Role of Women in the congregation

[Mark]

Hi Nashdude, and welcome to the forum.

I don't believe that your position is any conflict to what has already been said. Women have an incredibly important and distinctive role of leadership within the congregation.

One of the problems that find is that we, as gentile Christians, try to fit the definition of roles and positions in the New Testament Synagogue into the 21st Century Church. The only "real" positions in the Church are Pastors, Priests, Deacons, Elders and Administrators (all male dominated positions througout our modern history). The synagogue was not such an isolated segment of society as what the religious institution of the Church has become. In fact, if a woman were to step into a role as commanded by Paul to Titus 2:3-5, they would be sharply condemned in most congregations as stepping into areas that were none of their business.

We've adopted a Western definition of women's status over the centuries that, up until the mid-twentieth century, disdained the feminine role as sub-servient and unimportant. If you read through Genesis with a specific eye on the relationship that the wives had to their husbands, they were certainly not insignificant but certainly were distinct from their male counterparts.

This is true of the synagogue that the early disciples of Messiah participated in. We've lost much in our understanding of the Scriptures by losing touch with the Hebraic context.

[Mark]

copied from above post:

By the way, there are women elders in the Church. In Greek, it is important to understand not only the words that are used but why some words are chosen above others. Presbutis is the Greek word for sweet little old man. Presbutes is the word for sweet little old lady. Presbuteros is thew word for elder, or congregational leader in the biblical context. (one little kid just popped through the door and he has bouncing around stark naked so I'm really going to have to be brief.) In 1st Timothy 5:2, Paul identifies a group of ladies he refers to as Presbuteros gune (women who are elders). Their specific role in the congregation is defined in Titus 2:3-5. (A role which we guys need to keep clear out of- in fact, I don't counsel women at all. That is a role for the elder women.)

There is not heirarchy of authority in the congregation; and we should not get in the business of arguing over who gets to be in charge. There is, however, a clear distinction of roles. It has been my experience that if we are all about the business of serving the Messiah biblically, there's not much debate over who gets to do what.

[Prodigal Girl]

I believe that Paul's admonitions were similar to classroom rules; i.e., "Raise your hands before Speaking". If the teacher/deacon was a female, the same rules would apply; don't interrupt the speaker. Sometimes it is necessary to apply a stricter set of rules, for a class that has not yet learned how to conduct itself in a classroom environment. Take turns, don't interrupt, etc. are all things that need to be learned, and not just by children and not just by females. If you have never been in a classroom environment (think, certain middle-eastern women then AND now) certain protocol needs to be taught. I believe that Paul's instructions were specific for that cultural situation, though of course we can glean principles from that applicable to various situations today. Amazing that women were even IN the classroom, in that cultural setting.

[Prodigal Girl]

Also realize that the surrounding culture was very much permeated with these gnostic and pagan belief systems that promoted permanent celibacy (the temple run by virgin women and castrated males). Women were in charge of the pagan religious rites, and that leaked into the church. Things were happening so fast, I believe that Paul had to set down some ground rules to deal with the crazy teachings that were being brought in by unlearned (in the ) superstitious women. First rule, sit down, shut up, and listen. You can't learn if everyone is talking (staying nonsense, by the way) and not listening to the teacher. At the very least, take turns!
I will say, that just as men have at times (want a few current day examples?) led whole flocks into erroneous practices and teachings, so have women. Sex seems to be an instrument that has been and still is a big tool used by the Enemy; I guess because it is so powerful. Which is why men need a sign down there as a reminder (see other post)!

[Mark]

Hi Prodigal,

You're right that we definitely need to take cultural circumstances into account; but not so as to dismiss the applicability of the teaching, nor as it lines up with other Scripture.

The first thing that would keep me from accepting this teaching as only applying to the period Corinthian circumstances Paul's qualifying phrase in 1st Corinthians 14:34. "...as also saith the Law."

A second problem I see with this as simply asking for order without specifying specific roles according to gender is 1st Corinthians 11:3.

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
(1 Corinthians 11:3)

It seems clear to me that there is a definite distinction in rules of conduct as how men and women should conduct themselves in the religious assembly.

[Prodigal Girl]

Hello Mark,
In I Cor 14:34, what he specifically seems to be saying is that in the Law, that women are commanded to be under obedience. Would you agree with me on that? Or do you think that he is saying that the Law says that women are be silent in the churches as in not talk? Please show me where the says women are not to talk in worship services (the that Paul was talking about). Or at least, where it says that women (in general) are supposed to obey men (in general) and not the other way around. If you are saying that Paul was talking about the oral law, then you are saying that we should obey oral law (assuming that we can agree on what that is). Is that what you are saying?
As I said, I believe that he was NOT making a general doctrinal statement that women (because they are female) should not teach in the church or should not ever talk in the church. I think he was saying that the women in that particular situation needed to get control over their tongues, stop interrupting, stop talking when the teacher is trying to talk. The whole context is simply about having an orderly worship service and/or teaching session that functions effectively. And yes, we most certainly can apply that to any similar situation today. But to make a doctrine out of this, that women for all time and in all cultures should not teach, should never ask questions (if allowed, which is rare) or contribute to the discussion (if there is one, which also is rare) is stretching it and does not match the Biblical record we have of women that did precisely that.
In a large group situation, it is bedlam if everyone talks and asks questions all at once. Unfortunately, most church teaching today is top-down, little chance for questions or discussion. And those, to me, are vital for true learning to take place. But instead we have ministers and rabbis lecturing/performing for hours, with the audience passively sitting.
To be honest with you, I have seen some pretty bizarre things lately in Messianic church services. And to say, it has been women. I do not know why. I am talking about ridiculous interruptions, noisy manifestations that look like the person is just trying to call attention to herself. Have seen this in churches also. And just as often it is a WOMAN leader who was able to gain control of the situation, and calm things down.
I will say, also, that it is to see a church so feminized that there are vastly more women than men. The men are passive or absent, unless they are in the top layer of leadership. Something not quite right about that, to my mind.

[Mark]

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
(1 Corinthians 14:34)

Notice in the structure of the above sentence that being "not permitted to speak" is a definitive characteristic of being "under obedience". Such is to say that not speaking openly in the congregational setting is one example of being under obedience.

Paul supports this idea in the next sentence:

And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a for women to speak in the church.
(1 Corinthians 14:35)

The Greek word translated "" means simply "an impropriety." It would draw no gasps nor threatenings of anamthema should a woman have something to say. It would reveal that something somewhere is wrong. The congregational setting should not be the center of a family's religious experience. The home is where we teach our children to live in relationship with Adonai (not Sabbath or Sunday School).

I explained earlier that the phrase used commanding women should keep silence is not a gag order; but that women speak quietly (not addressing the entire congregation). It is the same phrasing as used for the person who speaks in tongues "to himself and to God." It is not saying that a woman must not say anything; but that it is improper for a woman to address the entire congregation.

I explain where the command is given regarding women's submission to male leadership in post #9 on the previous page.
I think you may find it an acceptable answer which confirms why you have seen that, in most cases, it is a woman that stirs up trouble in the congregation.

I've noticed in the Church system (which is actually employed today by many synagogues and certainly most Messianic groups) the culture is set up as a mini-monarchy. The Pastor, Head-Elder or Rabbi rules his kingdom and folks appeal to him for his blessing and support of whatever participation they may have in the congregation. This sort of control is not biblical. There is plenty of room in the congregation for leadership. In fact, one of the problems is that there is not enough men stepping up to the plate (though this is perpetuated by guys in authority trying to keep everyone else under their control). It is not wonder that ladies feel bound and stifled. Yet, the opportunities for them to lead and minister to the congregation and to the community is huge: just not in the capacity or through the channel that we have come to understand as the only method of doing Church.

My job as a congregational leader is to facilitate ministry, not to dictate it nor even to necessarily understand it or recognize it as important. I've had ladies get very upset with me when I have encouraged them to take on a ministry that they have suggested for me to champion. It is their opportunity, their leadership. I have enough to do. Yet, when a woman stands up in the congregation and says, "thus saith the Lord," I have to think to myself that something is wrong. Why her? Why would Adonai choose her as the vehicle? It is a sign that we guys are not doing what we are supposed to be doing and that we are not listening to Him. What Paul's admonition does for us is allows us to recognize when things are escew. Our congregation has an open floor. It is normal and encourged for guys to stand up and say what they feel Adonai is speaking to them. Even young boys are granted the respect of being heard when they have something to say. Yet when a woman feels she needs to express something that the guys are hesitant to bring up, we need to take notice. It should be something that jolts our attention.

[Prodigal Girl]

Hello Mark,
I agree with you about the mini-monarchy thing. After all, that is why we have things like pulpits, podiums, stages, church aisles, etc.; because the church was trying to model itself after a monarchical (Roman/British or whatever)system.
I am still waiting for a reply from someone here, as to what law Paul was referring to, when he says (as you are interpreting it) that the Law says that women are to keep silent in obedience in the churches. Because which law, oral or written, where this is found, to me is very significant and relevant to this discussion.
I by no means am saying, by the way Mark, that women as opposed to men are any more prone to lead the church into gross error than men have been or are. Do you need some examples? I didn't think so. We also are living in a time when women, at least in this society, are every bit and sometimes more educated than the men. I think we need to be very thoughtful and careful about taking the directions that are given in one time and place and situation, and applying them wholesale to another completely different time, place, and cultural context. I see WAY too much of this has happened in the name of Christ, in the past, and still is very much a problem today.
A HUGE problem that we have in church practice in general today, as well as Messianic synagogues, is that neither women nor men are given sufficient opportunities to discuss and question. Discussion and questioning are an absolutely essential part of learning. I find that often pastors really resent and can not handle the questions, challenges and discussion. They want total control, and they certainly want to do 95% of the talking, even in a "discussion" format. When there is discussion allowed (such as in the Sunday School I attend) even the questions are pre-planned and prescribed. Very, very frustrating. And by the way, in the real world, many women do not have men at home they can discuss and question about spiritual matters. Like myself, my husband refuses to discuss anything of the sort.

[Mark]

copied from an earlier post:

In Genesis 3:16 we are exposed to what is referred to as "the curse of Eve."

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
(Genesis 3:16)

Few understand this to be a command in the Christian community. In Judaism, it is not so much a command but a recognized state of position. It is not to be that a woman should have a authority over a man; but rather that the man should "rule over" the woman.

The phrase, "her desire shall be for him" seems enigmatic. There are lots of ways that a woman's desire can be for her husband and most of them would not be considered a curse! The phrase is repeated in Genesis 4:7 in a way that gives clarity to what Adonai is saying.

If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
(Genesis 4:7)

Just as the desire for sin was for Cain, so is the desire of the woman for the man. The issue is a question of dominance.

Now, we have to be fair and understand that women are by and large, to a measureable degree, a lot smarter than we are. In fact, Adonai understood this in His initial act of creation. He creates Adam in the garden and immediately states, "It is not good that man should be alone." An American queloqialism, "This kid needs help." In fact, the Hebrew word for the word "alone" is the word "bahd" which carries the visual idea of a branch that has been severed from the tree or a tree without any branches... a stump! Let it not be said that the Bible is in any way sexist, at least not to the disparity of women!

It is woman's "curse" to desire to take over, not in a malicious or malignant manner; but her basic instinct is to fix whatever is not right. That was very much the reason for her creation in the first place. Let's be honest, guys, our basic instinct is to let them. The result in the congregational setting is that if women have the freedom to do that which comes naturally to them, the rest of us wind up sitting around wondering, "When I stand up, where does my lap go?"

This is the reference that Paul can go to in that states that women must be under the authority of their husbands. Paul uses this as his reference in 2nd Timothy 2:13-14.

[Prodigal Girl]

Mark,
I understand what you are saying, and I had read your previous post which you quoted here. However, I simply am not convinced that this means that women are not ever, in all situations throughout eternity, to take positions of leadership and teach in the church, in particular to teach men. Or to ask questions and talk in church. Or to challenge a man on his sometimes/often very erroneous and very harmful interpretations of scripture. This belief has lead to and still leads to horrendous problems and abuse.
I continue to believe that Paul was speaking to a particular situation at a particular time in a particular setting with its particular problem. Yes we can use the scripture to learn something, but we need to be very very careful with how this is applied, because of the history of abuse of women (and other groups) worldwide, and in particular, the abuse that has been done misusing scripture. The Dutch Reformed Church has repented rather recently for decades of false interpretation related to Ham and persons of color. We need to be very careful.

[Velvela]

My thoughts:

The Scripture doesn't say, 'I do not permit a child to teach/speak,' or 'I do not permit an extremely mentally challenged person to teach/speak,' or 'I do not permit a brand new believer to teach/speak.' Common-sense will tell us that, although G-d can certainly speak through them if He so wishes (after all, it is written that He has even been known to use a donkey to get a message across), those individuals are not, usually, going to be the ideal teachers. So I think that women just might be singled out because we are perfectly able to teach and speak out and challenge and debate. But Rav Sha'ul says No.

And I'm breathing a huge sigh of relief. I'm intelligent and confident and um.... opinionated. I could handle any training. I could pass any examinations. I could take on the responsibility. And so, I could easily be 'steered' in a leadership direction. I'm glad I'm not. I've got lots of other capabilities, lots of other responsibilities. Lots of other super things to do: things that maybe only I can do. And so it is beautiful to join with a congregation and just worship and just receive. It is wonderful to be excused from debate. It is liberating to be freed from competing with men, and be given the opportunity to enjoy relating to the other women.

Yes, the men can be wrong. But I think G-d is big enough to deal with that, and doesn't require my assistance. He'll find someone else to speak, if that is what He wants in this situation.

No husband-to-ask at home? We're so fortunate these days with a worldful of books (and the internet) to learn from. Probably the same books and websites that husband-at-home would refer to (or has learnt from), anyway. I'd rather sit and study at home than spoil congregational meetings for myself by saying, 'Yes, but.....!' and 'Well, what about this then?' to all and sundry. And I have the liberty of studying at my own pace, and with my own priorities, rather than worrying about what I'll be speaking about next Shabbat.

I thank G-d that I am a woman. He has given me such freedom.