posted
One question is, "Is there significance to the fact that Paul addressed unruly women only in Corinth and Crete (his most troublesome churches) when he had women founding the churches in Philippi and Ephesus?
And why does Luke record, "When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately...." if a man should not accept "teaching" from a woman? does "they" not include Priscilla?
Although I agree with much of what you say in reguards to women having been unbiblicaly squelched by the traditional church, I also think that there are Biblical principles which speak to the realtionship between men and women. Perhaps in their leadership the women of Corinth and Crete violated these principles, where as in the leadership of Pricilla and Lyda, they did not?
The principles I am talking about come mainly from passages like Eph 5- especially where it links the marriage relatinship with the relationship of Christ and the Church, and 1 Cor 11 where it talks about man being the glory of God and woman being the glory of man(kind). I think the principle mainly being that there is something that God wants us to see about His relationship with mankind that is illustraed by the relationships amoung women and men. Men as a group are certainly different than women as a group- is there a reason that God created us this way? And is there something spiritual that we illustrate in our family relationships- both in ur immediate families, and our broader church families?
I am not hinting that I know these answers- I really do not, and ask out of genuinely wanting to Biblicaly understand this issue better.
posted
Well, the truth is Jeanne... I don't exactly know either!
What I do know is that there is a slant in the King James towards two things. The first is the fact that there is the "rank slant" and the second is the fact that there is (what I call) the "anti-woman" slant.
The interesting thing here is that they both cross with the Koine Greek word "diakonian", which is most often (for some "unknown" reason) interpreted minister in the King James.
The fact is, the word means servant. It always means servant! It is the word used in Acts 6:2 actually "diakonein". (NOTE: the different spelling causes it to be "to be serving" instead of just "servant" kind of like when we add an ing to a word.)
Another problem is, you can't search the word servant using a KJV because they often interpreted the Greek word "doulw" (which means slave) as servant! In Matthew 8:6, they even took the Greek words "o pais mou" which means the boy of me (my boy) and interpreted that as "servant"! See how complicated this gets when you start trying to use a "normal" translation? It can't be done!
So, I'm having to first use The Interlinear, and then the Strong's concordance number to look each word up ...after I first find the real Greek word using The Interlinear. It's quite time consuming, but that's okay too!
The truth is, not only have I had to ditch church as I know it, I've also had to ditch "The Bible" as I know it. Although it is hard, it is also quite freeing!!! If you ladies will be patient with me, and help me along the way (list the verses that "cause problems" in this area), I'll really try (with y`alls' help) and do this topic justice.
posted
Jeanne, From what I found, the Koine Greek has words meaning “men” and “women” not “husbands” or “wives.” I found that every time a husband or wife relationship was being spoken about directly, the words “of him” or “of you” or “of Philip” or “to the own” (etc) is used in the ancient Greek (to show husband/wife clarity).
Here is an example of how this would sound in English, never using the words wife or husband. “The man, and the woman of him, went to the park together for a picnic.” Or, “The woman, and the man of her, went to the park together for a picnic.” This is how it is done in the ancient Koine Greek.
I also submit that Paul was not an idiot. I also submit that he knew how to clarify his thoughts in writing.
That being said, the term “of him” or “of you” was never used in Colossians 3:18-19. The fact is, this is all it says; “18 The woman, be you being subject to the men, as is proper in Master.* 19.) The men, be loving the women, and do not be bitter toward them.” (This is totally general, not husband and wife specific.)
*Please notice the “in Master” (Christ). This is very important! All of these instructions are written directly (and only) to Christians. If you read this in context, here is how it flows... Christian instruction for women, then for men, then for children, then for the fathers regarding their children (the “of you” is used here) and lastly, Christian instruction for slaves regarding their “flesh” masters. Pretty basic stuff.
At this time, the Greek word “upotassomenio”, which means submit or subject to needs to be addressed. The king James also used “obedient" once. I submit that this is not the proper idea.
There is very similar Scripture in Ephesians 5:21-24. (Paul again.) I will go into a little more detail with this one it here, to make my point later.
Verse 21 first says, “Submit yourselves to one another.”
Verse 22 then goes on to directly tell wives to submit to their husbands (specifically, the term “to the own” is used). Note: There is again an “as to The Master” clarification.
Verse 23, gives the rational that man is head of the woman (generally again) as Christ is head and Savior of The Church.
Verse 24, (still speaking generally) explains the how. “And as The Church is subject to Christ, thus the women to the men in all.”
Of course, culture could be brought in here, (ie. That was then ...and after all, we no longer have slaves!) ...but I found that there is really no need for that. Why? I noticed several very distinct things.
First, the women were instructed to submit, the men were never told to make the women submit. Therefore, it is quite apparent that the decision to "submit" is the woman's, and hers alone. Therefore, there is no Biblical evidence that men have a God given right to “rule” or “lord it over” women ...as some think and attempt to do.
