Elevation of women in the church and in society

[ccrobinson]

Technically, women leadership outside of the home is one of those "gray" areas, to a degree (so is smoking weed in this sense). i.e., there is no, "thou shalt not lead outside the home, woman" (nor, thou shalt not smoke weed).

Ah, yes, the old guilt by association fallacy has reared its head again. Nice try.

 

[Bro. Williams]

Oh hogwash... in other words, "I can't argue with you, let me sling some mud!"

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

That statement right there appears to be a little facetious.

Nope, in the light of the philosophy in this home why would the woman be posting in public instead of letting her husband speak for her.

It seems like some folks on both sides of the debate ate quick to judge motives.

 

[ccrobinson]

Oh hogwash... in other words, "I can't argue with you, let me sling some mud!"

You took the idea of women leading outside the home, and associated it with smoking weed. That is a guilt by association fallacy.

You chose the term sling mud, which implies that I attacked you personally. Where did I attack you personally?

 

[Bro. Williams]

You took the idea of women leading outside the home, and associated it with smoking weed. That is a guilt by association fallacy.

You chose the term sling mud, which implies that I attacked you personally. Where did I attack you personally?

No, you misunderstood me. I was not relating women in leadership outside of the home to smoking weed. I was using it as an example of how some things are not directly mentioned in the Bible but we are able to get a good idea about them through other texts, principles, and examples.

Slinging mud is a reference to just slinging words without having a valid point. I now see where you were coming from, but you misunderstood. I did not mean a personal attack. My apology.

 

[ccrobinson]

No, you misunderstood me. I was not relating women in leadership outside of the home to smoking weed. I was using it as an example of how some things are not directly mentioned in the Bible but we are able to get a good idea about them through other texts, principles, and examples.

Slinging mud is a reference to just slinging words without having a valid point. I now see where you were coming from, but you misunderstood. I did not mean a personal attack. My apology.

Ahhh! The classic I-misunderstood-you problem.

Thanks for the explanation. Apology not required, but appreciated. :thumbs:

 

[Bro. Williams]

Ahhh! The classic I-misunderstood-you problem.

Thanks for the explanation. Apology not required, but appreciated. :thumbs:

Yes, unfortunately that seems to be a common problem throughout internet land.

I noticed when I first began emailing, which seems like eons ago. I don't know if it is that lack of heard inflection or what, but it is often hard to tell how to take someone on the net (especially when that person has a habit of using sarcasm).

Thanks for the understanding.

 

[rbell]

My problem is that it should not be legal but it is.
It give the opportunity for a divided family.
The husband votes one way and the wife cancels out his vote with another vote.
I believe the man should vote but should be counted for all in his house. Wife and children.

Exactly how is it that a man voting for his entire family would negate any division? Just because a woman doesn't pull a lever herself...that doesn't mean there would not still be division. In fact, it could be argued that since the woman has no voice in the matter, there might be more division.

And, though it's been said, your idea of prohibiting women from voting? Not one scriptural support there.

Maybe the best plan is to simply allow only the very righteous men to vote. That way, all the wrongheaded, evil, and reprobate people wouldn't "cancel out" the good votes. Eventually, we'll end up with all elections being unanimous...the way God intended. Heck, it works for sharia law in Muslim countries...and it worked for Saddam Hussein pretty well.

I am quite disturbed by the notion that a woman in your way of thinking is not allowed to have an opinion. That's scary in my book...unbiblical and scary.

I love the Scriptures. I love how they spell out love and submission for Christian families to understand. But IMO you're taking it to a level that Scripture never does, and it's troubling.

I'd rather stick with scriptural principles than try to replicate a first-century societal structure. Ephesians 5--let's build our Christian homes on this principle. I'm all for returning to the Biblical admonitions. However, I'm not the least bit interested in returning to slavery, polygamy, and women as property. To paraphrase Joe Friday, "Just the Scriptures, ma'am."

 

[Bro. Williams]

Alright, this whole thing is getting broad.

Let's look at one of the passages mentioned again:

Ephesians 5:23-24 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Alright. Now, if Christ says "do this, or do that" to the church, the church is to listen. If the church thinks otherwise, Christ's command is to trump the church.

The head makes the decisions. My arm doesn't decide what it wants to do on its own unless it is having a spasm. The head decides for the arm.

As Christ is the head of the church, the man is the head of the family.

Therefore, if I tell me wife to vote how I vote, I am in every right. If I tell her, no, I don't want liver on Thurday, I want fried chicken, then that is my right. Is that spiritual, no, not per se, but it is the truth. What I decide for my family is what goes, period. What Christ decides for the church is what goes, period. Are we in disobediance to him at times? Certainly and unfortunately. How is this all so difficult?

