|DURING THE STORMS OF CHANGE:
“Holding Fast Our Confidence!”
Adult Bible Study Fall Quarter 1997
Lesson Eight: “Culture’s Challenge To Biblical Womanhood”
1. A call to change the role of women in the Church requires
a complete restructuring of the gender issue.
a. It is the gender role question which highlights
the great im-
pact of culture upon the "Cultural Advocates" seeking
to restructure the Lord's Church. We are told the "Church" has historically
relegated women to a lowly place and in our modern day women WILL NOT tolerate
it any longer! (For specific instances read: Spiritual Sword, January 1991,
p. 2-3; Dave Miller, Piloting The Strait, 245-246).
1) In 1990 Freed-Hardeman University hosted a
forum on the
role of women in the church. Representative of the feminist
movement were Lynn Mitchell and Robert Randolph. Robert Randolph painted
a dark picture of non-feminists by accusing preachers, elders, and other
males of the Lord’s Church by accusing them of “rape.” “Relating
the Old Testament story of the indifference of the Levites toward the rape
of one of their women by a man of the tribe of Benjamin (Judges
19:24), he implies that women in the church today are being raped in regard
to their rights to roles of spiritual authority and, for the most part,
the church is unconcerned because it is happening only to women . . . Dr.
Lynn Mitchell affirmed the feminist movement would explode among churches
of Christ because its time has come and there is nothing anyone can do
about it . . . He concluded women will no longer allow themselves to be
treated as they were treated in the past. He argues that women are simply
going to take positions of authority for themselves . . . He also insists
this is the way it is and it matters little or not at all ‘whether we arrived
at this point properly though proper scripture interpretation.”
2) A letter sent by the Elders of the Cahaba Valley
Christ, near Birmingham, Alabama, to the members clearly
presents the cultural challenge of feminism. In this letter they
state: “Women have been assigned a role based more on prejudice and tradition
than on the Bible.” The Elders went on to say the women and men of
Cahaba Valley must “discover for themselves what is the role of women as
God envisions it.”
3) McWhorter cites the prevailing philosophy of
the Scriptures to determine the woman’s role. “We must
ask what is the word of the Lord to us in these passages? . . . The word
to us is not that we must reintroduce old-fashioned patriarchal families
. . . The word of the Lord to us is not that women must be silent in the
church and must be kept out of all positions of authority . . . We are
moving toward a new, more adequate, more realistic hermeneutic.”
4) The issue of women’s roles in the Lord’s Church
is a perfect
way for culture to invade and compromise the church.
“The ‘women’s issue’ is a perfect catalyst, because it combines utilitarian
practicality, current notions of political correctness, and an obvious
case for tolerance -- all in one neat package.”
b. Transparency 8/1 “The Gender Role Debate!” Our
tion of efforts to restructure the role of women in the
Church will focus upon these areas:
1) Efforts to wrest Scripture (Gal 3:28; 1 Co
11:3-16; Ep 5:21; 1 Ti 2:8-15; Ro 16).
2) Efforts to introduce public leads in worship
(i.e. serve Com- munion; make announcements; etc.).
3) Efforts to make women officers in the Church
(Deacon- esses; Elders; Apostles).
4) Efforts to portray women's restrictions as
5) Efforts to appeal to inconsistency thus allowing
a more active role for women.
a) Talking allowed in Bible Class but not
b) Elders give women permission to do other
things, why not permission to speak in public as
long as she does not "usurp" (i.e. the "release"
c. Discussion of efforts to restructure women's
role via wresting of Scripture.
1) Transparency 8/12 “Galatians 3:28" This
is the rallying text
for feminists. It has produced a simplistic slogan -
"Neither male NOR female." It is said that this text erases all gender
distinctions in the Church. However careful study reveals that this text
does not eliminate gender role differences!
a) ITS CONTEXT discusses who is able to
become a child of
God. The chapter points out that anyone can become God's
child regardless of race, sex, culture, or civil status.