Second, the stipulation is made (both times) that the "submission" is to look like The Church's submission to Christ. In John 15:15, Christ said He calls us His friends, and that we are no longer slaves. It is clear women are to submit to to men as friends would (this fits perfectly with the mutual submission thing), and that is all.
Therefore, it is plain to see that Christian “submission” cannot be position or rank! This is obviously another carried over mindset from the Old Testament !
Personally, myself and the woman of me ...well, we are friends. There has never been a time (that either of us could think of) that there was a need for me to “tell her what to do” or ask her to "submit" as this term is used by most christians (the "under me" type).
Also, I have never thought of my wife as needing to be submissive (again as in the "under me" type). In fact, I don't even wish it!!! We just act toward each other as we wish the other to act. What an original concept!!! Remember, one verse NEVER contradicts another!
That being said about my own life, I feel I have answered (to my own satisfaction) the question of How we can submit "one to another" if rank, lordship, and Old Testament thinking is abandoned.
Christian submittal is a friendship of loving submittal ...instead of a submitting by obeying, relinquishing control, and or the wrestling and "taping out" kind of idea.
Well, that's the Greek Interlinear's "freedom slant."
I am so glad you are taking the time to delve into this topic- I am planning on doing a better job of going to the word and adding something of substance to this discussion- although you will have to be patient with me- my 4 children do tend to keep me on the run .
But just a couple of thoughts- I do agree that the worlds idea of submission is much different than Gods, and that "christian submital is a friendship of loving submittal", and that we are all asked to submit to one another no matter our sex. But is there still submission of a wife to her husband, or even of a woman to a man that is different than the way we are to submit one to another in general? If so, what is the purpose to this?
I understand your argument that some of the passages on husbad and wife are really just to men and women, but I don't think that this is always the case as Paul sometimes refers to the creaion story and how Adam and Eve came together as one flesh to back up his arguments. So in these instances I think Paul is refering to husbands and wives. And some passages I think are refering to men and women. In any case it seems to me that this relationship of man/woman, and/or husband/wife was created by God at least in some small way to illustrate something about His desired relationship with us as mankind. That is why I brought up the passages that I did before. Maybe it is simply to illustrate the nature of God as the initiator in His reltionship with us, and His desire for us to be the responder? I think even of the act of sex- now a woman can initiate making love, but the man must initiate the actual act of sex. And for it to be the beautiful interaction that it is meant to be it must happen within the covenant of marriage, and the woman must respond! Isn't our relationship with God also a beautiful interplay of initiation and response- within the bounds of a covenant?
posted
Hey Jeanne, Please note that the woman/man findings appear at first to make it even more difficult or even more "universal" of a Christian submission concept. However, the only hope for clarity comes from looking at the evidence of how Jesus treats us (both male and female, Jew and Greek), and what he has given to us so we can be called sons and daughters. This fact, (however powerful) and others ...seem to fit in perfectly with The Gospel, and bolster the {I'll add "family) friendship submission theory."
This fits (for example) with 1 Timothy 5:1-2 "To senior men, you should not be upbraiding, but be beside-calling as fathers, the younger men as brothers. The senior women be beside-calling as mothers, and the younger women as sisters, in every purity."
posted
And it just keeps getting better for you ladies!!!
Well, I looked up Adam [Adm in the Hebrew] in The Interlinear (surprise, surprise) and guess what I found.
Genesis 1:27 27. So He, Elohim, created the human in the image of Him, in the image of Elohim created Him, male and female He created them.
Genesis 5:1-2 1. This is the scroll of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that Elohim, created Adam, in the likeness of God He made him; 2. Male and female He created them; and He is blessed them, and He called their name Adam, in the day they were created of Them."
Talk about two being one in God's eyes! I also noticed that Adam didn't even name Eve until after the fall! He just distinguished her as woman. How totally interesting!!! Anything to correct add?
Yes I do agree! I had noticed this about Gen. 1 as well. I always took it that Gen 1 was emphasizing how we are the same- both are "mankind", both are equally made in God's image, both have been given the same mandate (have the same basic purpose in life). But then there is Gen. 2. I think here is where God emphisizes our differences- which of course does not negate how we are the same. But I think there is spiritualy (there obviously is physicaly) a purpose for the sexes.
posted
Hey Jeanne! Thanks for hanging in there with me. I guess this topic doesn't really "effect" me, it's just been fun looking into. I have no doubt that men and women are different. Can you name a "spiritual purpose"? (I'm just curious, I'm not trying to entrap you!) Maybe Laurie Ann knows some too...
Only one last point. I think it quite notable that The Lord never addressed the man and woman apart from each other until after The Fall. To Him they were one. In Genesis 3:16, when The Curse came upon the woman, included in it was "thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."
If Christ has redeemed us from the curse of The Law, then, well...
posted
Yes, Matthew, it is important to realize that it was a "bad consequence" of the fall that men ruled over women - not a positive command!
