Female power: Women in the workforce and the bible

[Bill777]

And I totally agree with you on this. I didn't expect that from your other posts to be honest.

And that's why I asked for forgiveness from christians in my original post, because I knew in advance many true, loving christians would disagree with me on this. I know I would have disagreed with what I wrote up until very recently, I used to be a firm believer that the biblical role of marriage as a permanent union between a man and a woman is God ordained. I used to quote scripture, that what God unites let no man put asunder, but God revealed to me that I was wrong in my biblical interpretation of marriage. the biblical definition of marriage was only applicable to a certain time and place, and God never intended it to be like this in modern times like today.

 

[Joykins]

1. Marriage is for man and woman for lifetime not because women need men to protect them but because that's God's design for the species (see also Gen. 2, Matt. 19, etc.). This theme is in the Old Testament and New Testament, from Creation to Jesus and is perfectly scriptural.


2. The fact that modern women don't need men to support them should motivate men to be more attractive mates, rather than relying on economic necessity to get their wives to stay with them. Therefore modern men are more likely (if they want to remain married) to "love their wives" as Paul exhorts the Ephesians and Colossians.

3. How is divorce consistent with LOVING someone. Usually divorces happen because there is an extreme lack of love where love ought to be.

4. Single-parent homes (whether due to divorce or out-of-wedlock childbearing) are tougher all around on children. If I love my children, I want to provide them with a stable, happy, 2-parent home if possible. Sometimes it is not possible but to go ahead and tell everyone to just sleep around and get divorced because HEY women can get jobs is short-sighted and overestimates the earning potential of the average woman. Most women don't bring in the huge salaries needed for nannies and don't have the clout to negotiate flexible work. Most women and children have a lower standard of living and income after divorce.

 

[Bill777]

1. Marriage is for man and woman for lifetime not because women need men to protect them but because that's God's design for the species (see also Gen. 2, Matt. 19, etc.). This theme is in the Old Testament and New Testament, from Creation to Jesus and is perfectly scriptural.


2. The fact that modern women don't need men to support them should motivate men to be more attractive mates, rather than relying on economic necessity to get their wives to stay with them. Therefore modern men are more likely (if they want to remain married) to "love their wives" as Paul exhorts the Ephesians and Colossians.

3. How is divorce consistent with LOVING someone. Usually divorces happen because there is an extreme lack of love where love ought to be.

4. Single-parent homes (whether due to divorce or out-of-wedlock childbearing) are tougher all around on children. If I love my children, I want to provide them with a stable, happy, 2-parent home if possible. Sometimes it is not possible but to go ahead and tell everyone to just sleep around and get divorced because HEY women can get jobs is short-sighted and overestimates the earning potential of the average woman. Most women don't bring in the huge salaries needed for nannies and don't have the clout to negotiate flexible work. Most women and children have a lower standard of living and income after divorce.

Jesus taught that a man will not have a wife in heaven, neither will a woman have a husband in heaven. So God's plan is not for the man and woman to be together as a married couple in eternity.

In Matthew 22:30 Jesus said:
"For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."

Paul taught in 1st Corinthians chapter 7 that marriage is a remedy for fornication. Luther, clearly taught that according to scripture marriage can not be considered a sacrament. Luther also taught that marital disputes can not be the business of the church but of secular courts because marriage is a secular contract regulated by the state. Because of this I am very cautious about making marriage a divine institution.

I agree with your comment about many poor single parents. I tried to make sure to point out that the commandment that ought never to be violated is love your neighbor as yourself, if a divorce causes a hurt to a woman or child or the man for that reason then it certainly is a violation of Christ's great commandment Love your Neighbor as yourself. And this will be the case for many divorces, but is it the case at all times? Is it always better for the husband and wife to stay in a marriage than mutually agreeing to breaking it up? When a marriage is just not working out, is it always God's will for the man and woman to stay together married until death?

 

[Bill777]

The Proverbs 31 woman sounds very 21st century to me...

She manages a household and business enterprises. She does not appear to be soley dependent upon her husband for protection and economic support... which makes the 21st century woman quite traditional!

She sure does, and this was written by King Solomon who had how many wives? Plus divorce was allowed in Israel at that time. So Proverbs 31 can perfectly reflect a 21st century woman, specially when it nowhere says that the woman in Proverbs 31 will stay married to the same man until death.

 

[ParsonJefferson]

Paul taught in 1st Corinthians chapter 7 that marriage is a remedy for fornication. Luther, clearly taught that according to scripture marriage can not be considered a sacrament. Luther also taught that marital disputes can not be the business of the church but of secular courts because marriage is a secular contract regulated by the state. Because of this I am very cautious about making marriage a divine institution.

Please pardon the fact that this is kind of off topic...

Isn't the "story" that Martin Luther actually had a rather miserable, loveless marriage?