1) Galatians 3 does not apply to relationships
Church but is discussing the basis for membership. “Oneness
doesn’t eliminate distinctive roles . . . being ‘one’ in Christ means having
equal access to God. It means being equally entitled to God’s spiritual
pro-mises and blessings despite external differences -- whether race, economic
status, gender, or unique responsibilities determined by gender . . . It
is our vertical relationship with God, and the unity which then results
horizontally, that concerned Paul in this letter. In our vertical relationship
there is neither black nor white, neither rich nor poor, neither old nor
young, neither educated nor uneducated, neither American nor Soviet, neither
Republican nor Democrat, neither management nor labor -- and, praise God,
neither male nor female -- but through obedient faith we are all ‘one’
in Christ Jesus!”
2) Paul is stressing unity of all
believers, not the oblitera- tion of all differences
in gender. This is concluded by the remote
b) ITS REMOTE CONTEXT reveals that Paul
cannot mean the erasure of all differences.
1) 1 Pt 3:1-7. Peter speaks of the
same unity yet calls for gender role differences.
2) Ep 6:5; Ro 1:16; Ep 5:22-26. Paul
was not erasing gender roles. This is evident
in these texts for he gives commands to slave/free,
Jew/Gentile, and male/ female.
c) ITS CONSISTENCY reveals that the removal
of differences is not a logical conclusion.
1) "Oneness" does not remove differences
in role or per- son (cf the "oneness" of the Godhead
does not make all three the same, Jn 10:30)
2) If gender roles are eliminated
in Gal 3:28, there are no role distinctions
in the home! (Ep 5:21-6:4).
3) Are we to believe Paul erased all
gender roles in Gala- tians only to "re-write"
them in 1 Timothy 2? Did the Holy Spirit
change His "mind"? If so, God is inconsis-
4) Are we to believe that Galatians
3:28 removed "some" gender distinctions but
not "all"? Where is the basis for this
thought? It is either all or none!
d) “While freed from sin and shown to be
of equal worth
and therefore of full and free fellowship with God and
all our brothers and sisters in the Lord, the gospel did not destroy God’s
divine hierarchy or abolish roles necessary to orderly function . . . Roles
for Christians were not established by sin, by custom, by the law of Moses,
or by any other force. Roles were established for mankind in creation and
were patterned after the roles of hierarchy in the godhead.”
2) Transparency 8/3 “EPHESIANS 5:21" is the only
ted in Eph 5 by feminists. When confronted with the statements
following vrs 21, they dismiss them as "cultural." We are told that "mutual
submission" includes authority, leadership, and submission. This supposedly
gives women the right to do everything a man can do. The following remarks
reveal the error of feminism.
a) CONTEXT -- The very next verse (22) clarifies
so no false conclusions can be drawn. The phrase "one
another" looks back to exhortations for all saints (v. 19) and is not limited
to gender roles exclusively. ALL are to possess an attitude of humility
(cf Philip 2:3,4).
b) CONCEPT -- 5:23. "Head" has historically
referred to "authority." However feminists are
now claiming that "head" is actually "source."
Viewed in this way we are told the husband is the
"source" of strength and encour- agement for his wife
in the same way Jesus is the "source" of all good
and honorable in the Church. Such is absurd! Jesus
is indeed the "source" of the Church, but He is
also the "authority" over the Church!
1) It is dishonest to re-define a
term just to make your
position true. This is demonstrated by the feminists
as they insist that “head” (kefalh) really means source” and does not refer
to male authority. McWhorter (p. 48-49) discusses this point. He concludes,
“No work of scholarship from the first century through the twentieth century
ever assigned any meaning to the word “head” except ‘authority over’.”
2) It is unethical scholarship. “Feminists
now insist both
the lexicons and ‘fathers’ are wrong and the real meaning
of the word is ‘source’ as in ‘the headwater that is the source of a river.’
They declare that ‘superior rank’ can apply only to the English word head.
