Duties of the Husband / Wife and the ... Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Former Adventist Fellowship Forum » ARCHIVED DISCUSSIONS 2 » Duties of the Husband / Wife and the SDA divide. « Previous Next »

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
Archive through April 28, 2001Lori20 4-28-01  8:00 am
Archive through May 2, 2001Shereen20 5-02-01  9:38 am
  ClosedClosed: New threads not accepted on this page        

Author Message
Chuckiej
Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2001 - 10:22 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

GA (and everyone else) you can email me at pred8tor69@hotmail.com if you want to discuss something outside the scope of the forum.

Shereen, sorry to see you go. In case you do change your mind and check, those who use the submission thing to beat their wives over the head have it all wrong. Paul gives us the standard that we as men must adhere to: love as Christ loved the church. Christ said that he who would be a master must be the servant of all. To illustrate that point, he washed the disciples' feet, one of the most menial tasks in their culture. What that means is that men must "pay the cost to be the boss." If it means holding your purse while you try on clothes or buying feminie hygeine products for you (sorry if that's graphic, but I'm making a point then that's what it takes. Biblical, Christian authority comes with the highest standard in the universe. It is not carte blanche to lord it over anyone.

Chuck
Kelly
Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2001 - 4:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I think one point that should be made is that in Eph. 5:25 it makes it an equally clear point that the "Husband should LOVE the wife". Yes, I agree that the wife should be under the authority of the husband, this is just a form of respect.

It is quite easy to respect an authority figure who shows love to you, even if you do not agree. However, if love is withheld or consider to be conditional then it becomes awfully difficult to respond with respect.

If a husband can not or will not love his wife then how can he expect her to respect him and be under his authority. Likewise, if a wife does not show respect it makes her difficult to love.

It seems like a vicious cycle but ultimately someone in the cycle has to let go of their pride and end the cycle.

It is arrogance that withholds love and/or respect for a spouse.
Patti
Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2001 - 8:50 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I have to respond to this thread. My impression:

1. Shereen is right.
2. Allenette is right. (Only you could get by with saying that, Allenette! :)
3. From my initial perusal, it sounds to me like Rich is looking for an "out" of a marriage. My husband is not a religious person, but I would fight, kick, scream, beg, crawl, or grovel to keep him. He is worth that much to me. I cannot discern any deep love, concern, or respect that you have for the mother of your children, Rich (or perhaps for women in general). Perhaps a good study of 1 Corinthians 13 is in order. I feel that we should now ask you, Rich, what are your REAL reasons for wanting out of the marriage.

Patti

PS I hate to inform you of this, but being a "former" SDA does not set you on a higher plane than being an SDA. Arrogance is arrogance, no matter what it calls itself.
Allenette
Posted on Friday, May 04, 2001 - 7:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

WELL SHEESH! I thought I had lost you a L o n g time ago Patti ;-) I have so many irons in the fire that I dont tend to keep up with my fave forums lately except some slow nights BOO HOO.

Going back into the woodwork...ta ta
Patti
Posted on Friday, May 04, 2001 - 7:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Haven't been here in a while, Allenette. Too many irons in the fire.

But don't stay in the woodwork. You often provide a very needed good dose of reality.

TTYL!

God bless,
Patti
Colleentinker
Posted on Saturday, May 05, 2001 - 2:44 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Shereen, I'm really sorry to see you go.

I think all of us need to remember that the Holy Spirit is our teacher. When it's time for us to internalize some nugget of truth, God sees to it that it becomes an issue in our lives.

Richard will quickly vouch for the fact that I don't respond well to the concept of "headship". Ephesians 5, I am absolutely convinced, makes no sense and should not even be a point of reference for people who are not born again. It is relevant only in a context of being new creatures, indwelt by the Holy Spirit and alive in Christ. Without that context, Ephesians 5 is (illegitimate) license to control by force and for selfish reasons. It absolutely does not work.

