A Woman's Role

[superbear02]

My major question lately has been a woman's role. In the church especially. There are verses that say that women should remain quiet and should wear veils, verses I've very much been aware of but I've always brushed them off thinking maybe they don't apply, God can't expect me to know everything. However, the Bible is timeless. Its supposed to apply even today. Not just some of it but ALL of it. In today s world it seems so crazy that I'm just supposed to remain quiet and let the men do all the work of proclaiming God's word. I don't think I CAN do that. God has called me to do His work. He has chose me, a woman. But it makes no sense.

Lately I've been trying to do everything that I can to truely understand what God's role for me is. I've even begun to cook! Yikes!

I suppose this may have been a good topic for the woman's area but I'd like to hear guys' ideas too.

What do you feel a woman's role is?

 

[berthawk8812]

It may not be popular to fundumentalists or Canadians, but I think women should be treated equally in all respects.

Except that whole child birth stuff, men could never be on equal footing in that regard.

 

[fishstix]

There are plenty of Godly women in the Bible who worked with men in proclaiming God's word. In Paul's letters, many of the people who he sends greetings to as fellow workers in the Lord are women. In the Old Testament, there was a Godly woman recorded as leading Israel (Deborah). Proclaiming God's word is something that all Christians are called to do, regardless of gender.

 

[Beautiful Fireball]

God uses women all the time to minister to others, and hold various positions in ministry. God gave us a brain and a mouth and I doubt that He would want us to not use them. Yes I do believe that there are roles that are reserved specifically for men, like leading a church, but I do not believe that means that women are to sit on the sidelines and let the men do all the ministering. Think of all the people that would not know Christ because women felt like they were not really meant to minister.

In reference to the verses that you mentioned it is also possible that God means for us to have a quiet spirit. Kinda like we are to be constantly praying, not literally praying (as in eyes closed, head bowed), but have the attitude like we are in prayer and in the presence of God.

 

[InTheFlame]

However, the Bible is timeless. Its supposed to apply even today. Not just some of it but ALL of it.

There are a lot of different theories about exactly that. Most people would agree that Paul's letters, for example, were written to a specific group of people with specific concerns and questions. Where it starts getting confusing is - do we obey everything he said, even though it might have been said about a specific problem or situation? Or do we try and find the basic principles that Jesus and Paul taught, and work from those?

Let's look at some verses which cause people to go the second route:

women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
1 Corinthians 13:34-35

(this is in the context of orderly worship - read the whole chapter to get a better picture)

every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved.
1 Corinthians 11:5

Now, let's ignore the the head-covering bit, and have a look at what the woman is doing - praying or prophesying. Prophesying is something which was only done in a gathering of christians - ie, church.

 

[superbear02]

I'm definitely not saying that God doesn't use women. I know he does. However, there are verses such as those listed above and also 1 Timothy 2:11-14 that makes me wonder exactly what a woman should teach and whom. Is it wrong to have women pastors? How about women teaching men in a sunday school environment? Is a woman really not supposed to ask questions except to her husband? And why are we ignoring the head covering bit? Are we supposed to have our heads covered?

I know many people have many different ideas about if the Bible is literal or if it all applies to us but its God's Word to us...what sense does it make for it to not apply to us. Its easy to say it doesn't. But, is that what you truely believe? Suddenly that answer doesn't gratify me.

 

[Beautiful Fireball]

I'm definitely not saying that God doesn't use women. I know he does. However, there are verses such as those listed above and also 1 Timothy 2:11-14 that makes me wonder exactly what a woman should teach and whom. Is it wrong to have women pastors? How about women teaching men in a sunday school environment? Is a woman really not supposed to ask questions except to her husband? And why are we ignoring the head covering bit? Are we supposed to have our heads covered?

I know many people have many different ideas about if the Bible is literal or if it all applies to us but its God's Word to us...what sense does it make for it to not apply to us. Its easy to say it doesn't. But, is that what you truely believe? Suddenly that answer doesn't gratify me.

Okay, I think that it is wrong for a woman to be a pastor and to teach a male Sunday school class. The only time I think a woman should be teaching is when she is teaching all women, teaching in a youth setting, or teaching alongside her husband in a couple's class. This is something that is really hard for me to admit, because I do not by into the submissive women role, I believe that men and women are equal. BUT the Bible clearly states that is wrong for women to hold leadership positions in the church.
Now, I do not think that women can only ask their husbands if they have questions. What if her husband is a non believer, or what if she does not have a husband. Then she should go to a male leader, she trusts, in her church and seek advice there. Because not all women have a husband that they can ask questions to. Also, what if it is a question concerning her husband, how could she ask him.
We also have to remember who Timothy was writing to. Was this advice to help the church with something that they were particularly struggling with? I think that something like this requires a lot of prayer, and people may get different answers, but those are the ones that I have always gotten.
Now, I am not really sure what to think about the head covering thing. I would say, ask a fellow Christian, whom you respect and trust. Preferably someone older.

