The place of women in the Church

[RAdam]

It is more like men giving up their "authority" rather than women usurping authority.

Exactly. If there is a power vacuum, you cannot blame a woman for leading, you blame the men for not doing what God commanded.

 

[jaigner]

What I mean, is how many times have we seen women, speak out of turn and cause trouble in or bring shame to a Church?

This is very strange. Speaking out and causing trouble is not an issue of gender. Men have done the same thing.

Women were required by Paul to learn from their husbands because women were not educated. Today, thankfully, women can be educated just as men (not at SWBTS, but at many fine evangelical schools), are not claimed as property, are not viewed as inferior. Women have as much to add to the discussion on Christian life as men do, perhaps more at times, seeing how the accounts of Church history that we have are from almost exclusively male points of view. Women bring a fresh voice into the conversation.

Furthermore, most of the couples I have known who claim to believe in male headship have functioned practically as an egalitarian couple. Those where the man regularly asserted obvious attempts of headship were generally weaker marriage relationships. There is fluidity here and, by the grace of God, men and women are called to build Christ's Kingdom.

I was raised to dogmatically argue for male headship, but it wasn't the practical example I had. At one point, in grad school I had to come to the point where I realized my attachment to the complementarian point of view was out of my own personal insecurity and preference, but that I couldn't get there from the text.

 

[Alcott]

Women served as deaconesses in 1 Tim 3:8-13..Women of verse 11 is properly Greek diakonos (Rom 16:1). Phoebe was such a servant at the church at Cenchreae. I guess Paul was mistaken and forgot to erase these verses.

Oh, Paul also says the husband of one wife, and yet, he advocated remaining single in another scripture.

Paul evidently "forgot to erase" one or more of the things he wrote on this general topic. What do you think it was, or they were??

 

[RAdam]

It is awefully strange that the context of these verses say that women were required to learn of their husbands, be silent, not usurp authority, and be in submission because of God's command to the woman at the fall rather than because of lack of education, or because of a particular issue in the church, or because of cultural considerations. Yet, despite the clear language of the context, people would rather insert their own reasons. Moreover, people would go against the language of scripture and claim that men taking a leadership role weakens a marriage. What weakens a marriage is couples not following Paul's instructions.

The lesson with marriage is women are to submit to the husband like the church submits to Christ, while the husband is to love the wife like Christ loves His church. I ask again, does Christ submit to His church?

 

[Jerome]

Priscilla and Aquilla taught one man together in their own home. This was not in the church.

Problem solved!

I Cor. 16:19
Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.

 

[stilllearning]

What does this verse mean? Well, let's consider it.

First, the previous verse says, "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." We see a crucial thing here: Paul points to the law when he mentions the command for women to be under obedience. He must be pointing to Genesis 3:16 when God told Eve that her desire would be to her husband and he would rule over her. Thus we notice that this isn't a cultural thing, but rather applies to all situations in all times.

Being under obedience is apparently tied to being submissive to the husband, having the husband be the head, etc. Paul applies this structure to the church as well. In the church, apparently the men are also to lead. We find this to be perfectly in agreement with the fact that the two church offices are restricted to men. Thus we see NT scripture painting us a picture of church order.

Now, keeping silence in the churches, not being permitted to speak in the churches, is tied in with this principle. Thus, I think what Paul is referring to is women taking over the leadership roles in churches, and he is forbidding it based on God's order of things. This well accords with what he wrote to Timothy when he said, "I suffer not a woman to teach, not to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." The silence the woman is commanded to be in refers to the leadership positions.

Now, we look at the verse of the OP and see that Paul is doing this: placing the woman under the authority of her husband. This is well in keeping with the order of things already laid out.

Now, these verses refer to the leadership positions in the church, and only to those things. Paul is not forbidding women to speak at all in the church setting, but rather is forbidding them from taking the authorative leadership positions. But, let me run this the other way, because that is exactly what Paul does when speaking of marriage and the duties of husband and wife. Paul is placing the leadership roles in the church on the man. So, we see that the men must step forward and take these positions and provide good leadership for the church. If the woman is to learn from her husband, her husband better apply himself and be a sufficient leader. If the woman is not to teach or usurp authority over the man, the man needs to step up and be the leader and teacher the church needs. Men, this responsibility falls on us and we need to step up and fill the role.

This is not, I repeat not, forbidding women from being involved in church affairs. Members of the church have a say in church matters. This is about leadership, and the men are ordained of God to be leaders. We better take that seriously. I know of a church where it is complained by certain others that a female member basically runs the church, and it is suggested that she is overstepping her bounds. Well, that might be right, but I'd rather place the blame where it really belongs and that is on the male members. If they would step up and lead as they should, there wouldn't be a problem.

Thank you RAdam, for answering the question, of my OP.

 

[tinytim]

Phoebe was a servant serving the church. She was not teaching

Priscilla and Aquilla taught one man together in their own home. This was not in the church.

Problem solved!

Ann, only one problem to your theory here... there were no church buildings.. .all the churches at this time were home churches... so yes, they taught in the church.

 

[jaigner]

Yet, despite the clear language of the context, people would rather insert their own reasons. Moreover, people would go against the language of scripture and claim that men taking a leadership role weakens a marriage. What weakens a marriage is couples not following Paul's instructions.

It is an issue of interpretation, not of "inserting" ones own reasons. Many, many evangelicals have, like me, arrived at this position after much thought, prayer and study.

