be proved from scriptures that only speak of marriage and church relations.

Then you go back to supporting the idea that women should be educated, but say they shouldn't be allowed to vote!

Somewhere, sometime every woman is going to be in authority over a man in some situation or other, using one or more definitions of the word authority. It can't be helped. The Bible says women are to be in submission TO THEIR OWN HUSBANDS. Not every man out there in the world!

Since I was the one who brought up education, I'll ask again: Why are you bothering to educate your daughter if you never want her in a position that she would be in authority over a man and you don't plan on her voting? Why are you letting your wife work? Are you absolutely sure that in her work (at the library if I remember right?) she will never instuct a man on how to find a book or how to properly shelve a book and therefore contradict what you believe the Bible teaches?

Why don't you clarify just how far are you willing to take the idea that women should be keepers at home and only at home?

 

[menageriekeeper]

Another excellent post MK. I notice that none of the brothers here have addressed your points. I wonder why? :laugh:

LOL, FP! Probably cause I am a mere woman and asking such questions would seem to place me in the position of questioning their authority!

 

[Milady]

Wow! That's all I can say. I am so thankful that God did not send me a man from the dark ages. I am even more thankful that I am married to a wonderful man that respects my opinions, even if they differ from his, as they regularly do. Milady you are one brave woman. In all honesty I feel sorry for you, but to each his own....

HEHE
Thank you for your "pity". Not that I needed it. My husband is wonderful to me and to our daughter.
( Lord I am thankful I am not like this publican here)

Then you go back to supporting the idea that women should be educated, but say they shouldn't be allowed to vote!

You seem to be misunderstanding him though. Personally, I don't care to get into a debate on this subject. It is not that he says that I should not vote , but when I vote I get his opinion on what the issues are, who is running, why he dislikes certain candidates...... I can go on. After we have discussed everything we both go out and vote. AS ONE FLESH. I would refuse to vote if I was going contrary to my husband's vote. Simply because I believe that God has chosen him to lead our family, and that we would be "A house divided" if I did not.
Also notice that I said that I would refuse to vote. I have NEVER been told not to vote, what to vote and so on.
I think that I will stop there.

Milady

 

[menageriekeeper]

I would refuse to vote if I was going contrary to my husband's vote. Simply because I believe that God has chosen him to lead our family, and that we would be "A house divided" if I did not.

Now make sure you understand me. You and Dale seem to have things worked out to suit yourselves and that is great.

But, the above quote won't hold up under all circumstances or even all scriptures.

What if you were a Christian married to a non-Christian who wanted you to vote for a pro-abortion candidate or for a law to allow old men to marry 12 year olds? How are you going to vote? Where is your greatest alligence, God or husband?

Before you say, "well I did things God's way from the start", remember that some of us have former lives and might well be in that exact position. God says stay married if the unbelieving spouse wants to.

See, lot of folks here like to speak in absolutes but they can't apply their solution to every case. Christ's solution applies to every case and it has nothing to do with women voting, being educated or even working outside the home. He does expect our first alligience to be to HIM, even if that means a woman voting her conscience and cancelling out her husbands vote.

 

[Filmproducer]

HEHE
Thank you for your "pity". Not that I needed it. My husband is wonderful to me and to our daughter.
( Lord I am thankful I am not like this publican here)

I'm happy for you. Dale may very well be a wonderful husband and father. I'll take your word for it. I am just happy that I also have a wonderful, loving, God-fearing husband who also values me as a person and an equal. It's kind of hard to be one flesh if one part is superior over the other.

You seem to be misunderstanding him though. Personally, I don't care to get into a debate on this subject. It is not that he says that I should not vote , but when I vote I get his opinion on what the issues are, who is running, why he dislikes certain candidates...... I can go on.

Milady

MK pretty much summed it up in her post, but I must add, why do you need to have your husband tell you what is important? Why is it not enough to discuss the issues and the candidates as equals, or rather as one? The man is to be the head of the house, it does not say a woman has to have the same mind as her husband. You really need him to tell you how to vote? You know what nevermind. This is not worth it. If you are happy in your marriage, then who am I to say anything. I personally could not live under such subjugation, but that is me. God gave you the perfect man for yourself, and gave me the perfect man for me. We'll leave it at that.

