| Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A |
| Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A |
Christian Living/Human Behavior - Roles
In regard to the creation of man and woman are we told man was created in God's image but God took a rib of Adam and made woman; therefore, woman was made for man and must not be authoritative over man. However, in Gen.l:26 it reads thus: "Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let THEM rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." l:27 - So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; MALE AND FEMALE he created THEM. Does not "man" mean human race? In Gen 2:21 is that not referring to marriage? Wasn't woman created in God's image the same as man and if woman (female) was created in God's image already in Gen. l:27 why would he have taken Adam's rib to make woman. Is it not just a way to refer to man and woman in marriage and, thus, woman should submit to her husband and not all women to all men?
In considering your questions, it is helpful to remember that Genesis 1 and 2 are not in simple chronological order. Chapter 1 of Genesis presents the glorious working of our Creator God in the first week of the world's existence. Chapter 2 then provides a "flashback" as it were, giving the reader much more detail about the events of the first week, especially as it relates to the creation of our first parents.
Chapter one tells us of the unique place of honor that humans held in the creation. Mankind was indeed the "crown of God's creation." Genesis 1:21 does speak about both man and woman created in the image of God. Genesis 5:1-2 also echoes that wonderful truth. Man and woman were created with souls and were at one with their Creator. True knowledge of God as the source of every blessing was a part of the divine image in which man was created. (Confer Col. 3:5-10) This divine image was also reflected in the joy that this human creature's will was in complete harmony with the Creator's holy will. (See also Eph 4:22-24) The Christian's new self, the Spirit-worked bond of faith, is a partial restoration of this image. Furthermore, Ga. 3:26-28 tells us that in this relation with God through faith, there is no advantage in being a man or in being a woman. We are one in Christ Jesus.
The specific details of the woman's creation that chapter 2 provides does not contradict chapter 1. She was, even though created from a rib, still a perfect creation and created in the image of God. But why did God create her from a rib, and not just take some dirt and form her as he did Adam? Paul tells us in 1 Timothy that God's created order reflected a truth or principle for this temporal world. (See 1 Timothy 2:11-14) More is involved in chapter 2 than just the creation of a wife for Adam, although the reference does explain the institution of marriage as part of God's plan for earthly society. Yet the manner and the order of the creation of the woman also reflects the principle of the headship of man. (See also 1 Cor. 11:3,8-12)
In conclusion, two truths can be seen standing side by side in our discussion. One truth is the simple fact that in our relationship with God, Christ Jesus by his precious blood has brought us back and united us into his body. We are one in Christ, and neither age nor gender nor race has any bearing upon that relationship. In matters of God's plan for an orderly earthly relationship, both in society and in the home, God has set up distinct roles for the man and the woman. These roles are not competing, but complementary. The man's role of head can best be described as a servant leader, one who reflect his Savior Jesus, "for the head of every man is Christ." Hence a man will act with the attitude of Christ Jesus, humbly seeking to serve.
My question refers to the phrase regarding women as the "weaker vessel". I have always been confused about the meaning of the translation of that phrase. I know that God is not saying that he loves men more than women (he is not chauvinistic because he tells us he does not show favoritism. (The passage I am thinking of here is "Neither Jew nor Gentile, male or female . . .") As far as roles go, I know he is a God or order and gave roles to men and women because he loves us.
However, my question is what does that phrase "weaker vessel" mean? Does that mean women are emotionally, physically, or spiritually weaker than their brothers in Christ?
I understand that God simply says women should remain silent regarding spiritual leadership (over a man). I think I have more often struggled with my worth than my role. (Yes, I am a woman). So much of worth in this world seems to be based upon performance. I know our worth comes from God--and long before we are even born so it is apart from anything we do. I also know that God says we are worth "more than sparrows" and that women who submit are not only beautiful but have great value in God's eyes. We are also "fearfully and wondrously" made.
What comfort can we take in that passage the "weaker vessel"? Was that passage written to men to remind them to have patience with women who don't always understand their role and submit as they should? (Not excusing sin, of course.) Sometimes, I admit, when I hear "weaker vessel" I think of "lesser gender". I know that must be misinterpretation on my part. Also, I have heard that men are sometimes referred to as more focused or better at understanding the "big picture." and that women are often better at the "little" details. Does any of this have to do with the "weaker vessel"?
