Women's Suffrage in The Church vs in Public

[PreachersWife2004]

So explain to me PW why you don't vote in society. And if you're not uncomfortable discussing the doctrine, I would be interested in hearing your responses to the things I've brought up earlier.

What it boils down to is how I choose to live my role outside of the house and church - and I believe it's perfectly okay to abstain from voting because I trust my husband's judgment in that matter.

I'm pretty sure I've covered what you've asked so you may have to re-ask whatever it is you're referring to that you brought up earlier.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

So do you believe that all service men who shoot the enemy in protection of themselves and their country are doomed to hell for eternity?

The truth is that's not what the Bible teaches. There is a distinction between murder (killing for one's personal gain) and killing to protect life and property. If a service member is confronted with the enemy he has the right to kill to protect his own life and that of his family and to protect his property (country). If someone broke into your home with the intent of killing you to steal your property, you have the right to defend yourself and your property, even to the point of taking the assailant's life.

Abortion in the case of protecting the life of the mother falls in the same vein. In cases such as tubal pregnancies or such situation where carrying to term will result in the death of the mother, the taking of the fetus' life will save the life of the mother. This is much different than the taking of the life of a fetus as a form of birth control. Two very different situations.

When I was pregnant with Isaac, I was told that if I attempted to carry the pregnancy to term I would most likely die. I was told by three different doctors that I should terminate the pregnancy.

Had I chosen to do so, it would've been wrong. Not because they were obviously wrong since I'm still alive, but because Isaac wasn't in any danger either. Who are we to choose which life is worth more? I said no to the termination and yeah, I had some pretty rough moments in that pregnancy and Isaac was delivered quite early, but we're both still alive and kicking.

 

[cerette]

So do you believe that all service men who shoot the enemy in protection of themselves and their country are doomed to hell for eternity?

The truth is that's not what the Bible teaches. There is a distinction between murder (killing for one's personal gain) and killing to protect life and property. If a service member is confronted with the enemy he has the right to kill to protect his own life and that of his family and to protect his property (country). If someone broke into your home with the intent of killing you to steal your property, you have the right to defend yourself and your property, even to the point of taking the assailant's life.

Abortion in the case of protecting the life of the mother falls in the same vein. In cases such as tubal pregnancies or such situation where carrying to term will result in the death of the mother, the taking of the fetus' life will save the life of the mother. This is much different than the taking of the life of a fetus as a form of birth control. Two very different situations.

No, I don't believe that all service men and women who are out in war and kill someone are doomed to hell for all eternity. I am however against abortion. I haven't thought the war thing through to 100% yet, and at this point (and for the last 10ish years or so since I started to really find theology interesting) I agree with what the confessional Lutherans say about 'just war'. But I do feel that I need to study the matter more, so I guess what I am saying is that I might change my mind later on if someone can show me from the Scriptures that I am currently wrong.

 

[cerette]

What it boils down to is how I choose to live my role outside of the house and church - and I believe it's perfectly okay to abstain from voting because I trust my husband's judgment in that matter.

I'm pretty sure I've covered what you've asked so you may have to re-ask whatever it is you're referring to that you brought up earlier.

I agree that it's perfectly OK to abstain from voting. But in an earlier post you said something about not being sure it's ok for women to vote, so you felt uncomfortable doing it. So what I am wondering is this: Why would it not be OK for women to vote in civic matters, if it is so that it isn't ok?

 

[cerette]

As far as my using abortion as an example in several of my posts, I just want to mention that I've chosen that example because it is such a clear example, conservative Christians will agree to abortion being wrong without tons of energy going into first trying to show that it's wrong.

 

[cerette]

Quite the discussion. A lot of passion being shown too.

It seems to me that the disagreement is where one kingdom ends and the other begins. Or if there even are multiple kingdoms. Does that about sum it up? I can understand that.

Where I am having a problem is why are there the different kingdoms and where are they defined in scripture? Or are they? I'm really having a hard time believing that one set of rules applies to me in one community and not in another.

