Male Leadership in the West
by
Candice Watters
on Nov 1, 2007 at 3:42 PM
According to The Feminine Critique in Thursday's New York Times, Catalyst, an organization that studies women in the workplace, is trying to figure out "why, 30 years after women entered the work force in large numbers, the default mental image of a leader is still male."
It sounded like so many reports that bemoan the strides women have yet to make in the workplace. It's a repetitive theme: "They are expected to be nurturing, but seen as ineffective if they are too feminine ... they are expected to be strong, but tend to be labeled as strident or abrasive when acting as leaders."
Before I had time to process this latest lament, I got my Boundless update from Ted and immediately linked to Heather's article "Weaker Partner." Good, providential timing. I couldn't finish it without crying.
Heather takes the equality debate to a whole different level, with an unexpected conclusion. But her inclusion of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a woman who "now lives, writes and speaks in America," was what really got me. Apparently Ali's work is an effort to "encourage the West to realize that its culture is, indeed, superior to militant Islam." As Ali says, "Human beings are equal; cultures are not."
If you've ever struggled to understand why God would create a world where men are supposed to be leaders, where wives are supposed to submit to their husbands, and where pastors are supposed to be male, please take a minute to read Heather's article. For a culture that continues to question the "default mental image" of a male leader -- given Ali's insights -- you might start to question why we'd ever want to change it.
1. Louise had the following to say on Nov 1 at 3:51 PM:
I read Ms. Koerner's article and found the cultural observations of Ms. Ali to be most interesting.
However, I cannot interpret the term "weaker partner" as meaning anything but inferior.
How can someone termed "weaker" not be considered inferior?
That's just how I read the terminology though.
One more thing, Ms. Koerner calls her husband a "saint" since he agreed to equally share cooking chores.
IMO, that does not qualify anyone as a saint, rather that makes that person cooperative and agreeable.
2. Kellie had the following to say on Nov 1 at 5:11 PM:
Men are supposed to be leaders in the home, yes (though in reality that means different things to different Christians). But doesn't this mean that only men are to be leaders in the workplace. Check out The Truth Project, Dr. Tackett explains it well.
3. v@v had the following to say on Nov 1 at 5:38 PM:
"...where pastors are supposed to be male..."" -- Really? Does a womoan have less sherpherding ability (assuming, of course, she is called)hmm.....
4. Laura_mh had the following to say on Nov 1 at 6:10 PM:
To submit I have to completely trust the males in my life to have my best interest in mind, and I don't necessarily think they do. They are either bossy and domineering, or completely passive.
I totally agree with the comment about weaker = inferior. I cannot stand the use of that word, and being labeled as inferior.
5. Melissa* had the following to say on Nov 1 at 6:26 PM:
v@v, I believe Candice gets this from passages like 1 Corin 14:33-35. I don't think Candice was suggesting that women do not have the capacity to serve--quite the opposite!--but simply that they don't in the same way as men do.
"One more thing, Ms. Koerner calls her husband a "saint" since he agreed to equally share cooking chores.
IMO, that does not qualify anyone as a saint, rather that makes that person cooperative and agreeable."
Louise, from the editorial, it sounds like cooperating with her and her demands in the early days of their marriage now makes him look like a saint in her eyes. Is there anything wrong with that?
6. JMarie had the following to say on Nov 1 at 6:26 PM:
I didn't think Ms. Koerner called her husband a saint because he agreed to share the chores, I thought it was because he put up with her militant, drawing lines attitude about it; it didn't sound like she was open for discussion at the time.
While I enjoyed the article, and thought it had some good points, I didn't feel that the term "weaker vessel" was really explored (did I miss something?).
7. Elizabeth had the following to say on Nov 1 at 6:56 PM:
For those of you who think that "weaker" means inferior, do you think, then, that you are inferior? Because, if you consider it, unless you are superwoman, you are weaker physically than most men. Though I am strong, I know I can't do as many push ups as my brother can. However, that doesn't make me feel that I am physically inferior to him. Children, too, are weaker than adults. I certainly don't consider them to be inferior.
Now, this is not to say that I don't struggle with the idea of a wife's submission to her husband's leadership - I am independent, stubborn, and like to be in control (and tend to think I'm right), and the idea of giving up control to someone else is, frankly, scary (I have enough trouble trying to remember that it is God Who is really in control). However, from what the Bible says about male headship, I believe that I am called to submit to it, and that in so doing, I will be blessed by God. I also am really noticing how much men need our respect, and, sometimes, our unconditional respect, not based on what they do, but on who they are. No, I don't trust the males in my life to always have my best interest in mind. But I must trust that God does, and that what He calls me to do will work to His glory and my sanctification.
8. DannieA had the following to say on Nov 1 at 7:07 PM:
I'm all about women achieving their best in the workforce and I believe it to be a moral and ethical calling to do your best and beyond in the workplace...
That being said, last year at my school site, we had a male principal. He was the best, he was a great leader.
This year due to his career dreams...he opted to take a middle school principal position in the district.
Our school got a woman principal. Everyone does not like her, she is a horrible leader...she has small children so she does not dedicate that much time to bringing good leadership to our site so she can get home to her kids....I do think our male principal did a better job...and not only because of his work ethic and faith, but because he could dedicate his time to work as his wife nurtured the kids.
I hate to sound sexist, but come on now, we would be blind to not see the difference and crave for male leadership
9. Joshua Pettett had the following to say on Nov 1 at 7:22 PM:
Louise, Laura, et al., I think the direct association between the terms "weaker" and "inferior" is a modern invention born from a self-centered culture that overvalues brute force (since it's needed to get ones own way, etc.). But consider a rose and a piece of lumber; the flower is unequivocally weaker than the think wooden plank. But does that make it inherently inferior? Hardly, especially in the eyes of a florist.
Also, keep in mind that the whole point of using the term "weaker partner" in 1 Peter 3:7 was to admonish men to treat their wives with care and respect. In other words, it's almost as if he's saying, "don't trample your rose, she's more delicate than you are, so take special care of her."
I hope you find this helpful and encouraging.
10. AD had the following to say on Nov 1 at 7:28 PM:
I really appreciated this article. It was very important to me to find a man who would take the leadership in our marriage, but also truly honor and respect me. Still, I wondered how I could possibly adjust, since I am naturally independent. I thank God for the husband He brought into my life. I have learned that being under a man's headship is a beautiful thing when that man is submitting himself to God. My husband may have the last word, but his first concern is always for me and my well-being. I have never felt more precious and valuable in my entire life.
11. Louise had the following to say on Nov 1 at 8:28 PM:
Mr. Pettett "delicate" is one thing.
To me, "weaker" denotes inferior.
DannieA, I have known several males managers who were deficient in leadership skills. And yes, IMO your attitude does sound sexist, but you have the right to your opinion like everyone else.