The expression "weaker vessel" (KJV) or better "weaker partner" (NIV) should be interpreted in the context within which Peter uses it. If we go back to 2:13ff., Peter there urges Christians to submit to everyone in authority. Then in 2:18 he admonishes slaves to submit themselves to their masters with complete respect. In 3:1 he tells wives to be submissive to their husbands "in the same way." With the words "in the same way" Peter parallels the action of wives and slaves. Note that when Peter addresses husbands he again uses the words "in the same way" thus drawing a parallel between slaves, wives, and husbands. The parallel is simply the way that God wants those in authority and those submitting themselves to be very much aware of how God wants them to act. 1 Peter 2:15 says, "It is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people."When Peter addresses husbands, then, the previous context is very much in mind as Peter indicates by the words "in the same way." Now let's look at Peter's admonition to husbands directly. His admonition to husbands is that they live with their wives with God's will in mind. This is evident when he urges husbands to live with their wives "in line with knowledge", that is, what they know about God's will in regard to their wives is exactly the way they are to live with their wives. (The NIV translation "be considerate" is not a very good paraphrase of "in line with knowledge."). Next, Peter explains how this is done when he says "by showing them honor (or the words could be translated "by treating them as precious") as the weaker partner, namely, the female (or "wifely") partner." Neither the KJV or the NIV translate the last phrase properly; the Greek makes the expression "female" an adjective in apposition to "weaker" explaining what is meant by "weaker."
To summarize, Peter's words "in the same way" make it clear he is talking here about the God-given role of a husband to his wife just as he previously had talked about that of a wife to her husband. He underscores this when he tells a husband to live with his wife "in line with knowledge" and then explains this as treating her as precious. So when Peter speaks of the wife as the "weaker partner" and then qualifies the adjective "weaker" with the word "female (or wifely), the meaning of "weaker" refers to her role as the one who is to submit to her husband.
The word "weak" is used in much the same sense in 1 Corinthians 1:25, 27. There the fact that Jesus was willing to give himself into death is referred to as the "weakness" of God. It doesn't mean Jesus was weak. It just means he was willing to do something that to some might look like weakness in order to fulfill God's saving will.
Head of the house - I don't understand the head of the household issue either. I know so many women who are the ones who truly run the house. They handle the finances, they care for the children, they discipline the children, they buy the groceries, they do the laundry, they cook, and they clean. Other more serious issues, like what school to send the children are reached upon together. The husband merely works to bring home a check. How is this head of the household? I see this as the norm rather than the exception.
Keep every man you know in your prayers that he fully comprehend and take on the unselfish, self-sacrificing role that headship entails. Headship is not involved with being a boss, or a tyrant. It has everything to do with unselfish love -- Ephesians 5:21-33. Each submits to the other (husband to wife, wife to husband) in unselfish, self-sacrificing love.
A Man's First Calling--Should the women just wait around and not deal with anything until the husband comes home? Is it sinful if she does take charge and care for their family while the husband does not? I have a relative whose husband is a WELS Lutheran day school teacher and puts his job before his own children as if other people's children are more important than his own. His wife is understanding of his responsibility to his calling, but she is having a great deal of difficulty with practically raising four children with another on the way by herself. I wish there was something I could say to her or to him to sort of wake him up. Any advice?
A man's first calling is not to his job, but to his wife and family. Job and call to be teacher or pastor comes in priority after wife and family. The duties and responsibilities are often staggering as one weighs spousal responsibilities, parent responsibilities, and job or calling responsibilities. Adjustments and tradeoffs and corrections need to be made constantly. Encourage your relative, don't burden or criticize him into it -- encourage him to take more time with his wife and family out of love for God and for them.
I realize that, regarding the roles of women in the church, you believe that a woman could not have a position of authority over a man. But where are the lines drawn?
For example, you say : We reject the claim that the biblical statement "women should remain silent in the churches." (1 Co 14:34) forbids all speaking by women in the assemblies of the church. Meaning what exactly? My fiancée is WELS, and he said it is wrong that a women get up in speak in church at all. (Our pastor and elders are all men, however women have spoken in church at times. For example to give testimony to what Christ has accomplished in their lives.) Would that be considered leadership over a man in your view? Or can a women simply not teach/preach?
Also, at our Christmas Eve Candlelight service, several members of the church took part, (men and women,) reading passages of scripture out loud in front of the church which told the story of Christ. Do you believe this is wrong? What about music? We have a worship team, consisting of a group of men and women leading the musical worship by singing the songs and playing their instruments at the front of the church while the congregation worships in music. (Kind of like a church choir, but also with guitars, keyboard, and drums.) Please address my specific examples.
