The place for women in the church, continued...

[Alive in Christ]

ABCgrad...

I see these type of arguments all the time. It is simply an attempt cause more rebellion, not seek obedience to the Lord. So I understand your rebellion.

NOW do you see your error? Why, you even bringing up these issues is because you dont know your place. Asking questions is due to your REBELLION.

You need to sit down, fold your hands, and shut up.

The men are in charge, and dont you forget it, sister. :BangHead:

 

[Luke2427]

One of the problems with this discussion is that few if any have gone to Genesis 3 to see what is going on now in a fallen world.

Before the Fall, the man, Adam, held the primary responsibility for himself and the woman, Eve, before God. This is clearly seen in Adam being created first and Eve being created to be Adam's helper, not vice-versa.

We can assume (after reading Paul's instructions to husbands and wives in Ephesians, understanding that God is, in the church, undoing the Fall) that Adam loved Eve and demonstrated it in a sacrificial way. We can also assume that Eve submitted to Adam's headship.

After the fall, of course, the world was literally turned up-side down.

When we see the curses of God against Eve several things come out:

“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.” (ESV; emphasis mine)
​

The word "Desire" is only used three times in the Old Testament. The most notable time is in Genesis 4 where God is talking to Cain--"If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.” (ESV; emphasis mine)

In these passages, the word desire and the word rule are the same.

So, in the curses God is telling Eve: You will desire to dominate your husband, but he will rule over you.

Eve, then, is the first feminist. This part of the cursing of God is due to her role in leading Adam to eat the fruit. Now, where Adam was, I have no idea. Why he didn't stop Eve from eating the fruit, I have no idea. But, what we see is that as part of the fall, God has placed in every woman the desire to rule over man, and her husband especially.

The second part of that curse (he will rule over you) is also the beginning of spousal abuse. No longer would Adam love his wife sacrificially. Instead, Adam would seek dominion over Eve in a more forcible way.

So here we have the problem between men and women, even until today. Women desire to rule men (feminism) and men desire to dominate women (abuse).

Eve will use her God-given position as "helper" as a base for usurping the man's role. Adam will use his God-given position as "head" to dominate, as opposed to lovingly sacrifice, woman.

This is why we, as Christians, must exhibit the behavior Paul commands in Ephesians.

The immovable facts are: Man is the head. Period. Woman is the helper. Period. Man must seek to lovingly sacrifice and the woman must graciously submit. (notice, though this is to be between husbands and wives and we should only demand this within the church. We can and should expect that the world--those who are not Christians--to live as the curses of God dictate).

Blessings,

The Archangel

You are absolutely right Archangel. This is the main point in this discussion.

Many try to make some of the NT passages cultural issues that only apply to that particular culture. But the fact of the matter is that man was the head of the woman even before the fall. He was the head of the woman after the fall. Both were times before there was a such thing as CULTURE.

There was no cultural context for the scenario of Adam's headship in and out of the Garden. There was no culture because there were only two people.

That man is the head of woman is the design of God. It has nothing to do with culture.

 

[tinytim]

ABCgrad...



NOW do you see your error? Why, you even bringing up these issues is because you dont know your place. Asking questions is due to your REBELLION.

You need to sit down, fold your hands, and shut up.

The men are in charge, and dont you forget it, sister. :BangHead:

Word of warning.. (from experience)... BE CAREFUL... she has a rolling pin!!!!

 

[tinytim]

I see these type of arguments all the time. It is simply an attempt cause more rebellion, not seek obedience to the Lord. So I understand your rebellion. It is common today, but the fact remains that a woman is not permitted to have any authority over or teach a man in what relates to leading or governing the church. You might want to complain to the Lord, but my guess is that He will not change His mind. By the way it is not my definition, it is the Lord's command. I realize that He is not very popular in the church today but the fact remains it is His command.
As for the church pot luck I would assume that these things would be a blessing, not a burden as you seem to suggest. The pot luck is not about leadership of the church. Lead the women in the pot luck and let the men set where they want. Simple! As for picking songs and playing them as long as it is not a leadership position it is OK. The song director should however be male and if he decides to pick the music the woman should submit.

I like to cook, if a woman tells me what to bring, is that wrong?

 

[freeatlast]

I like to cook, if a woman tells me what to bring, is that wrong?

Just obey the word.

 

[abcgrad94]

ABCgrad...
NOW do you see your error? Why, you even bringing up these issues is because you dont know your place. Asking questions is due to your REBELLION.

You need to sit down, fold your hands, and shut up.

The men are in charge, and dont you forget it, sister. :BangHead:

I know this was said tongue-in-cheek, but this EXACTLY illustrates the attitudes some have regarding women. It's one thing to point out that women cannot be pastors--it's another thing to take it to the extreme that "keeping silence" means a woman can't do anything without a man's permission and even questioning a man means she's "rebellious."

I've found the weaker the argument, the faster they start name calling and questioning a person's spirituality.