12. farmer Tom had the following to say on Nov 1 at 9:48 PM:
Wow,
Some of ya'lls comments are amazing.
especially when it comes to the authorities and responsibilities of Christian males and females. Passages such as 1 Peter 3, which tells me in language hard to misinterpret that I am to submit to my husband, have been a struggle for me. The passage, too, refers to me as the "weaker partner." Is God serious, I used to wonder.
Interesting statement. One wonders just what a superior system to God's she has in mind?
"...where pastors are supposed to be male..."" -- Really? Does a womoan have less sherpherding ability (assuming, of course, she is called)hmm.....
Now I'm no expert, but it seems to me that if one follows the clear teachings of Scripture, then unless there is a different meaning to the words man and husband than I know about, it is rather difficult for a female to meet the following qualifications.
1 Timothy 3
1This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
I suppose it's possible that you're one of those deeply confused newfangled modern folk who are unable to tell the difference between the genders by looking between their legs. So you think that two sexually befuddled individuals playing house together constitutes "marriage". Some one who believed this kind of idiocy would probably allow one of the two sexually befuddled individuals to call them self the "husband" in this charade, of course only the sexually befuddled would accept this definition.
We have two of these gender confused individuals in my town. Their churches are dying, they deny the authority of the Word of God, and their "parishioners" are surely headed for hell, since they also reject what Jesus Christ said, " John 14:6:
6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
I guess if you reject the idea that Jesus Christ is the only way of Salvation, it's not that big of a deal to reject the idea that God specifically stated that men are to be the leaders, in the home, in the church, .......
13. Ame had the following to say on Nov 1 at 9:53 PM:
Weaker does not mean inferior.
Focus radio aired Dr. Walt Larimore speaking directly to this ... if I found the correct resource, it is:
Cherish Your Wife I-II
Dr. Walt Larimore
Broadcast CD
B00107D
If I remember correctly, Dr. Larimore compared "weaker" to a very expensive and delicate vase. Perhaps the Boundless staff can review this to see if I'm correct ... and perhaps have access to a transcript.
14. Karen had the following to say on Nov 1 at 10:30 PM:
I was under the impression that a woman is required to submit to the leadership of God, her husband, her parents and relevant governmental/legal authorities. I don't see how that stops a woman having a leadership position - she does not have to submit to the leadership of every man on the planet, after all.
And DannieA, a sample size of two does not provide evidence that women generally are unfit to be leaders. I know several women whose leadership has resulted in great advances in their fields of expertise, even saving lives in the process. The world would be a poorer place had these women not taken on leadership roles.
15. Jamie Morton had the following to say on Nov 1 at 11:39 PM:
Joshua makes a good point; the association between weakness and inferiority is indeed an imposition of modern sensibility on our language. However, I would argue that language is primarily a masculine endeavor. Which isn't to say that I'm going to use terms like "herstory" or "womyn" as a method of linguistic "reclamation" . . . Just saying that there are plenty of (male) literary theorists who have argued very convincingly that language is part of the patriarchy.
That to say I think the idea that women cannot lead takes advantage of what the article is trying to say. The point of this article was to say that women are treated with deference and respect, which is something that shouldn't be scoffed at by fourth-wave pseudofeminists. Additionally, it's not even Biblical. The best example I can point to is Rebecca. Judge. Chosen by God to lead and judge the people of Israel. A singular instance, perhaps, but I think the notion of prophetesses is hard to refute. God chooses women to lead his people.
16. Ro had the following to say on Nov 2 at 2:58 AM:
The article was great. Very encouraging. I'd like to offer what I think might be a single woman's viewpoint / perspective on this.
The article made me a little sad. It mentions that we should be grateful we do not have to be the protectors or providers. However, as a single girl, I have to be the protector and provider for myself. It could be argued that I should allow my father to do this for me. However my psychologist has said that due to the emotional and verbal abuse and threats of violence I experience at home, she feels it would be very unhealthy for me and psychologically damaging to move back home, even though the loneliness I feel has made me contemplate this.
I'm not complaining about my life. I just want to note that there are those of us who, as females, do have to take on the role of provider and protector for ourselves. This is quite difficult and an emotional strain, as it is unnatural and not what we are made for naturally. It makes you have to be tougher and less nurturing than you are. The article to me, stating that women are lucky we do not have to be the providers or protectors is an idealization, that relates to women who have husbands, and is far removed from the reality many twenty something Christian girls face, where we have to provide and protect for ourselves. We also aren't allowed to leave and cleave, but at what age is still being in an uncleaven state to your parents unhealthy?
To main point is that those lucky enough to have husbands can be grateful they do not have to be the protectors and providers. The rest of us aren't, as we don't experience this.
17. Carrie had the following to say on Nov 2 at 7:13 AM:
The idea of weaker meaning inferior makes me laugh.
On Memorial Day I went hiking with some friends (2 men and 1 other woman). There was a larger than life rock that one would need to pull themselves over in order to continue up the river. The other girl and I have zero upper body strength, so the men pushed and pulled us over.
I highly doubts these friends were thinking "Oh. Those stupid girls. I just wish they would gain some upper body strength so we didn't have to deal with that!"
If they didn't help us out, then they would have been without our fellowship for the rest of the afternoon. It's because we are not inferior to them that they are our friends.
Really, the idea that weaker means inferior is a little ridiculous in the 21st century!
18. v@v had the following to say on Nov 2 at 7:47 AM:
Melissa, thanks for the response :-)
However, I don't think Candice is saying women don't have the capacity to serve at all, rather, I'm focusing on the specific calling of being a *pastor*. While it's obvious that men tend to be pastors, there are those women who are. Are their ministries null and void because they are women? Can God not use them the same way he would a man. I agree, seeing a woman pastor a congregation is much less traditional, but I don't know if I would go as far as saying they are not "supposed" to be pastors. So, that was my original question.
19. Ruth had the following to say on Nov 2 at 7:50 AM:
Laura, you said, "To submit I have to completely trust the males in my life to have my best interest in mind, and I don't necessarily think they do. They are either bossy and domineering, or completely passive."
I have also struggled with the idea, but came to peace with it when I realized that submission doesn't mean complete trust in the male, but rather complete trust in my sovereign, loving father. I can submit to my father and future husband because while I see them close to me, I can also see my Heavenly Father in the long distance behind them. He is ultimately working all things for our good and His glory, no matter what mistakes the male, or I, make. (i.e. Judas Iscariot's use in God's plan for salvation.) What a great God we can trust!
20. Julia had the following to say on Nov 2 at 8:12 AM:
1 Peter 3:7
7Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.