Even after a person is born again, circumstances don't instantly change. The seemingly foolish concepts in that chapter don't instantly begin to be workable. And in the case of a marriage between a believer and an unbeliever, those concepts will not make sense to both spouses.

Here's how I'm coming to see that chapter. First, the point is not that women need to give up their God-given intelligence, logic, reasoning, and perception and take orders from their husbands. Second, the point is not that men need to begin deciding what everyone in the family should do and how to do it. It does not mean that men should begin giving orders.

The command for men in Ephesians 5 is to love their wives as Christ loved the church. When you think about what that means, there isn't one man alive who can measure up to that kind of selflessness, pain-bearing, responsibility-shouldering, strength, tenderness, forgiveness, longsuffering, and patience. If a man really loved his wife as Christ loved the church, there's no woman around who would not be moved to loyalty and deep love for him. Ephesians 5 isn't about men seizing the reigns of power and commanding their wives; it's about men learning to submit to the love of Christ and allowing Him to heal their hearts and fill them with love that will overflow onto their wives.

The command in Ephesians 5 cannot work outside the context of rebirth because it's humanly impossible. Only Christ can love like Christ; only Christ in us can love others through us.

On the other hand, Ephesians 5 also has a command for wives: respect your husbands (v. 33). I find it fascinating that Paul commands men to LOVE and women to RESPECT. It's exactly the opposite of what we naturally do. Women tend to love (and clutch) their men, and men tend to respect (more at arm's length) women. Men tend to run from the intimcay of love, and women tend to see their husbands from a clutching, maternal viewpoint more easily than from an equal, respectful position. Women tend to derive their identity from their men; men tend to resist losing their freedom (or identity) to love.

When a woman is born again, God gives her an identity that no man can take away. She becomes whole, independent, a free woman in Christ. A born-again woman will not need to find a man to find identity; neither will she fall prey to abusive control. She now has a lover who has given her life and freedom, and instead of needing or fearing men, she can now approach them as equals. She can respect them without feeling the need to maniupulate them.

When a man is born again, God gives him a personal freedom that no woman can threaten. When he becomes forgiven and free in Christ, he becomes free to love without fear of bondage. He becomes free to forgive and to weather a woman's emotional extremes without feeling threatened by them or feeling like controlling her.

Only when a man is born again can he love his wife as Christ loved the church, because it's no longer up to him to figure her out or to figure out how to love her. Christ can now love her through him because he's given his will and his life to the One who can assure him of freedom and identity.

A woman who is born again is now secure. She can accept her husband's love. She can accept his being the front line defense for the family. She can accept his willingness to take on the burden of the numberless assaults that hit families. She can give up some of her control to allow her husband to shoulder certain burdens and responsibilites. She is now free to listen to his opinions without fearing he is trying to control her. She can listen with an open mind instead of with defensiveness. She is free to respect him, and to treat him with respect instead of as a person against whom she needs to protect herself.

Obviously, no situation is ideal. There are always areas in which women and men are not fully healed, and those areas become places of conflict. But when men and women are born again, they can begin to ask God how to help them to love and respect each other.

Men can ask God to help them love their wives for him. They can ask him to show them how to treat their wives as Christ would treat them. Women can ask God to show them how to respect their husband and how to be good wives.

When a man is committed to loving a woman as Christ loves the church, submission, for a woman, takes on a new complexion. It no longer means being told what to do or believe; it means being vulnerable and allowing her husband to bear the burden of caring for the family. It means dropping her defensiveness and listening to his ideas with respect. And if she disagrees with him, it means not backing off from him, but clearly stating her opinions without fighting or shaming.

If a disagreement becomes an impasse, both parties have a loving Savior to whom they can go. They can pray for each other, and they can give their frustration and anger to Jesus and ask him to heal the rift and to show them how to bridge the gap between them with love and respect.