Someone answer me these two questions, please.
1. Is it okay for a woman to give her time and money to the church?
2. Is it okay for a woman to have a say in how that time and money is spent?

 

[freeatlast]

I know this was said tongue-in-cheek, but this EXACTLY illustrates the attitudes some have regarding women. It's one thing to point out that women cannot be pastors--it's another thing to take it to the extreme that "keeping silence" means a woman can't do anything without a man's permission and even questioning a man means she's "rebellious."

I've found the weaker the argument, the faster they start name calling and questioning a person's spirituality.

Someone answer me these two questions, please.
1. Is it okay for a woman to give her time and money to the church?
2. Is it okay for a woman to have a say in how that time and money is spent?

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

 

[jaigner]

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

In first century Christendom. When women were basically property. And uneducated. That in no way indicates that it is to be effective for all time.

If I am mistaken, it is not because of rebellion or a dishonest approach to the Bible. My guess is that most of us are wrong on a number of theological points. If so, God's grace covers us in the finiteness of our minds.

This is completely adiaphora. It is not a faith essential.

 

[The Archangel]

Someone answer me these two questions, please.
1. Is it okay for a woman to give her time and money to the church?
2. Is it okay for a woman to have a say in how that time and money is spent?

Yes, it is OK for a woman to give her time and money to the church.
Yes, it is OK for a woman to have a say in how that time and money is spent as long as she is doing it in the context of the congregational government of the church.

This is to say that it is NOT OK for anyone, man or woman, to give their time or money to the church with strings attached. Furthermore, it is not OK for anyone, male or female, to think that their giving of money (even large amounts) or time gives them the ability/opportunity/right to dictate what the church must do.

Woman may perform all kinds of things in the church. However, her position is never to be that of teaching authority. Even in teaching a group of women in a Bible study, her teaching is subject to the authority of the Elders (or deacons if they're functioning as elders) and the authority of the congregation. Even men teaching mixed classes or male-only classes are under the same authority. The pastor himself is under the same authority (at least in our church, where we have elders).

Certainly women can read scripture in the service, perhaps give announcements, perhaps pray. However, when it comes to teaching of any kind, this is a male-only job.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[annsni]

In first century Christendom. When women were basically property. And uneducated. That in no way indicates that it is to be effective for all time.

Can you show proof that this was not to be effective for all time? That this was a cultural issue? What about the fact that Paul points back to creation? Was that cultural too?

 

[Jerome]

John Calvin, Institutes, vol. 4, ch. 10, sec. 29-30.

"Of the second sort are the hours appointed for public prayers, sermons, and sacraments; quietness and silence under sermons; the singing of hymns; the places appointed for these services, and the days fixed for the celebration of the Lord's supper; the prohibition of Paul, that women should not teach in the Church, and the like; . . .
. . . these things are not necessary to salvation, and ought to be applied to the edification of the Church, with a variety suitable to the manners of each age and nation, therefore, as the benefit of the Church shall require, it will be right to change and abolish former regulations, and to institute new ones." ---John Calvin, Institutes, vol. 4, ch. 10, sec. 29-30.

 

[The Archangel]

In first century Christendom. When women were basically property. And uneducated. That in no way indicates that it is to be effective for all time.

If I am mistaken, it is not because of rebellion or a dishonest approach to the Bible. My guess is that most of us are wrong on a number of theological points. If so, God's grace covers us in the finiteness of our minds.

This is completely adiaphora. It is not a faith essential.

The problem, though, is that Paul never indicates that social status or education level are the reason for his statements. If you examine the passage in 1 Timothy 2, it is clear that Paul appeals to creation and the fall. Creation order is timeless and transcends all peoples and cultures.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[abcgrad94]

Yes, it is OK for a woman to give her time and money to the church.
Yes, it is OK for a woman to have a say in how that time and money is spent as long as she is doing it in the context of the congregational government of the church.

Could you define "congregational government" please? I'm not talking about giving money with strings attached. My question arises because at least one poster on this thread thinks a woman is somehow "usurping authority" over men if she serves on a committee and gives equal input along with any males who might be on that same committee.

My point is that it is hypocritical to allow a woman to give her tithes and offerings at church, yet deny her a voice in the church government (committee's, business meetings, etc.) that determine how funds are spent. It is also wrong to say women must "keep silence" in the church just to shut them up so they aren't allowed to give input on anything.

Serving on a committee, voting at meetings, and asking questions or giving input during a Bible lesson at church hardly qualify as teaching or usurping authority over a man, yet it seems some are so intimidated by this, they want to yell "keep silence" or "rebellion" as an excuse to dominate. I do not believe this was Paul's intent in the verse.

 

[jaigner]

John Calvin, Institutes, vol. 4, ch. 10, sec. 29-30.

