CC: The role of WOMEN in Ministry?

[*********]

Then why did the Evangelicals want Bush in so badly?

 

I do not participate in government (farther than following the laws of the land so long as they do not require me to sin), so I have no idea.

[*********]

What do you mean by spiritual authority?

 

What I mean is that my husband is the spiritual leader of our home, and I want to do nothing to usurp that authority.

[justamouse]

I do not participate in government (farther than following the laws of the land so long as they do not require me to sin), so I have no idea.

 

Wow.

 

I think my jaw just hit the floor.

[Mrs Mungo]

What I mean is that my husband is the spiritual leader of our home, and I want to do nothing to usurp that authority.

 

Do you think that looks different in different homes? My dh can be gone for up to a year at a time. I assure you, he greatly appreciates the fact that I do not defer to him on every little thing. So, our relationship looks different than yours, that doesn't mean it's wrong for us.

[susankenny]

Wow.

 

I think my jaw just hit the floor.

 

Well, in all fairness. Some religious groups teach this and simply don't participate whatsoever. It's her right and freedom to do so.

 

 

Susan

[justamouse]

Well, in all fairness. Some religious groups teach this and simply don't participate whatsoever. It's her right and freedom to do so.

 

 

Susan

 

I know. I'm just well and truly gobsmacked.

[HRAAB]

This is one of the very few things about the Catholic faith the just bugs me to no end. Back when I was a kid girls couldn't be alter servers. It was thought that being an alter boy would help lead the boys to the priesthood. Well, look what's happened to the priesthood. Alter boys have gone the same route. There are enough boys to meet the need every Sunday. So now we have alter servers. Dd is one and has been since she was 7.

 

I don't ever see it happening, but I think the Catholic church needs to either let priests be married or let women serve as priests. Otherwise the Church in the US will be in bigger trouble than it is now. My priest serves 2 parishes and a mission. He travels 40 miles to say Mass at another church every weekend.

 

Aha! Now that you've said it, I'll :iagree: Not that it is going to happen, so I don't spend much time thinking about it. And it's not worth arguing over, since it will never happen in our lifetime, and those who are opposed will most likely never be convinced otherwise.

[MissKNG]

I know. I'm just well and truly gobsmacked.

 

I guess I'll have to be the one that asks...why?

 

(purely out of curiousity!)

[SonshineLearner]

Aha! Now that you've said it, I'll :iagree: Not that it is going to happen, so I don't spend much time thinking about it. And it's not worth arguing over, since it will never happen in our lifetime, and those who are opposed will most likely never be convinced otherwise.

 

This could be something that the Eastern and Western Churches could "agree" on and would make the Protestant think that they were going in the right direction... at least on this issue :)

 

I totally believe that the Priests should be able to be married... and believe it would make them able to understand families more. Nothing in the Bible says that they should NOT be married..... and "married to the church" just isn't the same. Course... that's another part of believing in tradition. But, tradition is something that can be interpreted differently... and can change ;)

[*********]

I know. I'm just well and truly gobsmacked.

 

I realize this is a whole different topic than the OP, and I don't want to hijack Heather's thread, but I'm curious why, too? :)

[Mejane]

I guess I'll have to be the one that asks...why?

 

(purely out of curiousity!)

 

I think that those who are invested in politics are as passionate about being in, as those who aren't invested are about staying out. :001_smile:

[HRAAB]

This could be something that the Eastern and Western Churches could "agree" on and would make the Protestant think that they were going in the right direction... at least on this issue :)

 

I totally believe that the Priests should be able to be married... and believe it would make them able to understand families more. Nothing in the Bible says that they should NOT be married..... and "married to the church" just isn't the same. Course... that's another part of believing in tradition. But, tradition is something that can be interpreted differently... and can change ;)

 

I believe in the Eastern Rite priests marry, however, bishops aren't married. I could be wrong. There are no Eastern Rites in my area, only the Latin Rite. A celibate clergy is a discipline - it could potentially be changed. Maybe in a few hundred years. ;) Women being ordained is another whole issue, and I honestly can't see it happening. I can't even imagine what it would take to change that Tradition (tradition with a capital 'T').

[Liz CA]

My favorite, though, is how Eve is cited as an example of woman's frailty: she was deceived, so women can't lead. Because they're susceptible to deception.