 

[annsni]

I Cor. 16:19
Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.

Acts 18:24-26 "Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately."

I don't see them doing this at church.

 

[John Toppass]

Women served as deaconesses in 1 Tim 3:8-13..Women of verse 11 is properly Greek diakonos (Rom 16:1). Phoebe was such a servant at the church at Cenchreae. I guess Paul was mistaken and forgot to erase these verses.

Oh, Paul also says the husband of one wife, and yet, he advocated remaining single in another scripture.

Cheers,

Jim

Twist and massage the scripture till it says what you want it too.

Phoebe was not a deaconess she was a servant. All deacons are servants but not all servants are deacons.
The scriptures say that the office of deacon is that of a male. While some think women should be able to be deacons or deaconess's, this is not scriptural.

I guess if a church does not want to follow scripture, then the church can do anything it wants. That would make it a church that does not follow the word of God.

 

[jaigner]

While some think women should be able to be deacons or deaconess's, this is not scriptural.

According to you.

But there are a lot of Christ-following evangelicals who want to be faithful to the Bible who believe differently.

 

[Peggy]

God’s plan for all women, is for them to have a head over them;

I have a perfectly fine head, thank you. His name is Jesus and I follow him.

At home, this head will be your father, but after leaving home this head will be your husband.

I'm nearly 50 years old. I don't need my father to be the "head" over me. And I am unmarried.

--------------------------------------------------

I know that this is a TOUCHY subject, but it is very important.

Yes because some men believe they are inherently superior to women. I disagree.

The most dangerous time, in a Christian woman’s life, is when she is out from under her head.
(She is wide open for Satan’s attack!)

hahahaha! Are you a Hyles-Anderson College grad, perchance?
My head is firmly attached to my body.

The most devout people I personally know are widows in the church. Who is head over them? Why Jesus Christ, of course. They are completely devoted to his headship and rule over their lives.

 

[Tom Butler]

I trust that all here understand that that, in business as well as marriage, a co-equal partnership is a recipe for gridlock and conflict.

If any of you have business partners, then you know that if each partner has equal decision-making authority, that won't work. Someone has to have the final word, or nothing will ever get done. The same with marriage.

It's a question of each partner's role. It is not a question of boss/employee or boss/underling. And I guarantee you that if I demand to make all the decisions without listening to my wife, she will have a fool for a husband.

In the final analysis, the key is not if the wife submits to her husband. The key is that both be submitted to the Lord. If one is not, then the submission thing won't work very well.

As I was writing, I remembered that the OP was about the role of women in the church, not in the home. So forget what I wrote above.

 

[Crabtownboy]

I Cor. 16:19
Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.

Acts 18:24-26 "Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately."

I don't see them doing this at church.

Their house probably was the church. House churches were the norm of the day in the very early church. So they were teaching both in their home and in the church ... and in reality it doesn't matter, teaching is teaching is teaching.

 

[John Toppass]

According to you.

But there are a lot of Christ-following evangelicals who want to be faithful to the Bible who believe differently.

No, according to scripture. Try reading it, everything else is subordinate even what you and I think or want to happen.

 

[Jerome]

Twist and massage the scripture till it says what you want it too.

You mean like reading "silence" and "not permitted to speak" in Scripture, and then undertaking a paragraph-long, convoluted explanation to reinterpret Paul's words, claiming what he really meant to write was that they can speak at church, they just can't serve as a church officer?

Is that what you mean by twisting and massaging Scripture?

 

[annsni]

Their house probably was the church. House churches were the norm of the day in the very early church. So they were teaching both in their home and in the church ... and in reality it doesn't matter, teaching is teaching is teaching.

Just because their church met in their home doesn't mean that their home was "church". "Church" would be the assembly. Where do we see that they took Apollos home to the assembly?

 

[Crabtownboy]

Just because their church met in their home doesn't mean that their home was "church".

I do not believe you meant that sentence as it comes across on the cool screen.

That is one of the best statements playing both sides against the middle I have ever seen. Any politician would be pleased to be able to make such a two sided statement.

I mean really it is saying, "The church is the church, but the church isn't the church or are you saying the church met but there was no church.

I believe you have touched on one of the weaknesses of English with this one.

"Church" would be the assembly. Where do we see that they took Apollos home to the assembly?

Hmmmmmmmm, this is rather like saying since the Sunday School class is not the whole assembly, they though the class is in the church it isn't in the church.

Unfortunately in English the word 'church' can mean the entire body or members and it can also mean the building. I am not a Greek scholar. Perhaps Greek is better here and there are two words for "church" one definitely meaning the believers and the other the building.

 

[Jerome]

So now there's church and "church".

Annsni, when your church had a woman bring the Sunday morning message, was she silent or "silent"?

 

[annsni]

So now there's church and "church".

The Bible clearly tells us that Aquilla and Priscilla brought Apollos into their home. My husband and I also will bring people into the church building to meet with them for teaching and counseling. Guess what? While they are in the church building, that is not the church assembly. Is the prohibition against speaking in the church meaning the church building or the assembly? THAT is the difference.

Let's say we have our new church plant meeting in my house. We then have someone over for dinner on Monday night. Are they in the church? Nope. They are in our home. Just because the church meets in our house doesn't mean that my home is the church. Understand?

Annsni, when your church had a woman bring the Sunday morning message, was she silent or "silent"?

You mean when Anne Graham spoke? I fully disagreed with that.