I have a mental picture of Adam being completely in God's image, and then when God separated him into two sexes, he gave the women more of certain of his traits, and leaving certain traits more in the man. Spiritually, I think women, when they are fully walking in the Spirit, reflect more of what the Holy Spirit is like, and the man reflects more of what the Father is like. Women's "intuition" and relationship orientation vs. things like godly jealousy, concern for holiness.
I've seen it noted that it is the Holy Spirit who is "hurt" by faithlessness and "gives comfort", and "hovers like a mother hen", whereas the Father "carries us in his arms" and rages like a jealous husband about faithlessness. Not that these things are completely separate, only the balance is different for each.
posted
Laurie Ann, I agree. I guess where I'm going with all of this is still the fact that we should be free (The Good News). Once I began realizing this for myself, the woman issue eventually came up.
Also, I have not intended to build an airtight case, because I don't think that can be done. I have only intended to cast reasonable doubt on the stipulation that women should be held in subjection [lorded over] by christian men.
As I said, "Christian submittal is a friendship of loving submittal ...instead of a submitting by obeying, relinquishing control, and or the wrestling and "taping out" kind of idea."
Be blessed, Matthew
P.S. I hope it is evident that I live what I believe, and that it can even be seen here. I really do respect you ladies, and I love getting your "beside-sharpening" ideas and opinions.
posted
I hope I didn't sound like I was disagreeing, Matthew? I do, very much, appreciate how you treat Jeanne and I as Deborahs on this forum!
This "woman thing" does, indeed, keep coming up. Every time a new family joins our fellowship we kind of have to start from the beginning, challenging non-biblical thinking.
We find that many couples say they don't believe in male domination, and yet they practice it, meanwhile speaking an American Feminist worldview. They are offended at the way we TALK about encouraging men to speak first and lead their families. They don't understand how we women should be free live and minister in all our gifts, and yet without usurping. We see that many men will avoid taking any spiritual responsibility for their own walk, their family and community, if women let them. And we see that many women undermine their husbands publicly, and then wonder why their husbands don't grow spiritually.
I loved the discussion of this in The Shack - that it is all about living relationships that allow individuals to love each other, rather than about roles. J and I don't have to argue about who does what, because the Lord very graciously gifted us in opposite ways. However, I'm a very strong personality, and if I try to run everything, he will let me - and yet resent it. So, there the example of "Sarah, who called Abraham 'Master'" works to help me balance!
This is all particularly germane to the growth of Islam in America. Islam can be perceived as being anti-female, but it is pro-masculinity and pro-family, which can be very attractive as a contrast to the emasculation endemic to American Feminism. Women only THINK they don't want strong men. In reality, women want to feel safe and protected, even when they don't want pay the price of independence and autonomy. If we, as believers, do not model strong male roles and cohesive families, we will lose the culture war. No one wants to live under the Taliban, but a world run by Nurse Ratched isn't much more attractive!
quote:Laurie Ann said: I hope I didn't sound like I was disagreeing, Matthew? I do, very much, appreciate how you treat Jeanne and I as Deborahs on this forum!
Oh, believe me, the thought never even entered my mind!!! I just hoped you ladies felt that I have always treated you with the respect you have defiantly earned!
Be blessed my sister, Matthew
P.S. I found this...
"Vintery, mintery, cutery, corn, Apple seed and apple thorn; Wire, brier, limber lock, Three geese in a flock. One flew east, And one flew west, And one flew over the cuckoo's nest."
This is good- it is a topic that I have been wrestling with in my own mind- so it is so good to hear from you both on it! What you said stuck me as balanced Laurie Ann- something I strive for in all areas of Biblical interpretation (it is like what has been said before about other topics- we are human, God is- well- God, and we can not always understand things as fully as God does. When we read seemingly apposing scriptures on a certain topic we can be sure that they do in reality fit together perfectly, even if we can not yet completely understand it).
Anyway, having said all that, I wonder if this topic is similar to the one of leadership and oversight in the church vs. church heirarchical rank? We have talked a lot about about how we can now see how the Spirit gifts people diferently (some with leadership) and that some elder believers should give oversight... but that this is a far cry from the heirarchical rank that we see in the traditional church today. Could male "headship" and female "submission" be similar? Men and women, without even a hint of heirarchical rank, working together to make decisions and follow through on them, yet in a way that the man maintains his masculinity and a woman her feminity? I think healthy mariages are naturaly this way, and I think we should strive for this somehow in our church communities as well. This was something that really bugged me about The traditional church (at least in it's baptist form)- The weekly male elders meeting! OK- you can make an argument for male elders (maybe), but where in the Bible does it say that these male elders are to meet regularly without any women present? Pretty soon you end up with a church with a very masculine feel to it (more product and subdue & concor driven than community and relationship minded). Too much testosterone in one room I say!