 

Whereas Adam did what? *Willfully* sinned? :lol: Yeah, that's quality leadership material there!

 

I had not heard that one used as an argument but now I'd know exactly what to say should the subject come up. :001_smile:

[*********]

Do you think that looks different in different homes? My dh can be gone for up to a year at a time. I assure you, he greatly appreciates the fact that I do not defer to him on every little thing. So, our relationship looks different than yours, that doesn't mean it's wrong for us.

 

Sure, each home will be different. And for the record, I do not defer to my husband on every little thing, either. :D That might just drive him insane. 'Honey, do you want me to put the rug here, or here? Sweetie, do you want me to fix chicken or beef for dinner? Dear, do you want me to buy this brand of toilet paper, or that one?' Good grief, if that's what people think our home is like, they're very mistaken. :)

[justamouse]

I guess I'll have to be the one that asks...why?

 

(purely out of curiousity!)

 

Because it's such a privileged. It can be taken away and we forget how many in other lands live with the hope and dream of being able to vote. It's actively participating in your own freedom. Because there are women all over the world wish they could and it's nothing I ever want to take for granted--esp on the grounds that I'm a woman.

Edited January 3, 2011 by justamouse

[Mrs Mungo]

Sure, each home will be different. And for the record, I do not defer to my husband on every little thing, either. :D That might just drive him insane. 'Honey, do you want me to put the rug here, or here? Sweetie, do you want me to fix chicken or beef for dinner? Dear, do you want me to buy this brand of toilet paper, or that one?' Good grief, if that's what people think our home is like, they're very mistaken. :)

 

Those aren't the sort of little things I was talking about, those are more minuscule than little. ;) I sold a boat and a house the last time he was gone, I handled all the details.

 

eta: I had a wife call once because she needed to contact her dh downrange because her toilet was overflowing. I explained to her how to snake a toilet.

Edited January 3, 2011 by Mrs Mungo

[*********]

Those aren't the sort of little things I was talking about, those are more minuscule than little. ;) I sold a boat and a house the last time he was gone, I handled all the details.

 

If my husband was, say, out of the country on business for months (since he is not military), and we had agreed to sell a boat, of course I would and could handle it. I would not, however, sell the boat if he did not agree to selling it. That's how our house runs.

[Mrs Mungo]

If my husband was, say, out of the country on business for months (since he is not military), and we had agreed to sell a boat, of course I would and could handle it. I would not, however, sell the boat if he did not agree to selling it. That's how our house runs.

 

And would he sell a boat if you did not agree to selling it? In our house, we try to reach consensus on most things.

[Mama Geek]

Those aren't the sort of little things I was talking about, those are more minuscule than little. ;) I sold a boat and a house the last time he was gone, I handled all the details.

 

eta: I had a wife call once because she needed to contact her dh downrange because her toilet was overflowing. I explained to her how to snake a toilet.

 

I already know I am on the minority side of this discussion, but selling a boat or a home is not really a spiritual issue. My guess is that if it were possible you and your dh discussed what needed to be done and about how much money would be involved and then you handled the details. If it wasn't possible your dh knows that you will handle things that need to be done to the best of your ability. At least that is how it is in my marriage.

 

I have real to me life example that would be a spiritual issue where I would submit to my dh. I very much believe in infant baptism. My dh years ago did not. He is now unsure and prays about what to do with our 6 mo daughter. We have had many discussions on it throughout our marriage. My opinion is still the same. I haven't taken my dd to be baptized, that is his place to make that decision. (I am not trying to start a debate on infant baptism here, I am just using it as an example.) I pray that God will help him to make the right decision and if it is to wait until she can say she believes and wants to be baptized I can be at peace with that.

Edited January 3, 2011 by Mama Geek
Added real to me life example

[Jenny in Atl]

If my husband was, say, out of the country on business for months (since he is not military), and we had agreed to sell a boat, of course I would and could handle it. I would not, however, sell the boat if he did not agree to selling it. That's how our house runs.

 

Even if you alone owned the boat? :confused:

[Mrs Mungo]

I already know I am on the minority side of this discussion, but selling a boat or a home is not really a spiritual issue. My guess is that if it were possible you and your dh discussed what needed to be done and about how much money would be involved and then you handled the details. If it wasn't possible your dh knows that you will handle things that need to be done to the best of your ability. At least that is how it is in my marriage.