 

[drwthohh]

Rufus, this question is for you and maybe Dale, but mostly you cause it was you who quoted the few verses there seem to be on how a woman should behave. This verse in particular:

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. " - 2 Timothy 2:11-14​

Notice how Paul uses the word "I" in this verse. Is this not telling us how how he feels about women in the church? Much the same as how he gave his own opinion on marriage? (remember Paul thought everyone should stay single to better serve God without the encumberances of family responsibilities) If he had been giving us commands from God wouldn't he have simply said "the Lord suffers not a woman...."? Instead he says "I" and then goes on to give his reasons for doing so. btw, it's first Timothy not Second.


drwthohh you are a breath of fresh air!

Thanks for the compliment, but you may not like me for long! :saint:

I don't think this passage is one of those "this is my opinion" passages because it doesn't say that. Paul is giving instructions of proper order within the chuch. We must assume that it applies to us because the Holy Spirit saw fit to preserve this letter as scripture for the whole church.

I am one of those guys that figures if my world view doesn't line up with scriptural instruction, then one of us is wrong, and it ain't the Bible.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Well of course it applies to us! The entirety of scripture is "useful for instruction" and that even includes all the Jewish laws that we don't follow anymore because Christ followed them for us!

But the scripture stills says in one place that Paul was specifically giving his own opinion and not God's and in this place he uses the word "I". Still, as it applies to home and church I have no problem interpeting it as women are not to instruct or order men.

Paul was not instructing Timothy in how to handle matters outside the church. Therefore to use this scripture to say that no woman should work outside her home is a mistake.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

As for voting what I tell her to vote:
I am opposed to women voting in general. The problem is there is no representation for women otherwise.
My problem with women voting is in the law, not what a particular women does.
I would have failed as a leader if my wife were to vote against me.

Unbelievable, but given the source, nothing surprises me. Thankfully, the privacy of the voting booth is sacrosanct, and she could vote however her conscience dictates, regardless of your instruction. You don't get 2 votes.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

HEHE
Thank you for your "pity". Not that I needed it. My husband is wonderful to me and to our daughter.
( Lord I am thankful I am not like this publican here)





You seem to be misunderstanding him though. Personally, I don't care to get into a debate on this subject. It is not that he says that I should not vote , but when I vote I get his opinion on what the issues are, who is running, why he dislikes certain candidates...... I can go on. After we have discussed everything we both go out and vote. AS ONE FLESH. I would refuse to vote if I was going contrary to my husband's vote. Simply because I believe that God has chosen him to lead our family, and that we would be "A house divided" if I did not.
Also notice that I said that I would refuse to vote. I have NEVER been told not to vote, what to vote and so on.
I think that I will stop there.

Milady

Pardon me Milady, but with your home philosophy it is difficult to give you views a lot of credibility. You state that you vote the way your husband tells you to vote, does it not follow that you are going to post the way he tells you to post. With your husband's view of this topic, should he not be posting for you and your family?

I am glad that your home, from all that we can see here is decent and in order, but should you really be posting your views publicly rather than continue to let your husband post them for you?

 

[Allan]

Rufus, this question is for you and maybe Dale, but mostly you cause it was you who quoted the few verses there seem to be on how a woman should behave. This verse in particular:

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. " - 2 Timothy 2:11-14​

Notice how Paul uses the word "I" in this verse. Is this not telling us how how he feels about women in the church? Much the same as how he gave his own opinion on marriage? (remember Paul thought everyone should stay single to better serve God without the encumberances of family responsibilities) If he had been giving us commands from God wouldn't he have simply said "the Lord suffers not a woman...."? Instead he says "I" and then goes on to give his reasons for doing so. btw, it's first Timothy not Second.

Apparently you do not believe in the inspiration of Gods Word:

2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

When Paul gives his apparent "opinion" it must be understood in light of Inspiration. Even if it was Paul opinion on the matter, the fact that the Holy Spirit inspired him to write it proves Paul's opinion is exactly right in relation to Gods will. Paul wrote as he was moved by the Spirit of the Living God. Paul uses himself as the example (which he does many times - he even states follow me as I follow Christ) of authority who will not permit a woman to be over nor teach a man [in a Church setting].

Paul on marrage is absolutely correct. An umarried person can be completely devoted to God and has no distractions. A married person can not be so. It IS better to be unmarried in relation to our service and work unto the Lord. There are no barriers and hinderances for we are free to come and go at a moments notice. BUT HE ALSO SAID, that it is ok to marry. He does not need to state "Thus commandeth the Lord God..." God was speaking through him ALREADY in the writting as he was being moved by the Holy Ghost!

