Should women vote in business meetings

[Squire Robertsson]

John Gill took up the pastorate in question in 1719. He held the pulpit there for 51 years (1770). As the date of this meeting would have been 1719, I would hazard the practice dated from an earlier period say the 1600s. Effectively, it means churches have been "compromising" since the start of the modern Baptist era.

Ok, we began compromising prior to 1920.

 

[Reynolds]

John Gill took up the pastorate in question in 1719. He held the pulpit there for 51 years (1770). As the date of this meeting would have been 1719, I would hazard the practice dated from an earlier period say the 1600s. Effectively, it means churches have been "compromising" since the start of the modern Baptist era.

We already discussed Gill. I was responding to the specific post about the women's suffrage movement.

The best sources of history I can find on Baptist Churches in the south seem to show that women voting was not common until the early Twentieth Century.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Not being a Southerner, I can't speak to southern practices. I am a Californian. My spiritual DNA runs through the Northern Baptists, not the Southern Baptist Convention or any of the SBC's daughters.

We already discussed Gill. I was responding to the specific post about the women's suffrage movement.

The best sources of history I can find on Baptist Churches in the south seem to show that women voting was not common until the early Twentieth Century.

 

[Jerome]

I would hazard the practice dated from an earlier period say the 1600s....since the start of the modern Baptist era.

Indeed. James Renihan of Westminister Seminary's Institute for Reformed Baptist Studies, author of
Ecclesiology of the English Particular Baptists, found a church minutes book from the 1600s describing women voting:

books.google.com/books?id=DwhMAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA130

"they were permitted to vote by raising their hands, and speak concerns with regard to a matter for vote upon approval of the church body."

 

[Jerome]

Minutes of the Philadelphia Baptist Association (1746):

3. Query: Whether women may or ought to have their votes in the church, in such matters as the church shall agree to be decided by votes?

...it is to be hoped they may have, as members of the body of the church, liberty to give a mute voice, by standing or lifting up of the hands, or the contrary, to signify their assent or dissent to the thing proposed, and so augment the number on the one or both sides of the question.
...if a woman's vote be singular, her reasons ought to be called for, heard, and maturely considered, without contempt.

 

[Jerome]

...history I can find on Baptist Churches in the south seem to show...

Not being a Southerner, I can't speak to southern practices. I am a Californian. My spiritual DNA runs through the Northern Baptists, not the Southern Baptist Convention or any of the SBC's daughters.

Precisely. As with another notorious issue, it's the Southern aspect of Southern Baptist, rather than the Baptist, that prevailed in taking a benighted position.

 

[Reynolds]

Precisely. As with another notorious issue, it's the Southern aspect of Southern Baptist, rather than the Baptist, that prevailed in taking a benighted position.

Maybe us Southerners just hold to the truth longer and are more slow to succumb to liberalization.

 

[rsr]

An interesting read on a related topic, which also discusses the topic at hand:

"On the Same Basis as the Men": The Campaign to Reinstate Women as Messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention, 1885-1918

Raley Part I

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Hardly, as the practice predates the founding of our country and took place in the home country before many immigrated to the American Colonies.

Maybe us Southerners just hold to the truth longer and are more slow to succumb to liberalization.

 

[Reynolds]

Hardly, as the practice predates the founding of our country and took place in the home country before many immigrated to the American Colonies.

It did not come to the Americas that way. The religious groups who came to America came because they felt that either govt was infringing on their religion or because their religious institution had become perverted.

 

[annsni]

Paul was ain on that as well. The woman is to discuss issues with her husband. He is to bring it to the church, if need be.

A woman is to discuss questions with her husband and not speak out in the church during the service asking these questions. It has nothing to do with voting.

 

[rsr]

I'm not sure why this discussion is continuing. The Bible says that women are to keep their mouths shut and not presume to edify men.

Obviously, when Paul wrote that "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." he was mistaken to in suggesting that women should speak in the church. He was just confused; women were not to speak, but on the other hand they were to speak with covered heads. This is an easy one: They were to cover their heads, but since they wouldn't, they were no allowed to speak. Easy as pie.

 

[Reynolds]

Precisely. As with another notorious issue, it's the Southern aspect of Southern Baptist, rather than the Baptist, that prevailed in taking a benighted position.

Frankly, I see Southern as the best part of SBC. Unfortunately, the more the SBC branches out, the more liberalized it becomes.

