Womens' Role in the Church

[Jim Haan]

I think it's time we open this thread.  Feel free to expound, preach, teach, and or prophesy concerning this theme.  For those of you who want to jump right in there with your "assembled" (or shall i say "assemblied")  presuppositions prepare for a roast.  I would also like to hear some opinions about the Christian marriage relationship.      

[Neanderthal Man]

Oog!  Woman clean my cave.  Cook my meals.  Keep good and quiet.  Go to Meeting.  That my kind of woman!

[editor]

Let me recommend a tape by Stuart Brisco,

on Ephesians 5.

Shouldn't be too hard to find.  I know they have it on the Calvary Chapel webpage.

Brent

[Nate Dogg]

Jim,
 
  read my post on the headcoverings thread and let me know what you think. I also welcome other comments.

                                           peace,
                                                Nate

[Ken Fuller]

Here's one for ya ... I'll admit I'm VERY bothered as I hear women are unable to contribute to the x-assembly "evaluation" discussions.  That immediately triggered the RED "Business as Usual" sirens.

My thoughts?  Well, first this doesn't seem like a "when the whole church be gathered together" type function.  Actually, it doesn't seem like a church function at all, since you're trying to decide if this IS a God-raised gathering.

Okay -- and here's the kicker -- what the the CLEAR reason Paul stated for women to keep silent??  Because it was Woman who was deceived in the garden and not Man.

GUESS WHAT MEN  WE'VE ALL BEEN DECEIVED THIS TIME!!  And we can't, as Adam tried (and as David and Betty try), blame it on our wives!!  

"But Lord, it's the woman you gave me ...."  ... IT AIN'T GONNA WORK THIS TIME!!!!

Maybe you should be listening to the concerns of EVERYONE!!!!!!

[Nate Dogg]

Thank you Ken,

  this really really  bugged me about the assembly. We get so caught up  in the "heavenly vision" or Biblical pattern for a marital relationship or any men-women relationships that we miss out on the gifts of women and the fulness of worshipping God with them. They will tell you that the marital relationships are a model of christ and his church. They will tell you that you are breaking with a clear Biblical understanding,sure to rot in hell, heretic, lesbian, liberal, lier, deciever, etc.
 I mean, c'mon now people, most folks once thought slavery had a pretty clear Biblical justification (the curse of Ham,  and other verses)-- the abolitionists were actually in the minority as to how they interpreted the Bible on this point. And so it goes with this issue. But I am pleased to see so many men  breaking free of those narrow assembly
confines...it gives me hope. And I have found it very odd that some of the most vigorous defenders  of this biblical "model" have been women. marinate on that for a minute.
                                            Nate

[Toni Fuller]

Okie dokie,  I can't keep my mouth shut on this topic.  I'm curious how many men out there have been given insight, opinions, wives raised issues or questions about what we're all seeing right now,  how many spoke up over the yrs. at home and were dismissed?  Nothing like talking to a brick wall???  Ken & I talked last yr. at great lengths about his & my concerns we've had and God forgive us both for not communicating with each other deeper than just on the surface.  Many of us have had thoughts, questions, etc. yet dared not open your mouth to pose them.

[Jim Haan]

Consider how far women have come in the past two thousand years since the N.T. was written.  Was there a reason for "submission"  2000 yaers ago?  Most likely, for the reaason that women lacked education and the chance for a prominent position in society.  So men, being educated, were the ones responsible to make the rational decision making in the marriage relationship.  Consider now, as Ken pointed out, men are just as likely to be decieved, with the grusome example of this "ministry", and women are essentially equal in the sense of education and rational decision making.  Now, certain chauvinists would say "oh, women make their decisions based emotion and feeling, while men base it on logistics and rationality".  From what I've seen, men in decision making situations, for example leaders, even more dangerous vices can come into play, mainly pride and egotism.  So we all have our faults.    

[editor]

Hello out there!

It was women, and their courage, that got us out of this mess!

The men stood by like idiots and let George and Betty carry on.  They let David coninue to lead, and for whatever reason hid his abuseive nature.  They actively silenced scores of people who wanted to tell the truth.

The women finally had enough.  Starting with Rachel and Judy, and now the women who George abused, they have blown the lid off the cauldron of evil that George has been brewing.  They had to do it, because the men were TOTAL COWARDS AND YES MEN!!!!

We never listened to the women, (except Betty) and we found ourselves in a fine kettle of fish!

Should women teach or have authority in the Church?  NO!!!
Should men hear what they have to say?  YES!!!!

I have learned something in all of this.

Betty taught and had authority in the Assembly, in clear violation of the Word of God.

If someone asks you what the passages mean, where it says that women should keep silent, and not have authority over men in the Church, tell them about Betty and the Assembly!  

We are living proof of why Paul warned us about having women lead and teach!

I listen to my wife now, and I am glad of it.

