Men, Women and Roles

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Shortandy, Apr 20, 2010.

  1. Shortandy

    Shortandy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2008
    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    0
    In the thread about woman in the work place the discussion began to shift to the roles of men and woman. Some asserted that they do not recognize roles or that the bible doesn't clearly teach them. So I would like to upon up that discussion.

    Do men and woman have differing roles as set forth by God through the scriptures?
     
  2. jaigner

    jaigner
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,274
    Likes Received:
    0
    The only roles set forth in Scripture were accommodation the the historical context of the day. They are not timeless sorts of principles to be applied to every situation. It is the same as with men having long hair and women not braiding their hair.
     
  3. menageriekeeper

    menageriekeeper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Only two roles are clearly identified in scripture.

    Male: head of the wife

    Female: helpmeet to the husband

    Anything else is between the two of them. Single people are bound to no one and no particular role by scripture once they pass from childhood into adulthood.

    My two cents!
     
  4. Shortandy

    Shortandy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2008
    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    0
    So mothers can be fathers and fathers can be mothers? Interesting. What do you do with Ephesians 5:22 and the following? You are saying I don't have the role of husband and that I don't have to love my wife like Christ loves the church? I don't have to wash her in the water of the word?

    Long hair and braided hair are not roles so your appeal to them has no place in the discussion.
     
  5. jaigner

    jaigner
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,274
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm saying Paul was speaking to a certain people in a certain situation. In the 1st century, it was not common practice for men to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, so they needed to hear that.

    I am obviously not meaning fathers and mothers could switch biological roles. Carrying what I said that far is absurd. But Paul is not putting forth a biblical ideal when he writes these things. They are not moral lists, as he puts forth in Romans 1, for instance.

    We cannot just pull things out of their context and superimpose them over current situations at every whim. The Bible only speaks to us through its original context.

    Whatever your position, it's just not that cut and dry.
     
  6. Shortandy

    Shortandy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2008
    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Paul set forth a principle within the context. Braided hair for ladies is overboard for our context yes...but the principle that saved women need to dress modestly still holds true. He wrote to the Ephesians in their context; I agree; but the principle of men and women in marriage is universal. As a husband I am to love my wife that way or I go against the way God mandated marriage to be. That is cut and dry. To dance around that is to make the Bible completely void and useless...if that becomes the case...if Ephesians 5:22--- has not meaning for me at all then I am free to conduct myself in my marriage how I see fit with zero guidelines for the pastor/elder or my brothers in Christ would have no authority to hold me accountable with.

    So you see this is not a matter of whim or trying to superimpose things....this is a matter of how the Bible applies to us as believers.
     
  7. Shortandy

    Shortandy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2008
    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Also jaigner....if culture and context abolish roles of men and women then how is it that culture and context do not do away with biological roles? I mean lets go all the way down the rabbit whole you are tumbling through Alice.

    Our culture and context say that two women can have a relationship and raise a child together. Why can't one of these ladies be the father and one the mother? Why can't a woman offer a child the same type of physical, emotional and psychological leadership that a man can? Why can't that role be done away with as easy as you are doing away with the others?
     
  8. jaigner

    jaigner
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,274
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would not say that culture and context abolish anything. Paul was not making overarching statements that would need to be abolished; rather he was addressing a situation in the 1st century that needed addressing.

    There is no trajectory of change in Scripture regarding homosexuality, and it is included in Paul's moral lists, which include other overarching moral issues. The rules of the forum dictate we don't discuss that particular issue further, though. Standards of morality are timeless issues, such as blasphemy, impurity, greed, those kinds of things.

    But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about an issue of the day that the Bible speaks to. It is divine accommodation - limiting freedoms or allowing some undesirable things to take place for a time for the greater good of the Kingdom. Like plural marriage, for instance.

