Men, Women and Roles

[jaigner]

To write the roles off as cultural accomodations is not only biblically inaccurate, it is also intellectually dishonest. Paul gives the reasons for male leadership in the church in I Tim 2, and they are not cultural. They both go back to creation. One is the creative order - Adam was created 1st because he was to be the leader, the 2nd to male-female creative differences. Eve was deceived, Adam was not. Men and women are different by God's creative design and are created for different roles. I Cor. 11 is also not cultural. Is the Father still the head of Christ? Is Christ still the head of the man? Then the man is still the head of the woman. Not culture, Creator's design.

I have answered the question of creation and gender elsewhere and need to go to bed, so I'll leave it for now.

There are difficulties with both positions. Nearly every credible evangelical scholar believes that to some extent. These are not easy passages and, for the complimentarian position, requires a bit of proof-texting. We have to interpret this and every other passage in context. No Bible passage can mean anything that would not have been applicable in the day. Likewise, we cannot simply pick the verses that we feel prove the positions we're comfortable with. We have to put ourselves back there and we're simply fooling ourselves if we feel the letter of Scripture

Additionally, to write off many sincere Christians who seek to find the correct interpretation of Scripture as intellectually dishonest does not do either side any favors. That is simply not the case. I love the Bible, seek to live by the Bible, submit myself before it and earnestly want to walk closely with God. Right or wrong, I am not "intellectually dishonest." I once believed in male headship, but after studying Scripture and learning under many faithful Christians, on both sides of this issue, I couldn't in good conscience hold to that position anymore.

I just ask you don't attempt to make me and these others out to be heretics because we have been led to other positions.

Blessings and goodnight.

 

[Revmitchell]

I have answered the question of creation and gender elsewhere and need to go to bed, so I'll leave it for now.

There are difficulties with both positions. Nearly every credible evangelical scholar believes that to some extent. These are not easy passages and, for the complimentarian position, requires a bit of proof-texting. We have to interpret this and every other passage in context. No Bible passage can mean anything that would not have been applicable in the day. Likewise, we cannot simply pick the verses that we feel prove the positions we're comfortable with. We have to put ourselves back there and we're simply fooling ourselves if we feel the letter of Scripture

Additionally, to write off many sincere Christians who seek to find the correct interpretation of Scripture as intellectually dishonest does not do either side any favors. That is simply not the case. I love the Bible, seek to live by the Bible, submit myself before it and earnestly want to walk closely with God. Right or wrong, I am not "intellectually dishonest." I once believed in male headship, but after studying Scripture and learning under many faithful Christians, on both sides of this issue, I couldn't in good conscience hold to that position anymore.

I just ask you don't attempt to make me and these others out to be heretics because we have been led to other positions.

Blessings and goodnight.

There are only difficulties with those who want them to exist so as to gain some credibility for their presupposition.

 

[PastorGreg]

There are difficulties with both positions. Nearly every credible evangelical scholar believes that to some extent. These are not easy passages and, for the complimentarian position, requires a bit of proof-texting. We have to interpret this and every other passage in context. No Bible passage can mean anything that would not have been applicable in the day. Likewise, we cannot simply pick the verses that we feel prove the positions we're comfortable with. We have to put ourselves back there and we're simply fooling ourselves if we feel the letter of Scripture

Additionally, to write off many sincere Christians who seek to find the correct interpretation of Scripture as intellectually dishonest does not do either side any favors. That is simply not the case. I love the Bible, seek to live by the Bible, submit myself before it and earnestly want to walk closely with God. Right or wrong, I am not "intellectually dishonest." I once believed in male headship, but after studying Scripture and learning under many faithful Christians, on both sides of this issue, I couldn't in good conscience hold to that position anymore.


Blessings and goodnight.

These are easy passages that mean exactly what they say. Male headship is a consistent theme throughout Scripture. It only becomes difficult for those who are not committed to the fidelity of God's Word (regardless of what they may claim).

 

[jaigner]

These are easy passages that mean exactly what they say. Male headship is a consistent theme throughout Scripture. It only becomes difficult for those who are not committed to the fidelity of God's Word (regardless of what they may claim).

Okay, well, guess this debate's shut down. Kinda hard to reason with a position like that.

 

[PastorGreg]

We don't reason with Scripture. We read, obey, and apply it to our lives. THese are plain, blatant statements in God's Word. Either His Word is authoritative or it is not.