 

But, in my marriage the reverse is also true. He also discusses things with me. It's about mutual respect.

 

I have real to me life example that would be a spiritual issue where I would submit to my dh. I very much believe in infant baptism. My dh years ago did not. He is now unsure and prays about what to do with our 6 mo daughter. We have had many discussions on it throughout our marriage. My opinion is still the same. I haven't taken my dd to be baptized, that is his place to make that decision. (I am not trying to start a debate on infant baptism here, I am just using it as an example.) I pray that God will help him to make the right decision and if it is to wait until she can say she believes and wants to be baptized I can be at peace with that.

 

Hm, we just don't have any spiritual areas where we really disagree.

[*********]

And would he sell a boat if you did not agree to selling it? In our house, we try to reach consensus on most things.

 

And here we come back to what I said earlier; there is a Biblical 'chain of command': Christ, man, woman.

 

If we just could *not* come to some sort of compromise/consensus, then yes, he has the final word. How often does that happen? Not often. Am I ok with it? Well, maybe not in the moment, since I didn't get my way, ;), but someone needs to have the final 'say', ESPECIALLY in spiritual things, and we believe that is the husband.

[KatieH]

This could be something that the Eastern and Western Churches could "agree" on and would make the Protestant think that they were going in the right direction... at least on this issue :)

 

I totally believe that the Priests should be able to be married... and believe it would make them able to understand families more. Nothing in the Bible says that they should NOT be married..... and "married to the church" just isn't the same. Course... that's another part of believing in tradition. But, tradition is something that can be interpreted differently... and can change ;)

 

Celibate (unmarried) priesthood is not dogmatic, it's a disciplinary rule. It could easily be changed, although I personally prefer non-married priests.

 

Male priesthood IS dogmatic. It absolutely can not and will not be changed by the RCC. Not if it's the Church it claims it is. Dogmatic teaching can't be changed. Male priesthood has been the tradition of the Church for 2000 years, and it was formally declared dogmatic and unchangeable by PJPII in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

 

I think deaconesses are probably fine.

[*********]

Even if you alone owned the boat? :confused:

 

I wouldn't consider anything mine 'alone' so long as I'm married.

[Mama Geek]

But, in my marriage the reverse is also true. He also discusses things with me. It's about mutual respect.

 

 

The reverse is true for us as well. My dh very much respects and values my input into any important decisions.

 

If we disagree, it ultimately is his decision whether it is selling a boat, a house or a topic like infant baptism.

[Mrs Mungo]

And here we come back to what I said earlier; there is a Biblical 'chain of command': Christ, man, woman.

 

If we just could *not* come to some sort of compromise/consensus, then yes, he has the final word. How often does that happen? Not often. Am I ok with it? Well, maybe not in the moment, since I didn't get my way, ;), but someone needs to have the final 'say', ESPECIALLY in spiritual things, and we believe that is the husband.

 

I had a friend who believed strongly in submitting to her dh in important matters. He thought they should homeschool, so they homeschooled. He chose the curriculum. Homeschooling didn't work for her, it didn't work for their kids. It wasn't until she was crying every day when he came home (when their eldest was in 6th or 7th grade) that he decided to put them in school. They've been a much happier household since then. If she had not had such a strong conviction about submitting and thinking something was wrong with her because she couldn't make it work, they might have had a happier household much sooner.

[Mama Geek]

Even if you alone owned the boat? :confused:

 

This is an interesting question. Property in our house is communal property. Yeah I have my IPOD and he has his, but it is our money. I think our truck is in dh's name b/c I was out of state when he bought it, but it is our truck not his. We have nat gas rights that I inherited and are in my name, but they are our gas rights.

 

I don't know very many people who truly live this way.

[susankenny]

Even if you alone owned the boat? :confused:

 

Well, even if I owned a boat (dreaming here, lol), I would still talk to my husband about it before selling it. That just seems weird to sell things worth thousands of dollars and not mention it to your life partner. It doesn't have anything to do with religion or submission...just seems like a good marriage when communication is factored in, don't you think?

 

Susan

[justamouse]

I don't know very many people who truly live this way.

 

I do. Most people I know, do.