Then there is the Corinthians passage:
"For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." - 1 Corinthians 11:8-9

You snatched that one right out of a discussion that Paul was giving on head coverings. There is another verse in the same passage that might also shed some light on our discussion:

"In the Lord, however, the woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God." I Cor 11:11-12

Even with these verses, the passage is NOT about authority, but about how one should dress their heads while praying! Should we be pulling verses out of context this way?

Lets look again at CONTEXT and see if this is not actually speaking of authority:

1Cr 11:1 ¶ Be ye followers of me, even as I also [am] of Christ.
1Cr 11:2 ¶ Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered [them] to you.
1Cr 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.
1Cr 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having [his] head covered, dishonoureth his head.
1Cr 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with [her] head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
1Cr 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

There Pual is in verse 1 making himself the example again.
Then he states there is something they should know:
1. The head of every man (male) is Christ
2. The head of every woman (female) is the man
3. The head of Christ is God

If we are unclear here, it is SPECIFCALLY speaking of authority.
Yes, this is speaking of women having a covering (long hair) and men not having long hair as visable EXAMPLES or illistrations of that which is of and under authority.

However, the issue of hair leng is another issue/thread all by itself :laugh:

The point I am making is about authority and showing the text DOES speak to and of it, contrary to your view of it simple being of 'covering'. It is much more in depth that that. Look further since Paul takes us there:

1Cr 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
1Cr 11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
1Cr 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
1Cr 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on [her] head because of the angels.
1Cr 11:11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
1Cr 11:12 For as the woman [is] of the man, even so [is] the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

It is speaking about coverings upon a womans head (hair) and we know this because of the next following verses showing both shame and glory as depicted above regarding coverings and no coverings. Shame concerning what, and glory concerning what? AUTHORITY:

1Cr 11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
1Cr 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
1Cr 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for [her] hair is given her for a covering.

We see verse 3 declaring the positional authority explained and in verse 10 we see the relevency in visable form regarding the authority issue:

NLT - 1 Cr 11:10 - So a woman should wear a covering on her head as a sign of authority because the angels are watching.
New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust

NIV - 1Cr 11:10 - For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.
New International Version © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society

So far MK all I can see that Paul is speaking of IS authority and visable proclaimation of it indicating a woman under authority.

Yet, your verses 11 and 12 are the balance between the Tyranical dictator of a marrage and the humble lover towards his bride in Christ.

So...before you take this ALL out of proportion. I acknowledge and agree with Paul who states that In Christ no man is independent of his wife, nor is the wife independant of her husband. The husband and wife are one. He is to be the humble loving leader, while listening, reviewing, and heeding his wifes thoughts and opinions. That with all of both their knowledge he can make a fair, loving, and Godly decision for them both.

Yet Paul is speaking specifically OF and TO authority since it is the very issue he brings up to discuss that he wants them know about.

 

[Allan]

Pardon me Milady, but with your home philosophy it is difficult to give you views a lot of credibility. You state that you vote the way your husband tells you to vote, does it not follow that you are going to post the way he tells you to post. With your husband's view of this topic, should he not be posting for you and your family?

I am glad that your home, from all that we can see here is decent and in order, but should you really be posting your views publicly rather than continue to let your husband post them for you?

Apparently her views are the same as her husbands and therefore no conflict exists for him to have to be worried about his wifes postings.

She must be his proverbs 31 woman.

Pro 31:11 The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil.
Pro 31:12 She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.

I think she proves it by his praises of her.

Pro 31:28 Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband [also], and he praiseth her.

and then:

Pro 31:30 Favour [is] deceitful, and beauty [is] vain: [but] a woman [that] feareth the LORD, she shall be praised.
Pro 31:31 Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates.

Sounds like she stands in powerful company. For a woman like this woman- scriptures says - fears the Lord.

So people 'give her, her due' and praise her since that is the God honoring thing to do.

 

[Allan]

Now FOR THE RECORD...

I don't agree with Dale on everything he is speaking of.

But he is right about the husband having the authority of the home, and his wife is right about them acting as one body and not being divided.

 

[Allan]

Now make sure you understand me. You and Dale seem to have things worked out to suit yourselves and that is great.

But, the above quote won't hold up under all circumstances or even all scriptures.

What if you were a Christian married to a non-Christian who wanted you to vote for a pro-abortion candidate or for a law to allow old men to marry 12 year olds? How are you going to vote? Where is your greatest alligence, God or husband?