There are certainly 2 realms. If you read Mark 12:13-17 you will see that Jesus makes a distinction between "God's realm" and "Caesar's realm" (society, the world). There are many other passages as well to show that such realms exist but I can't think of any now. If there was only one realm, we would need to have a theocracy, but Jesus himself said his kingdom is not of this world.

Since you are a man you don't need to worry about different sets of rules in the different realms. It's to us women God has said we must be submissive to men in the church and our husband in marriage. However, he has not said we need to be submissive to all men at all times in all realms.

Both men and women are to obey our worldly masters as long as they don't ask us to disobey God. See Romans 13:1-7.

 

[cerette]

From WELS Doctrinal Statements:

6. We reject the opinion that male headship and female submission apply only to marriage or only to marriage and the church

Scriptural principles of man and woman roles | Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS)

What does this mean?
Clearly it means that female submission is not only limited to church & marriage. So what does that mean? Well surely it must mean that it applies also in society.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

From WELS Doctrinal Statements:

6. We reject the opinion that male headship and female submission apply only to marriage or only to marriage and the church

Scriptural principles of man and woman roles | Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS)

What does this mean?
Clearly it means that female submission is not only limited to church & marriage. So what does that mean? Well surely it must mean that it applies also in society.

I believe I explained the WELS position on headship in society past a simple QnA. It is NOT limited. But the bible does not give examples or rules for how it is to be applied within society.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

From the very link you posted:

In the World20. Christians also accept the biblical role relationship principle for their life and work in the world (1 Co 11:3; Eph 5:6-17). Christians seek to do God's will consistently in every area of their lives. We will therefore strive to apply this role relationship principle to our life and work in the world.
21. Scripture leaves a great deal to our conscientious Christian judgment as we live the role relationship principle in the world. In Christian love we will refrain from unduly binding the consciences of the brothers and sisters in our fellowship. Rather, we will encourage each other as we seek to apply this principle to our lives in the world.
22. Because the unregenerate world is not motivated by the Gospel or guided by God's will (1 Co 2:14), we as Christians will not try to force God's will upon the world (1 Co 5:12). We will seek to influence and change the world by our Gospel witness in word and deed (Mk 16:15; Mt 5:16).

 

[PreachersWife2004]

and

12. We reject the opinion that every woman is always subject to every man. Other scriptural role relationship principles and the injunction, "We must obey God rather than men" (Ac 5:29), also govern our actions.

 

[cerette]

I believe I explained the WELS position on headship in society past a simple QnA. It is NOT limited. But the bible does not give examples or rules for how it is to be applied within society.

If it is not limited, isn't that in itself a "rule"? (Rule being "It is not limited")
If it is not limited, why not apply it in society the same way it is applied in the examples given in Scripture? (If it is not limited it doesn't matter that the Bible's examples only mention church and marriage situations, after all they're just examples and not the full list of how to apply the rule in all situations.)

Do you mean that the lack of specific examples in the civic realm means that women are allowed to break the "it's not limited"-position?

 

[cerette]

From the very link you posted:

In the World20. Christians also accept the biblical role relationship principle for their life and work in the world (1 Co 11:3; Eph 5:6-17). Christians seek to do God's will consistently in every area of their lives. We will therefore strive to apply this role relationship principle to our life and work in the world.
21. Scripture leaves a great deal to our conscientious Christian judgment as we live the role relationship principle in the world. In Christian love we will refrain from unduly binding the consciences of the brothers and sisters in our fellowship. Rather, we will encourage each other as we seek to apply this principle to our lives in the world.
22. Because the unregenerate world is not motivated by the Gospel or guided by God's will (1 Co 2:14), we as Christians will not try to force God's will upon the world (1 Co 5:12). We will seek to influence and change the world by our Gospel witness in word and deed (Mk 16:15; Mt 5:16).

Shouldn't seeking to apply this principle in our lives mean that since women are not allowed to be in authority over men, they shall not have a job/vote/anything else where they are in authority over men?
From where do you get the idea (expressed earlier) that it's the heart's intent that matters; that women who work in nursing homes aren't doing anything wrong because they don't work there in order to lord over men?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Shouldn't seeking to apply this principle in our lives mean that since women are not allowed to be in authority over men, they shall not have a job/vote/anything else where they are in authority over men?
From where do you get the idea (expressed earlier) that it's the heart's intent that matters; that women who work in nursing homes aren't doing anything wrong because they don't work there in order to lord over men?