Brent

[Joseph Reisinger]

Jim,
First of all, let me say that I agree with much of what has been said in this thread... I see how women can be trivialized, or their voices ignored to the great detriment of a marriage or church.
I would like to make sure, though, that we do not begin cutting out pieces of the bible, or dismissing things as being only historically significant.. we are then in dangerous ground - for where would we stop?  I particularly question the idea that the biblically defined roles for a husband and wife do not apply anymore.  (is that what you are suggesting?)  I think one thing that we must consider, is that the reason for a wife to submit to her husband has much more to do with a picture of Christ and his church than with the deception of Eve in the garden.  God has set this order - I do not think, however qualified and wise women are, that this order should be ignored. (and that goes for the church as well.)
Realize too, that the passage in 1 Tim 2 was written at least 6000 years after Eve, and it mentions that as a reason for women not to take the lead in the church.  It doesn't seem that time had changed God's order.
Finally, I would pose this practical question... if we did not follow the biblical order for the man to lead in a marriage.. what would you propose to do in a dissagreement with man and wife - ultimately, decisions must be made.. you can't always wait for unanimity.
Joseph R

[Jim Haan]

Thanks,  Joe.  I like what you have to say,  I'm just challenging certain presuppositions we have had, and figuring out what the Bible has to say.  Maybe you can elaborate on this order that you are referring to.  Do you have specific verses for this?  Another question i have is regarding women prophesying.  In I Cor. 14, Paul says that "each one" implying women as well as men, are permitted to prophesy.  We see this displayed in Acts by certain daughters.  In what manner, then, are these sisters ought to prophesy?  Out of the church?  Then where would that be?  Perhaps,  prophesying to me is not teaching, or necesarily usurping authority over the gathering.  And perhaps, in these "assembly practice evaluation meetings" sisters should be allowed to speak.  I think they have a lot more to say, based on their experience, walk with Lord, and things they have seen, than say a recently baptized junior teen brother who is allowed to speak at these meetings.  To me,  this situation represents straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel, where the big picture is not being considered.  

[MichelleDJ]

I don't know The Assembly's stance on women and the church, this isn't 100% Assembly-related, but...  It's dangerous any time anyone takes scripture out of its context.  I was a snot-nosed intellectual atheist at the time the Southern Baptists freaked out the nation with the re-affirmation of Eph5.  Oh, I was snide.  

Then I came to faith, and learned more.

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Respect the spiritual leader of the home, the man.  This is to wives.  When he makes a decision, it's to be respected.  This calls to mind another thread here where there's discussion of spiritual discernment, or "judgment."  The wife should have taken great care, and great time, getting to know the man she chose as a husband before becoming his wife.

But we continue:

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-- for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

Husbands are required to love their wives like Jesus loves His church.  This is a monstrous calling, in my mind.  The wife has it easy, if she's taken care in her choosing.  A husband has to be willing to die for his wife!  He has to love her AS he loves himself.  Wow.  

This is where inequity can come into play, I believe.  Everyone hangs on the "submit to your husbands" part, but doesn't understand that, if husbands are godly, are loving their wives with their whole heart, are willing to DIE for them, then submitting to this man should be easy.

The high standards on both sides create the balance!

(oh, p.s. - I was very humbled on the day I learned what the whole "submission" thing really was!)

(p.p.s.  Re: 1Cor14, remember that the historical context for this portion of the letter to Corinth was that their church services had become a free-for-all mess.  Paul was trying to restore some order.  This, of course, doesn't mean "disregard 1Cor14:34."  But also, 1Cor14:26 begins a commentary on speaking in tongues and prophesying, and the paragraph immediately preceding 1Cor14:34 continues along the same vein.  Some thinking is that women were being openly disruptive during the services, and Paul was reminding them sternly that they were not to lead, including prophesying and speaking in tongues.)

[Ken Fuller]

Brent --

I'm thinking Scripturally maybe you shouldn't let the women post on the BB.

After all, we men are the ones who aren't easily deceived by the Liar.

I'M JUST KIDDING LADIES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[4Him]

As for deception, I don't think that in the case of the Geftakys Affair, et al, the men were deceived any more than the women.  In the case of Judy, tho' she finally came to her senses, she was deceived every bit as much or maybe more, than David (he was just plain wacky).  We have evidence of this with many other women, including Betty and Rachel, as well.

Brent, when you say, "It was women, and their courage, that got us out of this mess! The men stood by like idiots and let George and Betty carry on.", you are being overly modest and ignoring the fact that many women stood by also.  It was not just women (Rachel & Judy in particular) who were courageous, but men like you as well.

As for me, I don't look at my 24 years in it so much as being deceived, but rather being, as Brent put it, "an idiot". (I think there's a difference.)  Beware, lest as John M. intimated, we men become weenies.

[Nate Dogg]

I hate to put this out here because I know I will get flamed as a heretic. So if you must call me a heretic, say I'm in error, please do so. But then please give me an explanation for these scriptures. I do not agree with the author that the only way slavery ended was through secular influence. But again, check these scriptures out and then tell me how "literally" we should take the Bible about the submission of women.
                                         peace,
                                               Nate

PS Brent, I have to respectfully disagree with you that the problem of the assemblies was a women in leadership. I attend a church where females ministered and held authority and I they had a healty embodiment of Christs life. But read on!