Before you say, "well I did things God's way from the start", remember that some of us have former lives and might well be in that exact position. God says stay married if the unbelieving spouse wants to.

See, lot of folks here like to speak in absolutes but they can't apply their solution to every case. Christ's solution applies to every case and it has nothing to do with women voting, being educated or even working outside the home. He does expect our first alligience to be to HIM, even if that means a woman voting her conscience and cancelling out her husbands vote.

Get a biblical grip MK.

We all know (or should - and if there are those who don't you will now) that we are to be subject to all authorties (whether king, laws, police. or boss) UNLESS what they desire is AGAINST scripture.

You are right however, that our first alligience is to be to HIM, but as a wife your second alligience is to you husband.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Apparently her views are the same as her husbands and therefore no conflict exists for him to have to be worried about his wifes postings.

She must be his proverbs 31 woman.

I think she proves it by his praises of her.

and then:

Sounds like she stands in powerful company. For a woman like this woman- scriptures says - fears the Lord.

So people 'give her, her due' and praise her since that is the God honoring thing to do.

No one is questioning whether ro not she is a Prov 31 woman, I just question her need to be posting on her own - shouldn't she allow her husband to post for her as the head of her household. He doesn't think women should vote, so why should they express themselves in pubic. We know that women are to keep silence in the church, so does that not lay down a general principle of women keeping silent outside the home?

 

[menageriekeeper]

Ah, thank you Allan. A man who can actually explain how he interprets scripture! <sarcasm not aimed at you>

I agree hair length is an entirely different conversation and also one you won't see me participating in. However that is the whole focus of the passage! The focus is not on authority, though authority is used as an example. The entire passage is brought into focus by verse 11 and the first part of verse 13 (judge for yourselves!).

Still, Paul is NOT speaking of matters outside the home and church which is the entire topic of the OP.

Yet, your verses 11 and 12 are the balance between the Tyranical dictator of a marrage and the humble lover towards his bride in Christ.

So many here do not seem to see this balance. You and I agree more than it seems we do.

Get a biblical grip MK.

We all know (or should - and if there are those who don't you will now) that we are to be subject to all authorties (whether king, laws, police. or boss) UNLESS what they desire is AGAINST scripture.

You are right however, that our first alligience is to be to HIM, but as a wife your second alligience is to you husband.

I have a grip, Allen. I KNOW women who are in just the position I've described and they must make such decisions every day and if the issue isn't what to vote for then it is something else. Use your imagination. What is woman supposed to do with a husband who follows a lifestyle that in no way resembles ours, but yet doesn't want a divorce? There have to be times when the woman simply says no. But Dale and others seem to want this ability taken from her in the name of "submission". They can't see the spiritual harm that this position can cause the woman.

You know, I think we all agree on how things should be run in the home and in the church. The point of division is how things should be run outside of those two places. Personally, I think God would have us use our brains on the issue as He says little in scripture on this aspect. You can't build or tear down a doctrine on the absence of scripture, therefore, once the authority in the home(and church) is balanced out correctly (if there is indeed a marriage) it becomes the responsibility of society to determine what happens outside the home(and church). That leaves a lot of leeway that some don't want to deal with(single women, widows), perferring instead to say that women should never move outside "being a keeper at home".

 

[christianyouth]

Apparently you do not believe in the inspiration of Gods Word:

When Paul gives his apparent "opinion" it must be understood in light of Inspiration. Even if it was Paul opinion on the matter, the fact that the Holy Spirit inspired him to write it proves Paul's opinion is exactly right in relation to Gods will. Paul wrote as he was moved by the Spirit of the Living God. Paul uses himself as the example (which he does many times - he even states follow me as I follow Christ) of authority who will not permit a woman to be over nor teach a man [in a Church setting].

Paul on marrage is absolutely correct. An umarried person can be completely devoted to God and has no distractions. A married person can not be so. It IS better to be unmarried in relation to our service and work unto the Lord. There are no barriers and hinderances for we are free to come and go at a moments notice. BUT HE ALSO SAID, that it is ok to marry. He does not need to state "Thus commandeth the Lord God..." God was speaking through him ALREADY in the writting as he was being moved by the Holy Ghost!


