Headship in the world

Hello, Karen,

Thanks for your post.

I can see how some would incorporate the issue of women working in this issue, but I see it more as having women in leadership positions though that does get tied up with work.

I do not see how women should not be able to vote or attend college since that is not leadership. I am defintely for the education of women and for them voting!!

I myself am uncomfortable with the idea of a woman president, and I guess that's more along the lines of what I am thinking of here. I really do think women are more emotional in their views and reactions than men are, but I don't see it as a weakness, except maybe in leadership roles. In other roles, it's a strength.

But why would God have those principles just for the church and not the world? Are they just for redeemed men and women?

 

Well, most unredeemed people might not read the Bible or understand it if they did.

I believe these principles are for saved people.

Now, here is the question; are saved people supposed to act the same in the world as they do in church or should we leave our God-given instructions at the church door???

 

Me, too!! But one of the traditional arguments against women voting was that it did, however indirectly, lead to some men being elected and not others. And potentially voting differently than one's husband. I suppose it comes down to hairsplitting over what is "authority". Often seen as "any influence at all".

Karen

 

I tend to think that these principles are universal -- for all people. Just because the unredeemed do not believe or follow them does not make them less universal. God is insructing believers but the principles are for all, even if they are ignored.

I think saved people are to act according to God's word even in the world. There are areas that are tricky and gray, and that is why we need discernment, prayer, God's wisdom, and then we just do our best. Thank the Lord we are living under grace!

 

Don't forget the verse that tells us to submit "unto our own husbands".

God doesn't say anything about submitting to someone else's husband - who may be running against us in an election...

 

This is just not true. Adam abdicated his God-given headship when he stood by while Eve was deceived and gave in to the temptation. Then he participated in it as well. One of the curses on woman was that her desire would be to rule over her husband -- that was a curse. The natural headship given to Adam was perverted in the Fall.

You all are ignoring 1 Cor 11.3 and 1 Tim. 2.13. No one is addressing those verses. </font>[/QUOTE]1 Timothy 2:

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence

13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve

14 And Adam was not disceived, but the woman being disceived was in the transgression.

Genesis 2:

22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: She shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

None of these verses or the verses before it indicated that the man had authority over woman. In fact, "They shall be one flesh" indicates equality. If you want to get technical, man was made from dirt. Woman was made from a strong healthy bone.

Now watch this:

Genesis 3:

6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat.

NOTEIf this was happening today, we'd probably have a thread titled, "Is it ok to take just one bite of the fruit off the tree of knowledge of good and evil?")

OK, back to seriousness:

7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked: and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons

8. And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden.

9 And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked and I hid myself.

11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle and above every beast of the field: Upon the belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel

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.

Up until this time, man didn't need to rule over women because they hadn't decided to sin. They didn't need leadership...God made one rule.."Don't eat of the tree" and they both knew not to eat from it.

But because Eve was the first to eat, God put Adam in charge of Eve. I have to wonder if Adam was the first to eat of the tree, would Women be placed in authority over man today? But, we can't ask "what if" because it just didn't happen that way.

Just because God made Adam first doesn't mean He meant for man to have authority over woman. If we follow that concept, animals should have dominion over man. After all, He made animals and turkeys before He made man.

Genesis 1:

24 And god said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, andcattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26 And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth

27 So God created man in his own image, and in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and replentish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

God never told Adam to have dominion over Eve until the fall.

 

Man's domination over woman is a result of the Fall, but his headship is part of creation. Domination and headship are not the same thing!

1. Note that God gave Adam the command about the trees, not Eve. He apparently left it to Adam to tell Eve about the command.
2. As noted in 1 Tim 2.13, a section seemingly ignored by proponents of the opposing view, that it is stated Adam was made first, and this is given as a universal principle from creation.
3. Note that God seems to hold Adam more responsible because it is Adam he calls upon first after Adam and Eve sin in Gen. 3.9-12.
4. Adam listened to his wife (when he should have been taking charge and not letting her eat the fruit)

5. Then we have the curse on women of wanting to go against their husbands:

The "desire for your husband" is said to be the desire to go against the husband, and/or the desire to rule over the husband.

The "ruling" of Adam after the Fall is not the headship but dominance. It is part of the curse. Yes, negative male dominance is a result of the fall because it is a perversion of the headship God gave man before the Fall. Due to the Fall, man and woman are not naturally relating to each other, but instead conniving against each other, competing, deceiving each other, and trying to dominate each other. That is all the result of the Fall.

The redemptive position is that man has the headship but not domination. He leads and guides his wife; he is not a tyrant.

You just can't ignore 1 Cor. 11.3 and 1 Tim. 2.13 where it seems that God is clearly saying that man has headship over woman.