1 Corinthians 12:21-23
21The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!" 22On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty
21. Matt had the following to say on Nov 2 at 8:16 AM:
Why do so many of us connect our value to our abilities? What do we have that we haven't received from God?
God could miraculously raise pastors, leaders, hsubands, etc out of the dust of the ground and they would do a better job than any of our sinful selves ever could. The fact that he even allows -- let alone calls -- any of us to do any work that matters in His Kingdom is profoundly gracious. He has fashioned us all according to his pleasure and called us according to His will, not according to how strong and capable we are. I know myself too well to ask God to treat me as I deserve. In the beginning of Romans, Paul makes it abundantly clear that I deserve to be in Hell.
In light of this, I find it find it inconceivable that Christian women complain that they aren't called to headship in the home or Pastoral leadership on the grounds that their abilities make them deserving of such positions. Men certainly don't deserve them and neither do women.
22. Julia had the following to say on Nov 2 at 8:17 AM:
I struggle sometimes with this passage. Was it intended for a specific circumstance or cultural context or is this meant to be a guideline for worship that is timeless? If so, I can understand that it ruffles feathers (it ruffles mine a bit,) but we can hardly ignore God's words.
1 Timothy 2:11-15
11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women[a] will be saved[b] through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
23. Nicole had the following to say on Nov 2 at 8:52 AM:
AD, I could quote you line for line! I too was a very independent (I still am, something I need to work on), however learning what submission really means in marriage by living it, seeing it played out the way God intended, is really a beautiful thing.
DannieA, I'm sorry, but I find your example and argument for male leadership to be very weak and based purely on circumstance. How long have you been in the workforce? I've been in the workforce for 10 years, and honestly, the female leaders I have had have been much better than the male. I'm not saying all women are better leaders, but your argument is based one experience.
When it comes to leadership in the workplace, I think the qualities that makes someone a great leader don't necessarliy have to do with gender. They have more to do with personality, style of management and environment. Whether they were designed to be that way or not, some men just aren't great leaders.
24. Christina had the following to say on Nov 2 at 9:03 AM:
This subject has been gettin to me a lot lately...my blog has been my source of outlet on the subject.
I REALLY think that women are completely and totally capable of anything they put their minds to. They can be leaders, in charge, strong, and so on. But I think that submitting that strength, leadership, and ability to take charge makes us MUCH more invaluable to society, specifically to the other half of our species. Men need a woman to fight for, love, and cherish - someone who respects them and is willing to let them lead her. And I SERIOUSLY believe there is nothing INFERIOR to a woman choosing to let a man be her leader.
And the Bible makes a point of telling you to do things that don't necessarily come naturally...being the only species in the world that is commanded to wait til a committed relationship before procreating...Our human nature is usually at odds with what scripture tells us to do...that doesn't mean we should be given special treatment because we're "different" than most women. The command to submit has nothing to do with your capabilities to lead. In fact, your capabilities to lead could make the man you submit to a much STRONGER leader, because HE is also commanded to LEAD.
25. v@v had the following to say on Nov 2 at 9:52 AM:
Jamie -- did you mean Deborah, the judge?
And, Farmer Tom, now I'm not one of those "deeply confused newfangled modern folk who are unable to tell the difference between the genders by looking between their legs" -- but thanks for the poetic and tactful description. God bless you.
I'm simply saying this -- I know of a few female pastors -- not many, but a few. Whose ministries have flourished beautifuly -- both having been pastors over 25 years, one of which took over her husband's ministry after he died. They are Gospel preaching ministers of the Word, the TRUTH, who shephered a congregation -- who have helped develop other MEN into ministers themselves. Not women who use the pulpit to preach feminist ideas, but the Gospel of truth. With so much fruit to show, can you really say their annointing is counterfeit and they should not lead? That God himself has not anointed them for the task? That their husbands are inferior because their wife has the role of a Senior Pastor? I'm not saying I know how they make it work personally, I'm just saying, somehow, it does.
I belong to a church with a male pastor, but we have male *and female* elders -- does someone believe this is wrong? Interestingly, though, I would submit to my pastor's authority as much as I would submit to that of his wife -- I see them in the same regard.
I know of strong *male* pastors who demand their wives be treated with equal pastoral respect, referring to them not as "Pastor Jones and his wife" but "the PASTORS Jones." -- is this wrong? I think not, but perhaps someone differs.
I'm not a pastor, nor do I have plans to be one. I am just stating a point. Yes, women must submit to their husbands (as a couple will also submit to one another in love), but I don't believe that women are useless in ministry position, if indeed God has called them to be so involved.
Perhaps, another issue is more whether there is a man secure enough in his Biblical manhood to accept spiritual instruction from a woman, without feeling his authority threatened.
This discussion has brought to mind some serious questions (esp. about they dynamic between couples in ministry) -- which I'll add to later. :-)
26. Robert J Espe had the following to say on Nov 2 at 9:55 AM:
I commented that the Assemblies allows female pastors since there are Biblical references (and commendations) to female pastors, apostles, prophetesses, and judges in a recent thread, so I won't rehash too much.
As for the weaker=inferior thing lets thing medievally for a second. For most of the last 2000 years, civil order in the west was preserved by knights, the ideal being one who would die to protect the WEAK. That was because of Christian teaching. In spite of a knights physical strength and martial prowess they understood that they were called to DIE for those who were WEAKER (children, women, cripples, priests, etc) because God gives strength to the strong, and Christ valued all. People die for those they value more than themselves, but usually those people are weaker than they are, or they wouldn't be defending them in the first place.
27. DannieA had the following to say on Nov 2 at 9:56 AM:
Please remember that I did say it was based on my experience.
And for those of you who think I've only been working for 2 years....I started working when i was 21 right out of college and I am now 29....so I've been around...and as a speech therapist I've had the opportunity to go to many schools.
There are some factors that do make a difference in my experience:
1. I work in a title 1 school district. Many unwed or single mothers with a history of experiencing domestic violence. So good male figures our kids naturally latch onto. They latch onto them more than females...just a fact of our communities circumstances.
2. The principal that I have now, has small kids. I don't think this was the best career choice for her because she cannot dedicate the time our school needs based on childcare issues...
3. Most of our women employees would rather work for a male than a female...I don't know if that's the case everywhere, but I think women tend to have/hold more grudges so it makes for an interesting difference.
So these are issues specific to our district.
So my take on women leadership:
1. If you are working in a career that needs you to dedicate a lot of your time and you are a woman especially as any kind of a leader, I would suggest waiting for the kids to be older
2. Be a smart leader. I've seen good women principals...but their life situation was different...which makes me think that some women just want to be leaders for the sake of being leaders without taking into account their lives. Whether we like it or not, our roles are different then men
I know many of you might think I'm a male, but i'm not, I'm female...