[freethinkermama]

Here are some NT scriptures I believe are relevant to the OP's question (all are NKJV):

 

Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church. - 1 Cor. 14:34-35

 

Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control. - 1 Tim. 2:11-15

 

the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things— that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed. - Titus 2:3-5

 

When I was a Conservative Christian, I even heard teachings that women shouldn't speak at all in service. Not singing, not audible prayer, not to give an announcement. Not to whisper to a child to stop fidgeting. :)

 

Nothing surprises me.

 

I didn't go that far, I always enjoyed singing, but my own spiritual beliefs on Christ/man/woman sound very similar (if not exact) to yours.

 

This is exactly how I would have responded to the OPs question, back in the day. But, this is certainly a question that depends on denomination. Many, many types of Christians, and all have their verses for what they believe.

[susankenny]

When I was a Conservative Christian, I even heard teachings that women shouldn't speak at all in service. Not singing, not audible prayer, not to give an announcement. Not to whisper to a child to stop fidgeting. :)

 

Nothing surprises me.

 

I didn't go that far, I always enjoyed singing, but my own spiritual beliefs on Christ/man/woman sound very similar (if not exact) to yours.

 

This is exactly how I would have responded to the OPs question, back in the day. But, this is certainly a question that depends on denomination. Many, many types of Christians, and all have their verses for what they believe.

 

 

I always enjoy your posts. Totally off-topic but I would love to hear you share your story sometime. I know you said your an ex-missionary. I bet you have a lot of things to share. I hope it doesn't come across as rude or invasive, but I always wonder what happened that made you become an "ex". Maybe one day you can write a book or something:D

 

 

Susan

[Mimm]

I spoke only of my beliefs and I fail to see how that was an indictment of anyone else's. Please don't presume to put words into my mouth (or email, as the case may be).

 

Mimm, aside from the obvious biochemical differences that create differences in body mass and physical strength, science has proven that male and female brains tend to have general differences. If you agree with the generally accepted scientific premise that much of how our brains work has to do with specific "wiring" (corpus colosum, etc.) and the exact chemicals which are present, then it seems to me reasonable to believe that the physical differences in our brains would cause us to think and react in different ways.

 

Speaking from only my experience, I know that there are certain situations in which my dh is at an advantage with his way of more analytical thinking and other situations in which I do better with my more holistic approach. The bottom line is that we think and react very differently, and IMO, that is as God intended. I don't believe we were created to provide duplication of services, I feel that dh does some things better and I excel at others. I believe that we were created to complement each others abilities.

 

I feel that it is the same at church. Male leaders can provide one type of leadership while female leaders excel in another type. The problem for many women is that the Bible clearly establishes the male as the authority figure in both the church and home. God has His reasons and whether I understand or agree with them does not change things. Acceptance of authority, particularly when it requires something other than what we want can be quite a struggle for us - I know it is for me. But IMO, dislike for a situation does not justify disobedience to the word of God. As is taught in my religion, I defer to the rules of the Bible - the ones I enjoy as well as those that are less easy for me.

 

 

And I think many of us have seen where the analytical male mind has been a disadvantage for a situation. By eliminating women from leadership, you are taking advantage of only one type of thought process not allowing yourself to benefit from a woman's thought process. And all because of a few verses in the Bible which are loaded with cultural implications that people like to ignore.

[annandatje]

I do not wish to belong to an organization or adhere to a philosophy that does not deem my gender fit, worthy, suitable, or appropriate for a leadership role regardless of that entity's rationalization for such.

[freethinkermama]

I always enjoy your posts. Totally off-topic but I would love to hear you share your story sometime. I know you said your an ex-missionary. I bet you have a lot of things to share. I hope it doesn't come across as rude or invasive, but I always wonder what happened that made you become an "ex". Maybe one day you can write a book or something:D

 

 

Susan

 

You're very kind. I'm hesitant to post in religious topics, though I always find them fun. I really enjoyed the intellectual aspects of talking religion, faith (eg. trying to convert people :)) when I was a missionary. I consider a Ph.D. in comparative religion sometimes. I only stick my nose in when I feel I can add an "educated outsider's" view to the discussion.

 

(Sorry, don't mean to hi-jack. I'll finish up.)

 

I'm sort of considering a blog sometime. If I do, I'll put it here. I've just finished an article (on spec.) for a major magazine. We'll see how that comes out. :)

 

If you PM me, I'll see what I can dredge up to share. It might be cathartic!