 

[jaigner]

We don't reason with Scripture. We read, obey, and apply it to our lives. THese are plain, blatant statements in God's Word. Either His Word is authoritative or it is not.

We have to interpret Scripture. That's why people study it. That's why people go to seminary. That's partly why we listen to sermons. That's why we need the Spirit. That's why we need new translations. It's just not that simple. And interpretation has to be done on your knees, humbling yourself before God's Word. You don't hold it tightly in your fist. That's the first step toward legalism. You have to hold it with an open hand so that the Spirit's work can be done. So you can be molded and bent when necessary.

That's the authority of the Word. Truth doesn't belong to us. It belongs to God.

Blessings to you, friend. I pray you can sense my earnestness and sincerity when it comes to Scripture.

 

[Shortandy]

Which passage are you referring to?

1 Timothy 2....women not being in positions of authority.

 

[Revmitchell]

We don't reason with Scripture. We read, obey, and apply it to our lives. THese are plain, blatant statements in God's Word. Either His Word is authoritative or it is not.

That's right

 

[HankD]

I agree with PastorGreg.

But do we keep the letter of the law?

1 Corinthians 14

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.​

1 Timothy 2
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

To apply these passages literally would require that women (single or married) can't even teach children or other women in a church environment.

Can't pray aloud, can't give a testimony, can't serve on church committees, cant serve as missionaries, etc.
Just sit in the pew and be silent.

How many churches really keep the letter of Paul's epistles inspired of the Holy Spirit?


HankD
​

 

[Revmitchell]

I agree with PastorGreg.

But do we keep the letter of the law?

1 Corinthians 14

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.​

1 Timothy 2
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

To apply these passages literally would require that women (single or married) can't even teach children or other women in a church environment.

Can't pray aloud, can't give a testimony, can't serve on church committees, cant serve as missionaries, etc.
Just sit in the pew and be silent.

How many churches really keep the letter of Paul's epistles inspired of the Holy Spirit?


HankD
​

No it doesn't. Not even close.

 

[kyredneck]

....How many churches really keep the letter of Paul's epistles inspired of the Holy Spirit?


HankD
[/LEFT]

The PBs come very close to holding to the letter of it. The ladies do make hymn and prayer requests during the service, but that's about it.

 

[jaigner]

I agree with PastorGreg.

But do we keep the letter of the law?

1 Corinthians 14

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.​

1 Timothy 2
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

To apply these passages literally would require that women (single or married) can't even teach children or other women in a church environment.

Can't pray aloud, can't give a testimony, can't serve on church committees, cant serve as missionaries, etc.
Just sit in the pew and be silent.

How many churches really keep the letter of Paul's epistles inspired of the Holy Spirit?


HankD
​

A few of them try, but nobody does it perfectly. We cannot just pick and choose the ones we like, depending upon what we grew up with or what we're comfortable with. We have to do our best to study them faithfully in their original context and determine what teachings are normative and which, though still able to speak to us, are not to be applied to the letter in every situation.

 

[HankD]

No it doesn't. Not even close.

Your response is a little vague to me Revm.

Do you mean - No - churches don't come close to keeping the letter or
No - the Scripture doesn't mean what it appears to say lliterally:

1 Corinthians 14

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.​

1 Timothy 2
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.​

If these passages don't mean what they say literally or do you believe they do not apply to all local churches or they do not apply to the 21st century church or whatever?

What is your interpretation?

Personally, my feeling is that if we kept the "letter of the law" according to Paul then many a church and perhaps a few mission boards would have to "close up shop".

e.g. How many churches have only men teaching in their Sunday School?

Of course Primitive Baptists wouldn't have this issue.


Thanks
HankD

 

[HankD]

People get emotional about certain issues and this is one of them.

I have been trying to play the devil’s advocate with this thread but anyone can go back and check out the HankD posts on this matter.

I’ll restate my own position FWIW and in case anyone cares:

A lot of this depends upon the local church and their autonomy to interpret the boundaries laid down by the Scripture, so this is my take:

A woman should not hold the office of pastor.

Assuming the by-laws of the local church allows for "deaconess", women can function as a deaconess if her husband holds the office of deacon and she has no authority over men but is simply a helper to her husband.