None of this works smoothly all the time. But I believe that this scenario is essentially what Ephesians 5 is trying to teach us. In Christ, we are new creations. In Christ, we are free to love and respect without losing ourselves. In Christ, we can accept God's care through one another. In Christ we are free to place our spouses in His hands and let Him teach and lead them.

Praising God for loving us enough to teach us to love,
Colleen
Rich
Posted on Saturday, May 05, 2001 - 9:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Colleen,

I find it fascinating to observer how you frame the discussion. From my perspective you have said nothing that is out of harmony with either how I stared this thread or Grace Ambassadors comments above. The former being more direct response to the text of scripture, your's being more a verbose exegesis using relational language.

All the discussions, by their brevity, do not address the ìobjectionsî that come up from all sides on this issue. Those on the ultra-conservative side might take issue with your comments because they do not ìclarifyî certain aspects of the husband ñ wife relationship. Those on the other end might object because you defend submission in the context of a new life in Christ.

Iíd add one more thought. You stated that Godís commanding Men to Love & Women to respect were against our natural tendencies. I would take that one step further and say that they are directly related to the curse God place on Adam and Eve. What I mean is that a Christian marriage that attains some degree of success in fulfilling God's ordained order, is demonstrating the ìnew manî we all are to be in Christ.

Anyway, I say Amen to your comments.

Rich
Allenette
Posted on Sunday, May 06, 2001 - 7:46 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I also find it sad that people cant figure out for themselves...how to make their family life just pleasant...disregarding the Bible, the Koran, or any other culturally considered Holy Book. Why is it so hard for male and females to just get along....especially when they seem to find themselves so "happy", sex-wise, or whatever, that they want to stay together and statrt families? I personally cant imagine hanging around with a male who didnt consider me an equal, a helpmate (commitment) or at least a friend!!!! It doesnt take a Bible verse to force a potential lifemate to be nice to me. You folks who are posting on here with you f'd up lifestyles need to get a clue and pass on.....posting on here wont fix ANYTHING. Good luck.
Maryann
Posted on Sunday, May 06, 2001 - 9:35 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Y'all,

Hi Allenette and Patti too;-))

Last night, I wrote this medium length post and it got evaporated. It was a bit revealing and somewhat scathing.

With God blessing me with a job that is making up for lost time with a ton of over-time, I really don't feel like re-doing it at this point. Besides, it may not have been to appropriate and God evaporated it to give me a chance to re-word my tirade;-))))

Anyway, I sure do miss all you guys I know and the new guys I don't know yet. I am looking forward to getting a chance to catch up a bit in June?!;-))

Maryann....IBC=Insured By Christ

PS...I just gotta mention that I believe that the Bible is chuck full of the principle that we should be at peace and live in peace with our brother/friend/spouse. 1 Cor. 7:15b "God has called us to live in peace." Sooooo, if the adults must act like the children, and there is no peace on the horizon, GET OUTA DODGE, don't screw the kids up any worse than they already are. AND...this "lording" of ones plumbing over another's lack of plumbing in the name of religion/God/Bible is just a horrible mis-use of God's Word. Sheeeeese! Grrrrrrrrr;-(( Oops, I just let off steam.

Allenette...it does help to let off steam, for me and the others too;-))
Sherry2
Posted on Sunday, May 06, 2001 - 9:55 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I really enjoyed your post Colleen. Thank you for sharing an insightful thoughtful post. I've found all that you've said to be true in my marriage. I am so thankful for such a loving guy, and see us constantly working together better and better as each day passes by. It is amazing!
Chuckiej
Posted on Monday, May 07, 2001 - 4:04 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Allenette,