 

[npetreley]

Alright, this whole thing is getting broad.

Pun intended?

 

[Bro. Williams]

:laugh: quite, thanks for noticing.

 

[Analgesic]

For the record, some argue that the Bible does indeed discuss and promote the consumption of marijuana.

 

[npetreley]

For the record, some argue that the Bible does indeed discuss and promote the consumption of marijuana.

Is that what the parable about the wheat and the weed is about?

 

[Bro. Williams]

Yeah, I have an old freind who likes to talk to people about how Jesus could have enjoyed cannibas...

He doesn't come around much anymore. Hey, my lashing out did at least one good thing (see other thread....).

 

[drwthohh]

You know we must not forget that we all, men and women, are under various degrees of authority (i.e. - God, government, work, family). I don't think people in times past had as hard of a time accepting this fact as we modern americans with our independant, democratic, freedom-loving, we-determine-our-own-destiny worldview shaping our thinking.

When I read the scriptures through clear lenses instead of american-colored ones I see from the beginning that everyone from God on high down to the lowliest of creatures is basically at some level of authority. Problems started when rebellion against God-ordered authority began with Lucifer, then Eve and Adam, and Adam's descendants. That is why we are born sinners, because we inherited the curse of rebellion from Adam who was in effect in authority over us as his descendants. And not only us, but all of the created world and creatures were subjected to the curse because it was originally placed by God under Adam's dominion.

We have suffering in the world because Adam, who was over us, sinned and brought it into the world. That kind of stinks for all the poor animals who didn't eat the forbidden fruit. It also stinks for all the poor souls born since that time who suffer for no other reason than because sin is in this world. But that is how God ordered things and like it or not we reap the curses as well as the benifits of this system.

Now I know that this concept clashes with our american ideals of fairness and such. But there is a huge upside: If we submit to Christ we gain all the benefits of being under His authority, even though we didn't do anything to earn those benefits. He purchased us with His blood. The benefits are free to us simply because we are under His headship. Christ is our new King. This is how authority works. It's one of the major themes throughout the Bible.

If we try to throw that out and live by our own rules because certain parts of the Bible contradict our own worldview, we will be in rebellion against God's established order. Not a good place to be.

 

[Filmproducer]

Here I was thinking I am in submission to God and my husband, but lo and behold the I come to find the Bible actually implies that it is God, my husband, and all other men.I must still ask all of you out there where are the Bible verses that disqualify me, an educated woman, from leading men in the corporate business world? I AM in submission to my husband, and I AM the keeper of my home, and I AM the primary caregiver to my children. How exactly am I erring from biblical authority?

Not one single woman who has participated in this thread has claimed that women should not be submissive to their husbands or that women should lead men in the church. We have all based our comments on scripture, even if not quoted outright, yet the majority of the posts deal with the submissiveness of women. So please enlighten me just who am I to be in submission to as a woman? You know besides God and my husband. How exactly am I being rebellious, especially considering I am not rebelling in those areas specifically outlined in the scriptures?

Bro. Williams you actually believe that for your wife to be in submission she must yield to your beck and call? I'm sorry, but that is not submission. There is a difference between submission and obedience. Living in submission is living with a willingness to yield to another, not living in total obedience, (as in make fried chicken or your not being submissive).

(Oh, and CY, no need to get you knickers in a knot mk posted plenty of scripture, and I have yet to see you actually reply to it. In fact go back to the early pages in the thread and mcdirector posted some scripture as well, which no one seemed to want to address as well. What are you guys so afraid of? the fact the some of us women actually think for ourselves and have a very firm grasp of scripture? Sure seems like it.)

 

[Mr.M]

What we do have is a clear command that a woman is to be in submission to her husband in home and at church.

With that said, how could a woman that is married be a ruler and yet in submission to her husband. Even if that scenario existed, would it not be the husband ruling and not the woman, which would be like the opposite of the Clinton "dynasty".

(Partial Quote)

I will attempt to tackle this, if not for the author of the question, as least for all readers but my hope is that it will be instructive for all.

The question of a woman ruling in some capacity outside of her home (apparently in this case as a ruler of a civil government) and allegedly by default placing herself outside of the domestic submission of her husband is one that demonstrates unfamiliarity with the divine institutions of the self, marriage, family, government and the church.

