Male domination

[Menotu]

While the New Testament seems to allow more freedom to women, at least in the interaction Jesus is said to have had (ignoring the whole 'Jesus was married' idea), the bible, overall, is very male dominated. There are modern spins on it being taught in some churches, but by in large, it seems like Christianity is (and certainly has been taught) that men are the head of the household, bread winner, etc.

Some churches don't allow women to be leaders in the same way men are allowed to be leaders. The bible doesn't seem to be too 'woke'.

Even God is a 'he' and not a 'she' or 'it' (at least in modern editions of the bible).
Why is that?
Is it justified?
Should women be allowed a more 'leadership' roles in their churches/religion, or should status quo remain?
Any why?

[JehovahsWitness]

Should women be allowed a more 'leadership' roles in their churches/religion, or should status quo remain?

As one of Jehovahs Witnesses I believe the bible model is not up for negotiation or modification and should remain the basis for how the congregation should be organized because that is what God has mandated in his word. Positions of leadership within the congregation should not be given given to women.


JW

Go to other posts related to...

SEX, SLAVERY and ...WOMEN

[brianbbs67]

You summed it up pretty well. That is what the bible says. I tend to follow that, but part of me wonders. Have we made a god of the bible? Of course, what else do we have to go upon other than the bible. Maybe the bible should be accepted until its disproven as a whole.

[onewithhim]

There are good reasons for males taking the responsibility of family heads, and also congregation leaders. SOMEONE has to take the lead. Jehovah has assigned the male to do so. If He assigned the woman, would people then object and say "why not the man?"

Men are, over all, physically stronger than women and are basically more capable of doing strenuous work, and can more easily defend his family from ne'er-do-wells. On the other side of the coin, women are the more fragile of the sexes (their desire to show the world that they can do everything men can do notwithstanding).

Then there is the fact that God made a man first. He chose to give headship to His first human creation.Why would this be objectionable?

Now it has to be said that God does not say that men can "rule it over" their wives or any other women, and treat them like slaves, or abuse them in any way. They must love their wives and be willing to die for them (Ephesians 5:25). They are mandated to treat their wives like a fragile, priceless Ming Dynasty vase.The Bible says:

"You husbands, continue dwelling with [your wives] showing them consideration; understanding them. Assign them HONOR as to a weaker vessel, the feminine one." (I Peter 3:7, NWT)

Does this sound like a bad thing?

Why would a woman want to be like a man? She should be taken care of and even pampered by her mate, according to the words of the Scriptures. Isn't it a very nice thing to have a man hold a door open for a woman, and even get up and give her his seat in a crowded bus? Why is this not a huge PLUS for women? If a man abuses his authority and mistreats a woman, he is seriously going against the command of God, and he will answer for it. God won't even listen to his prayers (I Peter 3:7b).

It's hard work taking care of a congregation. Long hours and much preparation are involved, and even getting up in the night to help a person in need. It's taxing and sometimes grueling. Wouldn't a woman be glad that she didn't have to do such exhausting work? God assigned men to take care of the congregations. Women can occupy themselves with the privilege of caring for the immediate needs of her children. It is two people working together for the good of the family, and the congregation. Each has their God-assigned role.

"Let the older men be moderate in habits, serious, sound in mind, healthy in faith, in love, in endurance. Likewise, let the older women be reverent in behavior, not slanderous, not enslaved to a lot of wine, teachers of what it good, so that they may advise the younger women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sound in mind, chaste, working at home, good, subjecting themselves to their own husbands, so that the word of God may not be spoken of abusively." (Titus 2:2-5)

It boils down to accepting what the Bible says or rejecting it. Is God unfair in giving headship to men? I don't think so. Do you? Then you'll have to take it up with Him.



.

[2timothy316]

Throughout the Bible some human has had the authority to have the final say. However, in many occasions that person that has the final say has listened to what those under their care have to contribute.

Genesis 21:12, though Abraham is the head of the family Jehovah God tells him to listen to his wife Sarah.

In Exodus 18:13-27 though Moses was the leader of an entire nation he listened to his father-in-law to delegate some of the responsibilities of that leadership.

There were female judges and prophets during the time of the Israelities. There were however no female priest.

There are men that lead the Christian congregation. Yet there is a leader of them, Jesus Christ and even the Christ as a leader over him, God. (1 Cor 11:3)

“God is a God, not of disorder, but of peace.�​—1 Corinthians 14:33. This is why there is an order to things. God apparently says that men are to have the responsibility of taking the lead. They are the ones that must answer for the congregation and their own families. Does this let women off the hook in the decision making process? Nope! Some might do that but it's not advisable. One could even be considered blood-guilty if the leader of the family is taking a disastrous course and his wife withholds the council of God. (Ac 18:6; 20:26, 27; compare Eze 33:6-8.)