 

[rsr]

Jerome, as he has proven in infinite posts, hates Southern Baptists, and now we know that it's the Southern that he especially despises. As a recovering Southern Baptist, I have plenty to complain about with the the convention, but I accept that all Baptists — even Jerome's (GASP) — have things they should repent of. The expansion of the SBC has nothing to do with liberalism.

 

[Reynolds]

Jerome, as he has proven in infinite posts, hates Southern Baptists, and now we know that it's the Southern that he especially despises. As a recovering Southern Baptist, I have plenty to complain about with the the convention, but I accept that all Baptists — even Jerome's (GASP) — have things they should repent of. The expansion of the SBC has nothing to do with liberalism.

Correct, the expansion has nothing to do with liberalism. However, as the SBC has ventured out of the conservative Bible belt, the more liberal culture of the new areas has made its influence apparrent.

 

[rsr]

I am not one who conflates Southern culture with true Christianity.

 

[Reynolds]

I am not one who conflates Southern culture with true Christianity.

I don't either, but its more conservative than most of the rest of the nation.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

I believe it would be smart to post what led up to my conclusion against having women be in any authority over men:

The following is a word study of the word "authority" found in 1 Timothy 2:12:

I first went to Strong's and was told it was the Greek word "authenteo" which means the English word "authority." According to the dictionary the word "authority" means:

1. the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.
2. the right to act in a specified way, delegated from one person or organization to another.
3. official permission; sanction.

I decided this was not enough by a long shot, so I next went to Kittel's theological dictionary of the New Testament. It didn't even have the word "authenteo" in it.

Finally, I turned to the internet and through Bible Tools and Bible Study Tools I found the following:
(Strongs's #831: authenteo - Greek/Hebrew Definitions - Bible Tools)
(Authenteo - New Testament Greek Lexicon - New American Standard)

1. One who with his own hands kills another or himself
2. One who acts on his own authority, autocratic
3. An absolute master
4. To govern, exercise dominion over one

The word "authenteo" is also only found once in the bible. This complicates things considerably to me.

So I will try to figure this out by usage of the definitions found on the internet bible study websites. Before I do this I need to understand that this passage refers not to the world but the church, as seems to be made clear by 1 Timothy 3:14-15 as context for its preceding verses.

1. It cannot be killing someone.
2. It is very confusing to use this to mean a husband or a man acting on their own authority as an autocrat.

3. Absolute master seems close to the biblical passage 1 Peter 3:1-6. Such authority in marriage never belongs to the woman in the marriage relationship and never should according to the bible. So perhaps this means that women should always obey men as masters when in the context of God's household, except of course if they are told to do something wrong. This may make sense when combined with all the verses on what makes a godly woman.

4. Govern and "spiritual" dominion are what we typically think with authority in the church. The word "govern" means:

1. conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people).
2. control, influence, or regulate (a person, action, or course of events).
3. conduct oneself, especially with regard to controlling one's emotions.
4. serve to decide (a legal case).

The word "dominion" means:

1. sovereignty; control.
2. the territory of a sovereign or government.

I am left with figuring out whether it is #3 and #4. Either way it means considerably more than when I started, and it may be very hard to understand for many people in baptist churches.

Number 3 means that we have overwhelmingly missed the mark on what it means to be a godly woman in God's household.

Number 4 means that women should have no governing authority at all in the context of the church, that women should have no control over men at all in the context of the church, and that women should never speak for or represent a congregation in any way.

It may even be both, but I kind of doubt that.

I want to start a thread on this now that will do a study on what it means to be a godly woman. With a biblical model of godly womanhood, I hope to interpret this all a lot better.

Thinking about it I think it is that we have in fact forgotten what it means to be a godly woman, particularly because of how effective feminism has been at being accepted almost unanimously.

I also think that if women are to deffer to and be mild in spirit around men in church, similar to how they should be to their husbands. Then that precludes them from having positions of leadership in which they talk for the whole congregation, they should not have anything like coercive authority in the church over men, and women should also not be in positions of decision-making over men in the church. I know this sounds radical, but I fail to see any way to understand New Testament sections on what makes a godly woman without eventually coming to these conclusions. There are also no women in the New Testament ever given such authority over men as far as I know.