People have diverse personalities, backgrounds and life experiences that make getting along difficult, and it may be helpful to have a third party involved to resolve relational issues. As my dad says, "if you don't know, you better ask somebody." If folks trust the wisdom of that guy who wrote Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus or some counselor, why can't they trust God, whom they've given every other aspect of their life to?
Allenette
Posted on Monday, May 07, 2001 - 7:41 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Well, "If folks trust the wisdom of that guy who wrote Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus"
it just proves that most people are sheeple...still CLUELESS. They would, like sheep, let DOGS lead them around. Unfortunately, there are PLENTY of DOGS who claim to be men/women of the cloth, untrained, unregulated, "WELL-MEANING", who through hook or by crook, end up with dubious credentials that may/may not qualify them to tell the SHEEPLE how to live their lives. BTW, I am not referring to the Tinkers, just have seen way too many of them supported by SDA. I COULD name names in SDA and it MIGHT do some good, for the lurkers here, but right now I dont think I will.

Oh the suspense!! wink wink MaryAnn how ya doin? GIve me a shout one of these nights, ok?
Chuckiej
Posted on Tuesday, May 08, 2001 - 9:58 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Maybe it is sheepish to look for help when you obviously don't know what you're doing (like far too many people in relationships) but it's better than the alternative of continuing to hurt someone else and yourself. Why reinvent the wheel? Especially when you're hurting yourself and others along the way.
Colleentinker
Posted on Tuesday, May 08, 2001 - 4:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Rich, I appreciated your comments about a marriage that gets past the curse on Adam and Eve being an example of people experiencing the new birth. I've often thought that myself. The curse in Genesis 3 is for every one of us, and we've probably all experienced it in some ways or to some degree. Only in Christ can a marriage transcend that curse in a consistent and progressive way. Only "new people" can live a life of intimacy when their natural selves push them to control and self-protect.

I also appreciate what you said, Chuck, about gettin counseling being better than the alternative of continuously hurting yourself or someone else.

The paradoxical thing about relating to one another in the context of being born again (referring to your observations above, Rich) is that the words probably do sound like people on both the liberal end and the conservative end of things would agree. The reality is that with the Holy Spirit in the relationship, both ends of the spectrum are true simultaneously. I know that sounds impossible, but submission does coexist with equality, and a spiritual head of a family is the chief servant, bearing the heaviest end of responsibility for the family's well-being.

The late Dr. Richard Nies, a clincial psychologist who used to practice in Glendale, CA, said that contrary to most people's assumption, if only one partner in a marriage were emotionally and spiritually healthy, the realtionship would have a much greater chance of survival if that one healthy partner is the husband.

I can't explain the paradoxes, but I know that I've watched them become increasingly true in our marriage as we grow in Christ.

I do praise God for sending the Holy Spirit not only to indwell us personally but also to be in our marriages and other relationships.

Colleen
Sherry2
Posted on Saturday, June 02, 2001 - 7:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I found this online. Thought it was relevant to this topic and may be helpful to some. I personally agree with most of this article.

"Is God Sexist?
This question is directed at two sorts of people. First, there are those who are not Christians, and are put off because they believe that Christianity in some way devalues women. Second, there are those who ARE Christians, and who believe that some sort of exclusion of women (usually in the area of ministry or leadership) is Biblical.

To both of these groups I say: it is my firm belief that New Testament Christianity fully values women, and does not exclude women from any role or ministry in the church.

This is not what I have always believed. For many years, I believed that women should be excluded from ministries of teaching and leadership. This was based on my understanding of 1 Tim 2:11-15, 1 Cor 14:34-35, and the concept of male headship in marriage.

But then what about the judge Deborah (Judges 4-5)? What about the prophetess Huldah who gave instructions to the entire nation of Israel (2 Kings 22)? (It is sometimes claimed that Deborah was judge because no suitable men were available - but that claim cannot be made in Huldah's case - Jeremiah and Zephaniah were her contemporaries).

In the New Testament, what do we make of the prophesying daughters of Philip (Acts 21:8-9), the deaconess Phoebe (Romans 16:1) , the apostle Junia (Romans 16:7), or the teaching ministry of Priscilla (Acts 18:26)? (For more on these New Testament examples, see Women In Ministry - A Sermon by Rowland Croucher). If women may not teach men, why were women entrusted with the task of telling the apostles of Christ's resurrection (Matthew 28:7-10)?