 

T.

[Heather in Neverland]

Heather, if you're considering the idea that women should never have authority over a man, how would that impact your job is a principal of a Christian school? Is that why you're thinking about this?

 

Well, I am in a class for grad school and the topic right now is evangelical feminism so of course, the topic of women in ministry came up...which then DID lead to me thinking about my role here. Honestly, I still don't know where I stand on this topic. I go back and forth. It's not OK for me to be a pastor or teacher of men but it IS ok for me to be their boss in a christian school?

 

How do men, who follow the idea that women should not be in authority over men, handle the idea of having a woman as their boss in their job?

[Carol in Cal.]

This could be something that the Eastern and Western Churches could "agree" on and would make the Protestant think that they were going in the right direction... at least on this issue :)

 

I totally believe that the Priests should be able to be married... and believe it would make them able to understand families more. Nothing in the Bible says that they should NOT be married..... and "married to the church" just isn't the same. Course... that's another part of believing in tradition. But, tradition is something that can be interpreted differently... and can change ;)

 

Actually, there is a place in the Bible where it says that a bishop should be "the husband of one wife". And St. Peter was married. And St. Paul asserts that as an apostle he has the right to have a wife, although he does not choose to exercise it. The truth is, for much of RC history priests were allowed to marry. Gradually it was discouraged, and then progressed to a ban. When Luther criticized this change, it was not like he was making it up from scratch after 1500 years of no married clergy; rather, it was that he was saying that they had come down on the wrong side of the issue when they codified this rule.

[Carol in Cal.]

I have real to me life example that would be a spiritual issue where I would submit to my dh. I very much believe in infant baptism. My dh years ago did not. He is now unsure and prays about what to do with our 6 mo daughter. We have had many discussions on it throughout our marriage. My opinion is still the same. I haven't taken my dd to be baptized, that is his place to make that decision. (I am not trying to start a debate on infant baptism here, I am just using it as an example.) I pray that God will help him to make the right decision and if it is to wait until she can say she believes and wants to be baptized I can be at peace with that.

 

As St. Peter says to the authorities in Acts, "We must obey God rather than men." In my view, your conviction about infant baptism falls into that category. If it were me, I wouldn't do it 'in his face' but I would do it. It is the only known provision for faith in a baby.

[Garga]

I'm an Assembly of God church goer. I believe women can do whatever men do. The AG church seems to have loosened up a bit on their beliefs and I think the only role they reserve for men is that of head pastor. I think. Maybe they've loosened up on that, too.

 

The AG church I go to has women in EVERY role except for head pastor, but we do have a woman pastor of "family life". There are six pastors total in my church. We've had women preaching and teaching and anything else you can think of at every level.

[Garga]

because of a few verses in the Bible which are loaded with cultural implications that people like to ignore.

 

 

I heavily agree with this. This is why I no longer say that I take the bible literally; rather, I take it seriously. You have to understand the culture of the day, and that is NOT a cop out. You really NEED to understand it to understand certain scriptures. The ones about women are a ripe example of this.

 

Oh well. It's not easy to explain that to people. They really do think you're just making it up or trying to "get out" of obeying God.

[*Inna*]

I believe God might call women to anything he would call a man to.

:iagree:

[Mrs Mungo]

I'm an Assembly of God church goer. I believe women can do whatever men do. The AG church seems to have loosened up a bit on their beliefs and I think the only role they reserve for men is that of head pastor. I think. Maybe they've loosened up on that, too.

 

The AG church I go to has women in EVERY role except for head pastor, but we do have a woman pastor of "family life". There are six pastors total in my church. We've had women preaching and teaching and anything else you can think of at every level.

 

I was raised AG, for those trying to figure out how various people came to their beliefs.

[Mejane]

And I think many of us have seen where the analytical male mind has been a disadvantage for a situation. By eliminating women from leadership, you are taking advantage of only one type of thought process not allowing yourself to benefit from a woman's thought process. And all because of a few verses in the Bible which are loaded with cultural implications that people like to ignore.

 

This is a very good point.