It would seem strange that Greek authorities would uniformly be so influenced
by an English word they allowed to overrule their scholarship on Greek
vocabulary. What is even stranger is the ‘fathers’ were using this so-called
English meaning long before they could have, in any way, been influenced
by the English language.”
c) CLARITY -- The text is clear in its teaching.
who are determined to reject this clarity will follow
the feminists. “We must ask what is the word of the Lord to us in these
passages? . . . The word to us is not that we must reintroduce old-fashioned
patriarchal families . . . We are moving toward a new, more adequate, more
3) Transparency 8/4 “1 CORINTHIANS 11:3-16" is
one of that the most difficult texts to interpret.
a) "Head" is the repulsive word for feminism.
It refers to role functions (i.e. God is "head"
of Christ; it is absurd to render the term as "source"
for such denies Christ's deity!). We thus find
a set of parallel situations (cf Hurley, p. 166ff).
1) Man/Woman -- In home, Church
2) Christ/Man -- Men are to model
3) God/Christ -- Christ obeyed (Philip
2:8; 1 Co 15:24).
b) "Head Coverings" were signs of authority.
in Corinth was the submission of women to the authority
structure of God (i.e. this may well have been a cultural reaction because
Gentile women were allowed to exercise authority over men -- see notes
p. 17). In Corinth submission to authority was symbolized in a head concerning
worn by women.
1) "Veils" are not mentioned except
for v. 15.
2) Vrs. 4,6,7,13 do not refer to veils!
Bible translators are
convinced that was what Paul had in mind and thus supplied
the terms. However the literal words simply mean "covered" and "uncovered."
None of the words specify what kind of "covering" was in view. It is thus
legitimate to supply the general term "veil" but wrong to bind a specific
definition of this veil! Verse 15 seems to suggest this "veil" was the
woman's hair and not an additional covering.
3) In ancient cultures, long hair,
flying loose and unkept,
or hair that was cut off, was a sign that its wearer
was set off from the community in disgrace (Nu 5:18).
“We also noted that hair length and the way it was worn
was of significant importance. Greek, Roman, and Jewish women grew their
hair long and wore it put up in various styles. In all three cultures long
hair flying loose, disheveled hair or hair cut off was a sign that its
wearer was set off from the community . . . the loosed hair of a suspected
adulteress ... was publicly loosed to mark her off as one suspected of
being ‘unclean’ by virtue of adultery, or repudiating her relation to her
husband by giving herself physically to another man . . . a woman actually
accused of adultery was tried and either acquitted or executed without
undergoing the bitter-water rite. By the New Testament period, however,
the Jews could not execute and the punishment for an adulteress was the
shearing of her hair and expulsion from the synagogue. It is against this
background that Paul’s words to the Corinthians are best understood. The
relevance of the background can be seen from a look at Paul’s discussion
and his particular word choice for ‘uncovered’.”
4) When veils were worn they made
a cultural statement
regarding gender role. The man was not "covered" and
expressed authority. The woman was "covered" and expressed submission.
Within that culture it would be shameful to wear the "covering" improperly
c) "Dishonor" via the covering (vs 4-10).
1) This is when the man acts so as
to bring shame upon his "head" (Christ) (v.4).
2) This is when the woman acts so
as to bring shame upon her "head" (man) (vr.
3) Whenever one repudiates the authority
structure then the "head" is "dishonored"!
4) Some suggest the Corinthian women
cluded their "freedom" in Christ had erased all gender
roles. They thus began to act as if no gender role difference existed.
Their activism in casting aside the gender role was tantamount to making
them as shameful as a prostitute.
5) The men who permitted the authority
structure to be
supplanted were also guilty (vs 7-10). Appeal is made
to creation where man was first created and then woman for man. This creation
order established the pattern of authority (cf 1 Ti 2:12-13). For a man
to reject God's authority structure and passively allow a woman to take
charge is to reject the God-given order!
d) "Angelic examples" warn those who tamper
authority structure. The Corinthian women saw the "un-covering"
as a sign they possessed authority equal to men. Paul stated this was a
rejection of God's order for gender roles -- it was rebellion and disgrace.