Sure there were restrictions on women's ministry in the Old Testament (only men could be priests), but doesn't the New Testament speak of something new? Isn't our time (post-Pentecost) the prophesied time when 'your sons and daughters shall prophesy' (Acts 2:17, quoting Joel 2:28)?

Therefore, I have come to believe that there may be alternative interpretations for the two New Testament passages which place restrictions on women's ministry. But first, we should first establish an important principle of Biblical interpretation:


Some Biblical Commands Must be Interpreted and Modified
There are many biblical commands where what is important is not the command itself, but the principle behind the command. For instance, in five of Paul's letters he tells people to greet each other with a holy kiss. Few if any Western churches practice this. It was simply the common way of greeting in Paul's day (and was between members of the same sex only, by the way). Most Christians seem to instinctively recognise that God does not require us to obey this command to the letter.

A more significant example is the biblical attitude towards slaves and slavery. Christian slave owners are commanded to be kind and just to their slaves, but there is never any suggestion that a Christian must not own slaves. Do we then conclude that slavery is not wrong? Well it depends. In an ideal society, there would be no slaves. However, in ancient Rome, slaves often had a better lifestyle than poor free people. So the answer is not a clear black and white. Slavery is not an ideal thing, but there are circumstances when it is acceptable. And it just so happens that one of those circumstances was the time the bible was written.

A second type of command which is not universal is a specific command. That is a command which speaks to a specific situation, and not (directly) to any other. These commands are fairly frequent in Paul's letters, because they are just that: letters. An obvious example is 2 Timothy 4:13. The command to bring Paul's parchments and coat to Rome is to Timothy only, not every Christian. Another example is the command to "appoint elders" in 1 Timothy 1:3. For a specific example to a church (rather than an individual), see Paul's instructions on the collection of money in 2 Corinthians 8-9. Here, the instructions are specifically for money which will be delivered to the Jerusalem church, via Paul. Not every church is commanded to send money to the Jerusalem church. However there is still a guiding principle: churches must be willing to help, financially, churches in other places in the world.

So as we examine commands in scripture, we must ask ourselves: are they universal commands (applicable for every Christian at every time in history), or temporal commands (only directly applicable to a certain time or place).


1 Corinthians 14:33-35 - A Chaotic Church
33
For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints,
34
women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.
35
If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
(1 Corinthians 14:33-35 (NIV), courtesy of Bible Gateway)


1 Cor 14:34-35 sounds like an absolute ban on women even speaking in a church assembly. But how does this square with 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, where Paul assumes women will pray and prophesy in church?

Let us bear in mind that Paul has spent most of chapter 14 correcting disorderly conduct in the church service, especially with regard to tongues. Could there have been a another cause of disorder in the church service? Kari Torejsen furnishes an excellent example:

My mother used to compare the situation in Corinth to the one she and my father faced in northern China. Back in the 1920s when they were the first to bring God's message to that forgotten area, they found women with bound feet who seldom left their homes and who, unlike men, had never in their whole lives attended a public meeting or a class. They had never been told as little girls, 'Now you must sit still and listen to the teacher.' Their only concept of an assembly was a family feast where everyone talked at once.

When these women came to my parents' church and gathered on the women's side of the sanctuary, they thought this was a chance to catch up on the news with their neighbors and to ask questions about the story of Jesus they were hearing. Needless to say, along with babies crying and toddlers running about, the women's section got rather noisy! Add to that the temptation for the women to shout their questions to their husbands across the aisle, and you can imagine the chaos. As my mother patiently tried to tell the women that they should listen first and chitchat or ask questions later, she would mutter under her breath, 'Just like Corinth; it just couldn't be more like Corinth.' [Kari Torejsen Malcolm, Women at the Crossroads (USA:IVP, 1982), 73-74]

If the situation in Corinth really was like this, then this gives the rationale for Paul's command. Paul is not forbidding women from preaching or prophesying, but from disrupting the church meeting.