Does anybody know if this is correct, or is it just a rumor that took on a life of its own?

Thanks.


Now... back to the topic at hand!

 

[bliz]

She sure does, and this was written by King Solomon who had how many wives? Plus divorce was allowed in Israel at that time. So Proverbs 31 can perfectly reflect a 21st century woman, specially when it nowhere says that the woman in Proverbs 31 will stay married to the same man until death.

Hmmm... I find your response rather curious...it's as if you find the God breather scripture lacking because the woman could get a divorce. You seem to be seeking a return to an era of the helpless woman who must have a man to survive (more on that later) or legal structures that make it impossible to ever divorce. It made me reread your OP...

I'm writing this to ask whether a new theology needs to be developed that understands the 21st century woman. I know this is going to be controversial but I think we need to bring it up, because if we force biblical customs of 2000 years ago on christians we are going back to legalism.

Now, just a post or two back you agreed that the Prov. 31 woman and the 21 cent. woman were a great deal alike. So why would we need a new theology?

In addition this is not applicable to all women, there are still homemakers and housewives that deserve utmost respect, whose lives resemble biblical times and no change in biblical interpretation is needed for them.

Only homemakers and housewives deserve respect? And what becomes of your agreement that 31 and 21 are so very much alike? If 31 is to called blessed by her family, what is your complaint with 21?

Now there are things that do change. The role of women has changed dramatically starting in the 1960's. Women's independence became a reality, partly due to feminism and partly due to the creation of work that was better suited to women. The farm and the factory that required male strength and mechanical ability were replaced by service jobs where women excelled at.

Your understanding of women's work is more than a little lacking. Since the beginning of time, women have worked the farms right along with men, right down to horseless farmers hitching their wives to the plow when needed. Who do you think did munitions and factory work during WWII? Hard physical work has never been done only by men.

Why desire a structure where women MUST have men for economic reasons? What's wrong with women choosing to be with men out of love and becasue they made a commitment? Are men so unlovable that we must force women to stay with them?

 

[Stinker]

In biblical times the family's main function was the protection of women and children. This is no longer the case for the majority of women in the western world. Women outnumber men in medical and law schools, these are two of the highest paid professions in the US. It is clear that women's independence has arrived in full, and we need to interpret the bible in this context. Women don't need the family any longer for protection, they are fully independent. Women initiate over 70% of divorces and are happier afterwards than when they had their husband. In biblical times (and until the 1960's) it was quite the opposite, women didn't want to leave their husbands because they needed them for protection. Now many women don't any longer. So the question arises, should christians view in a positive manner rampant fornication (men and women living together without the commitment of marriage) and divorce (in cases where it's mutually agreed for the benefit of both) as a biblical right of the 21st century empowered woman and the men that satisfy the physical and spiritual desires of these women outside of marriage? After all loving God and loving your neighbor are the two commands Christ gave us, and even if the change in the role of women in society has changed we still need to fulfill these two commands. So shouldn't all the guidelines for relationships between men and women need to change to satisfy Christ's two commands?


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

Children do have a much better chance in life when they have both a father and mother (married to each other) that are mentally, emotionally, and morally healthy.

The problem of deep emotional attachment that can and does often occur from a man and woman satisfying their sexual appetites with each other, works perfectly when a couple is married. When the couple is not married to each other and one has developed a deep attachment to the other (who has not developed any attachment) is when we hear, almost daily, about fatal attraction stories.

 

[Dragons87]

Sorry; but I found the OP spouting unscriptural rubbish.

The sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman has always been upheld even before the creation of society:

"For this cause will a man go away from his father and his mother and be joined to his wife; and they will be one flesh." Genesis 2:24

Marriage has nothing to do about social customs, or economic independence or male competence over female competence, or the other way round. Marriage is when one man and one woman join together to become one flesh. If you think it's any different, go cut off a piece of your flesh.

What else? Jesus reiterates this again in the New Testament:
"So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Then let not that which has been joined by God be parted by man."Matthew 19:6

Marriages are joined by God Himself. They are not merely economic or social arrangements that can change as time changes.

And oh! What's this?
"Wives, be under the authority of your husbands, as of the Lord." Ephesians 5:22

Why? Because Paul wants to be a domineering man? If I recall correctly Paul did not marry. So why is he asking wives to be under the authority of their husbands? It's not for security. It's not for society. It's not for financial wellbeing.

"For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church, being himself the saviour of the body. And as the church is under Christ's authority, so let wives be under the rule of their husbands in all things." Ephesians 5:23-24

The union between a man and a woman is anologous to the union between Christ and the Church! Once you try to change the permanancy of marriage, you risk changing the permanancy of Christ.

So enough of this nonsense. It's ridiculous and embarassing for having a teenager to point this out.