Her action thus marked her as joining with angels who rebelled against
God (Jude 6; Mt 25:11). “Paul emphasizes the importance of the message
by reminding his readers of what happens to those who rebel against authority
(1 Cor. 11:11). The angels who refused to accept the hierarchy ordained
by God are in hell, a place designed as just punishment for such rebellion
e) "Authority" is to be governed with care
(v. 11,12). So that men would not abuse their authority.
Paul reminds them that men and women are inter-dependent!
f) "Reason" is found as theory is tested
with reason (v.13).
Having made his point Paul asks a rhetorical question
forcing the Corinthians to decide the matter in light of what has been
said. Such would be as absurd as the situations in 11:4,5!
g) "Nature" A second line of argument focuses
the "natural" gender differences (v. 14-16). “Here Paul
assumes the spiritual distinction between men and women is as fundamental
as ‘the nature of things’ . . . It goes back to long hair and short hair,
or -- as it were -- male bodies and female bodies. It is as fundamental
as the gender factor itself.” “The principle is eternal and must
never change. Men must always be in positions of spiritual leadership;
women must never fill that position over men . . . Paul concludes by declaring
God’s principle is not subject to questioning. The principle is not some
local ordinance applying only to Corinth; it is universal and eternal in
nature (v. 16).”
1) "Nature" can refer to two ideas:
(1) innate in man at birth (Gal 2:15); (2)
proper action formed by custom, habit, or
experience (Ep 2:3). The second is pre- ferred.
2) A cultural sign at Corinth was
the "covering" symbol-
ized authority. Hence, "look around and see if your society
and culture does not teach this same thing!"
3) Such was universally acknowledged
(v. 16). Paul knew
of no Church which cast aside the principle of appointive
leadership of the man in worship or home affairs!
h) Obvious conclusions from the text. Transparency
8/5 “Obvious Conclusions”
1) The principle of male "headship"
a) It is a "tradition" from
b) It is divinely designed (11:3).
c) It is a honored practice
d) It is a timeless Truth (11:7-10).
e) It will bring unity/harmony
f) It is illustrated by common
Note: This principle is
eternal and must never change (11:10b).
2) While the principle will never
change, the practice will
change. As the principle applies to each culture, Christians
must make sure their customs do not deny it! “If today in our culture neither
a veil nor a hat conveys spiritual submission, then wearing these ‘coverings’
during worship loses all significance in modern times. Nevertheless the
principle of male spiritual leadership itself remains valid, and Paul’s
instruction to us today would be to maintain whatever cultural distinctions
make appropriate statements about that principle.”
3) We must be careful that we do not
"major in minors"
with this text and miss the whole point! McWhorter discusses
this problem and says, “In one con-gregation a faithful brother was no
longer allowed to lead the congregation in prayer because he had begun
to wear a hairpiece. In private he was told he must always remove the toupee
during prayer or be guilty of violating the teaching of 21 Corinthians
11. Is this what the chapter is all about?”
4) Transparency 8/6 “1 TIMOTHY 2:11-15" is the
which feminists must answer if they are to re-structure
the gender roles in the Church. This text contains no vague cultural references.
This text is simple and provides broad sweeping principles.
a) See attached articles: Shelly, Gospel
Advocate, Sept. 3, 1977; Kachelman, Christian Bible
Teacher, Jan 1993, Feb 1993.
b) There are significant points to be observed
from that the text.
1) "Men" refers specifically to "males"
(8). The word is
ANER and has a definite article before it. This construction
always refers to males (exclusively!). Had he intended to include women,
he would have used "anthropos" which refers to mankind (male or female).