Women have a ministry in the church environment to children and other women both in the local church and the mission field (and whatever the PB call “missions”); they can also sing, pray, vote and give testimony in the church all of which can be gleaned from other apostolic epistles.

Here is where I’ll get in trouble in the eyes of some, since it is an interpretation of Paul’s statements: Women can speak and/or teach from the pulpit with the pastor’s permission (directly or implied) if he is present (e.g. female missionaries and missionaries wives outlining their work, teaching the culture of the evangelized, etc). Obviously, the pastor and/or deacons would have to be sensitive to the general feeling of the church and put the health of the local church over all else.

I interpret Paul’s bottom line teaching to be that women do not usurp the authority of the appointed male leadership in the local church. If a woman has his/their permission to speak then she is speaking as a result of his/their exercise of authority in permitting her to do so.

Obviously God chooses whomsoever he wills (i.e. Huldah, Deborah) to fill the role vacated by men (for whatever the reason) but it’s the rare exception not the rule.


HankD

 

[Revmitchell]

Your response is a little vague to me Revm.

Do you mean - No - churches don't come close to keeping the letter or
No - the Scripture doesn't mean what it appears to say lliterally:

1 Corinthians 14

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.​

1 Timothy 2
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.​

If these passages don't mean what they say literally or do you believe they do not apply to all local churches or they do not apply to the 21st century church or whatever?

What is your interpretation?

Personally, my feeling is that if we kept the "letter of the law" according to Paul then many a church and perhaps a few mission boards would have to "close up shop".

e.g. How many churches have only men teaching in their Sunday School?

Of course Primitive Baptists wouldn't have this issue.


Thanks
HankD

They mean literally what they say in the context that Paul wrote them in. If you will check with Clarke's commentary the context of 1 Cor is that women were not to debate with other men over scripture in the church.

In the 1 Tim passage it is clear as it stands. But none of that ads up to "Can't pray aloud, can't give a testimony, can't serve on church committees, cant serve as missionaries, etc.Just sit in the pew and be silent."

 

[annsni]

People get emotional about certain issues and this is one of them.

I have been trying to play the devil’s advocate with this thread but anyone can go back and check out the HankD posts on this matter.

I’ll restate my own position FWIW and in case anyone cares:

A lot of this depends upon the local church and their autonomy to interpret the boundaries laid down by the Scripture, so this is my take:

A woman should not hold the office of pastor.

Assuming the by-laws of the local church allows for "deaconess", women can function as a deaconess if her husband holds the office of deacon and she has no authority over men but is simply a helper to her husband.

Women have a ministry in the church environment to children and other women both in the local church and the mission field (and whatever the PB call “missions”); they can also sing, pray, vote and give testimony in the church all of which can be gleaned from other apostolic epistles.

Here is where I’ll get in trouble in the eyes of some, since it is an interpretation of Paul’s statements: Women can speak and/or teach from the pulpit with the pastor’s permission (directly or implied) if he is present (e.g. female missionaries and missionaries wives outlining their work, teaching the culture of the evangelized, etc). Obviously, the pastor and/or deacons would have to be sensitive to the general feeling of the church and put the health of the local church over all else.

I interpret Paul’s bottom line teaching to be that women do not usurp the authority of the appointed male leadership in the local church. If a woman has his/their permission to speak then she is speaking as a result of his/their exercise of authority in permitting her to do so.

Obviously God chooses whomsoever he wills (i.e. Huldah, Deborah) to fill the role vacated by men (for whatever the reason) but it’s the rare exception not the rule.


HankD

I agree with this. I myself have spoken from the pulpit to give my adoption testimony on a Sunday when a friend was dedicating her newly adopted daughter. Many people said that they were blessed to hear it and I was not teaching (well, maybe I did teach a few people about adoption and our being adopted by God as well), so I felt comfortable with it.

If anyone would like to hear it, I made a blog to hold it and you can hear it here: http://annsni.blogspot.com/2007/03/my-adoption-testimony.html

 

[HankD]

They mean literally what they say in the context that Paul wrote them in. If you will check with Clarke's commentary the context of 1 Cor is that women were not to debate with other men over scripture in the church.

In the 1 Tim passage it is clear as it stands. But none of that ads up to "Can't pray aloud, can't give a testimony, can't serve on church committees, cant serve as missionaries, etc.Just sit in the pew and be silent."

Thanks RevM

HankD