And just so you don't think I'm too sexist, the director of special ed. is a woman and she is good....but then again her kids are adults...she can afford to be there for us. (Technically I have many bosses)
28. Sara had the following to say on Nov 2 at 10:49 AM:
Candice or other married people, how does the submission issue affect daily married life?
This topic gets so much space, but only in the abstract--"it's a daily orientation of passivity", or something like that--, or in the single concrete example of deciding where to live after you get married.
29. Jessica had the following to say on Nov 2 at 11:40 AM:
Weaker partner... I have to admit, I am physically weaker than my husband. I'm also more likely to cry when I get upset. When we go on walks, I like for him to walk toward the center of the road because it makes me feel protected. I can't reach the bowls on the top shelf of the kitchen cabinets but he can because he's got a good 4-5 inches on me. I honestly believe this is what the Bible means by 'weaker' - not that we are to be belittled, but cherished and protected.
As I learn to truly submit to my husband and he learns to truly lead our family, I am SO grateful for the gift I have in a godly husband who realizes my 'weaknesses' but values me as a person and strives to love me 'as Christ loves the church.'
Ladies, we are only told to submit, and many people are quick to point out that the Bible instructs all people to submit to one another. Our husband, on the other hand, are told to be willing to lay down their LIVES for us. Now a good wife would be willing to do the same for her husband, but they are commanded to do that!
There is so much freedom found in giving up the power struggle and just seeking to REALLY love your spouse with a selfless love that doesn't worry about who is 'weaker' but struggles to make him stronger every day by letting him 'be a man' for you.
30. farmer Tom had the following to say on Nov 2 at 11:45 AM:
Now I appreciate a well crafted poke at someone's supposed shortcomings. But you'll have to do better than this to get me.
Perhaps, another issue is more whether there is a man secure enough in his Biblical manhood to accept spiritual instruction from a woman, without feeling his authority threatened.
My authority is the Word of God, your opinion is of less than zero value.
God spoke very clearly through the Apostle Paul. He didn't stutter, stammer or equivocate.
I quote Scripture to back my opinions. God's Word wins. Try conforming your belief system to God's.
1 Timothy 2:12
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
u·surp
–verb (used with object)
1. to seize and hold (a position, office, power, etc.) by force or without legal right: The pretender tried to usurp the throne.
2. to use without authority or right; employ wrongfully: The magazine usurped copyrighted material.
–verb (used without object)
3. to commit forcible or illegal seizure of an office, power, etc.; encroach.
au·thor·i·ty
1. the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine.
2. a power or right delegated or given; authorization: Who has the authority to grant permission?
3. a person or body of persons in whom authority is vested, as a governmental agency.
I don't care what some church you know of has done in the past.
Scripture trumps your opinion.
Case closed. End of discussion.
31. Kellie had the following to say on Nov 2 at 11:53 AM:
I've been married a year and a half and there are been one area that I've had to submit to my husband on. Like I said before, it means different things to different people, some people use as an excuse for abuse, some women use it to pass all responsibility in marriage to their husbands, and some of us it see it as kind of tie-breaker...as in, if a couple cannot agree, the wife (in theory at least) gives in.
As for the male vs. female bosses, I work in a field which is almost exclusively female, yet for a while it seemed all the bosses were male. Now I'm at a place where all three of our supervisors are female and it's a much happier place. I think they are better at relating to their employees!
32. Nicole had the following to say on Nov 2 at 12:12 PM:
Sarah, that is an excellent question! I think of it more in terms of having a submissive spirit or heart rather than only actions. I definitly wouldn't consider myself passive, by any means. My husband and I are partners. I guess here are some examples I can think of:
I don't want to fold all of my husbands laundry, however I love him and want to serve him, so I do.
Even though I really don't want to go out of town to visit his parents this weekend, I go because he really wants to (and I don't complain about it).
I hate getting up early, but I do so that I can see my hubby in the morning (who leaves for work much earlier than I) and I know he appreciates it.
My husband really wanted to buy a truck. I really think it's a bad idea. We don't need one, but he is convinced he does :) We discussed it, over and over, and even though I still don't think we need a truck, the final decision is up to him. Most decisions we make together and come to agreement on, but this one we just had to agree to disagree.
These seem simple, but I think most examples in daily life are. It's our attitudes that make it complicated. I have never, ever, felt inferior to my husband. He takes care of me, lavishes me with love, and thinks of me first before he does anything. He thinks of me as his partner, not his servant (he picks up his own socks off the floor). He makes it easy, in fact, I don't ever really feel like I am "submitting".
33. Adam Sloope had the following to say on Nov 2 at 12:18 PM:
I think a lot of the debate has to do with pride honestly. Women, do not think that you are entitled to be the man’s role and men, don’t think because you have this role you are better. It is a submission deal. Women are supposed to submit to their husbands as they would the Lord, and men we are supposed to submit ourselves to our wives as Christ submitted Himself to the church. Neither position has any leverage. Christ died for the church fellas, are we willing to lay our lives aside for our wives? Ladies, as you submit yourself to your husband you should know that your role is not less, just different. Submission to one another out of love and obedience to a completely Just and Righteous God cannot be wrong. We have no problem submitting to God because we know what Christ did. If husbands are supposed to submit to their wives like Jesus Christ submitted Himself to the world then I think no woman should have any problem submitting herself to that man because he doesn’t see himself as a higher authority, but humbles himself in love and service as Christ did. (Ephesians 5:21-33)
And really what this comes down to is our submission to the Lord. Not everything He says or commands, we can understand.
I think that our Western culture is much about becoming gods in our own rights, but as followers of Christ we must be careful to stop where the Word tells us to stop. Men submit to your wives as Christ did to the church and women submit to your husbands as you submit to the Lord.
34. Sara had the following to say on Nov 2 at 12:18 PM:
Farmer tom, what's your opinion on female missionaries? Should they only teach the gospel to other women and children? Can they teach 17-year-old boys in a church, but not 18-year-olds?
35. JB had the following to say on Nov 2 at 12:30 PM:
Farmer Tom,
And yet, in Acts 18, Priscilla and her husband Aquila sit a man named Apollos down and "explain to him the way of God." This sounds like Priscilla is teaching. Perhaps the issue is not as cut and dried as you present it. Either Priscilla is in error (which doesn't seem to be the case) or else Paul isn't making a rule for all times and all peoples. At least, there's definitely something to discuss.
36. nikki had the following to say on Nov 2 at 1:16 PM:
I've always heard and believed that women shouldn't be pastors, and I've always held those verses farmer Tom quoted to be universally applied. But no one has ever explained to me what all those other instances are all about. Deborah, Priscilla, general missionary work, etc. I'm not arguing yet but I want to see where this goes and what you male-pastors-only people have to say.