Your questions are addressed in chapter six of the Bible study Man and Woman in God's World. Since this topic is a special concern to you, we would encourage you to read this whole book. Below is a portion of that chapter:Question 3: How may a woman administer the means of grace in the church?
Women, of course, can share the Word with others privately as part of the priesthood of all believers. Women can share the Word as called evangelists, especially with other women. In some cultures, such as many Islamic cultures which practice strict separation of the sexes, it may be necessary for most or all of the catechetical instruction of women to be done by women. When the church enters such a culture, it might for a time be necessary to have a separate women's service which was conducted entirely by women. Women can, of course, lead the devotions for women's groups.
Since baptism is normally administered by the pastor in the name of the congregation, baptism will not regularly be performed by women, but Lutheran theologians, unlike Calvinists, have always accepted the validity of baptisms performed by women. The Lord's Supper likewise is normally administered by the pastor of a congregation. Therefore it would not normally be administered by a woman. It is conceivable that it might be administered by a woman in a congregation which consisted entirely of women, such as a convent. It was the opinion also of Luther that women might preach and administer the sacraments under such circumstances.
Question 4: How may a woman participate in the public worship of the congregation?
Leadership of the worship service should rest in the hands of the pastor or, in his absence, of another male called by the congregation to lead. Preaching in a Christian congregation is to be authoritative teaching (Titus 2:15) and therefore should not be done by a woman. Such preaching would also conflict with the command of silence set forth in 1 Corinthians 14, where the situation which called forth this application of the principle seems to be parallel to the public preaching in our services.
More difficult questions arise concerning areas of auxiliary service in the public worship.
Most of our congregations have traditionally used male ushers for our services, but there are no theological reasons why women cannot serve as ushers and greeters since the function of these offices as currently practiced among us is to assist worshippers, not to exercise any kind of authority. The situation would be different if the author had authoritative responsibilities such as excluding people from the Lord's Supper.
In recent times there has been little question about women singing in church choirs either in group or solo roles. Choir music is not independent or authoritative teaching at the discretion of the singer. It is (or should be) selected by or in consultation with the worship leader to advance the theme of the service. [The same would apply to instrumentalists.]
Women choir directors have been widely accepted among us, but this issue is not clear cut. A woman could certainly lead the choir in a way which was domineering or authoritative, but the office could also be understood and practiced as assisting in the musical performance of the congregation much as an organist does. In such circumstances the pastor retains responsibility for the doctrinal soundness and appropriateness of the music of the service. If a woman's conscience troubles her about serving as a choir director, she should not accept such a position since it is never right to act against our own conscience.
Most of our congregations normally have the pastor read the scripture lessons as part of his role of leading the worship service. We are not entirely consistent in this, in so far as we permit even children to present portions of Scripture in special services. If we accept this practice and the presentation of musical solos by women, it would be inconsistent to claim that reading scripture inherently and inevitably involves authoritative teaching. Some churches which do not ordain women as pastors do allow women readers to read the scripture lessons and some prayers. Nevertheless, I believe that under present conditions we should not adopt the practice of having women as lectors in regular services. From a practical point of view this practice would be a source of confusion and offense, since some churches have used and are using such roles for women as stepping stones toward the assumption of the pastoral ministry by women. Such a practice would also be doubtful from a doctrinal point of view.
It is difficult to reconcile the role of reading and leading the assembly in prayer with the spirit of the strong command of silence in 1 Corinthians 14, which excludes women even from asking questions. Furthermore, 1 Timothy 2 specifies that men everywhere are to lift up holy hands in prayer." It does this in the same context which says, "God wants all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth," and that "a woman should learn in quietness and full submission." It is often asserted that 1 Corinthian 11 contradicts this position since it tells women to have their heads covered when they pray. However, it is not clear that leadership of congregational worship is involved in the praying and prophesying referred to in 1 Corinthians 11. Individual personal prayers in a setting somewhat similar to a prayer meeting may be involved, or perhaps the mutual admonition and teaching that is done in joint hymns and prayers (Col 3:16). Since the circumstances in 1 Corinthians 11 are unclear, and the prohibitions in 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2 include leadership of the public worship, it is invalid to use 1 Corinthians 11 to overrule 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2.