 

[Bill777]

Hmmm... I find your response rather curious...it's as if you find the God breather scripture lacking because the woman could get a divorce. You seem to be seeking a return to an era of the helpless woman who must have a man to survive (more on that later) or legal structures that make it impossible to ever divorce. It made me reread your OP...



Now, just a post or two back you agreed that the Prov. 31 woman and the 21 cent. woman were a great deal alike. So why would we need a new theology?



Only homemakers and housewives deserve respect? And what becomes of your agreement that 31 and 21 are so very much alike? If 31 is to called blessed by her family, what is your complaint with 21?



Your understanding of women's work is more than a little lacking. Since the beginning of time, women have worked the farms right along with men, right down to horseless farmers hitching their wives to the plow when needed. Who do you think did munitions and factory work during WWII? Hard physical work has never been done only by men.

Why desire a structure where women MUST have men for economic reasons? What's wrong with women choosing to be with men out of love and becasue they made a commitment? Are men so unlovable that we must force women to stay with them?

I guess you totally misunderstood me. I'm all for women working and being independent. I'm saying biblical standards need to be re-interpreted to accomodate this. The traditional view of the family with the man as the leader and main breadwinner has to be re-evaluated. You can't go back to the 1950's.

 

[Bill777]

Sorry; but I found the OP spouting unscriptural rubbish.

The sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman has always been upheld even before the creation of society:

"For this cause will a man go away from his father and his mother and be joined to his wife; and they will be one flesh." Genesis 2:24

Marriage has nothing to do about social customs, or economic independence or male competence over female competence, or the other way round. Marriage is when one man and one woman join together to become one flesh. If you think it's any different, go cut off a piece of your flesh.

What else? Jesus reiterates this again in the New Testament:
"So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Then let not that which has been joined by God be parted by man."Matthew 19:6

Marriages are joined by God Himself. They are not merely economic or social arrangements that can change as time changes.

And oh! What's this?
"Wives, be under the authority of your husbands, as of the Lord." Ephesians 5:22

Why? Because Paul wants to be a domineering man? If I recall correctly Paul did not marry. So why is he asking wives to be under the authority of their husbands? It's not for security. It's not for society. It's not for financial wellbeing.

"For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church, being himself the saviour of the body. And as the church is under Christ's authority, so let wives be under the rule of their husbands in all things." Ephesians 5:23-24

The union between a man and a woman is anologous to the union between Christ and the Church! Once you try to change the permanancy of marriage, you risk changing the permanancy of Christ.

So enough of this nonsense. It's ridiculous and embarassing for having a teenager to point this out.

Great post. I used to think like you when I was a teenager as well. It's good to be idealistic, and Christ said we should all be like little children. What you say makes perfect sense, but it not always works that way in reality.

I've made this post to open the debate, don't claim to have the final answer.

 

[Dragons87]

Great post. I used to think like you when I was a teenager as well. It's good to be idealistic, and Christ said we should all be like little children. What you say makes perfect sense, but it not always works that way in reality.

Whatever. I'm a great believer in willpower and commitment. Something will work if you want it to work. It will not work if you believe it will not work. So perhaps you can try to believe it will work, then it will work.

 

[IamAdopted]

Non binding today:
1) Sacrificing animals? Not binding
2) Having women wear head coverings in church? Not binding
3) Condemning young couples that consensually shack up? Not binding
4) Wives submit to your husbands. Not binding, it was only at a time where the woman needed the man to provide for her needs.
5) Slaves submit to your masters. Not binding, slavery has been abolished by the will of God.

The only one I can agree to is the sacraficing animals..Jesus became that sacrafice.. Why do you think that Gods word is not as binding today as it was back then? Ane where do you get scriptural proof for this?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

She sure does, and this was written by King Solomon who had how many wives? Plus divorce was allowed in Israel at that time. So Proverbs 31 can perfectly reflect a 21st century woman, specially when it nowhere says that the woman in Proverbs 31 will stay married to the same man until death.

Not so fast. Solomon (king Lemuel?) was repeating what his mother taught him.

Proverbs 31
1The words of king Lemuel, the prophecy that his mother taught him.

 

[Joykins]

She sure does, and this was written by King Solomon who had how many wives? Plus divorce was allowed in Israel at that time. So Proverbs 31 can perfectly reflect a 21st century woman, specially when it nowhere says that the woman in Proverbs 31 will stay married to the same man until death.

Actually Prov. 31 was formulated by a woman and written down by her son.

 

[Joykins]

I agree with your comment about many poor single parents. I tried to make sure to point out that the commandment that ought never to be violated is love your neighbor as yourself, if a divorce causes a hurt to a woman or child or the man for that reason then it certainly is a violation of Christ's great commandment Love your Neighbor as yourself. And this will be the case for many divorces, but is it the case at all times? Is it always better for the husband and wife to stay in a marriage than mutually agreeing to breaking it up? When a marriage is just not working out, is it always God's will for the man and woman to stay together married until death?