Why then does Paul include the Law in his argument? ("They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says") [Attempts to suggest that Paul means civil law are unconvincing, in my opinion]. The answer is simply this: to not disrupt the church assembly was the appopriate way (in that setting) for women to demonstrate their submission to their husbands.

In other words, submission is a universal principle, but silence is not.

So while 1 Corinthians 14 teaches the importance of an orderly church meeting, and reaffirms the Biblical principle that the husband is the head of his wife, it does not prohibit women from any ministry.


1 Timothy 2:11-15 - A Church threatened by heresy

8
I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing.
9
I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes,
10
but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
11
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.
12
I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
13
For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14
And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
15
But women [1] will be saved [2] through childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

15 Greek she
15 Or restored

(1 Timothy 2:8-15 (NIV), courtesy of Bible Gateway)

At first glance, 1 Tim 2:12 is an absolute ban on women being involved in teaching or leadership, with the reason grounded in the created order. But there are a number of unusual features of the passage which must cause us to question this.

First, it is curious that Paul prefaces his command (in verse 12) with 'I do not permit...'. He does not say 'A woman must not teach...', but, 'I do not permit a woman to teach...'. Could it be that Paul was simply giving a personal command to a specific situation?

It is sometimes argued that, since Paul was writing under God's inspiration, that his command is identical to God's command. But it's not that simple. Paul is careful with his words. He only says 'I' if there is a reason. Consider these other examples from 1 Timothy.

Second, the command is restricted to public worship. There are two reasons supporting this. First, the context is public worship, as is suggested by verses 8-10. Second, the grammar indicates that women are prohibited from ANY TEACHING AT ALL (not only the teaching of men) [because (1) 'andros' (genitive of "a man") is far removed from 'diskaskein' ("to teach"); (2) if 'andros' was the person being taught, we would expect it to be in the accusative rather than genitive case [Richard and Catherine Kroeger, 'I Suffer Not a Woman', (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 191]. Douglas Moo [in 'What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men?', in 'Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood' (Ed. J.Piper and W.Grudem; Illinois: Crossway, 1991), 179-193] has disputed this, citing Acts 8:21. But Acts 8:21 has two nouns attached to one verb, while Moo contends that 1 Tim 2:12 has two verbs attached to one noun.].

With this in mind, the command must refer to some restricted context since women certainly may teach other women (Titus 2:3-4) or children (2 Tim 1:5, 3:15; Proverbs 1:8). It would also mean that women may teach men privately, as apparently Priscilla did to Apollos [Acts 18:24-28 - note Priscilla is mentioned first, and Luke is always careful with his order - this is especially obvious in that he sometimes says 'Paul and Barnabas' and sometimes 'Barnabas and Paul'].

The question then is: WHY are women forbidden from teaching in public when they are allowed to in private? What is so different?

This is even more curious in light of the traditional interpretation of verses 13-14. According to the traditional interpretation, the fact that Eve was deceived indicates that women are in some way more gullible, and so shouldn't be entrusted with the important job of teaching. But then, why may women teach in private? Why may they (at the very least) teach women and children? Why does Eve's gullibility only preclude them from PUBLIC teaching?

So then, could there be another interpretation of verses 13-14?

In particular, could there have been something going on at the time that was so well known to both Paul and Timothy that Paul did not even have to mention it? Could there be a piece of background information that holds the key to the puzzle?

There are two pieces of background information to be aware of.

First, the so-called Pastoral Epistles (1 + 2 Timothy, Titus) show a particular concern with protecting the gospel from disrepute. This is the reason for the submission of wives [Titus 2:5] and slaves [Titus 2:10, 1 Timothy 6:1 and perhaps 5:14], and a consideration for choosing overseers [1 Timothy 3:7].