From a doctrinal point of view the use of women lectors would be doubtful and a danger to many consciences. From a practical point of view it would be very confusing and offensive under present circumstances. The practice should therefore be avoided unless we can reach a clear consensus concerning the significance of such a practice, namely, that it does not involve leadership.
[We don't usually use testimonials in the Lutheran service, so the question whether a woman can give a testimony has not been a practical question for most congregations.]
It is clear that the Lord's Supper should be administered by the pastor or by a man authorized by the congregation to administer the sacrament in his absence. But can a distinction be made between administration and distribution? The Roman Catholic Church uses a number of lay altar assistants to speed the distribution of the elements to the entire congregation. In many parishes women distribute both the wine and the bread. Some European Lutherans argue that the pastor must retain distribution of the bread since it is at this point that the authority to exclude someone from the Lord's Supper must be exercised, but that women could distribute the wine since admission has already been determined by this point.
If the form of celebrating the Lord's Supper among us was such that the distribution of the elements was understood as simply assisting all of the congregation in receiving the elements (sort of the opposite function of gathering the offering) and if some other means of upholding the scriptural principles of closed communion was in place, it would be possible to defend the position that there are no theological grounds for excluding women from assisting with the distribution.
For example, in the ancient church women were sometimes permitted to carry the consecrated elements to the sick. This was considered to be a form of distribution of the elements which enabled home-bound members of the congregation to participate in the sacrament along with the congregation. Such a form of distribution without consecration of the elements in the presence of the communicant is not practiced among us. Although there are some precedents for the practice in the history of the church, I do not believe women altar assistants could be introduced in our congregations under present circumstances without serious problems of misunderstanding and even offense.
I ask your comments on an interesting book I recently read which contradicts the traditional interpretation of I Timothy 2:11-15 concerning the role of women in the church. It is "I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking I Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence," by Richard C and Catherine C Kroger.
There are two main theses in the book:
(1) The Greek word for "have authority over" (KJV uses "usurp authority") has the connotations of dominate, murder (ritual murder!), emasculating or proclaiming oneself the author or originator. In addition, the sentence construction in Greek can be read that "I do not permit woman to teach or to represent herself as the originator of man....For Adam was created first, then Eve...." I have a degree in modern languages, so am fully aware of the problems of translation from one language to another (that was before I turned to accounting to make a living). However, I do not know any Greek.
(2) Asia Minor was the home of the "goddess mother" religions which culminated in the worship of Diana at Ephesus. There is direct historical evidence that this influence tended to corrupt first Judaism and later Christianity into advocating that Eve was more important than Adam ("turning Genesis upside down" is how the authors put it). As part of this heresy, childbearing was avoided as an evil. This explains Paul's comment on child-bearing (which has always sounded callous and un-Paul-like to me).
The authors' conclusion is that this passage addresses a definite historical situation (like telling Timothy to stay in Ephesus), involving a specific heresy. Women have no right to preach the heresy that the women are the authors of all mankind and that all knowledge is from women. It does not necessarily mean that women cannot teach if they follow correct doctrine..
I do disagree (as will you!) with their premise that the traditional Biblical interpretation of women's role in the church is based solely upon this one passage.
I suspect that you will need to read the book in order to comment on it. Fortunately it is pretty short if you omit the appendices (about half the book) which are further quotes from historical manuscripts showing how the "goddess mother' concept led to gnosticism. The book certainly cries out for comment from those who have the background to affirm or deny the authors' theses (i.e., have a thorough knowledge of Greek and of early church history, neither of which I have).
Catherine Kroeger's book was reviewed in the Winter 1993 issue of the Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly, pages 73-74. You may be able to get this from your pastor or from a library. In a 300 page book, Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, Andreas Koestenberger and other Evangelical biblical scholars demonstrated at length that both the linguistic and the historical claims in Kroeger's book are untrue. Those interested in an in-depth technical study of this issue should refer to this book. This very technical work was reviewed briefly in the Winter 1996 issue of the Quarterly, pages 72-73.A brief, less technical study of 1 Timothy 2 can be found in chapter 1 of A Bible Study on Man and Woman in God's World available from Northwestern Publishing House. Those studying on their own at home might want to buy the leader's guide rather than the student manual.
The following are an edited version of some of the chief points of the 1993 Quarterly review of Kroeger's book.