 

[InTheFlame]

I know many people have many different ideas about if the Bible is literal or if it all applies to us but its God's Word to us...what sense does it make for it to not apply to us.

There is a LOT of culture-specific stuff in the bible. Should we follow Ruth's example and sneak into the bedroom of the husband we fancy? Should a man be forced to marry a woman he had sex with? Have you researched why Paul might have been telling women to cover their heads? eg. were women going against the clothing standards of the days because of their new 'freedom in christ' and distracting the men? What questions were asked when Paul wrote things like, "now, in relation to the question you asked..."? Why would God get Paul to put that in there if not to show us the specificity of some of the advice given?

Surely you don't think that this is specifically applicable to us today:

Now about the collection for God's people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do. On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made. Then, when I arrive, I will give letters of introduction to the men you approve and send them with your gift to Jerusalem.
1 Corinthians 16:1-3

Certainly, there's a general guideline there - save money weekly for love offerings (not tithes). But we don't expect Paul to wander in and collect it, right?

I have a big problem with the idea of prophecy being set as blanket 'applying to all people, for all time, literally'. Prophecy was given again and again in the bible for a specific person or people. The guidelines - eg. "Stop sinning and turn to the Lord" apply to all... but not all the specific commands given to specific people. Have a good look through the books of the major and minor prophets.

So let me make this absolutely clear: there are very clear, general behavioural guidelines set out in the bible. There is also specific advice that is disputed between people and denominations because it strikes us as being specific to a time and place.

I think you misunderstood my purpose in posting the verses I did. Didn't you notice the inherent contradiction? Especially considering the place prophetesses held in the OT, with men frequently consulting them (and no rebuke being given)?

 

[Johnnz]

I'm definitely not saying that God doesn't use women. I know he does. However, there are verses such as those listed above and also 1 Timothy 2:11-14 that makes me wonder exactly what a woman should teach and whom. Is it wrong to have women pastors? How about women teaching men in a sunday school environment? Is a woman really not supposed to ask questions except to her husband? And why are we ignoring the head covering bit? Are we supposed to have our heads covered?

I know many people have many different ideas about if the Bible is literal or if it all applies to us but its God's Word to us...what sense does it make for it to not apply to us. Its easy to say it doesn't. But, is that what you truely believe? Suddenly that answer doesn't gratify me.

This is an area of intense debate. It comes up quite often on the forum, and it usally doesn't take too long for the two sides to be at it.

I don't accept that the bible teaches different roles for the sexes. Sure, there are some naturally based around birth and breastfeeding. Beyond that views are strongly influenced by one's cultural background, including ones Christian upbringing.

The usual verses used to justify a lesser role for women in the church. such as the Timothy one you mentioned can be understood very differently from the male dominated views most of us were first exposed to. Our understanding of the cultural context has grown greatly over the last three or four decades, and we can place the writer's thinking much better than we could before. After having been exposed to some modern biblical scholars I am in no doubt that women played an equal role in the NT church.

John
NZ

 

[Margim]

Personally, I'd sit with Jesus' teaching on women rather than the pastoral epistles...

Jesus welcomed women at his tables, defended their dignity against those who looked to shame and humiliate them, held discussion with them as equals and appeared to them first on his resurrection. It was women that Jesus asked to spread the word of his resurrection to the disciples!

Don't let the fact that the bible was written in a patriachal world make you think the gospel is patriachal in itself. Women are gifted and used by God every bit as much as men.

If you can teach, do it! If you can lead, then lead! If you can cook, fine... but make room in the kitchen for men with similar giftings

 

[superbear02]

Personally, I'd sit with Jesus' teaching on women rather than the pastoral epistles...

Jesus welcomed women at his tables, defended their dignity against those who looked to shame and humiliate them, held discussion with them as equals and appeared to them first on his resurrection. It was women that Jesus asked to spread the word of his resurrection to the disciples!

Don't let the fact that the bible was written in a patriachal world make you think the gospel is patriachal in itself. Women are gifted and used by God every bit as much as men.

If you can teach, do it! If you can lead, then lead! If you can cook, fine... but make room in the kitchen for men with similar giftings

That is a really good way to look at it;
What did Jesus do...

hmmm...
Thanks! That really helps...

 

[onajourney87]

Personally, I'd sit with Jesus' teaching on women rather than the pastoral epistles...

The pastoral epistles do exist for a reason though.