Second is the context of the letter. It has a number of references to heretical or destructive teaching [1 Tim 1:3-7, 1:19-20, 4:7, 6:20-21]. These references are at such key points in the letter (including the introduction and conclusion) that Gordon Fee has argued (very persuasively, in my opinion), that the threat of destructive teaching was the main reason why Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles, and is behind much of what Paul writes. [G.D.Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (NIBC; Rev Ed.; USA:Hendrickson, 1988)].

But do we know what this destructive teaching was?

Well we can make some educated guesses. In their book 'I Suffer not a Woman' [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992], Richard and Catherine Kroeger point out that Ephesus was unusual in that its gods were female, rather than male, and this gave religion a rather different flavour to pagan areas further west (such as Greece or Rome). Remember the riot in Ephesus over the goddess Artemis (Acts 19:23-40)? Artemis was a fertility goddess, the greatest god of Ephesus.

So what has this got to do with women teachers? The answer is that, being female-deity-centred religion, female religious teachers were prominent in Ephesus. Therefore,

The very existence of female teachers might have led outsiders to conclude that Christianity was an offshoot of Ephesian pagan religion.

But the Kroegers go further. Not only was female-deity religion prominent in Ephesus, but they present evidence that some of this was pervading Jewish and Christian teaching in the region. There appear to have been distortions of the Genesis creation story (the "myths and endless genealogies" of 1 Tim 1:4?), in which Eve was the hero.

So if we try to imagine this background (not contained in the text because it was known and assumed by both writer (Paul) and reader (Timothy)), then it is possible to expand the translation thus:

"(In this culture, women teachers are a hallmark of Ephesian pagan religion, therefore) I am not permitting a woman to teach or usurp man's authority. For (in contrast to what the false teachers are saying) Adam was created first... and the woman was deceived..."

My personal suspicion is that an explanation along these lines probably fits the data better than the traditional interpretation of 1 Tim 2:11-15. In any case, the background to the situation (false teachers and a concern for public order) should cause us to seriously consider whether this single verse can be applied restrict the ministry of all women in all places for all time.


But what about the male headship principle?
The Bible speaks of a principle of male headship in marriage. This is made clear in Colossians 3 and Ephesians 5. It might be argued that this is simply conforming to a cultural norm, except for 1 Cor 14:34 ('They [that is, the women] must be in submission, as the Law says'). I have already argued that 'The Law' here refers to the Old Testament Law. Since no 'cultural' argument is offered for this submission, we must assume that the principle of wives submitting to husbands is intended to be a universal one - for all Christian couples, in all ages.

It is worth pausing and noting that this submission is between husband and wife only. A wife is only called to submit to one man: her husband. A husband is the head of only one woman: his wife. [It is outside the scope of this essay to discuss the way that 'submission' and 'headship' are often misunderstood, as if 'head' means 'boss' and 'submit' means 'be a doormat'. Can anyone suggest a good link?]

The argument is then offered: 'If a married woman is to submit to her husband, how can she be a leader in the church?' Well this is a leap in logic that is never made in Scripture. But more significantly, the argument misunderstands the nature of biblical leadership:


35
Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. "Teacher," they said, "we want you to do for us whatever we ask."
36
"What do you want me to do for you?" he asked.
37
They replied, "Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory."
38
"You don't know what you are asking," Jesus said. "Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?"
39
"We can," they answered. Jesus said to them, "You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with,
40
but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared."
41
When the ten heard about this, they became indignant with James and John.
42
Jesus called them together and said, "You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them.
43
Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant,
44
and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all.
45
For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
(Mark 10:35-45 (NIV), courtesy of Bible Gateway)

A true leader is a servant - not one who lords over people. Although Christians are called to submit to their church leaders (Hebrews 13:7), a true leader will always be one who serves the people, so that submitting to him - or her - is not onerous. I believe that if more men modelled servant leadership, there would be less resistance to women in ministry.