37. v@v had the following to say on Nov 2 at 1:31 PM:
Greetings. I don't need (or seek for) my opinion to *mean* anything too anyone -- I assure you. No concern. It's a matter *not* pertaining to salvation -- I'm not trying to win any medals here, just exploring the topic.
I'm curious -- what IS your view on women in leadership? Do you think they should to be leaders in any context (leaving aside the home, in this case -- or nursery care, or children's church)? I.E., would you sit in the Sunday School class of a female teacher? etc.....
Perhaps, women then, should only be involved in mime ministries -- that requires no speaking. :-)
38. farmer Tom had the following to say on Nov 2 at 5:19 PM:
The book of Acts is a book of early Church history. Taking examples from that book and then trying to ignore the clear teaching by the Apostles on the subject you have picked will lead to confusion.
This is why the whole house church movement is silly. Yes the early church met in houses, but the Church was only a few years old. If I start a business from scratch, (I'm not saying the church is a business) I don't start out by building the Sears Tower for my bicycle repair shop.
As for Priscilla, nowhere in that passage does it imply or claim she was in a position of leadership. Do not confuse the personal with the corporate. The church body is to have male leadership. This does not exclude women from sharing the gospel. They are not to be the leaders. Huge difference and if you can't see it your intentionally not trying.
39. farmer Tom had the following to say on Nov 2 at 9:35 PM:
Sara asked,
Farmer tom, what's your opinion on female missionaries? Should they only teach the gospel to other women and children? Can they teach 17-year-old boys in a church, but not 18-year-olds?
I have several relatives who are female missionaries, and a long story to tell about that subject. Someday if Ted will let me, I'll write an article on the topic.
Women are designed by God to teach and lead children, what could be more natural? The question is, at what point are they not to lead men?
Since I personally do not buy into the fallacy of delayed adolescence, any young man who has passed through puberty, should not be lead by a female. Young men need men to teach them, show them proper behavior, and model Jesus Christ in their life. That is not the job for a female.
Titus 2 makes it clear that God has given women a role as teachers, just not of men.
40. Christina had the following to say on Nov 3 at 8:01 AM:
Farmer Tom,
I don't exactly agree with the statement than women should stop teaching when a boy becomes a man.
My reasoning is thus:
A female teacher could be acting under the authority of a male dean.
A mother could be acting under the authority of her husband (the boy's father).
A speaker at a church could be under the authority of the church's pastor/minister.
Phoebe in Romans 15, 16 was looked highly upon by Paul. He even told the church of Rome to help her in any duties that she required to be done. She wasn't acting on her own authority, but she was under the authority of Paul.
I think that as long as there is a male personage that that woman is responsible to, then there is no reason why she should not be teaching.
41. Sara had the following to say on Nov 3 at 4:42 PM:
farmer tom, I take it you're OK with your female relatives being missionaries: how do you decide where to draw the line between 'teaching' and 'leading'? Teaching the gospel is leading people to Christ.
farmer tom wrote,
"Young men need men to teach them, show them proper behavior, and model Jesus Christ in their life. That is not the job for a female."
It was for Timothy's relatives. How do you suggest that changed the minute he reached puberty?
And have you, a man, never benefitted from a woman who's modelled Christ? What about the Bible? Do Ruth and Miriam and Esther have nothing to say to you?
I don't see what difference it makes if leadership is formal or informal. There's no sharp distinction between the two, at least none that would affect theology, that I can see.
42. farmer Tom had the following to say on Nov 3 at 8:53 PM:
Sara, Your being obtuse and you know it.
obtuse
3. lacking in insight or discernment; "too obtuse to grasp the implications of his behavior";
I Timothy 3, Titus 1, Acts 6 are all referring to positions of Church leadership. Their are numerous other passages that refer to these same positions.
Now read Hebrews chapter 13 addressed to Jewish believers. See verses
7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.
17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
24 Salute all them that have the rule over you, and all the saints. They of Italy salute you.
Someone in leadership is in a position of authority. They have the rule over the people they lead. (BTW This is one of the flaws in current business philosophy, leadership is not a team effort) Leaders get out in front and lead, and sometimes they have to go to the back of the line and kick some kesters, to get the line moving.
Look at the words I'm using, authority, leadership, the rule over, positions of power. Now go read Genesis 3:16 again. The husband will rule over the wife. God's plan is for the husband to be in subjection to Christ, the wife in subjection to Christ and her husband, the children are in subjection to Christ then the father and mother.
As to Timothy you're attempting to confuse family and church. The family is the first institution ordained by God. It is a separate and different entity than the church. I am not suggesting nor would it be Biblically defensible to suggest that mothers and grandmothers are not to teach their descendants. In the Church the father is in subjection to Christ, then the church. The wife is under subjection to Christ, then her husband , then the church.
As a result of Eve's part in the Fall of Man into sin in the Garden, see Genesis 3, God placed a "restriction" on Eve and all women. They are not to be the leaders. They are to be in subjection to their husbands.
Now I know the modern feminist movement hates this "restriction". They want you to believe that women can do anything men can do. First this is physically untrue. Women are not naturally as strong as men, period. Yes there are exceptions. There are also exceptions to the idea that all farmers are stupid, I have an IQ well above the mean. Exceptions to the rule prove nothing. My point is that the average women is not physically able to do what the average man can do.
So then the feminists want you to believe that you can do the same jobs in the business world as men. Fine, I doubt it, but I'll give you that one.
The problem is that feminism has invaded the church. Women are trying to take/fill roles that God intended for men to do. Argue with me all you want. But show me from Scripture anywhere where God calls women to be leaders in the church. A hint, keep trying. It's not in there.
You may not like that fact, take it up with God. Tell him he's wrong. I dare ya.
43. Jojo had the following to say on Nov 4 at 4:31 AM:
i wonder all these comments. I think that God has distributed competencies and leadership skills among both men and women. It is very much a happening thing with women taking leadership roles producing companies with successful place in the marketplace. If one searches the internet on such articles we are most oft to find that women are better leaders and managers than men! And then we see passages in the bible which delegates leadership authority in the home to the husbands. But i wonder are all men upto to the task? is this something that we as men will become good at? Or will we for the rest of our lives live with the facct that we are doing a poor while incurring the wrath and pity from their wives.? Is there some chance that the period in which Paul wrote the admonishments to the people are not applicable considering the circumstances which the world seems to be heading that more representation of women in the workplace and executive fields?
44. Sara had the following to say on Nov 4 at 12:58 PM:
There's no way anyone's going to be moved on the females-in-leadership issue, but about your point,
"the average women is not physically able to do what the average man can do.", in most day-to-day life, this is irrelevant: how many modern jobs call on men to exert themselves physically to the point to exhaustion, or to the point that they'd be out-performing what a woman could do? (and the same holds with farming: with tractors and implements and elevators and so on, the work is still exhausting, but not to the point that women can't run a farm if they want to: they do. Besides, people don't question the abilities of the 5'5", old fat male farmer who smokes like a chimney: it's silly to question what a healthy young woman can do.