    The attitude of the evangelical egalitarian is not one of rampant permissiveness (though there are some mainlines who might advocate that kind of general attitude), but one of working toward a biblical ideal that, for a time, needed to be limited. Nothing has been abolished - it wasn't that it was wrong even at the time, but it was sort of a concession for the greater good of the Kingdom.
     
  9. Shortandy

    Shortandy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2008
    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Braided hair, long beards, wearing clothing of mixed fibers, having more than one wife...these things would fall into the category of divine accommodation.

    However, roles do not. When Paul instructed Timothy for woman to have no authority over a man his appeal was not based on cultural norms but on creation. I am struggling to see how you would try to put this in the category of divine accommodation.
     
  10. jaigner

    jaigner
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,274
    Likes Received:
    0
    In the 1st century, women were only just beginning to receive a proper education. They were still on the whole viewed as property. Female church leadership would not have been accepted during that time, no matter what. It was not the time for that to change, similar to Paul's input on slavery. Today, fortunately, women are usually not treated as second class and slavery is against the law. Paul's instructions in these cases are, as is the whole of Scripture, beneficial to us, but they cannot be cut out of Scripture and superimposed on every situation in the rest of the world. His references to Scripture have little to do with the duration of his instruction, but serve as examples.

    It's interesting that Paul only chose to speak of this issue a couple of times, whereas salient moral and doctrinal issues were emphasized often.

    For further reading, I would google and read the works of N.T. Wright, the most preeminent evangelical New Testament scholar among us today and a very gifted writer and theologian. His work explains the complexity of these passages and helps us to an understanding of their application in the original context, which helps us understand how to faithfully interpret them today.

    Blessings.
     
  11. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,378
    Likes Received:
    790

    And that explains it all.
     
  12. jaigner

    jaigner
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,274
    Likes Received:
    0
    Explains what? That I read credible evangelical scholarship? I don't think it's a problem to highlight the gracious and lucid scholarship of one of the finest evangelicals around today, who is committed to faithful exegesis, for which he is appreciated by a huge number of Christians scholars, complementarians and egalitarians alike.

    Want other opinions on both sides? Check out I. Howard Marshall and Doug Moo, for starters.
     
  13. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,378
    Likes Received:
    790
    .........................................................
     
    #13 Revmitchell, Apr 22, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 22, 2010
  14. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,378
    Likes Received:
    790

    Really? Are you aware of his view on the imputation of Christ's righteousness on us?
     
  15. jaigner

    jaigner
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,274
    Likes Received:
    0
    I thought we were talking about gender.

    His position is orthodox and in line with the reformers, if that's what you're referring to.
     
  16. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,378
    Likes Received:
    790

    We are but you mentioned Tom Wright as a source. I am questioning your source as being credible. So what is his view then if you think he is orthodox?
     
  17. Mississippi John

    Mississippi John
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2010
    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    0
    What is your problem with N.T. Wright ?
     
  18. Shortandy

    Shortandy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2008
    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yet what you are appealing to is much different that Paul. You are making your stance based upon the differences is culture. Paul never mentioned education he used creation. He basis what saying what he said was creation and that in the Garden when Adam and Eve were created they each had a role. Adam was the head.
     
    #18 Shortandy, Apr 22, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 22, 2010
  19. jaigner

    jaigner
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,274
    Likes Received:
    0
    Which passage are you referring to?
     
  20. PastorGreg

    PastorGreg
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2000
    Messages:
    794
    Likes Received:
    0
    To write the roles off as cultural accomodations is not only biblically inaccurate, it is also intellectually dishonest. Paul gives the reasons for male leadership in the church in I Tim 2, and they are not cultural. They both go back to creation. One is the creative order - Adam was created 1st because he was to be the leader, the 2nd to male-female creative differences. Eve was deceived, Adam was not. Men and women are different by God's creative design and are created for different roles. I Cor. 11 is also not cultural. Is the Father still the head of Christ? Is Christ still the head of the man? Then the man is still the head of the woman. Not culture, Creator's design.
     

Share This Page

Loading...