Anyway- as far as the spiritual purpose for male and female. I go back to all the verses where God refers to Himself as a he and mankind (Israel, the church, mankind in general) as a she. I think He wants to show the world something about the beauty of the relationship that He wants to have with each of us through healthy male/female relationships here on earth. And by the way, historicaly, I think the traditional church has done a very poor job here-and has portrayed this in a way that has repelled rather than drawn people to the idea of a relationship with God. also, I think of how a couple of our neighbors who have become believers have said that it was how we related to each other as a family that ultimately drew them to Christ.
quote:Jeanne said: Could male "headship" and female "submission" be similar? Men and women, without even a hint of heirarchical rank, working together to make decisions and follow through on them, yet in a way that the man maintains his masculinity and a woman her feminity?
Wonderful! And ah ha! So this is "THE BIG QUESTION" then! Any idea what an example of this would kinda, maybe, and [or] sorta look like?
I'll just shut up and learn for a while... with maybe a question now and again to let you know I'm still here.
quote: I have a mental picture of Adam being completely in God's image, and then when God separated him into two sexes, he gave the women more of certain of his traits, and leaving certain traits more in the man. Spiritually, I think women, when they are fully walking in the Spirit, reflect more of what the Holy Spirit is like, and the man reflects more of what the Father is like. Women's "intuition" and relationship orientation vs. things like godly jealousy, concern for holiness.
The Catholics like to pray to Mary to intercede for them because they view her as possessing traits that they must feel God does not-- mercy, gentleness, sympathy, etc. But scripture neither agrees with their beliefs nor those fanciful ideas quoted above. Though the Godhead consists of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit they are all equally and fully God having the exact same purpose and character traits.
John 14:19 1 John 5:20 Heb 1:1-3 2 Cor 4:6 Col 2:8-9
And so forth...
Yet, each appears to have a special office as well. Perhaps for our human comprehension only. The Father. Jesus as our intecessor. The Holy Spirit as our comforter. But this should not be interpretted to mean that there is any lack of the fulness of the Godhead in any member. That would imply imperfection. All righteous attributes of character dwell in God as a perfect, harmonious whole.
As stated earlier, "I think He wants to show the world something about the beauty of the relationship that He wants to have with each of us through healthy male/female relationships here on earth." It is therefore important that we rightly understand the character of God.
quote:Jeff L thinks: But scripture neither agrees with their beliefs nor those fanciful ideas quoted above.
However, Jeff can't quote one scripture to prove his point, instead hiding behind "appears" and "perhaps" ...which is quite typical for him.
It's a real shame you seldom have anything of value to add here Jeff. You come off pretty much like the town bully. I kinda like having a bully around that I can always whip!
So here is my challenge. Can you show concisely (from The Bible) where the statement...
I have a mental picture of Adam being completely in God's image, and then when God separated him into two sexes, he gave the women more of certain of his traits, and leaving certain traits more in the man. Spiritually, I think women, when they are fully walking in the Spirit, reflect more of what the Holy Spirit is like, and the man reflects more of what the Father is like. Women's "intuition" and relationship orientation vs. things like godly jealousy, concern for holiness.
...can be debunked?
All of my money is on a "I'll try even if I make a total fool out of myself doing it" stance!
Yes, Jeff, to understand how the male/female relationship illustrates the relationship God desires with us, it can help to better understand God's character. But I think the opposite could also be said- When we see healthy male/female relationships, it gives us a glimpse into the nature of God as He relates to mankind. Kinda like how experiencing His creation- a beautiful sunset, or snow on High mountain peaks- gives us a glimpse of Him as well.
Of course the Bible gives us the best understanding of God's character, but how many people in the outside world read the Bible? contrast this with how many are exposed to us as believers and watch us as we relate to eachother- either within our immediate families, or better yet, within a larger church community?
Back to Mathew's question- What does this practicaly look like? I don't know exactly- I just know it when I see it! And I am drawn to people who have this kind of relationship- I think all people are. I think of my own husband who is a natural leader- I would say has even been gifted by the HS in leadership, yet in our relationship he rarely, if ever "lords it over me". In fact he is fond of telling people that he thinks that the Spirit has gifted me with wisdom (I am not so sure myself, but love it that he thinks so ), and he clearly treats me as a wise woman. I would say he values my opinions above his own when making leadership decisions. I don't think anyone would look at our relationship and think that there is inequality amoung us, yet I think that the roles that we play, and the way in which we each love the other is slightly different. Does that make any sense?
posted
The Biblical injunction is for husbands to love their wives as the Lord loves the church. And all through the NT is the admonition for wives to submit to, be in subjection to, and be obedient to, their husbands. Certainly, the church must be all these things to Christ. How is it then different for the wife with regards to her own husband?
The scripture does appear to place the man over the woman with regard to authority. They may act together as a counsel but should there be a disagreement then the wife is instructed to submit to her husband. This sounds to me like a natural hierarchy. The child submits to the wife but both submit to the father. My mind has a hard time not seeing some inequality between the child, the wife, and the husband. Not as a human but certainly in authority. If the wife is to submit and the man's judgmet to prevai then would not the husband out rank the wife under these circumstances?