[Menotu]

You summed it up pretty well. That is what the bible says. I tend to follow that, but part of me wonders. Have we made a god of the bible? Of course, what else do we have to go upon other than the bible. Maybe the bible should be accepted until its disproven as a whole.

While I'm not one to defend every Christian or Christian actions (as I think most of them aren't beneficial and of those, most are hiding hate behind their faith purposefully) I think sometimes Christians get chastised wrongly.
I see, many times, people challenge them to prove this or that, knowing there is no way to prove it because it's a belief system that requires faith. Then they belittle them.
But I see Christians do that to non-believers almost as much, if not more, I must point out.
While that's not for me anymore (and I hope all others see it that way eventually), Christians are working with what they have.
What I think sours most people on Christianity is the arrogance so many Christians flaunt and the inability for some many to say 'I don't know' or 'I believe this or that but I may be wrong.'
I think the ability to admit the possibility of not being right would go a long way for most non-believers.

[Menotu]

[Replying to post 4 by onewithhim]

SOMEONE has to take the lead. Jehovah has assigned the male to do so. If He assigned the woman, would people then object and say "why not the man?"

Why not let 'somebody' that the lead independent of gender? And where did Jehovah assign the male gender to take the lead (not saying he didn't just curious where you got that info)?

Men are, over all, physically stronger than women and are basically more capable of doing strenuous work, and can more easily defend his family from ne'er-do-wells. On the other side of the coin, women are the more fragile of the sexes (their desire to show the world that they can do everything men can do notwithstanding).

That's a grand generalization and blanket statement. While it may be true in some case it's not in all cases. This is also the point I made how people can take an antiquated, sexist POV and sugar coat and try to justify it with 'while men can do this and that, women can't, but they can do that and this which men can't.

Then there is the fact that God made a man first. He chose to give headship to His first human creation.Why would this be objectionable?

Why should 'first' be seen as headship?

Is God unfair in giving headship to men? I don't think so. Do you? Then you'll have to take it up with Him.

Personally, it doesn't matter to me any more than a passing curiosity.

[Red Wolf]

It appears to me that the New Testament treats women as 2nd class citizens.

Ephesians 5:22-24 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.

Romans 7:2 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
2 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
34 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.

1 Timothy 2:11-14 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
11 A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.


Titus 2:3-5 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, 4 so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 4 by onewithhim]

SOMEONE has to take the lead. Jehovah has assigned the male to do so. If He assigned the woman, would people then object and say "why not the man?"

Why not let 'somebody' that the lead independent of gender? And where did Jehovah assign the male gender to take the lead (not saying he didn't just curious where you got that info)?

Men are, over all, physically stronger than women and are basically more capable of doing strenuous work, and can more easily defend his family from ne'er-do-wells. On the other side of the coin, women are the more fragile of the sexes (their desire to show the world that they can do everything men can do notwithstanding).

That's a grand generalization and blanket statement. While it may be true in some case it's not in all cases. This is also the point I made how people can take an antiquated, sexist POV and sugar coat and try to justify it with 'while men can do this and that, women can't, but they can do that and this which men can't.

Then there is the fact that God made a man first. He chose to give headship to His first human creation.Why would this be objectionable?

Why should 'first' be seen as headship?

Is God unfair in giving headship to men? I don't think so. Do you? Then you'll have to take it up with Him.

Personally, it doesn't matter to me any more than a passing curiosity.

The basic headship principle is set out at I Corinthians 11:3: "The head of every man is the Christ; in turn the head of a woman is the man; in turn the head of the Christ is God."

The man is under obligation to follow the instructions and the pattern provided by HIS head, Christ. (I John 2:6) And that means in ALL things.

As man had priority in human creation, he is given priority of position over the woman (I Timothy 2:12,13), much to the consternation of many women (but they haven't had the experience, I guess, of having a loving, kind, responsible man as a head). Men should apply Bible principles and women should not settle for less in a relationship.

It is said, at I Corinthians 11:9: "And what is more, man was not created for the sake of the woman, but woman for the sake of the man." I'm fine with that. I don't mind being treated like fine China.

This theocratic order in the congregation and in the family arrangement does not hinder the woman in serving God, nor does it stand in the way of her carrying out her family responsibilities. It allows her full freedom to serve in her assigned place, while still being pleasing to God in harmony with the principle: God has set the members in the body, each one of them, just as he pleased." (I Cor.12:18)

Many women of ancient times had fine privileges while recognizing the headship of the man and enjoyed happy and satisfying lives. Why is there such consternation concerning the woman being submissive to a man? If the man acts like Christ, the woman will be totally revered, protected, aided, and loved, and there should be no serious problems.



(See Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. I, p. 1054.)

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 8 by Red Wolf]

Did you bother to read what I commented in my posts? Or timothy's post? It would be constructive to the discussion if you would take those comments into consideration.



.