[freethinkermama]

Well, I am in a class for grad school and the topic right now is evangelical feminism so of course, the topic of women in ministry came up...which then DID lead to me thinking about my role here. Honestly, I still don't know where I stand on this topic. I go back and forth. It's not OK for me to be a pastor or teacher of men but it IS ok for me to be their boss in a christian school?

 

How do men, who follow the idea that women should not be in authority over men, handle the idea of having a woman as their boss in their job?

 

Well, shoot. I didn't want to have to be the one to answer this, but no one else has bitten.

 

Ok, this is certainly NOT comprehensive, but they are some of my experiences with this issue.

 

The answer to all of this, "it depends."

 

When Annie Graham Lotz began teaching the Bible (or whatever term you wish to call it--people bickered about what she was actually doing) to mixed-gender groups, different men took it differently. Some listened (some said it was because it wasn't in a worship setting, some "just because"), some men left before she began speaking, some stood and turned their backs to her as she spoke. Now, this was in a religious teaching context.

 

As for secular occasions. Some friends of mine who were of a very conservative bent believed (as did their entire church) that women were to have no authority over men. So, when I was talking about my job prospects after grad. school--I meant to teach--, I was told that such a thing was unbiblical. Even in their church schools, women didn't teach boys after the ago of about 10 or so, not even secular subjects They understood that this wasn't the way of the world though, and so if the father ever had to learn something from a woman, he accepted it, but considered it a sign that Satan was influencing the world away from the pure milk of the Word. He was polite about it, however, and I don't believe he ever mentioned it to the woman teaching him (of course, I don't KNOW this). Also, I didn't ask him whether he'd rather learn something from a dumb guy who wasn't educated in a matter or an educated, intelligent woman who knew how to teach a given subject. Ability didn't matter. Private parts did.

 

Back to religious issues. Once, I was asked to talk in my church Sunday School class about why I wore a head covering. This is a subject based strongly upon the "headship principle" of I Cor 11, something that this subject (women in positions of authority over men) pertains to, of course. Since I was the only women of that church who wore a headcovering, and people were interested, I was asked to speak. However, since it was a mixed-gender class, my husband was asked whether he permitted me to speak (to make sure I had the blessing of his authority) and the teacher (a man) made it a point to say to the class that he was sharing his authority with me on that subject for that class, period. Also, he said that I wasn't really teaching--I was "sharing" and that what I said wasn't authoritative. Hey, presto! Authority issue done away with. :D

 

So, those are just some of my experiences with how Christian men may take women in "authority" over them, in secular, as well as religious situations.

 

Something just popped to mind, possibly my "favorite" male/female religious story that happened to me, personally. It comes from teaching swimming lessons in high school. I was helping a little boy (7 or so) learn the back float. He wasn't sure I was going to hold him up as he floated.

"I promise you, I won't let you sink."

"You might. You're probably not strong enough to hold me up."

"Oh, I bet I can hold you up. I'm pretty strong."

"You're not as strong as me, though. The Bible says you're a weaker vessel."

 

*sigh* teach 'em young.

 

I really haven't found it any funnier as time has gone by. Maybe some people will find it amusing though.

[Heather in Neverland]

Wow. Your whole post was sort of depressing. I am so sorry you had to deal with all that. The worst I have experienced so far is having trouble getting into seminary because I am a woman.

 

Well, shoot. I didn't want to have to be the one to answer this, but no one else has bitten.

 

Ok, this is certainly NOT comprehensive, but they are some of my experiences with this issue.

 

The answer to all of this, "it depends."

 

When Annie Graham Lotz began teaching the Bible (or whatever term you wish to call it--people bickered about what she was actually doing) to mixed-gender groups, different men took it differently. Some listened (some said it was because it wasn't in a worship setting, some "just because"), some men left before she began speaking, some stood and turned their backs to her as she spoke. Now, this was in a religious teaching context.

 

As for secular occasions. Some friends of mine who were of a very conservative bent believed (as did their entire church) that women were to have no authority over men. So, when I was talking about my job prospects after grad. school--I meant to teach--, I was told that such a thing was unbiblical. Even in their church schools, women didn't teach boys after the ago of about 10 or so, not even secular subjects They understood that this wasn't the way of the world though, and so if the father ever had to learn something from a woman, he accepted it, but considered it a sign that Satan was influencing the world away from the pure milk of the Word. He was polite about it, however, and I don't believe he ever mentioned it to the woman teaching him (of course, I don't KNOW this). Also, I didn't ask him whether he'd rather learn something from a dumb guy who wasn't educated in a matter or an educated, intelligent woman who knew how to teach a given subject. Ability didn't matter. Private parts did.