This just seems so clear from scripture. But is there any time when a wife is justified in not following her husbands lead? The Bible says for wives to be in subjection to their husbands even if they obey not the word. So are there any cases when a woman should not submit?
posted
No Jeff. It just seems so clear from what you have been taught! The truth is, you are the one believing "fanciful ideas" (if you are a man, that is) that have no backing whatsoever in The New Testament Scriptures.
So I looked it up, knowing to go right past the KJV after looking there, and then heading on to The Interlinear ...to get the truth.
The word obey is in the KJV New Testament 26 times. It is NEVER used to describe the husband and wife relationship, not even in the KJV.
The word obedient is used 8 times. In the KJV, in Titus 2:5 "being subject" was replaced by obedient in the KJV. It should not have been.
The word obedience was used 12 times. It appears in 1 Corinthians 14:34 in regards to the husband and wife in church only. Note that this verse is thought to be a marginal notation, added later. However, even if it isn't, the word was again "be being subject" and not "obedient to".
The word obeyed was used 7 times, and in 1 Peter 3:6 it was used talking about Sarah and Abraham ...but Peter goes on to clarify in the next verse, "the men likewise together making a home with the weaker vessel. To the feminine ones awarding honor, as joint tenants of grace and of life, that your prayers are not hindered."
The words obeyedst and obeyeth were never used in The New Testament.
The word obeying was used once, but not to describe the husband and wife relationship.
That was all of the KJV variants of the word obey. The word and its variants were used over 50 times in the KJV.
NOW THE TRUTH: The Greek word for obey was only used 21 times in The New Testament. In the Greek, it was never used talking about a husband and wife, or man and woman relationship ...but in 1 Peter 3:6-7 (which I covered above).
Well, that's the truth. The only time the word was used, Peter also used the words "together making a home," "awarding honor," and "joint tenants of grace and of life".
Again I say, "Christian submittal is a friendship of loving submittal ...instead of a submitting by obeying, relinquishing control, and or the wrestling and "taping out" kind of idea."
posted
Yes, interesting stuff! I have been thinking a lot about this all. And I still think it relates to the topic of authority within the church. I think back to when Jesus says to his disciples that they will not lead as the world does. I don't think that the world is especially evil in their leadership- after all, the Bible commands us to obey our governing authorities- I think that Jsus was talking about thinking about leadership in a way that is different than how our human minds naturaly think about it.
We naturaly think that authority means that that person has the last word- that when a decision needs to be made and there is not full agreement, that the idea of the one in authority is the one that goes. What if this is worldly thinking? Doesn't Jesus say that the one in authority should act as a slave? What if this doesn't just mean serving others- but is also refering to when decisions are made as well? I think back to the time of the kings. God rarey lead even the Godly kings to make decisions directly. He used prophets! Often God would use a prophet to tell a king to make some crazy leadership decission- it was only the most godly who would actualy listen to that over their own rational thinking!
I think a godly husband, and a godly leader in the church, should likewise be a slave to others opinions on decisions that need to be made. I think it is just like God to choose to speak and give direction to a couple or a group of believers not through the one in authority, but through the ones in submission. This would take a very godly leader to turn from his own rational thinking, towards how God is speaking through another- especially if that other is a member of the "weaker sex".
quote: I think a godly husband, and a godly leader in the church, should likewise be a slave to others opinions on decisions that need to be made.
I can see that the husband is to be a leader in his home (1 Tim. 3:4) but I don't see where there should be a leader in the church. Not a single leader, for sure. Maybe a governing body which would be a subset of the entire body. I can also see where some decisions should be taken to the whole body. But I don't see where godly leaders should be 'slaves' to the opinions of others. They should certainly consider their perspective but then use godly wisdom to come to a decision.
AV 1C 6:4,5
If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?
The previous verses would seem to suggest either of two possible scenarios which I believe end with the same conclusion.
1. Wouldn't it be better to have the least in the church judge matters between brethren rather than take it before ungodly men to judge?
2. If there is a matter to be solved among brethren would you appoint the one in the church who is least qualified? Why then do you allow ungodly judges to have control over your matters?
But once again, never a single person making the decisions. Never!
However, with that said, the problem we have come to in the church is that many board members don't really care, aren't able to discern, don't pray about things, or simply don't give attention to the matter. They are quite willing to surrender their vote to another-- often the pastor. This is an evil that cannot be blamed entirely on the pastor. People are happy to push everything on someone else's plate to take care of. And so the pastor rises to this, perhaps even unwanted, exalted position in the body.
[Edited: removed paragraph to shorten]
Now this all comes back around to women speaking, subjection, obedience, and authority. When in 1 Peter 3:1 the apostles instructs the wives to be in subjection to their own husbands he is establishing an hierarchical order of things. He goes on to say that the holy women of old adorned themselves with the graces of God by being subject to their own husbands. And that Sarah, the mother of all faithful, subjected herself to her husband Abraham calling him lord.