Catherine Clark Kroeger, the founder of Christians for Biblical Equality, has been very influential among "evangelical feminists." Her writings serve as a good illustration of the approach to Scripture followed in these circles. The basic goal of her book is to disqualify 1 Timothy 2 from playing a significant role in the ongoing discussion concerning the roles of women in the church by limiting its application to false doctrines current in Ephesus during Paul's time.
The major focus of Kroeger's book is an extensive study of religious beliefs and practices in 1st Century Asia Minor. The alleged purpose of this study is to explain Paul's prohibition of women teaching in the church as due to his desire to prevent women from teaching false doctrines of the kind taught in the Asian and Greek mystery religions. These sections, which make up a large portion of the book, are interesting reading, but they are not relevant to the interpretation of 1 Timothy 2, because the activity which Paul forbids to women in the church is not false teaching, but simply teaching. It therefore does not make any essential difference to 20th century readers what the common errors of religions found in the area of Ephesus in the 1st century may have been, since these religions do not define the limit of Paul's prohibition. Furthermore, many scholars question whether Kroeger's reconstruction are even correct (see Koestenberger).
Kroeger contends that when Paul tells women not to teach (didaskein), he is forbidding them to teach false teaching. But if this is what Paul had meant he had a much better verb to use to forbid false teaching, heterodidaskalein, which literally means "teaching something different." Two other times in this very letter when his intent to forbid false teaching, Paul uses this verb heterodidaskalein not didaskein (1 Tim 1:3-4, 6:3). When Paul forbids false teaching in his pastorals letters, there is a clear indication in the verb which he chooses or in its object that false teaching is his concern:
As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer" (1 Timothy 1:3).There is nothing to suggest that women were particularly associated with the spreading of false teaching at Ephesus and therefore needed special admonition concerning this. The only time women are associated with false teaching in the pastoral letters they are the victims of false teaching, not leaders in promoting it ( 2 Timothy 3:6).If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching...- (1 Timothy 6:3).
[These false teachers] must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach" (Titus 1:11).
In the great majority of its uses in the New Testament didaskein refers to sound Christian teaching. Kroeger gives questionable outside data preference over both the nearer and more remote context of Scripture in her desire to restrict Paul's prohibition to false teaching. Her theory simply cannot be justified in the light of the context and linguistic usage of 1 Timothy. The wider context does, however, make it clear that Paul does not prohibit women from teaching women (Titus 2:3).
Kroeger has long been known for her theory that authentein in 1 Timothy 2 is a reference to some orgiastic or murderous practice which Paul is prohibiting. Here she suggests as the most likely translation "I do not a allow a woman to teach nor to proclaim herself the author of man."
She grants, however, that this is by no means certain, and that several interpretations of this passage are possible. This illustrates what is the most dangerous aspect of Kroeger's approach to Scripture. Hers is a "hermeneutics of doubt" which undermines laypeople's confidence in the clarity of Scripture by giving the impression that Scripture can only be interpreted if one has an expert knowledge of the pagan culture which surrounded Ephesus. One also must note that although Kroeger allows the possibility that authentein could mean the exercise of authority in the second century after Christ, she is less than candid or complete in presenting the evidence to her readers. Although her footnotes extend into 1991, she does not interact significantly with the important 1988 study by the Christian feminist Leland Wilshire which demonstrated that authentein could mean "exercise authority" before, during, and after the time of Paul. It is likely that the other attested meaning of authentein, "kill," is a homonym, rather than the same root. "Kill" simply does not fit the context here.
This book is enlightening reading for anyone interested in analyzing the type of biblical studies practiced by "evangelical feminism," but it is at this point that it weakness is most apparent, for it makes the interpretation of Scripture dependent on speculation and outside information, rather than depending on Scripture to be its own interpreter.
Would it be proper for the men of a congregation to vote to allow women to vote over issues which affect men? I think an argument can be made that allowing women to vote does not necessarily imply that women have authority over men, which I understand WELS believes should be avoided.
So long as the men have the ability to override or break away from non-God-pleasing decisions, it would seem that one could say that the women do not have authority over the men. The comment is made in the third Fellowship topic set that if agreement can not be reached amongst the believers of a church body, they should go their separate ways. Since the men can already do do this if other men make non-God-pleasing decisions, how could it be said that voting women have real authority over men? If anyone chooses something that is not God-pleasing, it would seem that by definition that the non-God-pleasing choice would not be authoritative, despite what a heterodox majority group would say or do (e.g., excommunicating or condemning an orthodox minority).