 

Back to religious issues. Once, I was asked to talk in my church Sunday School class about why I wore a head covering. This is a subject based strongly upon the "headship principle" of I Cor 11, something that this subject (women in positions of authority over men) pertains to, of course. Since I was the only women of that church who wore a headcovering, and people were interested, I was asked to speak. However, since it was a mixed-gender class, my husband was asked whether he permitted me to speak (to make sure I had the blessing of his authority) and the teacher (a man) made it a point to say to the class that he was sharing his authority with me on that subject for that class, period. Also, he said that I wasn't really teaching--I was "sharing" and that what I said wasn't authoritative. Hey, presto! Authority issue done away with. :D

 

So, those are just some of my experiences with how Christian men may take women in "authority" over them, in secular, as well as religious situations.

 

Something just popped to mind, possibly my "favorite" male/female religious story that happened to me, personally. It comes from teaching swimming lessons in high school. I was helping a little boy (7 or so) learn the back float. He wasn't sure I was going to hold him up as he floated.

"I promise you, I won't let you sink."

"You might. You're probably not strong enough to hold me up."

"Oh, I bet I can hold you up. I'm pretty strong."

"You're not as strong as me, though. The Bible says you're a weaker vessel."

 

*sigh* teach 'em young.

 

I really haven't found it any funnier as time has gone by. Maybe some people will find it amusing though.

[freethinkermama]

Wow. Your whole post was sort of depressing. I am so sorry you had to deal with all that. The worst I have experienced so far is having trouble getting into seminary because I am a woman.

 

 

Yeah, I guess that would depend on the seminary and the denomination. Some seminaries don't take women in pastoral training programs because of their theology, some will. It's one of those issues.

 

I'm sorry my post was depressing. :( I find it all very interesting looking back, and, honestly, I found it interesting while I was a part of it. I liked being "in submission" to my husband--of course, he's a great guy and he never "wielded it." Also, since I was a conservative literalist, I often felt like if I were sacrificing things, for being a woman--or whatever reason, because of my beliefs, in some respects I felt great about it.

 

Funny, even now, I can still understand, on a gut-level why women can really enjoy the "help meet" role and the "submission" response.

 

The more you submit, the godlier you are. :) I wouldn't have put it that way, but honestly, deep down, that was part of it. And it was part of my personality, so that worked perfectly.

 

Helped that I'm not super leader material. If I were a visionary and a leader type, it would have made me bananas.

 

How about you? What about this topic interests you, and what about submission and women submitting to the authority of men interests you, apart from Scripture? (I ask because I think people tease things out of Scripture because something about that specific issues interest them.) I'm generalizing though, so . . .yanno, take that for what it's worth. :001_smile:

[AmyP]

I'm extremely uncomfortable w/ women in leadership because of the way I was raised, but I'm equally uncomfortable w/ women *not* being allowed in leadership, because my spirit simply doesn't agree w/ the idea.

 

This is how I feel. Torn, really. But then again, I am torn about many things church related lately.

[8circles]

Well, shoot. I didn't want to have to be the one to answer this, but no one else has bitten.

 

Ok, this is certainly NOT comprehensive, but they are some of my experiences with this issue.

 

The answer to all of this, "it depends."

 

When Annie Graham Lotz began teaching the Bible (or whatever term you wish to call it--people bickered about what she was actually doing) to mixed-gender groups, different men took it differently. Some listened (some said it was because it wasn't in a worship setting, some "just because"), some men left before she began speaking, some stood and turned their backs to her as she spoke. Now, this was in a religious teaching context.

 

As for secular occasions. Some friends of mine who were of a very conservative bent believed (as did their entire church) that women were to have no authority over men. So, when I was talking about my job prospects after grad. school--I meant to teach--, I was told that such a thing was unbiblical. Even in their church schools, women didn't teach boys after the ago of about 10 or so, not even secular subjects They understood that this wasn't the way of the world though, and so if the father ever had to learn something from a woman, he accepted it, but considered it a sign that Satan was influencing the world away from the pure milk of the Word. He was polite about it, however, and I don't believe he ever mentioned it to the woman teaching him (of course, I don't KNOW this). Also, I didn't ask him whether he'd rather learn something from a dumb guy who wasn't educated in a matter or an educated, intelligent woman who knew how to teach a given subject. Ability didn't matter. Private parts did.

