First of all, I would like to point out that I am not anti homemaker. I think being a homemaker is a wonderful life choice for women. More power to those who choose it, including my mother, sister and sister-in-law.
However, it should be a choice not conscription. Women who want to be homemakers, should not feel like slaves since they are doing what they want, hopefully out of joy for their chosen career. Just as some women have a heart/desire to be homemakers, others have a heart/desire to preach or teach and they should be allowed to do that and fulfill their God-given potential.

As far as the overall issue of what the Bible means when Paul writes about the role of women in church, I have been doing some reading on this and what I am reading is very distrubing. It seems that perhaps our early translators brought their own prejudices into their translations, changing what Paul actually wrote and intended. If we are reading a faulty translation, perhaps we owe it to ourselves to research and learn just what Paul actually said and meant. For example, why in I Cor 11 and I Tim 2 are the words for "husband" and "wife" translated as "man" and woman"? Would this not suggest translator bias?
Another comment on I Tim. 2:11,: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."

On the face of it, it looks like women are not allowed to teach. HOwever, we know that this is not true since there are many women teachers in the Bible, formost being Prisca (Pricilla). Some try and justify this by saying that this passage only means that women cannot teach men but it is okay to teach anyone else (other women, children). Some also say that Prisca was allowed to teach Appollo because her husband was present too (this is an assumption for which I can find no support in the Bible). Most likely it is referring to a specific situation in Ephesus that needed to be address (women without proper training trying to take over as teachers). Some also say that women are only supposed to keep quiet in the "assembly" but can talk at other times, like during Bible class and singing. This, they say, is because we have specific commandments to sing to the Lord. Well, we have the same arguement for teaching. Paul does expect Christians to teach other and has given commandments on that too.
If you accept that women should not be allowed to teach men, then:
are female college professors sinning?
are we allowed to teach men everything except God's word? (does this even make SENSE?)
at what age does a boy become a man? Am I supposed to acknowledge a 10 year old baptized Christian as being a "man"?
Can we teach non-Christians but not Christian men?
When does a Bible class become an "assembly" and who gets to decide that?
If Jesus has "all authority in heaven and on earth" (Matt. 28:18) then isn't it wrong for men,as well as women, to try and usurp power over one another? Don't we all answer directly to God?
Even if women were to keep quiet in the assemblies, then why can't they have other leadership roles in the church? Like making announcements (has nothing to do with teaching and can be done when the "assembly" is over), seving the Lord' supper (can be done quietly). Certainly there were many women leaders in the Bible, such as Miriam, Deborah, Hulda, Junia, Prisca, Lydia, etc.
For the sake of peace and harmony, in the church, and out of consideration for my weaker brothers who still have a problem with women's roles I have been keeping quiet in church. But my heart is suffering and I find it harder and harder to understand what is so threatening about women? We are all one in Christ, there is no male and female, and it seems a shame that we cannot transcend our differences during worship of God, and allow those who God has gifted, regardless of sex, to serve us.