And he did this at times when both genders were included (cf 1 Ti 2:1;
2 Ti 2:2; etc.).
2) "Usurp Authority" does not refer
to a woman grabb-
ing/seizing authority. Some say as long as a male "releases"
the authority the woman is not "usurping." This term means to exercise
authority over one. When a woman takes a role which places her "over" a
man this happens.
3) "Quietness" refers to disposition/demeanor.
to her attitude toward male leadership ("subjection"
is lit. "to rank under"). “We must consider what Paul actually commanded.
He calls for hesychia (quietness, peacefulness, silence) and hypotage (submission,
subjection, from hypotasso). These concepts are familiar to us ... They
recur with great regularity in discussions of women in the Christian community
... Hesychia does mean silence but carries with it connotations of peacefulness
and restfulness. Its use in 1 Timothy 2 shows that Paul is not just calling
for ‘buttoned lips’ but for a quiet receptivity and a submission to authority
in his description of the manner of women’s learning.”
4) "Teach" does not forbid women teaching.
This is evi-
dent from: (1) 2 Ti 2:2 the command (cf Tit 2:3,4; Col
3:16); (2) The complete thought is that women are not to teach "over men."
c) Transparency 8/7 “Rationale For Women’s
The fact of woman's submission to man in the public assembly
is clearly stated. Why? What is the rationale? 1 Timothy 2:11-15
1) The necessity of woman's submission
to man is based upon two important considerations:
a) God commanded it (Tit 2:5;
1 Pt 3:1; Ep 5:22).
b) Practicality demands it.
The principle of sub- mission guarantees
harmony, it does not mean in- equity!
2) The rationale for woman's submission
is based upon reasonable factors.
a) The first born rule. Adam
was created first.
The first born rule is common in the Old Testament. The
first born son would receive a double portion; he would become the head
of the family; leader of its worship; responsible for its decisions. This
is never questioned. Adam was "first formed." He hence has the duty to
exercise the authority appropriate to the "first born."
b) The "source" authority rule.
1 Co 11:8. A strong
respect must be shown for the power to originate. This
applies to Christ because He is the "source" of all things (Col 1:15-18);
parents to child (Pr 23:22). Adam was the "source" of Eve and thus to him
is given special honor and authority.
c) The power of naming rule.
The practice of "nam-
ing" implies authority. The power to assign or change
a name demonstrates authority (God changed names of Abraham, Sarah, Jacob,
Saul, etc.). Adam named the animals and thus reflected his control/authority
(Gn 2:20). Adam named Eve twice! (Gn 2:23; 3:20).
d) The provision rule. SHE was
made for HIM!
e) The accountability order
rule. The blame for the
Fall is squarely Adam's! (Ro 5:12-21). Upon Adam alone
lay the responsibility for decisions/leadership in the home and only he
was held guilty because he could have stopped the sin.
d) Transparency 8/8 “Women’s Submission,
Is It Cultural Or
Scriptural?” Some contend women's submission is all "cultural'
and hence not applicable to our enlightened modern thought. However the
authority of the Scriptures clearly rejects the cultural compromises by
insisting that God ordained male leadership and that gender roles ARE NOT
equal! “Given the clear weight of evidence against gender-role sameness
when the Bible is objectively read through the eyes of ‘command, example,
and necessary inference,’ the cultural church finds itself in a quandary:
The message itself is clear and unequivocal; but the message is not one
we want to hear. So what are we to do?” The reference in 1 Timothy does
not use "cultural bias" to command women's submission. This is evident
from the following:
1) There is a clear break in Paul's
thoughts as he leaves the "dress" of women
in public assembly and discusses the role
of women in the public assembly.
2) Paul encouraged women to "learn"
-- something con- trary to the prevailing Jewish
3) The Inspiration of Scriptures guards
against a cul- tural practice being bound universally.
4) The restrictions are historical
rather than cultural (i.e. Adam/Eve).
e) From a study of 1 Timothy 2 we find a
passage that com-
mands a distinction in the gender roles of the Church.