 

Back to religious issues. Once, I was asked to talk in my church Sunday School class about why I wore a head covering. This is a subject based strongly upon the "headship principle" of I Cor 11, something that this subject (women in positions of authority over men) pertains to, of course. Since I was the only women of that church who wore a headcovering, and people were interested, I was asked to speak. However, since it was a mixed-gender class, my husband was asked whether he permitted me to speak (to make sure I had the blessing of his authority) and the teacher (a man) made it a point to say to the class that he was sharing his authority with me on that subject for that class, period. Also, he said that I wasn't really teaching--I was "sharing" and that what I said wasn't authoritative. Hey, presto! Authority issue done away with. :D

 

So, those are just some of my experiences with how Christian men may take women in "authority" over them, in secular, as well as religious situations.

 

Something just popped to mind, possibly my "favorite" male/female religious story that happened to me, personally. It comes from teaching swimming lessons in high school. I was helping a little boy (7 or so) learn the back float. He wasn't sure I was going to hold him up as he floated.

"I promise you, I won't let you sink."

"You might. You're probably not strong enough to hold me up."

"Oh, I bet I can hold you up. I'm pretty strong."

"You're not as strong as me, though. The Bible says you're a weaker vessel."

 

*sigh* teach 'em young.

 

I really haven't found it any funnier as time has gone by. Maybe some people will find it amusing though.

 

That was extremely depressing. But thanks for sharing it.

 

My husband wouldn't mind a bit being under the authority of a woman. He's had women bosses before & it wasn't an issue. He has a great deal of respect for them.

[Heather in Neverland]

Helped that I'm not super leader material. If I were a visionary and a leader type, it would have made me bananas.

 

How about you? What about this topic interests you, and what about submission and women submitting to the authority of men interests you, apart from Scripture? (I ask because I think people tease things out of Scripture because something about that specific issues interest them.) I'm generalizing though, so . . .yanno, take that for what it's worth. :001_smile:

 

See, I AM the visionary leader type so I struggle A LOT with the whole biblical submission thing...well...not entirely. I mean, my dh is head of our house but we still make all decisions as a couple if that makes any sense.

 

I am the only woman in my theology program right now (i graduate in April!!) and I am the only female in administration at the school where I work so I am kind of used to "kicking in glass ceilings". I just wish it didn't have to be that way.

 

I am an odd duck I suppose. I am really conservative in a lot of ways but really not conservative in others. And the idea that women are barred from many areas of ministry for the SOLE REASON of being a female just perplexes me. So my "simple" question is pretty complex in my brain and now my next class starts on Monday and first topic of discussion: women in ministry...sigh... off to put on my "thick skin"...

[Pam Wilhelm]

This whole thread makes me twitchy..... not my cup of tea. To each their own, I guess.

[freethinkermama]

See, I AM the visionary leader type so I struggle A LOT with the whole biblical submission thing...well...not entirely. I mean, my dh is head of our house but we still make all decisions as a couple if that makes any sense.

 

I am the only woman in my theology program right now (i graduate in April!!) and I am the only female in administration at the school where I work so I am kind of used to "kicking in glass ceilings". I just wish it didn't have to be that way.

 

I am an odd duck I suppose. I am really conservative in a lot of ways but really not conservative in others. And the idea that women are barred from many areas of ministry for the SOLE REASON of being a female just perplexes me. So my "simple" question is pretty complex in my brain and now my next class starts on Monday and first topic of discussion: women in ministry...sigh... off to put on my "thick skin"...

 

Your arrangement with your husband makes perfect sense! Our marriage was like that as well, we had the idea of the head/help-meet, but we were equal in decision making. Nothing has really changed for us now, other than the fact that we don't hold a spiritually mandated identity and functioning for the sexes.

 

Oh, I feel for your in your position, that's hard. But congratulations on your graduation! What's your degree? M.Div?

 

Indeed, your "simple" question is a very, very challenging one, and one that's been an issue since--well, if you take the Bible literally--the fall of creation :)