"Of the second sort are the hours appointed for public prayers, sermons, and sacraments; quietness and silence under sermons; the singing of hymns; the places appointed for these services, and the days fixed for the celebration of the Lord's supper; the prohibition of Paul, that women should not teach in the Church, and the like; . . .
. . . these things are not necessary to salvation, and ought to be applied to the edification of the Church, with a variety suitable to the manners of each age and nation, therefore, as the benefit of the Church shall require, it will be right to change and abolish former regulations, and to institute new ones." ---John Calvin, Institutes, vol. 4, ch. 10, sec. 29-30.

Very interesting. Thanks. Calvin understood the supremacy of God's sovereignty and the foundational doctrines. These sorts of issues are not foundational in the least.

It also should be noted that, even though there were few women in service for obvious historical contextual reasons, church government and delegation of roles was usually an ad hoc process, taking care of needs as they arise. This sort of concrete idea of how churches are to operate would be foreign to first century Christians.

 

[Luke2427]

Can you show proof that this was not to be effective for all time? That this was a cultural issue? What about the fact that Paul points back to creation? Was that cultural too?

Bingo. Here's the crux of it. God made men and women, before there WAS a culture, with a hierarchy of authority.

 

[freeatlast]

In first century Christendom. When women were basically property. And uneducated. That in no way indicates that it is to be effective for all time.

If I am mistaken, it is not because of rebellion or a dishonest approach to the Bible. My guess is that most of us are wrong on a number of theological points. If so, God's grace covers us in the finiteness of our minds.

This is completely adiaphora. It is not a faith essential.

Now that is without a doubt what the church is about today! :tear:

 

[The Archangel]

Could you define "congregational government" please? I'm not talking about giving money with strings attached. My question arises because at least one poster on this thread thinks a woman is somehow "usurping authority" over men if she serves on a committee and gives equal input along with any males who might be on that same committee.

Sure! Congregational government is where the congregation votes on its leaders (Pastor, Elders), its servants (Deacons), and a whole host of other things.

I don't think it wrong to have a woman serve on a committee. Why? Because even in a church with a committee structure (which I do not advocate) the congregation, not the committee, makes the final decision.

My point is that it is hypocritical to allow a woman to give her tithes and offerings at church, yet deny her a voice in the church government (committee's, business meetings, etc.) that determine how funds are spent. It is also wrong to say women must "keep silence" in the church just to shut them up so they aren't allowed to give input on anything.

Serving on a committee, voting at meetings, and asking questions or giving input during a Bible lesson at church hardly qualify as teaching or usurping authority over a man, yet it seems some are so intimidated by this, they want to yell "keep silence" or "rebellion" as an excuse to dominate. I do not believe this was Paul's intent in the verse.

I would venture to say that the committee is under the chairmanship of the pastor (as ex-officio) so that wouldn't necessarily be a problem. Further, voting at meetings is fine. Giving input would be OK as long as it was done respectfully (which I would say to a man also).

It is altogether likely that Paul (in the 1 Corinthians 14 passage) is giving instructions for orderly worship because the service of worship in Corinth was way out of hand. Contextually, this can be seen as prohibiting anyone from calling-out in the service (Remember: Women are not the only ones told to be silent in this passage). But, when we get to 1 Timothy 2, it is clear that there is a creation order and that order (because it is set in creation) is very instructive that men are to have leadership positions in the church.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Tom Butler]

Many years ago, when our church was without a pastor, as moderator I appointed a committee to draft by-laws for the church. One of the women I wanted to appoint declined, saying she did not believe women should serve in leadership positions.

I pointed out a couple of things. One, this was an act of service to the congregation, not leadership. Two, because she was wise, and committed to the work of the church, this was a way of her using her gifts and talents.
Three, there was no glory at stake. She and her colleagues were going to work quite hard. She was not leading the congregation, she was serving it.

She changed her mind and agreed to serve.

We have to remember that what we call leadership is still more servanthood. Neither our pastor nor deacons, nor any committee chairman can do anything unless the congregations gives them permission.

Sometimes, those church jobs which are more visible are considered leadership positions. 'Taint necessarily so. In the final analysis, it is still service, not bossing.

 

[mcdirector]

Many years ago, when our church was without a pastor, as moderator I appointed a committee to draft by-laws for the church. One of the women I wanted to appoint declined, saying she did not believe women should serve in leadership positions.

I pointed out a couple of things. One, this was an act of service to the congregation, not leadership. Two, because she was wise, and committed to the work of the church, this was a way of her using her gifts and talents.
Three, there was no glory at stake. She and her colleagues were going to work quite hard. She was not leading the congregation, she was serving it.

She changed her mind and agreed to serve.

We have to remember that what we call leadership is still more servanthood. Neither our pastor nor deacons, nor any committee chairman can do anything unless the congregations gives them permission.

Sometimes, those church jobs which are more visible are considered leadership positions. 'Taint necessarily so. In the final analysis, it is still service, not bossing.

Great words!

 

[abcgrad94]

Sure! Congregational government is where the congregation votes on its leaders (Pastor, Elders), its servants (Deacons), and a whole host of other things.

Thanks for the explanation, Archangel. I agree with your post.