The place for women in the church, continued...

You are absolutely right Archangel. This is the main point in this discussion.

Many try to make some of the NT passages cultural issues that only apply to that particular culture. But the fact of the matter is that man was the head of the woman even before the fall. He was the head of the woman after the fall. Both were times before there was a such thing as CULTURE.

There was no cultural context for the scenario of Adam's headship in and out of the Garden. There was no culture because there were only two people.

That man is the head of woman is the design of God. It has nothing to do with culture.

 

Word of warning.. (from experience)... BE CAREFUL... she has a rolling pin!!!!

 

I like to cook, if a woman tells me what to bring, is that wrong?

 

Just obey the word.

 

I know this was said tongue-in-cheek, but this EXACTLY illustrates the attitudes some have regarding women. It's one thing to point out that women cannot be pastors--it's another thing to take it to the extreme that "keeping silence" means a woman can't do anything without a man's permission and even questioning a man means she's "rebellious."

I've found the weaker the argument, the faster they start name calling and questioning a person's spirituality.

Someone answer me these two questions, please.
1. Is it okay for a woman to give her time and money to the church?
2. Is it okay for a woman to have a say in how that time and money is spent?

 

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

 

In first century Christendom. When women were basically property. And uneducated. That in no way indicates that it is to be effective for all time.

If I am mistaken, it is not because of rebellion or a dishonest approach to the Bible. My guess is that most of us are wrong on a number of theological points. If so, God's grace covers us in the finiteness of our minds.

This is completely adiaphora. It is not a faith essential.

 

Yes, it is OK for a woman to give her time and money to the church.
Yes, it is OK for a woman to have a say in how that time and money is spent as long as she is doing it in the context of the congregational government of the church.

This is to say that it is NOT OK for anyone, man or woman, to give their time or money to the church with strings attached. Furthermore, it is not OK for anyone, male or female, to think that their giving of money (even large amounts) or time gives them the ability/opportunity/right to dictate what the church must do.

Woman may perform all kinds of things in the church. However, her position is never to be that of teaching authority. Even in teaching a group of women in a Bible study, her teaching is subject to the authority of the Elders (or deacons if they're functioning as elders) and the authority of the congregation. Even men teaching mixed classes or male-only classes are under the same authority. The pastor himself is under the same authority (at least in our church, where we have elders).

Certainly women can read scripture in the service, perhaps give announcements, perhaps pray. However, when it comes to teaching of any kind, this is a male-only job.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

John Calvin, Institutes, vol. 4, ch. 10, sec. 29-30.

"Of the second sort are the hours appointed for public prayers, sermons, and sacraments; quietness and silence under sermons; the singing of hymns; the places appointed for these services, and the days fixed for the celebration of the Lord's supper; the prohibition of Paul, that women should not teach in the Church, and the like; . . .
. . . these things are not necessary to salvation, and ought to be applied to the edification of the Church, with a variety suitable to the manners of each age and nation, therefore, as the benefit of the Church shall require, it will be right to change and abolish former regulations, and to institute new ones." ---John Calvin, Institutes, vol. 4, ch. 10, sec. 29-30.

 

The problem, though, is that Paul never indicates that social status or education level are the reason for his statements. If you examine the passage in 1 Timothy 2, it is clear that Paul appeals to creation and the fall. Creation order is timeless and transcends all peoples and cultures.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

Could you define "congregational government" please? I'm not talking about giving money with strings attached. My question arises because at least one poster on this thread thinks a woman is somehow "usurping authority" over men if she serves on a committee and gives equal input along with any males who might be on that same committee.

My point is that it is hypocritical to allow a woman to give her tithes and offerings at church, yet deny her a voice in the church government (committee's, business meetings, etc.) that determine how funds are spent. It is also wrong to say women must "keep silence" in the church just to shut them up so they aren't allowed to give input on anything.

Serving on a committee, voting at meetings, and asking questions or giving input during a Bible lesson at church hardly qualify as teaching or usurping authority over a man, yet it seems some are so intimidated by this, they want to yell "keep silence" or "rebellion" as an excuse to dominate. I do not believe this was Paul's intent in the verse.

 

Very interesting. Thanks. Calvin understood the supremacy of God's sovereignty and the foundational doctrines. These sorts of issues are not foundational in the least.

It also should be noted that, even though there were few women in service for obvious historical contextual reasons, church government and delegation of roles was usually an ad hoc process, taking care of needs as they arise. This sort of concrete idea of how churches are to operate would be foreign to first century Christians.

 

Bingo. Here's the crux of it. God made men and women, before there WAS a culture, with a hierarchy of authority.

 

Now that is without a doubt what the church is about today! :tear:

 

Sure! Congregational government is where the congregation votes on its leaders (Pastor, Elders), its servants (Deacons), and a whole host of other things.

I don't think it wrong to have a woman serve on a committee. Why? Because even in a church with a committee structure (which I do not advocate) the congregation, not the committee, makes the final decision.

I would venture to say that the committee is under the chairmanship of the pastor (as ex-officio) so that wouldn't necessarily be a problem. Further, voting at meetings is fine. Giving input would be OK as long as it was done respectfully (which I would say to a man also).

It is altogether likely that Paul (in the 1 Corinthians 14 passage) is giving instructions for orderly worship because the service of worship in Corinth was way out of hand. Contextually, this can be seen as prohibiting anyone from calling-out in the service (Remember: Women are not the only ones told to be silent in this passage). But, when we get to 1 Timothy 2, it is clear that there is a creation order and that order (because it is set in creation) is very instructive that men are to have leadership positions in the church.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

Many years ago, when our church was without a pastor, as moderator I appointed a committee to draft by-laws for the church. One of the women I wanted to appoint declined, saying she did not believe women should serve in leadership positions.

I pointed out a couple of things. One, this was an act of service to the congregation, not leadership. Two, because she was wise, and committed to the work of the church, this was a way of her using her gifts and talents.
Three, there was no glory at stake. She and her colleagues were going to work quite hard. She was not leading the congregation, she was serving it.

She changed her mind and agreed to serve.

We have to remember that what we call leadership is still more servanthood. Neither our pastor nor deacons, nor any committee chairman can do anything unless the congregations gives them permission.

Sometimes, those church jobs which are more visible are considered leadership positions. 'Taint necessarily so. In the final analysis, it is still service, not bossing.

 

Great words!

 

Thanks for the explanation, Archangel. I agree with your post.