How is it that we can take passages from this and interpret them based on our own culture and yet other passages are felt to be written in stone and taken "as is" because "we have to follow things exactly as they are written in the Bible".
For example, how many men raise their hands high when they pray? yet ITim 2:8 instructs them to do so. Also, women, are to be modest and discreet, not with "braided hair" and gold or pearls. Yet, we do not consider wearing braids immodest nor immoral today and jewlery certainly is not considered to be immodest. So, we as a church have taken these passages and applied them to our own culture and adjusted the fit so that we do not follow the literal words written here.
Why then do we make such a point of "I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man " but yet, there are many examples when women do just that with Paul's blessing.
Pricilla certainly taught grown men.
And do you think that when Timothy reached a certain age, his mother and grandmother who had been teaching him in Christ all along, suddenly must have had to shut up? HOw do we know that this, like the instructions above, were not just indicative of the current culture and Paul was telling women to follow the cultural guidelines of the time so as not to be a stumbling block for new Christians/non believers. I think this is the same reasoning as when he told slaves in Titus 2:9 and I Tim 6:1,2 to be subject to their masters. Not because owning slaves is "justified" in the Bible but because the whole world was not Christian and he did not want to create poltical problems nor upset the current social culture of that time. I don't think that Titus 2:9, I Tim. 6 justifies slavery any more than I Tim. 2:12 justifies does. I think it means that, in a certain culture, we are to respect that culture and conduct ourselves with modesty in that culture. I don't think it means we have to own slaves - I don't think Jesus would have been okay with that. And I don't think it means we have to refuse to allow women to serve in leadership roles - I don't think that would have been okay with Jesus either. I think that while Paul does not condem slave owners, we should look to the higher principles of our faith and when we do that, we realize that slavery is not compatible with a pure Christian heart. Likewise, suppression of women is not compatible with a pure Christian heart either. I realize that it is still a stumbling block for some men now but I hope that, just as our hearts have risen above slavery, that we will also rise against repression of women also. It took another half a century after slavery was abolished for women to get the vote in this country so maybe it will take a little longer for this too.

Mr. Wheeler, I hope you have not given up on the Nast. I left a comment on your website and hope you will help me and respond.

thanks,

opalpearlruby

Jeff, I appreciate your taking on my web log. I do not agree with you in all things but appreciate your comments nevertheless.
These are my questions for the day:

If as you say, that I Corinthians 11:5 does not refer to women in a church assemply than what does it refer to? It is a comment about public prayer and prophesy and if it does not refer to the asembly of Christians then would that mean it would be okay for a woman to lead a prayer at a restaurant with Christian men present?

If you plan to take the "women keep silent in the church" literally, why are women allowed to sing? This is still an assembly of Christians so it would follow that women should not be singing either.

I have read where it says that this scripture about keeping silent in church services is a specific comment to the people of Corinth to deal with a specific problem (noisy women) in the church and was meant to ask women (the verb used for silence, sigao, is most often translated as meaning a voluntary silence, not a forced silence) to be quiet instead of socializing in the church to restore order and harmony (witness the rules on prophecy and speaking in tongues that precede this). Also I read where it says that women are asked not to laleo (better translated as talk, not speak) so it seems as if it were a comment on asking women not to be disrutive not asking women not to teach. The other comment I have to make is that just as Paul gave instructions on modesty that we are free to adjust to each culture, this comment of Paul's may just be for women to obey the current cultural guidelines fo the time to promote harmony in the church. For example, he asked women not to preen too much with the "braiding of hair". In our current culture, braided hair is usually assoicated with modesty and not wanitng to call attention to oneself so it seems it is reversed from 200 years ago. Being that Paul's comments are more in line with a request for women to be quiet (by use of Greek verbs more in line with voluntary actions), could this not be something that no longer applies to us today?



Where in the Bible does it say women cannot stand up and pass around the Lord's supper? Cettainly we can sit and pass it down along our row, so why not participate in this standing?


One last thing, if women cannot teach in the church assembly, why would it be okay for them to teach men in private homes, as did happen during Biblical times. HOw many people would have to be present to have it go from a Bible study to an assembly? Also, isn't Sunday Bible class still an assembly? Why can women talk in those?

thanks,

Opal

p.s. questions are for every one not just jeff. - will comment on slavery more another day.

One day, when we make it to judgment day, I wonder how men will have to answer for the way they have treated women in the church. I pray that the younger generation of men coming up in the church will be influenced enough by our society in general that they will bring true liberation to the church. (Isn't it a shame that our society treats women better than they get treated in church? It should be the church that leads the way, not the church that is dragged kicking and screaming into this.) Just as the church used (abused) the Bible to justify slavery, they now use it to justify relegating women to second class status in the church. What a pity that so much talent is going wasted and unused. I will pray for the younger men that they will not stay blind for long.