 

With the feminization of western culture now complete, you ladies are a breath of fresh air. How wonderful it is to see women who value the Word of God above everything and rightly divide it.

Lately I've figured there must be 50 - 100 or so real women left in the world, so half of you must be on this board.

Surely the desire of one spouse, either husband or wife, to dominate the other is evil. To see it firsthand up close, even for a few moments is always the most unpleasant experience.

Recently, at a church function, a visiting couple I had never met was discussing a major problem in their church when the woman began to be a little indiscreet - nothing too bad, just giving a few too many details, etc.. The husband, rightly but indiscreetly, corrected her and the way he did it, embarrasing her, made me want to slug him.

Of course it's just as bad the other way around, probably worse, except I rarely want to slug the woman. Instead, I want to slug the man for not being a man. Oh well ... truth is I despise this present culture. Even so, come Lord Jesus.

 

We are not inferior, we are equal - just in different ways.

I'm really surprised that God gave women a brain but did not expect them to use it.

If we follow blindly, we don't need a brain, but God gave us one anyway. Wonder why???

As far as feminism. In order for me to have all the rights a man has, I would have to give up some I already have...

 

Statements like this really make me sad and angry.

I am one of those women who worked for equal rights for women in the workplace, and I have always had the respect, protection, and honor from my father, husband, brothers, and son. They were not being P. C. either. They were following the Truth. The Bible and Jesus did not declare that women should be second class citizens.

I respect the teachings of the Bible for women's place in the home and the church, but I do not see or find scripture that they are not to be treated equally.

 

Amen, Sister Thankful -- Preach it!

 

Sounds like some want to go back to the "good old days" of subservient women. Days when anesthetic was withheld during childbirth so as not to overrule God's mandate of pain in bearing children. Days of making it illegal to teach a woman about contraception. Days when little girls could maybe aspire to be a teacher but not an administrator; a nurse but not a doctor; a nanny but not a CEO. Nothing wrong with any of the above choices, but choices should not be limited because of a person's gender.

I am truly amazed. I guess dinosaurs and people DO live together...I see some fossilized thinking going on here.

Thankful, as always, you make a whole lot of sense! I appreciate your perspective on this.

 

Thank you, Magnetic Poles. This is one topic that brings out my "soap box"

 

To me it's not about equality or women working, etc. In 1950, with few exceptions, a man that had a full-time job, ANY kind of job, could support his family. The powers that be changed that. But what shouldn't change is biblical headship.

The feminization of western culture that I mentioned earlier is much more than equal pay, etc. It was and is about changing women AND changing men. This is easy to prove, BTW. Just turn on the television and watch.

 

I love how its automatically assumed that "over half of its members" will not be valued.
I don't suppose you value the contribution of females to the world by the fact that they bear children.

Why can't some of us see that being a good mother and domestic keeper is just as important to the long term survival of mankind as campaigning for a school board position?

Some women like being mothers and don't feel slighted by not being visible leaders in the community.

 

The Caprinator -

In the past the duties of men and women, combined with the times, were such that the roles needed to be tremendously different.

A man's ability to get food depended, largely, on his physical strength. He had to be able to thrust a spear, pull back a large bow string, plow a field.

A woman's duty in caring for young babies and in providing for the family took the full day. You didn't wake up, open a loaf of bread, heat it in the oven, wait for a timer to go off, and call it food. You had to grind grain, turn grain into flour, turn flour into bread, and monitor that oven every minute of the day. You had a nursing babe at your breast.

Since you couldn't possibly do the work of a man, it made sense to leave the discussions of how men's work should be done to the men.

Like Thankful, I was once part of the women's movement. It was never about trying to take away power from men in my neck of the woods. It was about fairness.

I was catching a school bus at 7:00 a.m., in snow and ice wearing a dress and ending up with frost-bite on my legs because girls had to wear skirts and men didn't. Single mothers trying to support families left to them by deadbeat-Dads were living on the edge of starvation, even though they worked 40 hour work-weeks, doing the same jobs males were doing, because they were not paid the same pay rate. Women, sometimes asked to work by the men in their household, were still solely responsible for cooking, cleaning, and childcare.

Girls were told they couldn't dream dreams. Want to be an astraunaut? A doctor? A lawyer? Run for Congress or the Senate? Run for Dog-Catcher? Didn't matter if you graduated with the highest honors in your class - it couldn't be done, because someone said the guy who graduated lowest in your class was more qualified for the job because he was a male.

I, personally, would love to go back to a time when a man was paid enough to support his whole family. I would also personally love to go back to a time when society frowned on a man that did NOT take care of his family.