Conclusions
1. The New Testament gives examples of women in all sorts of ministry. This is a natural outcome of 'your sons and daughters shall prophesy' (Acts 2:17)
2. The two passages which place restrictions on women's ministry - 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15 - can be understood as specific commands to specific situations.

3. True Biblical leadership is servant-like, so a woman leader is not compromised by having her husband as the head of her marriage.

Therefore...

4. There is no Biblical reason for excluding women from any ministry. "
Loneviking
Posted on Thursday, June 07, 2001 - 7:21 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Sherry, I'm usually a lurker here, but I just had to respond to this last missive of yours. As I read this, I kept thinking that the substance of your argument---the way in which your argument is structured---mirrors exactly the way SDA's structure so many of their theological arguments. As I see it, SDA's spend most of their time telling folks why the Bible can't possibly mean what it clearly says. The same is true of your arguments---I'm not going to debate with you, but my Bible says that women are not to be leaders/elders/teachers in the church. I refuse to look for reasons to get around that, and that's why I'm a member of a local Church of Christ congregation that sticks to what the Bible says.

Let me ask you, do you still hold to the SDA belief in 'though-inspiration', instead of 'the prophet wrote down what he was told to'? If you believe in thought inspiration, I would encourage you to do a word study on 'words'. It might change your mind!
Sherry2
Posted on Thursday, June 07, 2001 - 11:58 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

First off, Lone-viking...go to the beginning of the post. What did I write? Here's quoted what I wrote: " I found this online.Thought it was relevant to this topic and may be helpful to some. I personall agree with most of it." So I didn't formulate it but I agree with a lot of it. Your post seems to be looking for an argument. I'm not here to argue. You'll have to look for someone else if that is your desire. Many people go to their church looking to say that their church sticks to what the Bible says. Didn't your Adventist background say the same thing? All the time... "We are people of the Word. We have the Truth." So please do not flaunt to me that your church sticks to what the Bible says. I'm certain it's theology is not perfect as any other church is perfect. Only a church that preaches and lives out the true Gospel of Jesus Christ is sticking to the Scriptures. And even then they do have flaws. God's people are flawed..the Bible makes that very clear. But we are different because by His Spirit we seek to follow His ways and serve Him. That may be your church, and a thousand others as well. Truth is in your actions, not your words. We're all here to study more and learn more....hopefully. Jesus is alive and well, and will feed any child that comes seeking Him.
Trippllb
Posted on Thursday, June 07, 2001 - 12:15 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Sherry2,
Great post. It's nice to see people still travel the high road.
Allenette
Posted on Thursday, June 07, 2001 - 8:24 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

after all the above postings, I dont see anything useful on here regarding us human beans relating to each other as girls and boys, growing up into maturity. Just a lot of hot air with scriptures added, sorry. Not unlike watching the Sopranos....;-)
Loneviking
Posted on Wednesday, June 13, 2001 - 7:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Sherry 2,
No, I'm not looking for an argument--I even said so in my post! I know you didn't write most of the post, but you seemed to applaud the writer and his line of reasoning. That's why I replied because the thinking of the writer (and his approach to scripture study) is very SDA-like. SDA's theology is basically a denial of what the Bible really says.

For example, take the word 'forever' in Revelation. The same word is used throughout the book, and yet when it refers to the saved the SDA's insist that this means for all eternity. And yet, when the word is used to refer to the lost, SDA's insist that this just means until they are burned up. I grew tired of being in a church that denies what the Bible clearly says and tries to find ways around clear passages. So, I bailed out and found a church that doesn't play those games. No, my church is not the only Christ honoring church that literally interprets the Bible, there are many out there.

My point though is that some rethinking might be in order as to how to study the Bible so as to accept and follow the literal word while at the same time accounting for seemingly variant texts. I just don't feel that the author of your post really understands how to study and build a Biblical arguement. 'Nuff said.............

Bill (LV)

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration