Man is Head of Woman in all Spheres? 1 Cor 11

Status
Not open for further replies.
Teaching in the church implies a certain level of self-direction and judgment, and a de facto air of authority. That is the context in which I echoed Paul, where having women teach is a foolish danger. Of course, this same reasoning, the weakness or vulnerability of women to deceit, has effects elsewhere and that is why the passage speaks beyond merely the church.

But it doesn't automatically apply in the same way everywhere. Because scripture specifically commends women teaching some audiences, on some subjects, under male authority and direction, we know that those are good. In these contexts, the deficiencies in the sex are managed and the virtues channeled.

The nature being the problem does not, in any way, imply a bar from all teaching in all contexts. It would, however, imply a need, a warrant, and a different or greater manner of direction/accountability when teaching, and limited subject matter. I think scripture gives us all of those. My position requires at least something of that sort, but it does nothing to require a total ban beyond that.

Titus 2 says nothing about the aged women teaching younger women "under male authority and direction."

Of course it does. It's built-in. Are you suggesting that believing women can somehow teach other women without being under the direction or authority of men? Who are these women who don't have husbands, fathers, or elders?
 
But it doesn't automatically apply in the same way everywhere.

If it's nature then it must automatically apply in the same way everywhere. She cannot transcend what is natural to her. And to make it worse, your argument supposes this "nature" even applies in a state of innocence. It must be even more susceptible post-fall. You really should go back and reconsider your position. Besides being absurd it is dishonourable.

Of course it does. It's built-in.

There is nothing in the text or the context that says an aged woman must teach a younger woman under the direction of a man. You have to read it into the text or context.
 
There is nothing in the text or the context that says an aged woman must teach a younger woman under the direction of a man. You have to read it into the text or context.

Are you suggesting that believing women can somehow teach other women without being under the direction or authority of men? Who are these women who don't have husbands, fathers, or elders? What part of their lives is not subject to the authority over them? Which of them would have a claim against their heads, or their elders, to leave them alone and let them teach as they please?

If it's nature then it must automatically apply in the same way everywhere.

That's silly. Some parts of our nature affect some things, but not others. My nature allows me to do some things responsibly, but not others.

I have a son who is very easily deceived. But that's okay. He's four years old. His makeup makes him quite susceptible to deception. Being smart on a relative scale to other four year olds doesn't mean that I let him do my taxes. But I can let him teach his younger brother how to put his shirt on, or his younger sister how not to get her hair stuck in her runny snot.

In this sense, I can say it would be "foolishly dangerous" to allow a four year old to teach, and not be remotely inconsistent, or deny his nature, if I let him teach some things to some people in some contexts.

It's a total absurdity to suggest that one's nature applies the same everywhere.
 
Pergamum said:
The possibilities after reading this list of quotes is that: (1) -These men quoted were children of their age and were reflecting the ancient view of women that needs correction (although there are quotes from all ages included), (2) -That Christianity is full of bigots, starting with the apostle Paul and all those taking Paul at face value will also become bigots, (3) -That these quotes might have been worded more nicely but reflect the true biblical teaching that there is a difference between the sexes. And if these quotes sound alarming, it may be, rather, that it is our modern age which needs adjustment, not our interpretation of the Scripture.
They only sound alarming to my ears if "deception" means women are more susceptible to sin than men. If by "deception" they are referring to a specific kind of sin, rather than the act of being deceived itself (as occurs in all sin), and if they are not saying things that imply the woman is unable to teach in any context, then I see no problem. Admittedly, the quotations do seem to show they believed that women were more easily deceived than men and that this idea was taught from the particular text. Fairbairn's quotation is interesting in light of the other quotation by Fairbairn on this thread.

It would seem that each sex has its own peculiar besetting sins. For example, men seem to be more visually tempted with tempting images or more tempted to anger. And the Apostle Paul seems clear in what he thought women's besetting sin was. Therefore, I must either say "Ah, Paul was just a first century Jew with all their first century Jewish hang-ups," or I must say, "Paul here is right, even in what he says about women."

We should probably also begin to ask how Paul and Peter complement each other here when Peter calls women the "weaker vessel." Though "vessel" may make us think of physical weakness primarily, many commentators point out emotional aspects of this weakness as well which may complement the Apostle Paul's words quite well.

In the very least, one must admit that the two vessel as not alike, but are different.
 
Last edited:
Are you suggesting that believing women can somehow teach other women without being under the direction or authority of men? Who are these women who don't have husbands, fathers, or elders? What part of their lives is not subject to the authority over them? Which of them would have a claim against their heads, or their elders, to leave them alone and let them teach as they please?

Are you suggesting that believing women can somehow teach men as long as they are under the direction or authority of men? You claim the nature of woman prohibits her from teaching except under the condition that she is under the direction of a man. On this basis you would have to say that the apostle's prohibition of teaching a man only applies when the woman is not under the direction of a man. So now, in adding a qualification to your reason, you have added a qualification to the prohibition. That hole just keeps getting deeper.

If it's nature then it must automatically apply in the same way everywhere.

That's silly. Some parts of our nature affect some things, but not others. My nature allows me to do some things responsibly, but not others.

I have a son who is very easily deceived. But that's okay. He's four years old. His makeup makes him quite susceptible to deception. Being smart on a relative scale to other four year olds doesn't mean that I let him do my taxes. But I can let him teach his younger brother how to put his shirt on, or his younger sister how not to get her hair stuck in her runny snot.

In this sense, I can say it would be "foolishly dangerous" to allow a four year old to teach, and not be remotely inconsistent, or deny his nature, if I let him teach some things to some people in some contexts.

The argument presupposes the woman is mature and has the cognitive and moral qualifications to teach. Equating her to an immature four year old only shows more disrespect.

It's a total absurdity to suggest that one's nature applies the same everywhere.

Of course nature applies everywhere. If the male-female distinction in nature did not apply everywhere we wouldn't be having this debate. This discussion has taken for granted that the Bible's appeal to "nature" makes its teaching applicable everywhere.
 
Are you suggesting that believing women can somehow teach men as long as they are under the direction or authority of men?

I knew this question was coming, because I counted on the same level of understanding and fairness as previous posts received.

Yes, that is what it would mean, if this reason was given in isolation. But it is not given in isolation. We are also told that Adam was formed first, and the whole notion of created order puts away this idea. Your question might be fair if the woman being deceived was Paul's only reason given, but it was not. It was listed after the fact that Adam was formed first, and therein lies the answer to this question.

The argument presupposes the woman is mature and has the cognitive and moral qualifications to teach. Equating her to an immature four year old only shows more disrespect.

A comparison is not an equation, and you know that. The substance of vulnerability to deception, not the degree of it, is the relevant factor, and that is why this is both true and not disrespectful at all. We all recognize that some types of people are more easily deceived than others. Those people are not barred completely in all circumstances from teaching, but we do take account of their weakness in our structures. The example proves my point quite well.

You can take it as disrespectful if you wish, but it is not. The comparison is a matter of substance, not degree.

Of course nature applies everywhere. If the male-female distinction in nature did not apply everywhere we wouldn't be having this debate. This discussion has taken for granted that the Bible's appeal to "nature" makes its teaching applicable everywhere.

Of course nature applies everywhere. It's nature. By definition, it applies everywhere. But it does not apply the same everywhere. And that is what I said, and that is what you have still not even mounted an argument against.

***Edit: I won't be responding for probably 18-24 hours. There are non-PB things to do.
 
Last edited:
I knew this question was coming, because I counted on the same level of understanding and fairness as previous posts received.

The logic of your position is being tested. That is all. There is no need to cry foul-play.

Yes, that is what it would mean, if this reason was given in isolation. But it is not given in isolation. We are also told that Adam was formed first, and the whole notion of created order puts away this idea. Your question might be fair if the woman being deceived was Paul's only reason given, but it was not. It was listed after the fact that Adam was formed first, and therein lies the answer to this question.

When I brought the two reasons into correlation you said, "Paul reasons using the second one, not the first. The difference between those is stark." Now you are saying they must not be taken in isolation. Which is it?

If the two are now to be taken together it would mean that the deception relates to the priority of the man, not to the nature of the woman; but you have been arguing against the deception relating to the priority of man and have been arguing for it being related to the nature of the woman.

A comparison is not an equation, and you know that. The substance of vulnerability to deception, not the degree of it, is the relevant factor, and that is why this is both true and not disrespectful at all.

Then your comparison is simply irrelevant. I will leave it at that.

Of course nature applies everywhere. It's nature. By definition, it applies everywhere. But it does not apply the same everywhere. And that is what I said, and that is what you have still not even mounted an argument against.

You are, of course, pulling the rug from under your own feet. Your original argument was, "It would be terribly odd for facts based in Creation and Fall only to impact the church and home." Now you say, "that these apply everywhere, but do not apply the same everywhere." This is very inconsistent.

Your qualifications appear in a very confused manner without reference to the apostle's line of reasoning. Perhaps you could refer them back to the apostle's prohibition so that it can be seen what they amount to. As far as I can see your arguments and qualifications only serve to undermine the apostle's prohibition.
 
I have appreciated this exchange and have found encouragement as a mother and grandmother. A Christian mother can and must teach and instruct her children, even in situations where the father is absent or not interested enough in spiritual things. In the home, there may be no direct male oversight over what she says to them or how she answers their questions throughout the course of a normal day. Some of her answers would likely be, "I don't know, let's ask our Pastor." God has entrusted this to her. Of course, like anyone else, a mother or grandmother "on their own" in the home will be submitted to and under the care of pastoral oversight. I think of Paul's words to Timothy giving honorable mention to Timothy's grandmother Lois and his mother Eunice. It's natural and right for a mother to speak to her children throughout the days and nights of the things of the Lord.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
When I brought the two reasons into correlation you said, "Paul reasons using the second one, not the first. The difference between those is stark." Now you are saying they must not be taken in isolation. Which is it?

I am going to respond only to this part, so that I may shine a spotlight on such repeated, overwhelming misrepresentation of my words.

The text gives two reasons for women not teaching. I'll call this List 1.

List 1
1) Adam was formed first. 2) Eve was deceived.

However, in what you quote from me ("Paul reasons using the second one, not the first. The difference between those is stark"), this was the preceding sentence:
The tempter created the temptation, and subverted the order. The woman was deceived. Paul reasons using the second one, not the first. The difference between those is stark.

I listed exactly what I was talking about. My reference was to these two things, where we were arguing over what it meant for Eve to be deceived (two understandings of point 2 in the previous list). I'll call this List 2.

List 2:
1) The tempter created the temptation, and subverted the order.
2) The woman was deceived.

There, and only in that context, did I say the words you quote.

But no, you ripped them out of that argument, ignoring the very sentence before, and pretended I was talking about the two reasons Paul gave in List 1, rather than the two understandings we had in List 2.

When quotes are so abused, so consistently, I don't know what point there is in continuing.

I do not know whether all of these were deliberate or not. And I do not actually know which would be more charitable to assume. Either way, all of the contradictions you allege are figments of your imagination, resulting from continual misrepresentation.
 
This discussion is far too important for these repeated misrepresentations. Scores of people are following this subject, not to mention the thousands that may happen upon it in the future.

I happen to side with Jeremy. If "the deception relates to the priority of the man, not to the nature of the woman" as has been argued, what sense would the words "and she became a transgressor" make? And what sense would verse 15, "Yet she will be saved through childbearing," make?

If the apostle has not made any remark on the nature of the woman, why would he give special instruction relating to her unique salvation? We know there is one Way of salvation only. Yet, for women, there is an added means of sanctification in the bearing and raising of children. The humility and selflessness involved in keeping the home and raising young ones will be of use to combat the unique nature of the fallen woman.
 
There, and only in that context, did I say the words you quote.

I accept your correction and acknowledge I have misread and misapplied your words in this instance, for which I am very sorry. Having said that, my point still stands that if the two reasons are not read in isolation then the position of the woman in relation to the man must be understood as an important element in the connection of the two, which is precisely the thing I have been stating.

Moreover, my criticisms still stand. Tracing the reason back to something in the woman's nature (which the apostle never does) would effectively disqualify her teaching BY NATURE, which would then have to be applied in every context, contrary to the apostle's own teaching in other places. His argument depends on the appeal to creation and the fall being universal. If it is not universal it would mean there are contexts in which it would be permissible for women to teach men. And if it is argued that the apostle's reason still allows for women to teach under the direction of men, it would mean by consequence that the apostle's prohibition allows for women to teach men under the direction of men. If his reasons provide universal application of his prohibition they must apply universally. Claiming that nature does not apply everywhere in the same way would defeat the purpose of the apostle in giving these reasons in the first place.

I have made a valid ad absurdum argument against interpreting the apostle as referring to the woman's nature, as it is properly applied to the analysis of a logical argument. I repeat for clarification, I am not saying that you argue for the universal exclusion of women teaching. I am saying that your interpretation of the apostle's logically structured argument leads to this conclusion, even though you refuse the conclusion. Basically, you have left yourself with no logical grounds for maintaining that women may teach in other contexts because you have interpreted the apostle as disqualifying the woman BY NATURE. Only on the basis that he was referring to the woman's POSITION in relation to the man can it be maintained that there are other contexts which are not ruled out by the apostle's reasons.

At any rate, I apologise for my blunder. It was through lack of care that I misapplied your words, not through any deliberate intention.
 
This discussion is far too important for these repeated misrepresentations. Scores of people are following this subject, not to mention the thousands that may happen upon it in the future.

I happen to side with Jeremy. If "the deception relates to the priority of the man, not to the nature of the woman" as has been argued, what sense would the words "and she became a transgressor" make? And what sense would verse 15, "Yet she will be saved through childbearing," make?

If the apostle has not made any remark on the nature of the woman, why would he give special instruction relating to her unique salvation? We know there is one Way of salvation only. Yet, for women, there is an added means of sanctification in the bearing and raising of children. The humility and selflessness involved in keeping the home and raising young ones will be of use to combat the unique nature of the fallen woman.

To see how the role-reversal view consistently exegetes the text in context, please consult Douglas Moo's essay on this passage in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

There are numerous interpretations for verse 15. The role-reversal position is not dependent on any one interpretation in particular, because verse 15 does not introduce a consequence, but gives a further consideration which now incorporates the prior teaching about good works in v. 10.

If by "means of sanctification" you simply mean that child-bearing provides a vocation for doing the good works of v. 10, I think that is an acceptable application of the text, but it doesn't really bring out the meaning as I understand it. As an application it simply sets forth child-bearing as a context in which godly women can do good works as a fruit of sanctification. But I would also be on my guard against a doctrine which either introduces salvation (or sanctification) by works, contrary to the express teaching of chapter 1; or which supports the fundamentalist idea of sanctification by physical separation.

The interpretation which weighs more heavily with me is the one which sees the child-bearing as objectively setting forth the promised seed in Gen. 3:15, and the woman as "the mother of all living." Child-bearing, though cursed as a result of the woman being in the transgression, is also the appointed way by which mankind will be saved, and this includes womankind as long as they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. There are a number of key redemptive-historical issues related to this interpretation, so if one is not open to the insights of redemptive-historical interpretation it will not be of much influence; but for those who trace the seed-theology of Genesis throughout Scripture this position will bear some weight. The commentary by Patrick Fairbairn brings this out with skill and precision, and provides the necessary safeguards to keep the interpretation from slipping into a mystical mode of thought.
 
MW said:
If you "honour" them you recognise their authority to act in such a sphere with such a power.
Winding this thread back a bit (lots of activity here!), how does "honoring" imply that one recognizes authority? Supposing it does require recognition of authority, does it not simply note the praise-worthiness of operating in such a sphere, without necessarily saying anything about the sovereignty of the authority (since the authority could be subordinate)?
 
Winding this thread back a bit (lots of activity here!), how does "honoring" imply that one recognizes authority? Supposing it does require recognition of authority, does it not simply note the praise-worthiness of operating in such a sphere, without necessarily saying anything about the sovereignty of the authority (since the authority could be subordinate)?

Are you thinking in terms of 1 Peter 2:13-14; the king is supreme and governors are sent by him? If so, it might help if we use this as a contrast to see the difference between civil authority and the family authority of fathers and mothers. The civil magistrate as such is an ordinance of God; but in the family the ordinance authorises both fathers and mothers, and those two terms establish different relations and actions within the family. The father does not institute and empower the mother; he is not like the king delegating his authority to governors. The mother's power is derived from God, and as such it is not delegated power. Her sphere of service is not dependent on the husband in this respect; and it is in this respect of "power to relate and act" that the woman is said to be sovereign in her own sphere.
 
MW said:
Are you thinking in terms of 1 Peter 2:13-14; the king is supreme and governors are sent by him? If so, it might help if we use this as a contrast to see the difference between civil authority and the family authority of fathers and mothers. The civil magistrate as such is an ordinance of God; but in the family the ordinance authorises both fathers and mothers, and those two terms establish different relations and actions within the family. The father does not institute and empower the mother; he is not like the king delegating his authority to governors. The mother's power is derived from God, and as such it is not delegated power. Her sphere of service is not dependent on the husband in this respect; and it is in this respect of "power to relate and act" that the woman is said to be sovereign in her own sphere.
Ah, I see now, although I still do not see how "honoring" implies recognition of authority.

Now for the tricky question: How far does this sphere extend, so that the woman does not need to be under male headship? It seems some political offices are obvious offices of leadership, but even here, how do we know that the woman's sphere does not extend to this place? And some roles are not as obvious, e.g., female bosses at companies. These are economic enterprises, so there could be some legitimacy to the woman acting in her own sphere to take care of her own; but on the other hand, they often require leadership over men. And even supposing the commercial enterprise was all female, does that really change matters, so far as sphere of service goes? There are also academic roles: professors and teachers; perhaps even teaching on matters of religion.

I guess I already asked the main question here: How can we determine how far this sphere extends and how can we determine when "headship" is required, and so male leadership is required?
 
Now for the tricky question: How far does this sphere extend, so that the woman does not need to be under male headship?

Sovereignty only relates to her "sphere" of service. It cannot be predicated of the woman herself without overturning the created order. Man is the head of the woman, and this applies everywhere at all times. The woman is of the man and created for the man. Her sovereignty in her sphere derives from God, but God has also placed the woman under man's headship.
 
MW said:
Sovereignty only relates to her "sphere" of service. It cannot be predicated of the woman herself without overturning the created order. Man is the head of the woman, and this applies everywhere at all times. The woman is of the man and created for the man. Her sovereignty in her sphere derives from God, but God has also placed the woman under man's headship.
Sorry for getting back to this late. I myself only barely remember the flow discussion, but in the interests of trying not to create a new thread, here we go. I'll try to frame the question in a general way as if it were a new thread.

How does one determine what is the woman's sphere? How does one determine whether the man must have headship in some area of life, or if it is the woman's sphere of service? I'm trying to understand how to use this principle to apply it to other matters, e.g., who leads the prayer at prayer meetings; various economical or academic positions; political positions. Take a female CEO of some business, for example. One the one hand, we might say she has authority and thus headship over the men she employs. On the other hand, women have traditionally employed servants--some of them male--to do household work. Could a female CEO then be viewed as being within the woman's sphere of service in taking care of her family as a mother, wife, sister (since it is an economic position, it allows her to take care of her family)? And maybe also taking care of servants? And so I ask again: How do we determine what is the woman's sphere of service and what requires male headship? Perhaps it might clarify things to also know what exactly is "headship" and what does "headship" entail.
 
MW said:
Sovereignty only relates to her "sphere" of service. It cannot be predicated of the woman herself without overturning the created order. Man is the head of the woman, and this applies everywhere at all times. The woman is of the man and created for the man. Her sovereignty in her sphere derives from God, but God has also placed the woman under man's headship.
Sorry for getting back to this late. I myself only barely remember the flow discussion, but in the interests of trying not to create a new thread, here we go. I'll try to frame the question in a general way as if it were a new thread.

How does one determine what is the woman's sphere? How does one determine whether the man must have headship in some area of life, or if it is the woman's sphere of service? I'm trying to understand how to use this principle to apply it to other matters, e.g., who leads the prayer at prayer meetings; various economical or academic positions; political positions. Take a female CEO of some business, for example. One the one hand, we might say she has authority and thus headship over the men she employs. On the other hand, women have traditionally employed servants--some of them male--to do household work. Could a female CEO then be viewed as being within the woman's sphere of service in taking care of her family as a mother, wife, sister (since it is an economic position, it allows her to take care of her family)? And maybe also taking care of servants? And so I ask again: How do we determine what is the woman's sphere of service and what requires male headship? Perhaps it might clarify things to also know what exactly is "headship" and what does "headship" entail.

Here is a good concise article:

While the Proverbs 31 Wife’s husband was providing for the family, she was supervising home life, profit, and activities (v. 21). Paul exhorts women to “work at home,” (Titus 2:5, ESV).

https://carm.org/apologetics/womens-issues/should-christian-wife-work-outside-home
 
Pergamum said:
Here is a good concise article
Wisdom in Proverbs 31 applies to men also, and I had thought the passage in Titus was not necessarily speaking to a universal moral principle but an application of principles to a particular situation?

But anyway, the article does not talk about "headship" in relation to the matter. It talks about wives/husbands but not about men as men or women as women. It says something about woman being home to take care of children but what of the woman who is not married?

I do agree that there is wisdom in a woman with children staying home to take care of them and the husband providing for them.
 
I think any historical survey or survey of other cultures would show that most women throughout history have had to work, married or single. Even very young girls. Women who have the option to engage only in homemaking are in a very privileged minority position, not the historical or even the biblical rule. -- Not only is the virtuous woman quite busy in the public square, but her own homemaking involves all those 'handmaids'. They weren't her daughters, but someone else's -- girls working away from their family homes.

Given this reality, headship must surely involve helping women to qualify for jobs that spare them in various ways. Ie, if my husband and I both have to work, but one of us can work as a teacher, while the other must work as a manual laborer -- I know my husband would do everything in his power to see that I was qualified for the more dignified and less physically difficult job, as long as he was able to do anything about it. Girls who have aptitudes for more educated work should be qualified for those opportunities where work is a necessity.

One of the women in our church works long hours as a maid. She does not get any paid time off, even though she has need of medical leave at present. We pray for her (intelligent) daughter to be able to choose from better paying, healthier positions -- and we are trying to help her look for a good college. Many women without options are additionally subject to abuse; and not having options, they have to put up with it. Limiting women from the more educated to varying degrees 'managerial' positions will only mean they have no choice but to work at what is most demanding, demeaning, and poorly reimbursed.

Think of Boaz instructing his male gleaners to make Ruth job's easier *and* to leave her alone, since she had to work. He's a good picture of Christ's headship -- especially after all the failures of at the end of Judges.
 
Limiting women from the more educated to varying degrees 'managerial' positions will only mean they have no choice but to work at what is most demanding, demeaning, and poorly reimbursed.
This raises the interesting economic question of: someone needs to do those jobs, so who? But anyway, are you arguing that women should be allowed to have all the same jobs as men? If not, then this is the very question I am asking: How does "headship" and "sphere of service" work themselves out for various jobs or roles? How does one determine what falls under the appropriate category?
 
Raymond, I don't think I know the specific answers! In very many situations men don't have a lot of options either -- in any society, a large number of both men and women will wind up at the bottom. I'm simply arguing that a principle of headship is to spare and ennoble women, not to disadvantage or demean them. This is modeling Christ's love for the church, and it has to apply to the realities of women in the workplace.

The Biblical ideal (grounded in the goodness of God) is always that those who have something are to use it for the benefit of others. So in Christian liberty, those who are strong have something to use for the advantage of the weak. The rich have something they can use for the advantage of the poor. Those in authority have something they can use for the advantage of those under authority. Your question seems to be stated in terms of competition (then should women be allowed to compete for the same jobs as men?); but the headship principle isn't about competition. It is about love -- and love is (I think) often a more particular, applied, individual principle than a one size fits all principle?

Certainly, I don't see Scripture anywhere taking issue with the facts of women having men under their authority in situations with servants etc. Women are sometimes wiser than men, even than husbands (Abigail and Nabal) -- wisdom is personified as a woman, crying out to men (that point was probably already made in past pages of the thread: I did read it a few weeks ago and was very grateful for some of the posts but some of it's slipped now): there is surely a larger point there, but it's clear that Scripture does not place the mental and spiritual capacities of women on an inferior level. Particular women are going to be as well, or better suited for some jobs than particular men. The requirement of particular submission is only spelled out of a woman to her husband in marriage, and that women should not hold office in the church. If you asked me to stop posting to this thread, I would respect your request as the author of the thread, but I am not sure I would do so as female to a male.

I think a thoroughly Christian society would reflect various ways individuals in homes and churches seek to use what they have for others. It would reflect many fathers wanting their daughters to have the opportunity of dignified and satisfying work, many husbands wishing for their wives to work lighter jobs than they have to, many employers wanting to make sure their employees have reasonable working conditions, etc. It would also reflect women in jobs with authority wishing to use that not for their own advancement but for their families (as well as the good of those they manage). But society is not thoroughly Christian, and trying to use what we have for others in the present conditions is part of our light in a dark world.
 
Heidi,

You wrote:

Think of Boaz instructing his male gleaners to make Ruth job's easier *and* to leave her alone, since she had to work. He's a good picture of Christ's headship -- especially after all the failures of at the end of Judges.

This sounds an awful like lot trying to argue for affirmative action for women (i.e. making it easier for working women). What Boaz did was charity. Do you believe all women who enter the workforce and desire to be treated as equals with men deserve such charity? Boaz saw Ruth's poor estate and aided her; he did not have to, nor does it say he did so for any other worker. And this is certainly not called for when modern feminists compete with men on the job now. If they want equality, they can have it... the charity of Boaz only makes sense when patriarchy is the norm.

You say that in a Christian society, fathers would be preparing their daughters for dignified work (outside the home) so as not to be left with the lowest jobs. But, on the contrary, in a truly Christian society, parents would not be preparing their daughters to compete in such a workplace, but would be teaching them how to love their husbands and run their homes and raise their children... the very things that the NT gives as admonitions. Unless, of course, we say that times have changed and the bible is not relevant to our modern workplace.

Here is a fine article from Carm.org: https://carm.org/should-christian-wife-work-outside-home I cannot get over the fact that Paul speaks of the norm for wives as being "workers at home."

Capitalism and the Industrial Revolution enabled women to enter the workforce in large numbers. Prior to that women have not always normally worked out of the home in the levels that we see today.
 

Attachments

  • horse inequality 77 percent.jpg
    horse inequality 77 percent.jpg
    39 KB · Views: 1
  • stop oppressing me.jpg
    stop oppressing me.jpg
    49.4 KB · Views: 1
Last edited by a moderator:
The requirement of particular submission is only spelled out of a woman to her husband in marriage, and that women should not hold office in the church.

I'll ask the question again. Why is something that is excellent and wise for the church somehow considered optional or even sub-optimal for other spheres?
 
a mere housewife said:
Raymond, I don't think I know the specific answers! In very many situations men don't have a lot of options either -- in any society, a large number of both men and women will wind up at the bottom. I'm simply arguing that a principle of headship is to spare and ennoble women, not to disadvantage or demean them. This is modeling Christ's love for the church, and it has to apply to the realities of women in the workplace.
Fair enough. To clarify, since I don't know if I'll be able to get back to this thread anytime soon, I am looking at the principle of headship and authority outside the realm of the church, since the creation order must apply outside the church. Clearly, there are limits (as your post has noted), but I do not know what they are since I am not sure how to apply the principle outside the realm of the church except in a few specific cases (and I mean principle; my own practical beliefs are likely similar to many of those in this thread; I am trying to study the principle behind such beliefs). I am also not necessarily talking about the practical realities that men and women face: many societies are disordered and poor, and there are some tough economic realities that may cause moral principles (like being able to take care of oneself and one's family) to take precedence over maintenance of good order.

I am however talking about things in the ideal: how ought things to be ordered? How ought the order to be applied in the political and economic realms, given strong statements of headship, authority, and spheres of service? I am not trying to frame the question in terms of competition in the workplace, but insofar as one is trying to apply the principle of authority and sphere of service to the workplace, are there jobs that are ideally limited to men because they would require a woman to be in authority over men (disorder; not for ontological reasons)? This isn't a useless question seeing how we are to aim for ideals in what we do even if practical realities require us to do otherwise.
 
Came across this today from another noted Bible commentator:

"No imaginary good can come out of the violation of the original design; no benefits which females, individual or associated, can confer on mankind by disregarding this arrangement, can be a compensation for the evil that is done, nor can the evil be remedied unless a woman occupies the place which God designed she should fill. There nothing else can supply her place; and when she is absent from that situation–no matter what good she may be doing elsewhere–there is a silent evil reigning, which can be removed only by her return. It is not hers to fight battles, or to command armies and navies, or to control kingdoms, or to make laws. Nor is it hers to go forward as a public leader even in enterprises of benevolence, or in associations designed to act on the public mind. Her empire is the domestic circle; her first influence is there; and in connection with that, and in such scenes as she can engage in without trenching on the prerogative of man, or neglecting the duty which she owes to her own family." {Albert Barnes}
 
Re: things in the ideal/how things ought to be ordered and applied in the political and economic realms: I think the Scriptures undoubtedly teach that a wife is to devote her greatest energies to helping and loving her husband, loving their children, and keeping hearth and home. By inference, an unmarried woman will reserve her greatest energies for service and devotion to the Lord, her family, and his church in all the ways Christ has commanded. For the Christian woman, it's very hard to do those things and keep priorities right when pursuing a career or even just working at a 9-5 job. It's just a matter of human nature and how things really work. A Christian woman may have to work from economic necessity. A wife and her husband in those cases, or a single woman and her Christian family, should pray and ask for wisdom about it. Maybe things can be rearranged so that doesn't have to be the case, or can be done in a way that is wiser.

But these abiding principles of the ideal have now been lost to Western society, in general. We have to live in the culture we're in, so if a Christian man finds himself under a woman boss, or there is a woman ruling in a political office, we have to recognize the providence of God. From the example of Deborah, it seems that women will rise to fill positions and rule when men don't or won't.

I certainly think there are jobs ideally limited to men; I think it's hard for a man to work under a woman ( though in our culture I think many men have suppressed that instinct). As Christians we have to live under the Providences of God in the times we live in, but we can certainly strive to have jobs or not have jobs that are closest to the biblical pattern.

Coming from an older woman who has seen a lot, done much without wisdom, and has seen and lived with the consequences.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
I love the quote above from Barnes, and find this line striking: "There nothing else can supply her place; and when she is absent from that situation–no matter what good she may be doing elsewhere–there is a silent evil reigning, which can be removed only by her return."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Pergs, Boaz was showing the kind of care for Ruth that I was suggesting husbands/fathers/brothers etc. should be showing for the women in their lives: this is how headship works. I expect a feminist would be pretty disgusted with what I wrote, yes. I am also aware that unbiblically weighted patriarchal man would be (I'm not saying that you are such -- you've always treated women here and elsewhere, in my experience, with respect. But you must be aware that some men, even Christian men, treat headship less about Christ's sacrificial love and more as a principle of their own eminence.) Think of the women Paul dealt with who were servants in other peoples' households (like Lydia's servants). Think of the servants of Caesar's household that were part of the church -- were they all men? Even in OT times, when economy was less industrialised, and the nation was directly in covenant with God, there have always been a class of women who are in charge of a household (including male servants) and a class of women who work in other peoples' households. Authority in that area was more about class than gender. If one only allows men only the opportunity to rise to a more privileged class, that does not seem like a proper application of headship on a societal level.

Mr. Law, perhaps something that works in family and church (if men are genuinely loving like Christ) is not mandated for other spheres because in the church and family that individual knowledge ('dwelling with her according to knowledge') out of which the particular decisions of sacrificial masculine love are made is possible. It is not as possible in a business, or at a state level. This is just a suggestion but as Christ's love involves a very individual knowledge, I think it worth considering.

Raymond, thank you -- I understand. I think love itself is often the ideal in areas that are not specifically regulated (as with Christian liberty). So a wife's submission is also out of love for her *own* husband, as the husband's authority is exercised in knowledge of his own wife. Ie, maybe some 'ideals' necessitate individual variations -- it would be 'unideal' to iron them all out. Love is an ideal that works even in a fallen world.

My mom was working during the day as a babysitter, and at night in data entry when I was young. I was making the family's meals standing on a chair at the stove when I was eight and taking care of my siblings. This was not for 'extra' indulgences -- we were drinking half a glass of milk daily, either on cereal or in the cup -- one could not have milk both ways (one small area of economy). My mother burst into tears when my brother asked for a nickel for something at school. Both my grandmothers worked outside the home to make ends meet. Their mothers likewise worked. I have not come from that class of society where women working signifies moral downgrade: it was always so; but my mom's pay and hours improved (she was able to work as an office manager later). I don't work but both my sisters do. It's hard on them and they'd prefer to work less -- one sister, to spend more time with her little one. Both are sick often with stress from their jobs. Some women in my church work have to work hard for low pay and no benefits, despite health issues. I am privileged. Homemaking -- and especially with little ones -- is challenging and hard work; but some women don't have the option to focus their strength there. Some women don't have any option but that -- and if their husbands are not gentle and humble with them, that can be an equally difficult situation. Options are good to protect women (and a godly man will want to protect the women under his care), as they are for men.

I don't mean to argue here so will leave it at this. I am sure I haven't arrived at perfect wisdom by any means, and would certainly ask patience! But I think these things are good to consider and Raymond's questions are always thought provoking.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top