The only way to evade this conclusion is to deny Inspiration! Some are
quite willing to do this in order to pursue their desired agenda for "cultural
change." Notice this statement by the Elders of the Cahaba Valley congregation:
“Paul did not write these verses. This whole idea usually bothers people
at first, but the truth is that our Bible we carry around is the product
of comparing all sorts of ancient copies of the New Testament, all of which
differ from each other to some degree . . . The verses do no come from
Paul, but from a later time when church organization had changed along
the lines found in I Timothy.”
5) Transparency 8/9 “ROMANS 16" has become one
of the "key" texts in the feminist battle plan to re-structure
gender roles in the Church.
a) Don Finto appeals to it to justify his
taking the office of
"Apostle" in his "new wineskins" leadership structure
(6/26/88). Feminists count the female names and conclude that females
are honored more than men and occupy more prominent roles than men at Rome
(Apostles, Deacons, Presiding Elders!).
b) JUNIUS (7). Feminists argue the "s" was
added to a fem-
inine name changing it to masculine. They further take
the wording to mean s/he was "an outstanding Apostle." The following points
reveal their folly:
1) The grammatical form does not clearly
identify the gender. The gender must be concluded
from consis- tent study of biblical principles
dealing with gender roles.
2) The phrase does not necessarily
refer to an Apostle. Either "well known BY
Apostles" or "well known AS Apostles." The
term "apostle" can refer to the office or
to a function.
3) Most scholars agree the name refers
to a male because the Greek masculine is
used in "kinsman" and "fellow-prisoners."
4) Even if Junias was a woman it does
not elevate her to
a role contradictory to New Testament teaching. A woman
could be a "messenger" (apostle) without holding a leadership role (cf
Tit 2:3-4; 2 Ti 2:2).
5) "To speculate would be vain. To
use Junias, who may be male or female, as
an example of a 'woman preacher' or 'woman
elder' would be irresponsible" (Hurley, 122).
6) It is a desperate attempt to shore
up the failing feminist position to use Junias!
c) PRISCILLA (3). This is one of the
outstanding women in
the Bible. Emphasis is made about her name appearing
before Aquila; teaching Apollos; having the Church meet in HER home; and
being named by Paul in Ro 16. However the Feminists fail to find support
1) The feminists want us to think
the Bible condemns all women who teach. This
is wrong! Women can teach but she cannot
teach man in an authoritarian role over man.
2) There is not the slightest hint
that she shared equal authority with Aquila.
3) It is not said her role was exactly
the same as Aquila's.
4) The reference to her as a "fellow
worker" does not
elevate her to equal roles. What she did is not stated.
We must assume she limited her work with revealed principles (cf 1 Ti 2:8ff).
Note: A General and a private are "fellow soldiers" yet their roles of
authority are quite different!
5) We are not told she held an office.
If so -- what was it?
6) Again, the speculation of feminists
about Priscilla raises more questions than
it settles. It reveals an agenda that is
inconsistent, contradictory, and built with
d) PHOEBE (1). Here is the most famous
woman in Romans
16. Some translations identify her as a "deaconess" and
this has fueled those seeking to re-structure the Church. Adding to the
controversy are those who claim she was also an "elder." “Lexical considerations
make this outcome virtually impossible. The feminine form, which is used
of Phoebe, means ‘protectress, patroness, helper.’ What Paul said. Therefore,
was that Phoebe had been a helper of many, even of himself. In this light
we conclude that Paul commended her to the Romans as a representative of
the Cenchreaean church who had helped many, himself along them, and asked
that she be assisted as necessary.”
1) Even though the word may be rendered
it should not be overlooked that only the masculine form
is used to refer to the official office! Thus there is strong hint that
even in the grammatical reference to offices the male leadership principle
2) The attempt to include women in
the qualfications of
Deacons (1 Ti 3:11) presents trouble for the feminists.
"Wives" is the same as in 1 Co 14:34. If it refers to "women" in general
in 1 Ti 2 then it must refer to women in general in 1 Co 14:34. But the
feminists do not want this!