Your sentence right above answers this.

What is the intent...that is the big question. And the example given was specific to my husband, not a general observation. He never said all nursing home workers.

Seeking to apply means while the bible gives us clear cut examples in spiritual matters and marital matters, it does NOT give us clear cut examples for society. SO...it is within the woman to live her life as an example of her faith, IN SOCIETY. You keep trying to make a rule where there is none. If I choose to not vote because of what the church teaches, I am within the teaching. If another woman chooses to vote in a civic election because she does not believe that the vote is an expression of authority IN SOCIETY, then she is still living within the teaching.

Again...

1. We have clear cut rules and examples for spiritual and household matters.

2. Scriptures give no clear cut rules or examples for the principle of headship and submission in society, so the WELS leaves it to women to decide how best to live that doctrine while IN SOCIETY.

I'm starting to sound like a broken record. Exactly what aren't you understanding?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

If it is not limited, isn't that in itself a "rule"? (Rule being "It is not limited")
If it is not limited, why not apply it in society the same way it is applied in the examples given in Scripture? (If it is not limited it doesn't matter that the Bible's examples only mention church and marriage situations, after all they're just examples and not the full list of how to apply the rule in all situations.)

Do you mean that the lack of specific examples in the civic realm means that women are allowed to break the "it's not limited"-position?

Can you rephrase this? I think you're talking in circles.

 

[cerette]

Can you rephrase this? I think you're talking in circles.

I'm trying to say this:

1. You say that it's not limited.
2. But the Bible doesn't give any details about how to apply it in society.
3. But the Bible does give details about how to apply it in the church and marriage

I'm wondering:
4. If it is so that it is not limited, then why do we need specific examples of situations in society, why is it not enough to use the examples already given? What difference does it make that the examples given are only situations in the church and marriage, if female submission is not limited?

Let me try a parable--I tell my child she's only allowed to draw on paper. I then go on to say "Don't draw on the bedroom walls", and then " don't draw on the garage walls!". The next day we go to the basement, and she draws on the walls, because I never told her that she wasn't allowed to draw on the basement walls. (I would then tell her that I did too tell her not to draw on the basement walls when I said she's only allowed to draw on paper, plus I even gave her two more detailed examples of the rule; don't draw on bedroom & garage walls. In no way does this mean that she can draw on all other walls I didn't mention.)

 

[cerette]

Your sentence right above answers this.

What is the intent...that is the big question. And the example given was specific to my husband, not a general observation. He never said all nursing home workers.

I used your husband's specific example in a more broad sense, as it is a good example of a common situation in society where women are in authority over men.

My big question is this: On what Scripture passage/-s do you base the idea that it is the "intent" that sort of decides whether or not a woman is sinning when being in authority over men in society?

A follow up question would be: Why is this same "intent argument" not used in the less blurry situations as well, such as abortion etc etc?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I'm trying to say this:

1. You say that it's not limited.
2. But the Bible doesn't give any details about how to apply it in society.
3. But the Bible does give details about how to apply it in the church and marriage

I'm wondering:
4. If it is so that it is not limited, then why do we need specific examples of situations in society, why is it not enough to use the examples already given? What difference does it make that the examples given are only situations in the church and marriage, if female submission is not limited?

My relationship with a coworker is much different than my relationship with my fellow churchgoers and my husband.

The doctrine of the role of man and woman was not meant to give men all the authority in all of the world. Please read statement 12 that I posted earlier. That should answer your question sufficiently. If it doesn't, then I can't help you understand.

Let me try a parable--I tell my child she's only allowed to draw on paper. I then go on to say "Don't draw on the bedroom walls", and then " don't draw on the garage walls!". The next day we go to the basement, and she draws on the walls, because I never told her that she wasn't allowed to draw on the basement walls. (I would then tell her that I did too tell her not to draw on the basement walls when I said she's only allowed to draw on paper, plus I even gave her two more detailed examples of the rule; don't draw on bedroom & garage walls. In no way does this mean that she can draw on all other walls I didn't mention.)