Don't just push them asside and say, "just Jesus for me, no Paul or John." There's no disagreement between the Gospels, what Jesus said, and the pastoral epistles.
Often, the pastoral epistles explain things that Jesus said/did.

(BTW, if you want to stick with just what Jesus said regarding women, you leave out a TON of depth found within the OT for one, and the pastoral epistles for two.)

In general, some things to keep in mind:
- men and women are created equally in the image of God (Genesis 1:27)
- men and women are different--male and female (Genesis 1:27)
- Priscilla and her husband both discipled Apollos (Acts 18:26)
- Philip had four daugheters who were prophetesses (Acts 21:8)
- there is a female deaconess named, Phoebe, though translations will translate the word incorrectly to "helper" instead of "deaconess" (Romans 16:1)
- Paul refers to both a male apostle (Andronicus)*and a female*apostle (Junia), though many translations try and hide the gender of Junia (Romans 16:7)

Clearly, men and women both have held prominent leadership roles in the early church.

Now you want to talk about church eldership... heh, have fun there. I'll make a few comments though regarding the 1 Timothy text:
- in 1 Tim 2:12, teaching and authority are linked together, it's not either/or, it's both/and, though this is not always clear in our English translations (in other words, 1 Tim 2:12 cannot be used to claim that women cannot teach men)
- in 1 Tim 2:13, Paul provides the reason for verse 12, and his reason is not cultural, it is based on Creation
- 1 Tim 2:12 should not be read seperate from 1 Timothy chapter 3; chapter devisions are not original, and it can be argued that what Paul is saying is women cannot hold a position of authority both/and teaching over men, which is the position of elder that he describes in 1 Tim 3:1-7 (with this understanding, we can affirm Juanis is an apostle, Phoebe is a deaconess, Priscilla taught Apollos, Philip had daughters who were prophetesses, etc)

IMHO, the 1 Tim 2:12 and 13 linkage are the tough spot for those who want to argue cultural differences. So if you want to*dissect the issue, look for books/articles addressing those verses, particularly verse 13.

 

[Aceybee]

we need to differentiate between principles and applications. The principle may have been an orderly church service which would not offend people to avoid the faith.. I don't know what the full reasons were, but I'm fairly sure that those examples are applications. That was how the principle applied then. Now we take the principle, but it might more appropriately be applied a different way

 

[Johnnz]

The three basic principles of interpretation are context, context, context.

1 Tim 2:11-3:1
11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing — if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. NIV

The word translated silence in the KJ (but not in later translations) refers to being still, free from bustle. Order in the church was the issue here, just as in the Corinthian church. In Jewish congregations the women were separate, and would speak amongst themselves while the men were being taught. They were often untaught in the scriptures and were also more likely to be illiterate. Paul was just saying that within the church women were to listen respectfully to others. Similarly, Paul told the Corinthians that they should not interrupt one another with their prophecies. Since women could prophecy they obviously were not banned from any vocal utterance.

The words have authority over translate rather badly a Greek word which means to usurp authority over. This is the only place in the NT where this word is used. This gives us a big clue about the whole context of these verses within the overall purpose of the letter.

There were problems in the Ephesian church. We know from Acts 19 that many were involved in spiritual phenomenon. From the two letters to Timothy we learn that the church there was being attacked by men and women who had wrong doctrines. The women were spreading godless myths and old wives tales (4:7), some were idle and going around the home churches gossiping (5:13). There was love of money, godless chatter, teaching against authority and quarrelling. Gnostic and perhaps mystic elements were also present. This is why Paul stresses the role and function of recognised ministries within the local congregations.

So, Paul was concerned that there was some disorder in the public meetings, and false teachers amongst the people, some of whom were women.

The mention of authority was important. Society was very patriarchal. There was no need to tell women to be submissive to their husbands. They had never known anything else! Within the new community called Christians women had unprecedented freedom and status. Paul did not want this freedom to be expressed in a way that could be seen as openly undermining the social order. Public decorum was important. That was the limit of Paul’s mention of submission.

Adam before Eve. Gnostic teaching was opposed to the biblical account of creation. In their teaching Eve was involved in the creation of Adam, not God. Paul corrects that wrong doctrine. And, Eve was not the perfect model. She was deceived, not innocent and pure as the Gnostics taught.

Saved through childbearing? Gnostics taught that when Jesus was asked when would the end of the age be he replied “When women cease having children”. Again, Paul corrects teaching that some were using to influence new Christians.

So, there is nothing here in those verses that can be taken as a universal, timeless prohibition that restricts the function and place of women in the church.

John
NZ

 

[Margim]

The pastoral epistles do exist for a reason though.