 

[Reynolds]

I believe it would be smart to post what led up to my conclusion against having women be in any authority over men:

The following is a word study of the word "authority" found in 1 Timothy 2:12:

I first went to Strong's and was told it was the Greek word "authenteo" which means the English word "authority." According to the dictionary the word "authority" means:

1. the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.
2. the right to act in a specified way, delegated from one person or organization to another.
3. official permission; sanction.

I decided this was not enough by a long shot, so I next went to Kittel's theological dictionary of the New Testament. It didn't even have the word "authenteo" in it.

Finally, I turned to the internet and through Bible Tools and Bible Study Tools I found the following:
(Strongs's #831: authenteo - Greek/Hebrew Definitions - Bible Tools)
(Authenteo - New Testament Greek Lexicon - New American Standard)

1. One who with his own hands kills another or himself
2. One who acts on his own authority, autocratic
3. An absolute master
4. To govern, exercise dominion over one

The word "authenteo" is also only found once in the bible. This complicates things considerably to me.

So I will try to figure this out by usage of the definitions found on the internet bible study websites. Before I do this I need to understand that this passage refers not to the world but the church, as seems to be made clear by 1 Timothy 3:14-15 as context for its preceding verses.

1. It cannot be killing someone.
2. It is very confusing to use this to mean a husband or a man acting on their own authority as an autocrat.

3. Absolute master seems close to the biblical passage 1 Peter 3:1-6. Such authority in marriage never belongs to the woman in the marriage relationship and never should according to the bible. So perhaps this means that women should always obey men as masters when in the context of God's household, except of course if they are told to do something wrong. This may make sense when combined with all the verses on what makes a godly woman.

4. Govern and "spiritual" dominion are what we typically think with authority in the church. The word "govern" means:

1. conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people).
2. control, influence, or regulate (a person, action, or course of events).
3. conduct oneself, especially with regard to controlling one's emotions.
4. serve to decide (a legal case).

The word "dominion" means:

1. sovereignty; control.
2. the territory of a sovereign or government.

I am left with figuring out whether it is #3 and #4. Either way it means considerably more than when I started, and it may be very hard to understand for many people in baptist churches.

Number 3 means that we have overwhelmingly missed the mark on what it means to be a godly woman in God's household.

Number 4 means that women should have no governing authority at all in the context of the church, that women should have no control over men at all in the context of the church, and that women should never speak for or represent a congregation in any way.

It may even be both, but I kind of doubt that.

I want to start a thread on this now that will do a study on what it means to be a godly woman. With a biblical model of godly womanhood, I hope to interpret this all a lot better.

Thinking about it I think it is that we have in fact forgotten what it means to be a godly woman, particularly because of how effective feminism has been at being accepted almost unanimously.

I also think that if women are to deffer to and be mild in spirit around men in church, similar to how they should be to their husbands. Then that precludes them from having positions of leadership in which they talk for the whole congregation, they should not have anything like coercive authority in the church over men, and women should also not be in positions of decision-making over men in the church. I know this sounds radical, but I fail to see any way to understand New Testament sections on what makes a godly woman without eventually coming to these conclusions. There are also no women in the New Testament ever given such authority over men as far as I know.

Churches have much less controversy when they are run by men. Women often let emotions become involved in decisions that are best handled without emotion.
I had one deacon that came to every meeting with a new complaint his wife had. I eventually told him "Quit coming to meetings with your wife's complaints. Investigate them yourself. If you find basis for a legitimate complaint, then submit it to the board as your complaint, not hers." We quit hearing complaints. Her complaints were not legitimate. They were emotional, but had no factual basis that warranted action.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Churches have much less controversy when they are run by men. Women often let emotions become involved in decisions that are best handled without emotion.

You are simply taking a stereotype about women and making assumptions based on that stereotype.

I've been in plenty of churches "run by men" that are led about by emotion and emotional manipulation rather than by conscience and reason. I know plenty of women who are highly rational and don't put up with any emotional manipulation by anyone. It's just a stereotype.

I had one deacon that came to every meeting with a new complaint his wife had. I eventually told him "Quit coming to meetings with your wife's complaints. Investigate them yourself. If you find basis for a legitimate complaint, then submit it to the board as your complaint, not hers." We quit hearing complaints. Her complaints were not legitimate. They were emotional, but had no factual basis that warranted action.

That sounds like an "emotional" man.