It can easily be shown that the words 'lord' and 'subjection' both carry the idea of rank and hierarchy with respect to authority with the husband being supreme or superior to the wife in that respect. Even as the Lord loves the church and the church is subject to Him calling Him Lord.
quote: lord - Strong's G2962 kurios koo'-ree-os
supreme in authority, i.e. (as noun) controller; by implication, Master (as a respectful title):-- God, Lord, master, Sir.
to subordinate; reflexively, to obey:--be under obedience (obedient), put under, subdue unto, (be, make) subject (to, unto), be (put) in subjection (to, under), submit self unto.
This doesn't preclude the possibility that the husband will abuse this authority but according to the verse (1 Peter 3:1) the wife is to be subject unto her husband even if he doesn't obey the word. And in this witness she may win him to the truth. Even so, the typical marriage sees the husband and wife at odds with each other and the loudest, most stubborn winning the day. Hardly a picture of harmony. Hardly a picture of Christ's Supreme relationship over the church. Nevertheless, the instruction seems clear that the wife is to be subject (obedient) to her own husband even if he is ungodly.
Now we come to the part about women speaking. I have always been taught, and believed, that it is ok for women to speak in the church. But this doesn't mean she does so without her husband's consent. Paul says he doesn't allow the woman to usurp authority over the man or to teach a man. While other verses in scripture support the principle that a woman should not usurp authority over a man the matter of being silent may stem from the customs of the day rather than Biblical teachings. I have also heard the idea that men and women were segregated in the assemblies and therefore the woman should wait until she is at home to ask her husband a question rather than shouting across the room.
Can we really know for sure? Then should we make too much of the speaking issue? Perhaps we should just follow customs of the day so as not to offend unbelievers. But customs end where clear commandments reign.
(I haven't even touched on 1 Cor 14:34. In this verse being silent is linked with obedience (being subject) to the husband. Perhaps a woman's silence refers to her not disagreeing with her husband openly in public and was a sign of her obedience to and respect for her husband. In any case, a husband and wife should always present a single front and any disagreements should be carried out in the privacy of the home where the woman can speak and should be heard. Sorry, this seems all so convenient since I am a man. But can a case be built for the woman to have authority over a man? What if the woman takes the man's role of bread-winner and the man takes her role of child rearing? Is the authority positional, functional, or gender specific?)
But it would appear that even if women are allowed (an offensive word in the context) to speak that would not jeopardize her husband's authority over her.
Well, I have been involved in discussing this issue on and off on this forum for over 10 years and don't recall ever arriving at a consensus. I guess the format allows for discussion but not necessarily consensus-- though some minds may be changed.
quote:Jeanne H said: I think it is just like God to choose to speak and give direction to a couple or a group of believers not through the one in authority, but through the ones in submission. This would take a very godly leader to turn from his own rational thinking, towards how God is speaking through another- especially if that other is a member of the "weaker sex".
Agreed! In my life I have befriended three "pastors" that lived what you are talking about. The first actually built the church they preached in with their own hands, and I never found them too proud to do anything that needed to be done. He had a true servant's heart. His wife was very active in the church, and often sang. Both were the perfect example of humility and friendship.
The second "pastor" I became close friends with did not build the building (it was way too big) but they cleaned it all of the time. They were was also the grounds keepers, and he the principal of the school and she a teacher there! I stayed late many a night helping this humble couple clean up after church, and that's how we became friends. Their children were really great too.
Out of all of the men I have known with the title of "pastor" these two stand out in my mind as the most humble. It's easy to get to know someone when they aren't afraid to get their hands dirty, right along with the "unimportant people".
The last "pastor" I called my friend, has the most welcoming home I have ever been in. They never lock their doors, and if you knock before you come in ...they'll just laugh at you. Once you've been there once, you're just expected to make yourself at home (and I mean totally)! I can't tell you the times I've sat in their empty house, eating their food, and while waiting for them to get home.
These are the three "pastors" I most want to be like (it just occurred to me that I said nothing of their Biblical knowledge). Didn't Jesus wash the feet of His own disciples ...and then command them to do as He had done?
I can see how what I said could be applied to pastors in the traditional church, but I was actualy thinking about elders/overseers/leaders in the context of the organic/house church.
I was looking at verses that are commonly used to justify rank and heirarchy, both in church and in male/female relationships and attempting to look at them through fresh eyes. Eyes that see the church and marriage relationaly vs. organizationaly. Words that normaly are used to describe positions of rank, could they instead be seen as descriptions of roles and jobs amoung a relational organism of equal members with one who is ultimately in charge. We have talked about this when discussing church dynamics, I was expanding that discussion to that of men and women as well.
posted
How about this verse. It is 1 Peter 3:7 (the weaker vessel thing). The Interlinear says that men and women should be "making a home together" whereas the KJV decided to simply say "dwell". If you notice, I spoke of both the men and their wives as "pastor" (which I totally see as their job, [mislabeled as it is] and not rank). The truth is, all of these families have helped me to see Christ more clearly, and the women were very included. I even include the children! If The Lord sees us (my wife and I) as one flesh, I submit that we should see each other the same way too (sorry it was kinda subtle up there).