I suspect many WELS men allow their wives to "run" various aspects of their families (e.g., handling the finances, etc.). Why would this be bad for the men of the congregation to do as well? Just because a husband allows his wife to handle the finances, plan the family vacation, etc., does not mean that his wife has authority over him. Does the husband do so because he is shirking his duty? No, he often does so because his wife is better at it, and the desired end result will be better accomplished. I think a Christian household can maintain proper authority roles even when the wives make decisions; the husband is still ultimately in control, and can (hopefully very infrequently) overrule if need be (and the wife, for that matter, can follow God's will and disobey her husband if following her husband would mean disobeying God). I do not believe that allowing one to participate in voting in or in running a church organization implies authority so long as those who follow the decisions made are ultimately free to make their own decisions if they truly believe that separation is needed.
People in authority, whether slave owners or business managers or husbands, have found that by letting those over whom they have authority make decisions, even decisions that affect them as persons in authority, they will get better results. Does the slave owner or business manager or husband lose their authority by doing so? No! By the same logic, the men of a congregation would not be losing their authority over women - they would be seeking the help of women in making them (the men) be better stewards of God's precious saving Word.
Most men probably recognize that women are just as skilled as they are at the issues voted on by the church body, whether the issues are financial, administrative, or doctrinal. By allowing women to vote, the issues can be more fully explored and women will be able to contribute more to the work of saving souls. WELS already recommends that Elders seek the opinions of the non-voting members (e.g., widows and other single women) of the congregation. WELS encourages husbands to lovingly seek the opinion of their wives. If a decision is made that is non-scriptural, anyone can leave that church body, as they are obligated to do.
While some church bodies have "open forums" in which women can speak, followed by voters meetings in which they cannot, this seems unnecessarily unoptimal and inefficient, and thus sinfully damaging and limiting at spreading God's Word and saving souls in the *best possible way*, as we should aspire to do. (I realize that if one did not accept the argument that voting does not imply authority, then one could make a strong point that allowing women to vote would be using our human understanding of what's best instead of what God in his mysterious ways directs).
The following is said in the Q&A: "Luther is quoted as saying, 'If a man won't preach, a woman must.' The need to get the gospel out and to do the work of the church supercedes the man-woman role relationship." If no one was able to bring me to faith because the best decisions were not made in the various church bodies, I wonder what I would say on Judgement Day regarding the distinction of whether men are taking a "large enough" role in getting the Gospel out and doing the work of the church, and whether women are morally justified in taking a larger role that involves decisions that affect men.
If one person finds himself damned to hell, that is too many, and we should do whatever we morally can to *best* spread God's saving Word to prevent that from happening.
God has established a role relationship for man and woman. He wants women to humbly refrain from exercising authority over men, and he wants men to exercise authority as a loving head (1 Co 11:3, 8; 1 Ti 2:11-13). For a more detailed treatment of this subject you might study Prof. John Brug's Bible class booklet that is available from Northwestern Publishing House.If women take part in the voters meeting of a congregation, they could easily be tempted to step out of their God-given role in one of two ways. In the discussion which precedes a vote, a woman might argue against some of the men in a way that indicates she insists that her will should be done rather than that of the men she is arguing against. Setting my will over against that of another person is not humbly refraining from trying to exercise authority over that person.
In the vote itself, the women may outvote the men, or the women might provide the "swing vote" that thwarts the will of the majority of the men. This also is not humbly refraining from exercising authority over men.
That women have talents, suggestions, ideas, etc. which can be benefit the work in the congregation is certainly true. And men who are carrying out their God-given role of serving as the loving head in the congregation will find God-pleasing ways to use those talents and ideas just like husbands do at home. Some congregations have a woman who has financial talents serve as treasurer of the congregation without her being a voting member of the church council.
Some congregations have informational meetings in which several members of the church council share with women of the congregation some of the items that will come before the council. The women are also given an opportunity to share with those church council members their ideas and suggestions. These are but a couple examples of how congregations do have women participate actively.
The point is that the contributions that women are able make (talents, ideas, suggestions, views, wishes) can be used without involving them in ways that might place them in situations where they have to step out of their God-given role in order to make those contributions.
SEARCH our Q&A archives using the subject you have in question as your keyword. Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod ©
2929 N Mayfair Road
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53222
www.wels.net content is copyrighted unless otherwise stated.
Request written permission to copy.
Bravo! Bravo!