Role of women in the church

Please list biblical references so that they can be discussed.

 

I would have to say that I've never seen this kind of "opinion" from SW before. Is this where you stand, or are you trying to start something!

 

I have a feeling we'll NEVER really know what these scriptures mean until we get to glory! Because it was the same writer who also said, "For now we see through a glass, darkly." I'm afraid the glass is smudged with the sin of male pride, thinking more highly of himself than he ought to think.

There is so much other scripture that would contradict an absolute literal interpretation here. Check out http://www.covchurch.org/cov/resources/pwomenmin.html

 

The context of this verse is as such: During the time of this writing, men and women wsat separately. Men sat in what we would refer to as congregation seating, and women sat separated from their husbands in an outer section. The officiant addressed the husbands in the congregation, but not the women outside. (btw, children did not attend either; it was strictly a man-only culture). It was typical for the women to call out to their husbands in the congregation to find out what was being said from the pulpit. This back-and-forth chatter was extremely disruptive to the service. Paul called for wthe women inthe sidelines to remain silent, and called for men to give women the instruction given to them once they got home.

Today, women are no longer segregated from the congregation. They sit next to their husbands. Also, today, single women are allowed to attend church (also forbidden back then). Children, too, attend with their parents, which was then forbidden. We no longer have the conditions that existed in the context of this verse. Coed congregations and electronic sound systems, plus the fact that most people today are educated enough to take notes, have made the original context of this verse a non-issue. If we are to apply anything from this verse to today's application, it would be that the congregation should remain silent, and not interrupt the preacher, while he is speaking. This applies to anyone in the congregation, be they men, women, or children.

This verse is NOT a call for women to be banned from the pulpit.

Without seeing the previous verses, this verse is taken completely out of context. The previous verses are: But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." The order is God is above Christ; Christ is above the man, and the man above the woman. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head (Christ).

The previous verses make it clear that the "head covering" is a symbol for headship. A man who prays without authority dishonors Christ. A women who does the same without her spouse's blessing dishonors her spouse. The examples become more clear when you take into consideration the customs of headwear at that time. It doesn't say men and women can't pray pr prophesy, nor does it require or discourage men and women in their head attire. Since head attire customs today are not what they were then, the context of this verse is often difficult to discern. One thing, however, is clear. This verse is NOT intented to require women from keeping their heads covered.

To understand this verse in teh context it was written, we must look at the Greek. Gunh and Anhr are the words in koine Greek for "wife" and "husband" respectively (not "man" and "woman" in general), and being guided in this verse by the passage which is its wider context, we can see that this context is referring to a home-marriage-family situation, not a church context. Paul is saying that he does not allow a wife to exercise authenteo over a husband in the marriage relationship (authenteo = control in a domineering manner).

This verse has to do with the marital relationship. It was not intended to refer to all men and women in a church setting.

 

The widespread misunderstanding of these passages proves how quick men are to pick up on any excuse to act superior and hold others in subjection.

 

Albert Mohler
Author, Speaker, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Tuesday, December 16, 2003

A Call for Courage on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

The fault lines of controversy in contemporary Christianity range across a vast terrain of issues, but none seems quite so volatile as the question of gender. As Christians have been thinking and rethinking these issues in recent years, a clear pattern of divergence has appeared. At stake in this debate is something more important than the question of gender, for this controversy reaches the deepest questions of Christian identity and biblical authority.

For too long, those who hold to traditional understandings of manhood and womanhood, deeply rooted in both Scripture and tradition, have allowed themselves to be pushed into a defensive posture. Given the prevailing spirit of the age and the enormous cultural pressure toward conformity, traditionalists are now accused of being woefully out of step and hopelessly out of date. Now is a good time to reconsider the issues basic to this debate and to reassert the arguments for biblical manhood and womanhood.

The most basic question in this controversy comes down to this: Has God created human beings as male and female with a revealed intention for how we are to relate to each other? The secular world is now deeply committed to confusion on these matters. Denying the Creator, the secular worldview understands gender to be nothing more than the accidental byproduct of blind evolutionary process. Therefore, gender is reducible to nothing more than biology and, as the feminists famously argued, biology is not destiny.

This radical rebellion against a divinely-designed pattern of gender has now reached the outer limits of imagination. If gender is nothing more than a biological accident, and if human beings are therefore not morally bound to take gender as meaningful, then the radical gender theorists and homosexual rights advocates are correct after all. For, if gender is merely incidental to our basic humanity, then we must be free to make whatever adjustments, alterations, or transformations in gender relationships any generation might desire or demand.

The postmodern worldview embraces the notion of gender as a social construct. That is, postmodernists argue that our notions of what it means to be male and female are entirely due to what society has constructed as its theories of masculinity and femininity. Of course, the social construction of all truth is central to the postmodern mind, but when the issue is gender, the arguments become more volatile. The feminist argument is reducible to the claim that patriarchal forces in society have defined men and women so that all the differences ascribed to women represent efforts by men to protect their position of privilege.

Of course, the pervasiveness of this theory explains why radical feminism must necessarily be joined to the homosexual agenda. For, if gender is socially constructed, and therefore differences between men and women are nothing more than social convention, then heterosexuality becomes nothing more than a culturally-privileged form of sexuality.

The utopia envisioned by ideological feminists would be a world free from any concern for gender--a world where masculinity and femininity are erased as antiquated notions, and an age in which the categories of male and female are malleable and negotiable. In the postmodern view, all structures are plastic and all principles are liquid. The influence of previous ages has molded us to believe that men and women are distinct in significant ways, but our newly liberated age will promise to free us from such misconceptions and point us toward a new world of transformed gender consciousness.