There is no morality outside of the Holy Bible! We hear this cliché  repeated ad nauseam by Bible believers. But is the Bible itself morally flawed? Take, for example, the institution of human slavery. Could anything be more immoral than the buying and selling of fellow human beings into a life of involuntary servitude? What does the Bible have to say about it? Well, we'll see. But first, let us briefly review the history of slavery in America.

The importation of African slaves into the New World began shortly after Columbus’ famous “discovery” in 1492. In 1517 the Bishop of Las Casas, a high official in the Roman Catholic Church, encouraged immigration to the New World by permitting Spaniards to import twelve Negroes each2. So Christianity and African slaves were introduced into the New World at about the same time. In what was later to become the United States of America it begin in 1619 when twenty Africans were unloaded from a Dutch ship at Jamestown, Virginia and sold into slavery3. From these humble beginnings the slave trade blossomed into a hugely profitable venture.

Many of our revered founding fathers were slave owners. George Washington, the father of our country, owned slaves as did the great Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence. Patrick Henry, the great orator who coined the famous slogan, “Give me liberty or give me death,” was, ironically enough, a slave owner. The slaver trade was recognized as a legitimate commercial enterprise, and slave markets operated openly. The rights of slave owners were protected by law while the slave, of course, had no rights. Although President Lincoln's famous Emancipation Proclamation became effective on January 1,1863, slavery did not officially end in this country until the thirteenth amendment to the U. S. Constitution was ratified in 1865.

Slavery was legal in the United States for almost two hundred and fifty years. Why so long? Isn’t this a Christian nation founded on God’s word, the Holy Bible? That’s what many Christians tell me. Well, if that’s so, maybe that’s where the rub comes in because the Bible not only condones slavery, it actually encourages that cruel institution and has, in fact, been effectively used to promote and preserve it. Here, for example is a quote from Jefferson Davis, the first and only president of the Confederacy4, "It (slavery) was established by decree of Almighty God and is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments from Genesis to Revelation."

God approves of slavery. In Exodus 21:1-6 he sets forth the guidelines for the buying, selling and treatment of slaves. He says that if a male slave marries, his wife and children shall remain with the master when the slave departs because technically speaking they belong to the master. Now if the slave is imprudent enough to protests because he loves his wife and children God tells the master to, "Take an awl and thrust it through his earlobe unto the door." This is all repeated in Deut. 15:17 accept here it says, "Do likewise to your maid slaves." In Exodus 21:7-9 God even instructs men how they are to go about selling their daughters into slavery.

Concerning family values, in Joel 3:8 God warns that, “I will sell your sons and your daughters to the Judians, and they shall in turn sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off.” In case you are still unconvinced, try 1 Tim. 6:1-2; “Let slaves regard their masters as worthy of all honor ." Matthew 10:24 and John 13:16 remind us that slaves are never better than their masters. Women take note that in Titus 2:9-10 slaves are ordered to, “Be submissive to your master and give satisfaction in every respect." Also check Eph. 6:5 and Col. 3:22 which say, “Slaves obey your master." Of the venerated Ten Commandments, numbers four and ten recognize and, therefore, give tacit approval to slavery. In fact, neither the Old or New Testament contains an outright condemnation of slavery.

What did Jesus have to say about slavery? Well, in the cherished Sermon of the Mount, allegedly given by him and recognized as a prescription for Christian living, the institution of slavery, so prevalent at the time, is never mentioned. However, in Matthew 8 Jesus heals the Roman centurion's slave while (v10) praising the centurion for his exemplary faithfulness. Why didn't Jesus seize this opportunity to condemn slavery and forbid it? But the most astounding pro-slavery statement in the Bible is made by Jesus himself in Matthew 10:24-25. Here he not only reminds slaves that they are never above their master, he actually recommends that they strive to be like him. Throughout the gospels Jesus ignores countless opportunities to condemn slavery. Doesn't this amount to an endorsement of that infamous institution?

What are some other Bible commentaries concerning slavery? Peter, Jesus' favorite disciple, directs slaves to obey and fear their masters without question, even if he is cruel and unjust (1 Peter 2:18). This directive is repeated in Ephesians 6:5. In Exodus 21:26-27 and Proverbs 29:19 God tells the masters how to punish their slaves. In Leviticus 25:44-46 God instructs his chosen people on how to treat their slaves. Here he sets a more lenient standard for the Israelite slaves than for those who are not Israelites. But, God is not totally without a sense of justice because in Exodus 21:20-21 he says that if the master beats a slave to death, he shall be punished. But, if the severely beaten slave lingers on for a day or two, the master is off the hook. God says in Exodus 21:28-32 that if an ox gores a slave, the owner shall give their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned. In Deuteronomy 20:13-14 God tells the Israelites what they should do with the inhabitants of a concurred city, "Whereas the men must be killed, the women and children are to be taken as slaves."

While the Bible may be morally correct in some cases, it's unrelenting endorsement of slavery is certainly immoral. It is the secular state, not the Bible, which we have to thank for ending slavery. Also, it is the secular state, not the church, which stands as the guarantor of freedom and human rights. The truth is that human rights were (and are being) achieved today not because of the Bible but in spite of it.
_______________________________________________

1 Compiled by Louis W. Cable