If you're asking my personal opinion, I would agree with Moses that divorce ought to be allowed, and I would agree with Jesus that although divorce is allowed because *our hearts are hardened* i.e. sometimes we fail to love each other as God would have us love . Sometimes the best possible way to survive a marriage gone tragically wrong is to divorce, BUT it is still as serious a thing as an amputation, as the 2 have become one flesh.

 

[bliz]

Not so fast. Solomon (king Lemuel?) was repeating what his mother taught him.

Proverbs 31
1The words of king Lemuel, the prophecy that his mother taught him.

Oh.

Does that mean this chapter of the Bible is not God breathed? That we are to ignore it?

 

[Joykins]

Oh.

Does that mean this chapter of the Bible is not God breathed? That we are to ignore it?

I thought it was just to correct whoever said that Prov. 31 was written by King Solomon.

Anyway, so much for only men being inspired to write scripture

 

[Bill777]

I went back to scripture and let me say that there's another reason as to why divorce, adultery (remarrying after a divorce), and fornication (cohabitation outside marriage) have become rampant. And the reason is unbelief. It is the result of the abandonment of the christian faith.

Thanks to all those that disagreed with me on the thesis that I posed in the OP (opening post) and thanks for answering my questions. It helped me realize I was wrong, although ultimately it was the Word of God that brought me back to the truth.

 

[Nadiine]

I'm writing this to ask whether a new theology needs to be developed that understands the 21st century woman. I know this is going to be controversial but I think we need to bring it up, because if we force biblical customs of 2000 years ago on christians we are going back to legalism. I ask for forgiveness from anybody that is offended, it is not my intention to offend but to ask a legitimate question and I'm providing factual information to back it up. In addition this is not applicable to all women, there are still homemakers and housewives that deserve utmost respect, whose lives resemble biblical times and no change in biblical interpretation is needed for them.

There are biblical truths that change and biblical truths that never change. Examples of eternal biblical truths are faith in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, the two commands given by Jesus: Love the Lord your God above everything else and love your neighbor as yourself.

Now there are things that do change. The role of women has changed dramatically starting in the 1960's. Women's independence became a reality, partly due to feminism and partly due to the creation of work that was better suited to women. The farm and the factory that required male strength and mechanical ability were replaced by service jobs where women excelled at.

God's standards of love FIT ANY AND ALL men & women in ANY role.
I don't understand what exactly we need changed or added? His word is sufficient.

 

[linssue55]

I'm writing this to ask whether a new theology needs to be developed that understands the 21st century woman. I know this is going to be controversial but I think we need to bring it up, because if we force biblical customs of 2000 years ago on christians we are going back to legalism. I ask for forgiveness from anybody that is offended, it is not my intention to offend but to ask a legitimate question and I'm providing factual information to back it up. In addition this is not applicable to all women, there are still homemakers and housewives that deserve utmost respect, whose lives resemble biblical times and no change in biblical interpretation is needed for them.

There are biblical truths that change and biblical truths that never change. Examples of eternal biblical truths are faith in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, the two commands given by Jesus: Love the Lord your God above everything else and love your neighbor as yourself.

Now there are things that do change. The role of women has changed dramatically starting in the 1960's. Women's independence became a reality, partly due to feminism and partly due to the creation of work that was better suited to women. The farm and the factory that required male strength and mechanical ability were replaced by service jobs where women excelled at.

In biblical times the family's main function was the protection of women and children. This is no longer the case for the majority of women in the western world. Women outnumber men in medical and law schools, these are two of the highest paid professions in the US. It is clear that women's independence has arrived in full, and we need to interpret the bible in this context. Women don't need the family any longer for protection, they are fully independent. Women initiate over 70% of divorces and are happier afterwards than when they had their husband. In biblical times (and until the 1960's) it was quite the opposite, women didn't want to leave their husbands because they needed them for protection. Now many women don't any longer. So the question arises, should christians view in a positive manner rampant fornication (men and women living together without the commitment of marriage) and divorce (in cases where it's mutually agreed for the benefit of both) as a biblical right of the 21st century empowered woman and the men that satisfy the physical and spiritual desires of these women outside of marriage? After all loving God and loving your neighbor are the two commands Christ gave us, and even if the change in the role of women in society has changed we still need to fulfill these two commands. So shouldn't all the guidelines for relationships between men and women need to change to satisfy Christ's two commands?

"The word of God is the same yesturday, today and tomorrow." Remember, the Lord is NOT of this world. Change for us is very dangerous when it comes to the word. Stick to the word, for the Lord lives OUTSIDE of time, and one day so will we.