Each divine institution has divinely designed authority. With the self, it is of course the self that answers to God. Within marriage the wife answers to the husband and the husband to God yet she maintains the integrity of her self. For example a woman has a right to her thoughts; it is her mind and her right to that. Even in marriage the exercise of the divine institution of the self remains. A man attempting to usurp the authority of the institution of the self in his wife by trying to control her thoughts and demanding that she think his thoughts is violating the institution of the self. Hence two divine institutions operating in harmony with two distinct authorities.

The husband's role as the authority in the marriage is limited. It is not carte blanche. It has boundaries. The husband is not authorized to violate the boundaries of other divine institutions to satisfy his interests in ruling.

Another example is the divine institution of government. Because a man is head of his home, when his wife drives the car she is now obeying other men and women who by means of the divine institution of government have established speed limits. Does this now take away the authority of the husband or encroach upon his role of domestic administrator because his wife is now obeying other men? Of course not because his authority over her is limited to the context of marriage and does not extend itself into government.

When a church builds a building according to governmental code have they abandoned the headship of Christ by obeying building authorities? How silly. Of course not, they are obeying the divine institution of government and recognizing its divine authority. In fact by not obeying them they are disobeying God.

So when a wife enters into civil government and for the sake of argument she becomes the head of state of whatever government, how then is she still in submission to her husband? Well simply by being in submission to him because remember his authority over her is limited to domestic authority and does not extend itself to civil government. Just as civil government is limited in the scope of its authority and powers. So as long as in a domestic capacity she is in submission to her husband, then she is indeed in submission to him.

And finally take the divine institution of the church. The Pastor has certain divine prerogatives. But his authority is limited like all authorities. He certainly determines what is taught in the church but he is out of bounds if he shows up at a person's door step and meddles into their marriage and attempts to usurp the husband’s authority. Just as the husband has no right to usurp the Pastor’s authority. Each authority in these divine institutions is limited in scope and power.

So in the case of a woman ruling in civil government, as long as in the contexts where her husband has authority over her she is in submission, that is all that is required. And hopefully the husband is in submission to the divine institution of government, even when his lovely it at the helm, otherwise he is in rebellion and certainly couldn't be an adequate leader at home in that case....heh heh.

 

[Filmproducer]

(Partial Quote)

I will attempt to tackle this, if not for the author of the question, as least for all readers but my hope is that it will be instructive for all.....

:thumbs: Well said indeed. Excellent post!

 

[Bro. Williams]

Bro. Williams you actually believe that for your wife to be in submission she must yield to your beck and call? I'm sorry, but that is not submission. There is a difference between submission and obedience. Living in submission is living with a willingness to yield to another, not living in total obedience, (as in make fried chicken or your not being submissive).

To one another? So am I to be in submission to my wife as well. No sister, you are entirely wrong in that concept. Submission is obediance. And this whole issue of the word "subjection" that has previously been mentioned. That is exactly the word the Bible uses. Like it or lump, that is scripture.

Lady, I am not so "chauvanistic" that I believe the wide is to suffer lockjaw in silence while I tyrannize her and beat up the children. Nor do I believe that she is never allowed to put her "two cents worth" in.

This is what I am saying, usurping the authority of man is forbidden in the home. The final authority in the home is the man, not the mand and his wife. opinions and suggestions are needed from both sides, but DECISIONS are male, and the male is responsible for the decision. (see I Cor 11:3, 7-9 again). When did Gen 3:16 get overturned? According to I Tim 3:4 he is to RULE his own house. A helpmeet (Gen 2:18) does not decide.

On women working out of home. I don't mind a woman working outside the home (no mine doesn't, but the Lord has blessed us to be able to do this and to be able to keep our children out of the hell hole known as public education). On women leading outside the home. I answered that earlier in reference to government. In light of a "regular" job. Honestly I don't have an opinion. I don't prefer women bosses, but that is a personal preference and not scripture. I do know Eve was decieved while Adam wasn't, which makes for a pretty good position, but not good enough to make waves. I have female bosses, and I adhere to them because it is my duty.


BTW, the food thing was an example/illustration. Yes, I do call the shots. No, I don't typically do them in that fashion. I know that the Lord has blessed me with a good wife that knows our marriage doesn't need to be a monstrosity (two heads). I don't dictate what she does in the home mostly, for she is better at it than I. I eat what she cooks and enjoy most every bite (like the white chicken chili she made last night... but I digress).

 

[Bro. Williams]

Mr. M,

I understand all that was written. I do not agree with the matter of civil government and women ruling. We don't have to agree. I see your point, you may see mine.

I adressed further work situations after your post, before this post.