Lets look again at CONTEXT and see if this is not actually speaking of authority:

There Pual is in verse 1 making himself the example again.
Then he states there is something they should know:
1. The head of every man (male) is Christ
2. The head of every woman (female) is the man
3. The head of Christ is God

If we are unclear here, it is SPECIFCALLY speaking of authority.
Yes, this is speaking of women having a covering (long hair) and men not having long hair as visable EXAMPLES or illistrations of that which is of and under authority.

However, the issue of hair leng is another issue/thread all by itself :laugh:

The point I am making is about authority and showing the text DOES speak to and of it, contrary to your view of it simple being of 'covering'. It is much more in depth that that. Look further since Paul takes us there:


It is speaking about coverings upon a womans head (hair) and we know this because of the next following verses showing both shame and glory as depicted above regarding coverings and no coverings. Shame concerning what, and glory concerning what? AUTHORITY:

We see verse 3 declaring the positional authority explained and in verse 10 we see the relevency in visable form regarding the authority issue:

So far MK all I can see that Paul is speaking of IS authority and visable proclaimation of it indicating a woman under authority.

Yet, your verses 11 and 12 are the balance between the Tyranical dictator of a marrage and the humble lover towards his bride in Christ.

So...before you take this ALL out of proportion. I acknowledge and agree with Paul who states that In Christ no man is independent of his wife, nor is the wife independant of her husband. The husband and wife are one. He is to be the humble loving leader, while listening, reviewing, and heeding his wifes thoughts and opinions. That with all of both their knowledge he can make a fair, loving, and Godly decision for them both.

Yet Paul is speaking specifically OF and TO authority since it is the very issue he brings up to discuss that he wants them know about.

WARNING : Posts that contain Scriptural content will be ignored.

Sadly, since this post contains truth from the Scriptures, it will be ignored. It will be much easier to just call you a 'misogynist' and tell you not to take the Bible so seriously.

 

[Bro. Williams]

Technically, women leadership outside of the home is one of those "gray" areas, to a degree (so is smoking weed in this sense). i.e., there is no, "thou shalt not lead outside the home, woman" (nor, thou shalt not smoke weed).

What we do have is a clear command that a woman is to be in submission to her husband in home and at church.

With that said, how could a woman that is married be a ruler and yet in submission to her husband. Even if that scenario existed, would it not be the husband ruling and not the woman, which would be like the opposite of the Clinton "dynasty".

Furthermore, the general theme of the Scripture is male leadership, and specifically speaking of the OT, these things are giving to us for ensamples. One can easily prove that as a general rule, women have not been leaders in a good sense. At the same time, it CANNOT be proven that women have been leaders outside the home in an acceptable manner. (Yes, I am aware of Deborah, see my earlier posting concerning that issue).

With all that said, I believe Biblically it is best and right for men to lead in all situations. Let me say though, that this world is not Biblically based or sound and therefore one is unfortunate enough to not have this situation provided in the acceptable manner in all areas. Therefore, if/when a woman leads (obviously some do now), as a citizen I will obey orders (when they are not against God) and I will do my job as the Lord has called me to do this as if I am serving him.


..................................................................................................................................
Isaiah 3:12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

 

[Cutter]

No one is questioning whether ro not she is a Prov 31 woman, I just question her need to be posting on her own

That statement right there appears to be a little facetious.

 

[Dale-c]

Technically, women leadership outside of the home is one of those "gray" areas, to a degree (so is smoking weed in this sense). i.e., there is no, "thou shalt not lead outside the home, woman" (nor, thou shalt not smoke weed).

What we do have is a clear command that a woman is to be in submission to her husband in home and at church.

With that said, how could a woman that is married be a ruler and yet in submission to her husband. Even if that scenario existed, would it not be the husband ruling and not the woman, which would be like the opposite of the Clinton "dynasty".

Furthermore, the general theme of the Scripture is male leadership, and specifically speaking of the OT, these things are giving to us for ensamples. One can easily prove that as a general rule, women have not been leaders in a good sense. At the same time, it CANNOT be proven that women have been leaders outside the home in an acceptable manner. (Yes, I am aware of Deborah, see my earlier posting concerning that issue).

With all that said, I believe Biblically it is best and right for men to lead in all situations. Let me say though, that this world is not Biblically based or sound and therefore one is unfortunate enough to not have this situation provided in the acceptable manner in all areas. Therefore, if/when a woman leads (obviously some do now), as a citizen I will obey orders (when they are not against God) and I will do my job as the Lord has called me to do this as if I am serving him.

Excellent post.