3) The term (diakonos) can be used
in a formal and infor-
mal sense. It simply means to
minister or serve. Thus, in a sense, every
Christian is a "deacon"!
4) Historically there is no evidence
for Deaconesses until the 3rd/4th century
when significant departures were occurring.
5) Perhaps the best point -- 1 Ti
3:8,11. Paul specifi-
cally used the word "deacon" in reference to men but
not in reference to women! Had God desired women to serve in the official
sense as "deaconesses" He would not have had Paul construct the words as
d. Discussion of efforts to induce the Church to
tolerate active roles for women in the public worship assembly.
1) The "Cultural Advocates" desire to propel their
structuring of the Church by encouraging women to take
active roles in worship.
a) “Each year we will increase the freedom
of women to
participate in the worship . . . We will continue this
process until by 1994, women are given freedom to volunteer, if they so
choose, to participate in the activities that are currently restricted
to the men during Sunday morning assembly.”
b) “Lynn Mitchell rejoiced that his daughter
was in a con-
gregation where she could publicly read, sing, and communicate
her faith in these ways.”
2) Transparency 8/10 “Can Women Serve Communion?”
is one area receiving great discussion regarding women's
participation is in the passing of Communion/Collection trays. (See Gospel
Advocate, Oct. 1993, p. 56-57)
e. Discussion of efforts to make women officers
in the Church.
1) The arguments are appealing, smooth, and with
just enough Scripture to lend credence. Because of ignorance
many gullibly accept these erronous conclusions!
2) Transparency 8/11 “A Flawed Reasoning!”
All feminist arguments share these flaws.
a) The Scriptures are wrested -- the context
is not consider-
ed and consistent interpretation with
other passages/ principles is not given. A verse
becomes a "pretext" for restructuring the Church!
b) The guiding principle of male leadership
is cast aside. "New Hermeneutics" are used to introduce
women as Elders and Deacons.
c) Vague texts are allowed to uphold an
entire doctrine. Such is folly.
d) Contradictions abound but are ignored
by those deceiv- ed with error (2 Ths 2:11-12).
f. Efforts to portray women's restrictions as solely
1) This is a most interesting point. Feminists
argue that Paul's
Judaism was the basis for his restrictions on women.
However, Paul worked among Gentiles allowed women great authority over
2) Transparency 8/12 “Paul’s Culture Verses The
The so called "cultural" aspect of Paul's teaching about
women's limitations is not present!
a) He never reflected the Gentile culture
because he forbade women to act as Gentile custom
b) He never reflected the Jewish culture
because he allowed women rights/roles/leadership
that Jewish cul- ture denied (i.e. learning, teaching
a man, etc.).
c) He rejected the very notion of "culture"
guiding the believer (Ro 12:1,2). Note: There is
no way one can credibly argue that "culture" influenced
the teaching of Paul regarding women! Such is absurd!
g. Transparency 8/13 Appeals To ‘Inconsistencies’
Roles” Efforts to appeal to inconsistency on the part
of those restricting women's roles, thus allowing a more active role for
women must be answered.
1) "You let women talk in Bible Classes, why not
a) They are two different setting with different
guiding principles. This is evident in 1 Ti 2:8
- "pray" and 1 Ti 2:11 - "learn in quietness."
b) We are able to do things outside of worship
that are for- bidden while worship is in progress.
c) “In our time and culture, women freely
Bible class discussions or in Bible study groups . .
. Perhaps our best insight into this question comes from Paul’s separate
instructions to the evangelist Timothy (1 Timothy 2:11,12) . . . ‘Quietness’
in this context is an attitude regarding one’s relative position in a hierarchy
of spiritual authority. Together with the word ‘submission,’ it recognizes
God-given roles . . . It permits participation within the parameters of
2) "You let a woman confess Christ in the worship
why can't she do more?" “In response, let s ask: Is this
action done in the role of a public teacher or is it not rather the response
of a student? . . . I believe there is a vast difference between those
two roles. In what way would her response as a student in making the good
confession violate the statement of prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:11,12 and
1 Corinthians 14:34,35? She has taken no role of authority nor has she
become the kind of teacher or public speaker these two passages forbid
her to become.”