45. John had the following to say on Nov 4 at 4:41 PM:
"Ms." is a feminist title. If a woman is married it's "Mrs."
A woman should never be a pastor. She can be a preacher, but never the head of a church! "Husband of one wife."
Women are the weaker vessel. Not the inferior vessel.
Opinion here: I used to believe that woman could be leaders outside the home, but I've sinced experienced too often female leadership that has totally changed my mind.
Women make terrible leaders. (Margret Thatcher being the only exception I can think of right now.)
Lastly, woman need only submit to their husbands, no other man, once they achieve adulthood. (Of course this is a cultural issue that would take another post to explore)
46. John had the following to say on Nov 4 at 4:58 PM:
"I am woman, hear me roar!"
Try talking tough in a truly male dominated society.
See if you're not weaker in a muslim country, african country, etc.
WOMAN ARE WEAKER, NOT INFERIOR, BUT WEAKER!
47. Louise had the following to say on Nov 5 at 8:21 AM:
Farmer Tom, I "dare ya" to speak respectfully to other people on this blog.
To those who commented on my "saint" observation, no, there is nothing wrong per se with Ms. Koerner referring to his husband as "a saint".
I have never met the gentleman, and it is possible that he actually IS a saint.
I just hold the opinion that qualifying for sainthood requires more than a willingness to work with your spouse re a satisfactory division of the household cleaning/cooking chores.
48. Robert J Espe had the following to say on Nov 5 at 9:03 AM:
Farmer Tom,
May I suggest that you are being contentious (deliberately provoking people because it is more fun than seasoning your reasoning with salt)?
Have you read the Assemblies position paper on women in ministry? It addresses the verse you keep quoting.
http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_4191_women_ministry.cfm
Since you referenced looking at what the Apostles taught, the fact that Paul was commending a female pastor and another time a female apostle must be looked at alongside everything else he wrote. You are correct when you say we can't ignore the Bible, but sometimes that means working harder to understand passages that would be clear if it weren't for conflagrations produced by others.
49. Leah had the following to say on Nov 5 at 9:08 AM:
Louise & Laura_mh- it is only our culture which tells us weak is bad or inferior. Your assumption that weak = inferior is evidence of your immersion in western culture. Louise, "weaker" does not denote "inferior". It connotes "inferior", in your mind, because that is what our culture has told you. It has told you that to be weak is bad and inferior. It is a fact of life that women are weaker than men, and you can't change that, much as you might hate it. (Unless you're taking steroids or something). Like Elizabeth said, my (younger) brother can do many more pushups than I can- so can my boyfriend- does this mean I am physically inferior to them? Of course not. We are equal. But I am weaker. That is a fact of life. It is not bad or a mark of inferiority.
Louise- You will also note that in the bible, all Christians are referred to as saints.
Laura_mh- you are only required to submit to your husband, not just any male in your life.
v@v- read the bible, specifically 1 Timothy 3. You shouldn't be arguing with us over women's shepherding abilities. Argue with God or Paul instead, seeing as they're the ones who originally said it.
50. Robert J Espe had the following to say on Nov 5 at 9:12 AM:
This may bring clarity to the submission thing.
Remember that our model for everything is Christ. Christ is our model for leadership, and for submission. For husbands, Christ's sacrifice for the church is our model for leadership. For wives, Christ's submission to God is their model for their submission to their husbands. Their model is not the church's submission to God. This makes all the difference in the world, because the church is not God's equal, but Christ is, even when He submits to the father.
I've had long talks about this with my wife because she was taught that submission=doormat. That is not the teaching of Scripture. In God's word, we find God the Son pleading all night long with God the Father to change His mind about His death, but then submitting to His Father's perfect will. The problem for us husbands, is that our will isn't perfect, so unlike the Father, we will probably have to apologize for harm we do to our wives when they do submit to bad decisions.
51. Leah had the following to say on Nov 5 at 9:15 AM:
v@v- the bible is quite clear in 1 Tim 3 that women should not have (biblical) authority over men. When it talks about the selection criteria of elders (I can't remember whereabouts it is), it says "he should be the husband of but one wife"... this does not seem to allow any instances of a woman being an elder!
This isn't to say women can't take part in ministry. They can be part of worship teams, children's ministry, youth ministry (for younger guys, obviously not those 18 or 19 years older who are pretty much grown men), women's ministry... many ministry positions! Just not those in authority over men.
52. Louise had the following to say on Nov 5 at 9:33 AM:
Sorry, on my last post "his husband" should have read "her husband."
53. Louise had the following to say on Nov 5 at 9:46 AM:
Leah, I know you have the right to your opinion like everyone else on here, but it is MY opinion that you are being rather presumptuous and borderline rude by informing me what connotates within my mind.
You have never met me, so how could you possibly know?
And why does everyone on here just view "weaker" as being a physical thing? What about mental weakness?
To me, weaker means inferior!
If you reply to this post, please do me the courtesy of not commenting on "my mind."
54. BDB had the following to say on Nov 5 at 10:47 AM:
Sara wrote:
>>(and the same holds with farming: with tractors and implements and elevators and so on, the work is still exhausting, but not to the point that women can't run a farm if they want to: they do.<<
Hmmm...let's turn this into a relationship thread.
My grandmother met my grandfather at church. She had moved to the town to help her widowed aunt run the farm. The two women could run the farm quite successfully. As my grandmother tells the story, she wanted to find a church that wasn't just a "dating service," and my grandfather was singing in the choir. He noticed the new girl who could sing all the songs without looking at the hymnal.
Incidentally, they're both quite capable leaders. My grandparents both tended to take over whatever organization crossed their path. I'm sure my grandmother could still put Farmer Tom in his place!
Moo...
55. T. Chan had the following to say on Nov 5 at 10:56 AM:
re: weakness
Undoubtedly some will react strongly against Meg Meeker's Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters.
56. v@v had the following to say on Nov 5 at 11:42 AM:
Leah -- what if I'm a worship leader in charge of a worship ministry and I have men who must "answer" to me? (Bass players, pianists, other singers)? Is that OK, or do I only lead women's worship teams?
And to all else:
I'm not trying to usurp mens' authority here; I'm just saying that God has gifted women as well with spiritual gifts -- as teachers, prophets, I daresay pastors, etc....and if those gifts are bearing fruit, will you say that God's anointing and gifting on that woman is for naught? or, counterfeit?
You can tell a tree by it's fruit people -- even if that tree is a woman in ministry. Do question where that anointing comes from and see if you'd tell God they aren't fit.