As Elizabeth Elliot once reflected: "Throughout the millennia of human history, up until the past two decades or so, people took for granted that the differences between men and women were so obvious as to need no comment. They accepted the way things were. But our easy assumptions have been assailed and confused, we have lost our bearings in a fog of rhetoric about something called equality, so that I find myself in the uncomfortable position of having to belabor to educated people what was once perfectly obvious to the simplest peasant."

In response to this, secular traditionalists argue that the historical experience of the human race affirms important distinctions between men and women and differing roles for the two sexes in both the family and in the larger society. The secular traditionalists have history on their side and their claim to authority is rooted in the accumulated wisdom of the ages. For evidence, these traditionalists would point to the consistent pattern of heterosexual marriage across cultures, and the undeniable historical reality that men have predominated in positions of leadership and that the roles of women have been largely defined around home, children, and family. Thus, these traditionalists warn that feminism poses a threat to social order and that the transformed gender consciousness that the feminists demand would lead to social anarchy.

Clearly, the traditionalists come to the debate with a strong argument. They do have history on their side and we must acknowledge that the historical experience of the human race is not insignificant. Some of the most honest feminist thinkers acknowledge that their very aim is to reverse this historical pattern and much of their scholarship is directed at identifying and excising this patriarchal pattern in the future. The problem with the secular traditionalist is that their argument is, in the end, essentially secular. Their argument is reducible to the claim that the inherited wisdom of human experience points to an oughtness and a moral imperative that should inform the present and the future. In the end, this argument, though powerful and seemingly meaningful, fails to persuade. Modern individuals have been trained from the cradle to believe that every generation makes itself anew and that the past is really past.

The modern ethic of liberation, now so deeply and thoroughly embedded in the modern mind, suggests that the traditions of the past may indeed be a prison from which the present generation should demand release. This is where biblical traditionalists must enter the debate with vigor. We do share much common ground of argument with the secular traditionalists. Biblical traditionalists affirm that the historical experience of mankind should be informative of the present. We also affirm that the enduring pattern of differing roles between men and women, combined with the centrality of the natural family, does present a compelling argument that should be understood as both descriptive and prescriptive. Nevertheless, the biblical traditionalist's most fundamental argument goes far beyond history.

In this age of rampant confusion, we must recapture the biblical concept of manhood and womanhood. Our authority must be nothing less than the revealed Word of God. In this light, the pattern of history affirms what the Bible unquestionably reveals--that God has made human beings in His image as male and female, and that the Creator has revealed His glory in both the sameness and the differences by which He establishes human beings as male and female.

Confronted by the biblical evidence, we must make a vitally important interpretive decision. We must choose between two unavoidable options: either the Bible is affirmed as the inerrant and infallible Word of God, and thus presents a comprehensive vision of true humanity in both unity and diversity, or we must claim that the Bible is, to one extent or another, compromised and warped by a patriarchal and male-dominated bias that must be overcome in the name of humanity.

For biblical traditionalists the choice is clear. We understand the Bible to present a beautiful portrait of complementarity between the sexes, with both men and women charged to reflect God's glory in a distinct way. Thus, there are very real distinctions that mark the difference between masculinity and femininity, male and female. Standing on biblical authority, we must critique both the present and the past when the biblical pattern has been compromised or denied. Likewise, we must point ourselves, our churches, and our children to the future, affirming that God's glory is at stake in our response of obedience or disobedience to His design.

For too long, those who hold to the biblical pattern of gender distinctions have allowed themselves to be silenced, marginalized, and embarrassed when confronted by new gender theorists. Now is the time to recapture the momentum, force the questions, and show this generation God's design in the biblical concept of manhood and womanhood. God's glory is shown to the world in the complementarity of men and women. This crucial challenge is a summons to Christian boldness in the present hour.

 

4) the cloth on the head is for silent prayer as well as verbalized prayer (with children or other sisters).

The cloth is also for prophesying (telling forth speaking God's Word which Christian women do all the time, (especially those who homeschool).

Titus 2:3-5 shows that women are to teach other women.

 

Agreed 100% We are currently attending a church that practices this.

Women silent (literally) in church.

Women covered all the time.

 

The role of a woman is to be a helpmeet to her husband. As far as the church is concerned, it is to tend to the little one, take notes for hubby incase he missed something...Oh yeah to make him look good! (just kidding)

 

You just quoted the Scripture that teach what you said then you roll your eyes. I am quite confused

Do you not agree with these Scriptures or do you not agree that Christians should worship in churches that practice silence of women and headcoverings?

 

I'll interject a response!!

Regarding the initial 4 things from Saggywoman...

NONE OF THE ABOVE!!!

Paul speaks in chapter 14 about keeping order in worship services! JohnV gave a nice long discussion of the background - and he is quite correct. Corinth was a heathen place and the role of women in pagan worship was alot different! Paul tells women to be silent in church so tey do not interrupt the service by asking questions to their husbands.

This does not mean women are to be silent in church or to refrain from teaching other women or children. That would be silly and would be a waste of talents given to many women! And the Bible does not call for us to do nonproductive or silly things!


CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT!!!!!!!!!

Taking verses out of their context and then making a doctrine of this for literalness sake will always result in error!

 

Saggywoman,

I agree on the "chaos" part - and that a man should shut up too if he is causing a disturbance.


But do you think a woman should be literally "silent" during church and Sunday school? Would you say that women cannot teach children or other women during Sunday school or children's church?

 

Have you considered 1 Peter 3:4 in your study? "But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price."

Or 1 Thess 3:11, "And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands as we commanded you."