3) "Since announcements are not a part of worship,
a woman read the announcements?" Such an action places
her in a recognized “leadership role” and thus in a role prohibited by
4) "If an Elder permits ("releases" the authority)
for a woman
to teach, is it all right as long as she does not USURP
AUTHORITY?" This "release idea" sound pious and attempts to complement
the "male headship" pattern, but it tragically fails to recognize several
points which expose its error. Transparency 8/14 “Errors Of The ‘Release’
1) Men do not have the authority to
"release" that the divine structure (cf 1
2) Men are committing a presumptuous
sin in asking wo- men to do what is contrary to
3) Men are inconsiderate when they
place a woman in a role that comes close
to exercising authority over men (1 Ths 5:22).
4) Men are encouraging sin by allowing
females to violate God's authority structure
5) Men are inconsistent in applying
the "release" idea. It
can be used to justify "necessary lies" or "stealing."
If one "releases" the commands of God, is it a temporary release -- if
so, how long? If one is to give "release," to what areas of God's commands
it apply? (Baptism, following God's Word, etc.). When does this "release”
stop and start? Subjectivism reigns and absolutes are erased!
6) Men are ignorant to think a woman
can be "released" as long as her teaching
is not in a church building! (McWhorter,
"The Bible teaching on the difference in role in no way
implies a difference in worth, value, or ability ... males and females
are equals as far as their person and salvation status is concerned. Women
are not inferior to men anymore than Christ is inferior to God, citizens
are inferior to the President, or church members are inferior to elders.
The differentiation is purely a matter of function, assigned tasks, and
sphere of responsibility. The question for us is: 'How willing are we to
fit ourselves into God's arrangement?'" (Dave Miller, The Spiritual Sword,
Vol. 24, No. 1, October 1992, p. 23).
Restructuring the role of women in the church depends
upon efforts to . . .
Gal 3:28; 1 Co 11:3ff; Ep 5:21; 1 Ti 2:8ff; Ro 16
URGE ACTIVE LEADERSHIP
Serve Communion; Make Announcements; Etc.
ORDAIN INTO OFFICE
Deaconess; Elderess; Apostle
PORTRAY LIMITS AS CULTURAL
APPEAL TO “INCONSISTENCIES”
Transparency 8/1 Galatians 3:28
This is the rallying text! Study reveals it DOES NOT erase
gender role differences!
Its Remote Context
We are told “mutual submission” removes all gender role
differences. This error is exposed by . . .
This difficult text can be under-stood by its significant
The biblical principle of male leadership...
. . . Is a tradition from God (11:2).
. . . Is divinely designed (11:3).
. . . Is an honored practice (11:4-6).
. . . Will bring harmony (11:11-13).
. . . Is commonsensical (11:14-16).
This is the “key” text which must be answered. It has
This chapter is being used by feminists to re-structure
gender roles. Their arguments focus on:
A Flawed Reasoning!
The arguments to restructure gender roles in the church
are smooth and appeal to just enough Scripture to give them credence. But
they all share these fatal flaws!
Scripture is wrested!
Paul’s Culture Verses
The so-called “cultural” aspects of Paul’s teaching is
He refused to
overrule God’s Word!
In Gender Roles
When Scripture fails to support gender role restructuring,
advocates attempt to justify their calls by pointing to apparent inconsistencies.
“Women talk in Bible classes!”
“Women confess in assemblies!”
“Why not announcements, they are not a part of worship!”
“An elder can RELEASE the limits and the woman will not
Errors Of The
He has no authority
1 Corinthians 11:3
1 Thess 5:22
It is ignorant!
Copyright 1999 by John
L. Kachelman Jr. may be reproducted for non-commercial purposes at no cost