And did not Paul also say that in Christ there is no slave, nor free, Jew nor Gentile, but Christ was all in all?
I'm not trying to burn bras here and say that men have no authority, or take it away -- but do consider that point.
57. v@v had the following to say on Nov 5 at 12:02 PM:
To be more specific:
Galatians 3:28 -- There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
58. Sara had the following to say on Nov 5 at 12:04 PM:
Why say that men are weaker than women when the fact is that both men and women have distinct weaknesses and strengths? Men are more in danger of being murdered, or killing themselves: that's a physical weakness. Women can't usually benchpress as much, and are vulnerable when they're having children: that's a physical weakness. We could go on and on. Why do women's weaknesses trump men's?
59. John had the following to say on Nov 5 at 5:14 PM:
And...a woman pastor is sin.
Pay attention girls and boys. A woman can do all kinds of things, BUT can't be an elder or pastor.
Preacher (prophetess), worship leader, etc, BUT not elder or pastor!
Teach and train children, lead bible studies, women's ministries, PRINCIPLES OF SCHOOLS (though I don't recommend it), BUT..not elders or pastors!
Unless there is some way to turn them into "husband of one wife."
Lastly, I notice that nobody commented on the point brought up by a poster about weaker meaning more valuable.
"Your desire will be for your husband"
Look up what desire means. The other 3:16!
60. Kellie had the following to say on Nov 5 at 6:29 PM:
I'm still wondering whether Boundless takes the position that men are to be leaders in all areas of life, because it seems to be that's what this post implies.
61. farmer Tom had the following to say on Nov 5 at 9:00 PM:
Robert said,
Have you read the Assemblies position paper on women in ministry? It addresses the verse you keep quoting.
http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_4191_women_ministry.cfm
Since you referenced looking at what the Apostles taught, the fact that Paul was commending a female pastor and another time a female apostle must be looked at alongside everything else he wrote.
Why would I care what the "Assemblies" position is on women in ministry? Are you confusing the teachings of a "church" organization with the Word of God? The Moonies, the Wiccans and the Baptists have positions on women in ministry also, but unless it is supported by Scriptural principle, it is bogus.
a female pastor and another time a female apostle
Chapter and verse please, and you will be specific in pointing out where it says that these women are pastors or apostles.
Your making it up, it isn't in there.
62. florida_grl had the following to say on Nov 5 at 10:32 PM:
I see no problem with being "weaker." I am a woman. I love it when a man is "a man." Weaker does not mean anything negative to me as it relates to this. I love being feminine. I also have my MBA, which should make me quite driven, independent, opinionated, etc. I'm quite still dependent on the counsel of my dad and mom. I have to be responsible for my job, yes, but I am not interested in becoming one of the men out there. I don't want to lose myself.
The most beautiful thing I've seen was in a Phillipino family. The women were so feminine. All of them were highly educated: doctors, surgeons, pharmacists, etc. They were also highly submissive, helpful, kind, and strong in a very quiet-like way. They were also worshipped and treasured by the husbands. They were all treated like this "expensive, fragile, crystal vase." And they made their men feel like kings.
The worst thing I've seen is this lady in the airplane struggling with her luggage. This nice man offered to help her. And she looked at him and said: "No, I can do it myself." Women need to stop this craziness. Why can't one just appreciate a kind act without always fighting.
No wonder the men are confused, struggle to keep they identity, and are tired of trying.
Why can't women encourage men to be men instead of constantly fighting for who is right?
Everyone wants rights. Everyone is a victim of something. I think it's crazy. What's this whole thing with "you have the right to your opinion." Who cares. The Bible is very clear on what works and what doesn't.
I suggest a book for women: "Captivating," by John and Stasi Eldredge. It's a great book.
63. Christina had the following to say on Nov 6 at 5:57 AM:
Louise,
You are very easily inflamed...Leah's point wasn't to belittle you. And your response to her only further proved her point.
Denote: to represent by a symbol; stand as a symbol for; mean.
Connote: to have significance only by association, as with another word.
Weak: not strong; liable to yield, break, or collapse under pressure or strain; fragile; frail
Inferior: lower in station, rank, degree, or grade
There are things out there at are "weak", but definitly not "inferior" (i.e. the ornate glass vase that was referred to)
I apologize for my vocabulary lesson, but Leah was a lot kinder to you and your vitrolic attitude toward her would warrent harsher treatment.
On your opinion that Weak = Inferior, Jesus would be the first to display weakness as superior. God also made it quite clear from the beginning of time all the way up to Jesus literally saying it: The first will be last, the last will be first.
In YOUR WEAKNESS, HE IS STRONG. I find that so amusing in this discussion - no one seems to think that by a woman being weak, she can give her husband the oppurtunity to be strong. The same way that when all of us (men and women) are weak, God is strong. Aren't we supposed to be the physical representation of the Church's relationship to Christ? So once women understand our role of weakness being an important undertaking, it will be the men's turn to explore whether they are capable of being strong. But men can't/won't display their strength until the women let them. (Kinda like the church and God, right?)
64. Christina had the following to say on Nov 6 at 6:17 AM:
You know, the weaker vessel being inferior in some way -
When I was in college, I was forced into playing flag football. And one of the girls put me in a position with the explanation saying that "You look like you could bowl someone over."
Oh...gee...thanks...I wasn't fat, but I wasn't a simpering, meek, unathletic girl, either. I still felt somehow insulted. I was a woman. I wanted to be feminine. To me, no matter what any feminist minded woman would like to tell me, its a MAN"S job to "bowl someone over".
Recently, I was with my boyfriend and he was admiring my hands. He described me as "delicate". OH how good it felt to be seen as something to be treasured - not something to run and hide from.
There seriously is nothing wrong with being viewed as delicate, fragile, beautiful. Yes, we are capable of being strong. But feminine strength is very different from masculine strength. They compliment eachother. And why is it that we are so unwilling to compliment men in the roles that God created for us? We are so willing to seek his will in finding a spouse, but we're not willing to act in his will towards that spouse.
That, and this post is really about Male Leadership - how do you think the women's attitude towards leadership affects the men's role as leaders?
65. Louise had the following to say on Nov 6 at 6:20 AM:
Fl girl I wrote "you have the right to your opinion" in direct response to the woman who took the liberty of telling me what was connotating in my mind with the term "weaker".
I was politely responding to someone else's rude judgement of my thinking.
I don't think the Bible addresses "what works" within the context of my brain!
66. Louise had the following to say on Nov 6 at 7:37 AM:
Christina, if someone doesn't agree with my intrepretation of the word "weaker", well so be it.
However, it is rude to comment on the working of someone's brain, esp. someone one has never met.
Vocabulary "lessons" are one thing, as well as disagreeing with someone over the meaning and interpretation of a word or phrase.