This is a red herring, because it is not what the role of man and woman tells us to do. There's no "only draw on paper" principle here.

I used your husband's specific example in a more broad sense, as it is a good example of a common situation in society where women are in authority over men.

My big question is this: On what Scripture passage/-s do you base the idea that it is the "intent" that sort of decides whether or not a woman is sinning when being in authority over men in society?

It's not based on a scripture passage alone. It is based on studying the scriptures and reading what they say, as well as what they do not say. Another example to think about would be baptism. Now...we say that baptism is necessary for salvation. Why? Because the bible says "whosoever believes and is baptized will be saved". But we don't believe it is absolutely necessary. Why? Because of what the bible does NOT say. The rest of that passage does not say that the unbaptized will be condemned, only the non-believers. In this teaching, we rely on God's mercy, not our own understanding of the teaching about baptism.

A follow up question would be: Why is this same "intent argument" not used in the less blurry situations as well, such as abortion etc etc?

Because the bible gives us clear cut rules on murder.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

For reference:

and

12. We reject the opinion that every woman is always subject to every man. Other scriptural role relationship principles and the injunction, "We must obey God rather than men" (Ac 5:29), also govern our actions.

Just in case you were still thinking about throwing the universal submission term around some more.

 

[cerette]

My relationship with a coworker is much different than my relationship with my fellow churchgoers and my husband.

The doctrine of the role of man and woman was not meant to give men all the authority in all of the world. Please read statement 12 that I posted earlier. That should answer your question sufficiently. If it doesn't, then I can't help you understand.



This is a red herring, because it is not what the role of man and woman tells us to do. There's no "only draw on paper" principle here.



It's not based on a scripture passage alone. It is based on studying the scriptures and reading what they say, as well as what they do not say. Another example to think about would be baptism. Now...we say that baptism is necessary for salvation. Why? Because the bible says "whosoever believes and is baptized will be saved". But we don't believe it is absolutely necessary. Why? Because of what the bible does NOT say. The rest of that passage does not say that the unbaptized will be condemned, only the non-believers. In this teaching, we rely on God's mercy, not our own understanding of the teaching about baptism.



Because the bible gives us clear cut rules on murder.

Who is "we" in your baptism example? I don't say that baptism is necessary. I say "baptism is not necessary for salvation, but it's also not optional". The Bible doesn't teach that one must be baptized to be saved, but it teaches that one should be baptized, meaning a Christian can not choose to not be baptized.


"12. We reject the opinion that every woman is always subject to every man. Other scriptural role relationship principles and the injunction, "We must obey God rather than men" (Ac 5:29), also govern our actions."

What 12) here says is that every woman is not always subject to every man, that we must obey God rather than man. Nowhere does this say that women are allowed to be in lordship over men in society as long as it's not their heart's wish to be in that position. It simply just states that there are cases when a woman is not forced to be subject to men, such as when she needs to obey God rather than people.

It's not a red herring, because the "don't draw on walls" is given in the words "women are not to be in authority over men". And yes, of course your relationship with your churchgoers, your husband and co-workers is different. But how does that change the doctrine, or the way you apply the doctrine? You said earlier I talked about "apples and oranges"...if we can't use any other examples or situations to talk about the matter, then of course everything will be apples and oranges and red herrings. But if you look closely at the teaching we're discussing, and put that teaching into the examples brought up, you should see it's not fruit or fish, it's just using other examples to show the results of a teaching.

 

[cerette]

For reference:



Just in case you were still thinking about throwing the universal submission term around some more.

Just because your WELS congregation doesn't use the term universal submission, it doesn't mean that the WELS doesn't teach it. (You mentioned in some other thread some time ago it wasn't until some few years ago you heard the terms "objective and subjective justification". Does that mean the WELS didn't teach it all those years you'd never heard the terms?)

Universal submission simply means that female submission is NOT limited to the church and marriage (to use words that the WELS uses in their doctrinal statements).