That being said, I totally agree that our "leadership" should look nothing like the world's leadership! You go Sister!
quote:Originally posted by Matthew: men and women should be "making a home together" whereas the KJV decided to simply say "dwell".
Thanks for sharing this, Matthew. That is SO powerful, and adds again to the "hospitality" and "household of faith" model Jesus and Paul were giving us. How many IC pastors see "practicing hospitality" as their PRINCIPLE responsibility?
For that matter, how many believers of any sort are ready "in season and out of season" to feed and shelter a stranger? Not me... though, more so now that I'm not a "soccer/Awanas/church-meetin'" mom.
This is what made me embrace house church. Realizing that it was what happened in a home that won people, not what happened at church. There was a pastor at the church in Japan that had come to Jesus because of two things: seeing a believer's family in their home, and seeing "Little House on the Prairie" on television. The warm household atmosphere made him want to have THAT kind of family, and somehow he made the Jesus connection.
What if we see Jesus' "sending of the 72" as, "Find a man of peace, and make his home a "household of faith"... rather than seeing him as saying, "Find a man of peace and convert him to a new religious practice"?
posted
Folks, have we changed the subject? Well, you better go check your kitchen. You will soon be finding things from your garage there. (I just love that admonishment!)
quote:Laurie Ann said: This is what made me embrace house church. Realizing that it was what happened in a home that won people, not what happened at church.
So, that being said ...a woman would of course (I hope) have plenty to say in her own home. She IS supposed to keep it! The important thing to understand is that all of this stuff is totally connected!
Freedom equals freedom, period! If there is no difference between male and female in the sight of The Lord, then there is no "office" (a total corruption of the idea of what The Church is supposed to be) that a woman can not hold! A silent commissioner, server, supervisor, or evangelist is kinda silly! How can one shepherd, teach, or mentor if they are not allowed to speak!?!
However, if one takes the IC liturgical mindset out of everything, and just studies Scripture (AND NOT THE KING JAMES) then one quickly comes to the conclusion that this flows throughout the New Testament! Being the Out Called is about living life, not fulfilling some duty to meet in a big building several times a week.
You go girls!
Be blessed, Matthew
P.S. I did not read, nor had I ever heard of this link until yesterday. The wonderful thing is, their findings are in total support of the very things I have found by simply studying The Interlinear (and they have even more [even better] stuff)!
Mathew, that is a great link! You should all go to it- it isn't a long read, but gives some great insight into the Biblical idea of authority and submission. Taking a closer look at the greek makes it clear that many passages have been misinterpreted and even abused by many in the church.
What I am trying to wrestle with here is how to rightly interpret these passages- like I said- through the eyes of familial relationship vs. organizational heirarchy and rank. This link does a good job of interpreting these verses on church "government"-intepreting authority as horizontal leadership, and persuasion through example and servitude (which is an interpretation that has often been expressed on this forum). How can we likewise relook at how these verses on male headship and female submission should rightly be interpreted? How do we not through out the baby with the bathwater?
If the words that I used are confusing, read Mathews link- it will deffinately help make sense of what I wrote .
posted
Hey Jeanne, From what I have now found, there are two keys.
There must be a total mental separation from the way things were done under The Old Covenant (which is now "low-realm, obsolete, and defunct" ) and the way things should be done now.
This separation must be applied to everything (not just tithing). All of our understanding must now be New Covenant concepts, including the concept of submission.
The definition of everything has now changed through Christ!!!
Be blessed Matthew
P.S. If anyone doesn't have time to read all of that for yourself, it is on audio on YouTube starting here.
posted
Your mention of the "Old Covenant" made me think, Matthew, that we have another "Old" to contend with... the "Old Church".
So, we must break away from the rituals and ceremonies of the Levitical Law, as well as the Burden of the Traditions and Meetings of the "Christian Era" and move into the "Age of Grace" where we are Lovers of one another, Doers of the Word, and Obedient to the Spirit of Jesus.
posted
So, if you take all of the churchy stuff out ...what is there, but loving and helping folks. Maybe a study of 1 Cor 13 (but doing all of that stuff with love) is the key?
Speak and prophesy, have understanding and faith, give all of my things and my life for Christ (in love of course).
posted
When you love others, you complete what the law has been after all along. The law code—don't sleep with another person's spouse, don't take someone's life, don't take what isn't yours, don't always be wanting what you don't have, and any other "don't" you can think of—finally adds up to this: Love other people as well as you do yourself. You can't go wrong when you love others. When you add up everything in the law code, the sum total is love. [Romans 13:8-10, The Message Bible]
So you can't rightly speak of love for others without talking about the law. Otherwise, love cannot be properly understood. Certainly not outside the context of God's definition.
I agree that the church has assumed authority she doesn't rightly own and has abused the presumed position. But if you speak too much about freedom from authority you will find your children, who are naturally resistant to control, will rebel against your authority.