Telling someone you have never met about what connotates within his/her brain is rude and as Marci would probably say: inapprorpriate (caps removed on purpose).
67. Louise had the following to say on Nov 6 at 7:48 AM:
Christina, re Leah's comment...disagreeing with someone over the interpretation/meaning of a word/phrase or indeed even giving someone a "vocabulary lesson" is one thing.
Informing someone you have never met about the workings of his/her brain is rude, and in the words of Marci, inapprorpriate (caps removed.)
68. nikki had the following to say on Nov 6 at 8:34 AM:
Not to beat a dead horse, but I just wanted to address this whole "weakness" thing. Most of you on here are saying it is physical weakness, implying that it's nothing more than that. This is incorrect. The reason Paul gave for submission is that "women were tempted first." That is a moral or mental weakness, not a physical one. I think if the weakness referred to in Scripture was supposed to be the one we think of, then ALL women WOULD be weaker than ALL men, and it would be impossible for it to be otherwise. General statements (about women's physical weakness) prove nothing if there are exceptions.
Paul wasn't addressing any kind of cultural issue when he said that women shouldn't have authority in the church. He gave an actual, historical reason. It's really hard to argue that that is somehow different now.
69. Michele had the following to say on Nov 6 at 12:00 PM:
I wrote this to Heather right after reading the article, and have decided to repost it here:
[The article] was very uplifting, and it's also wonderful to know that someone else went through and struggled with the transition from "young feminist" to Christian wife. I really appreciate this piece!
70. BDB had the following to say on Nov 6 at 1:57 PM:
Christina wrote:
>>To me, no matter what any feminist minded woman would like to tell me, its a MAN"S job to "bowl someone over".<<
Oh, I don't know about that. I've watched women play soccer.
Come to think of it, I found myself sitting up at 3am watching Olympic softball in Athens, too. A good change-up is impressive. MLB players have trouble hitting that pitch because they don't practice against it.
Maybe it's just me...
71. Rachael had the following to say on Nov 6 at 11:56 PM:
Pardon me if I'm being RUDE, but it seems to me that the crux of this matter is each gender's tendency to a particular SIN. God created men a certain way, and women another way that is complimentary to men. If you don't agree with that, then you don't agree with the Bible. The danger is when men begin to try to be complimentary to women (like Adam), and women try to lead men (like Eve). The Bible is clear on that. Much as modern women (myself included)may enjoy their careers and softball and soccer and what-have-you, God's warning to women, AND MEN, is that women have a tendency TO USURP AUTHORITY FROM MEN, to their own detriment, AND MEN HAVE THE TENDENCY TO LET THEM DO IT, because they like women SOOO MUCH! Search the scriptures and your hearts, ladies and gentlemen (if that is what you aspire to be), and you'll have to admit that we have ALL sinned in these ways.
On a side note, the Bible refers to all of God's people as saints, so its irrelevant to quibble about whether or not an unknown individual qualifies as one.
72. DT had the following to say on Nov 7 at 6:07 AM:
It's going to be so fascinating when the anti-male-leadership feminism-influenced young ladies ranting here finally get married and realize that yes, we are the weaker vessel and yes, the only way a Christian marriage will work is if we submit to our husbands.
Plain and simple, girls: God made the rules, and God doesn't make mistakes. Stop fighting Him.
73. Christina had the following to say on Nov 7 at 8:32 AM:
BDB, I'm not saying we're incapable of it.
Everyone who seems to think this is about ability, get off it. This isn't about what a woman or man is CAPABLE OF.
I am fully capable of defending myself, taking care of myself, being a strong and able leader, teaching a roomful of men, managing a project over men, and bowling people over. (Yes, Farmer Tom, shocker, I know but we CAN do it) OBVIOUSLY someone else thought so, too.
But, God help me, I don't WANT to bowl people over. I don't want to be seen like that. And the nice thing is, God doesn't want me to be seen like that either.
I want to be seen as someone who needs to be protected - delicate, fragile, weak, and priceless. I want a man to take an interest in protecting me and guarding my heart. I don't want a man to walk ahead of me and leave me to open my own doors because he knows I'm capable of it. Or to leave me with my own baggages because I'm capable of carrying them myself (you look like you can handle that...).
By God's grace he created us to take care of ourselves because we live in an imperfect world. But he wants us to submit and be weak and delicate when there is someone there to take care of us and he wants the MEN to step up and be WILLING to take care of us. (and don't anyone start arguing with me about knowing what God wants/wills whatever. Read the Bible and get a clue!)
74. Robert J Espe had the following to say on Nov 7 at 9:37 AM:
Tom, you aren't even pretending to be nice now. To suggest that a largely respected fellowship of Christian brothers (assemblies, or Baptist) is to be compared to the moonies and wicaans is sinful. You appear Scripturally versed enough not to need reminding of what Jesus and his apostles said about those who are divisive or who refuse to listen when told they may have made a mistake.
Chapter in verses were in the paper which you arrogantly ignored.
I suggested the paper because the Assemblies of God shares your belief that everything be tested by Scripture. Their position papers are academic expositions that contain verse by verse explanations of why they believe what they do, and they are written by better scholars than myself. It is also faster for me, and more comprehensive for you if I paste a link, instead of summarizing high points, but here goes.
Again, the paper is comprehensive, listing much more, I will focus on the two key points, Paul's commendation of a female pastor, and a female Apostle.
In Roman's 16:1-2 Paul commends the leader (diakonos, the word from which we get deacon is the NT greek word for pastor. The same word is used to describe the role of Jesus Christ, Tychicus, Epaphras, Timothy and Paul himself) of the church at Cenchrea.
In Roman's 16:7, Paul refers to the apostle Junia as "outstanding". Some translations (NIV, NASB) translate Junia as Junias (masculine) simply because translators "knew" that the feminine name was in error because a woman "couldn't" be an apostle. But the original Greek in the oldest documents speaks for itself (and the KJV and HCSB get the word right).
In 1 Tim 3:11 (the husband of one wife passage) the translation is dependent on contextual expectation of the reader. The word for wives can also be translated women, at which point the verse becomes an exhortation that female leaders be as upright as the men. Even as it is translated however, it simply reflects the common fact that many leaders were men, and that one verse can't be used to say Paul indirectly prohibited women in authoritative ministries, when he directly commends them elsewhere.
75. Christina had the following to say on Nov 7 at 1:38 PM:
Robert,
The translation you mention for the reference to Junia is unclear about whether she was an apostle or not. In fact the wording could imply that she was simply recognized BY the apostles (which is a more probable translation than she was an apostle...at least from the commentary I'm reading). It is a debatable subject, so doesn't exactly hold up entirely to criticism...
The other thing is that we don't know if she was in prison with Paul and her husband or not (which is anoth