Don't just push them asside and say, "just Jesus for me, no Paul or John." There's no disagreement between the Gospels, what Jesus said, and the pastoral epistles.
Often, the pastoral epistles explain things that Jesus said/did.

(BTW, if you want to stick with just what Jesus said regarding women, you leave out a TON of depth found within the OT for one, and the pastoral epistles for two.)

Good comment, well made, fair point.

Clumsy use of language on my part. I wasn't dismissing the other books of the bible, but rather wanting to make a point that many people who wish to place the women in a secondary role use the pastoral epistles (which are just Timothy + Titus, fyi... I was making no comment on the content of the other letters in the NT, which are for most part ealier writings than even the gospels).

Even with the pastorals, I'm not dismissing them as a whole (although my choice of words did give that impression...). I'm just wanting to temper those words with what Jesus seemed to have to say and do with women.

Cheers

 

[bliz]

superbear -

If you are looking for a knock-down-drag-out fight among Christians, you've picked a good topic!

I too like to foocus on what Jesus said and did.
He sent Mary Magdlene to tell the 11 disciples that He had risen from the grave. This is HUGE news!!! This is all iimportant news!!! And I see His choice of a woman to deliver that message as very signifigant.

When Martha wanted Mary to help in the kitchen, He told her that Mary had chosen the "better part" and that it would not be taken away from her. What part had she chosen? She had chosen to sit at Jesus's feet and learn from Him. This was a physical position as well as a mental one that had heretofore in Jewish custom been reserved only for men.

And as Johnz has so abley pointed out, there are matters of translation and interpretation. Some people see Paul's statement that Adam was created first and then Eve as an explaination for why men shall lead in the church and women shall follow. Others, myself included, see Paul correcting the lies of the Gnostics by restating the truth, not making some point about church roles.

A great book to read on the subject, in part because it is so readable, is Call Me Blessed by Faith Martin.

 

[horuhe00]

God created man and woman as equals. Therefor, we ARE equals. But God created a man AND a woman. If God wanted us to do the exact same things equaly well, he wouldn't have created man and woman. He'd have created one sex. There are things that men are predispositioned to do better and there are things that women are predispositioned to do better. The reverse is also true. If males and females have had basically the same jobs for thousands of years, (including other animals) why do we suddenly change that? The conclusion I've reached is that the feminist movement is a movement rejecting their gender specific duties. Now, both the man and woman work out of the home. Where does that leave the children? Alone? With another adult? The bond between mother and child is vastly superior to that of father and child. Don't take my word for it, look it up.

In conclusion (because i have to go), women can do anything they want, as long as they don't ignore their responsibilities. Men can do anything they want too, as long as they don't ignore their responsibilities also.

 

[InTheFlame]

The conclusion I've reached is that the feminist movement is a movement rejecting their gender specific duties.

I was going to bite, but I realised that we'd be dragging the thread off-topic

 

[onajourney87]

Adam before Eve. Gnostic teaching was opposed to the biblical account of creation. In their teaching Eve was involved in the creation of Adam, not God. Paul corrects that wrong doctrine. And, Eve was not the perfect model. She was deceived, not innocent and pure as the Gnostics taught.

Saved through childbearing? Gnostics taught that when Jesus was asked when would the end of the age be he replied “When women cease having children”. Again, Paul corrects teaching that some were using to influence new Christians.

Thanks for posting that John. I've never heard that*explanation before.

 

[Johnnz]

God created man and woman as equals. Therefor, we ARE equals. But God created a man AND a woman. If God wanted us to do the exact same things equaly well, he wouldn't have created man and woman. He'd have created one sex. There are things that men are predispositioned to do better and there are things that women are predispositioned to do better. The reverse is also true. If males and females have had basically the same jobs for thousands of years, (including other animals) why do we suddenly change that? The conclusion I've reached is that the feminist movement is a movement rejecting their gender specific duties. Now, both the man and woman work out of the home. Where does that leave the children? Alone? With another adult? The bond between mother and child is vastly superior to that of father and child. Don't take my word for it, look it up.

In conclusion (because i have to go), women can do anything they want, as long as they don't ignore their responsibilities. Men can do anything they want too, as long as they don't ignore their responsibilities also.

Equality does not imply that there are not differences. That is never the issue.

Roles and functions are largely socially determined. Until industrial times (i.e. very recently) men and women worked together in small family enterprises most often farming, and both cared for children. Modern times have seperated the public and private spheres of our lives as never before.

The one historical constant is that men have defined womens' roles rather than the women being able to chose. This is the outworking of God's prediction in Genesis that the man would rule over the woman. The salvation that Jesus brings takes an axe to the root of that tree, which is why He and the NT church gave women such recognition and prominence, The new society, the kingdom of God was coming amongst fallen mankind.

John
NZ