Personally, I think there is a real need for the Ten Commandments in our society today. Most of our "Christian" children have grown up with two great disadvantages.
1. School teaches them they have no creator but rather, evolved from apes
2. Church teaches them that the moral law is no longer binding on them. We are no longer under the law. It was nailed to the cross.
We are all prisoners to our knowledge. What can we expect from our kids when we fill their minds with disinformation? The world has infiltrated the ranks of the kingdom of God and distributed these false notions as fact.
Jesus certainly fulfilled the law (Matthew 5:17) and surely His purpose in doing so was so that the law could be fulfilled in us (Romans 8:4).
The world may offer many definitions of love, and we may think we know what love is, but when God speaks of loving others He is using the moral law as His measuring rod-- by which He will measure us. We may have episodes of random kindness but if we hate the brethren then God's love doesn't dwell in us. God's love is not fickle. It doesn't waver. It doesn't depend upon stimulus to act. It doesn't ebb and flow with the emotions that are regulated by the actions of others.
Love your enemies. Bless those that curse you. Do good to those who hate you. Pray for those who abuse you and persecute you.
Had some kind of foul up with the "no record of login name" for awhile and no where to go to fix it til now. In the mean time, we are in the middle of New England house church network quest. More on that later.
On another site this age old debate evolved into a creed like statement:
We ARE saved by Faith, AND Judged by Works.
This helps show how the Spirit and the letter of The Law work together.
As I say if M.Luther had used AND instead of NOT we might have had a more productive 500 years.
posted
May have been as simple as no space before the 1- who knows, Im pretty simple.
We got an invite to recent house gathering in Sutton ma. They say there was one in June, as well. Ill get a thread on it.
The relationship to this thread was that several diverse( one Ma. one Conn.)guests operated on the old Paul line. I talked briefly with another man from Ma. who agreed that policy based on one liners is stupid. In any case I think Laurie expressed the common sense, logical application of Christ into our lives very well.
I think this shows the need to help people see the bible tells the truth about 2 things- God, what He says and does, and mankind, what it says and does( with the Enemys help) Our best efforts must assure we do not confuse one with the other.
Faith and works must certainly be exercised equally but we must be very careful how we present works as having any part in salvation. It is so easy for us to naturally want to take some credit for a work that is ALL of Christ.
And, isn't it actually that we are not saved by faith but rather grace through faith? I think it's worth repeating the following verse given to us by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Ephesians 2
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.
Works are not something we do but rather it is God working in us to both will and to do His will. We don't go out and DO good works, but rather when Christ dwells in us by faith the result is good works. It is spontaneous and comes natural to the Christian. It is not something they must stop and think about.
The acts of kindness Christian do come so naturally that they are often unaware that they are even doing them. It is simply a part of who they have become by a living faith in Christ. Certainly they are not doing them to merit favor with God.
The greatest commandment is love the Lord. The second is love thy neighbor. Yet, even keeping these will not justify anyone. No one is justified by the works of the law. We are justified by faith alone.
AV Ga 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
We have no part in our justification. It is imputed to us. And one must certainly be justified to escape the wages of sin which is death. So that first step, which is all of Christ, is essential to our salvation-- and yet we have no part in it at all.
posted
So, picking back up... If we begin to understand what New Testament submission really, truly is, then we are allowed to apply that concept in regards to everything, even our sisters in Christ.
It is also important to understand what was done with the words Rule over and obey. Once these word corruptions have been removed from one's thinking, it is easy to understand that women were "apostles" and "deacons" ...and therefore were obviously just as active in The Church as men.
Women working, ministering, and speaking just like the men.
posted
Exactly, proper nouns were used in place of action verbs to give impression of authority, where only actions were called for. Pretty sneaky.
AS you say, in the big picture WE ALL Submit to ONE ANOTHER as we Submit to Christ( and the Christ we agree is in each other) The Specific examples,which follow the general concept, would help clarify case by case application- if only we would not insist on picking out words which fit OUR OWN agenda.
Some day we will get it right. The problem is many refuse to accept the biblical definition of faith. It says,in effect: see Abraham. His example, as I read it, is one who goes when The Lord says "GO" and stops when The Lord says "STOP." Is that not truely one who obeys? Go and do likewise.
posted
When I was in church, I always had an agenda. I was under the mistaken impression that it was also The Lord's agenda. However, after having quite a shock, I decided I needed to set aside everything I had ever learned. I then decided to build (not rebuild) my belief system entirely from The Interlinear.
Having done this for almost a year now (studying The Interlinear)I find myself with only one "agenda". Liberty! I find the common theme throughout The New Testament to be liberty.
Be blessed, Matthew
P.S. There is a great difference between liberty and license. (license: noun 3a. freedom that allows or is used with irresponsibility).
Email this page to someone.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
It is the word used in Acts 6:2 actually "diakonein". (NOTE: the different spelling causes it to be "to be serving" instead of just "servant" kind of like when we add an ing to a word.) ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
