| Most Recently Posted Ask a Question | |||||||
| Q: | I also have concerns about the role of women in the church. I really want to do not what is right in my eyes, but what is right in God's eyes. I have read and reread the email that you receive about this, always hoping to find what I am looking for, but I have not found what I think is truly the answer for me. I have read your book (I can't find it now for the title, but you know it, Men and Women in God's World, or something close to that) I have read other things, also, WELS and non WELS. I have attended all the levels of WELS schools, have spoken with my pastor, whom I trust to be honest with me, but all those things are of nothing because I know that there is no salvation in being Lutheran, but only in trusting in Jesus as my Savior. I know that the real book to read is my Bible. I grew up WELS, but as my adult life developed, I became LCMS. I have spoken with LCMS pastors, pastors that I know are faithful and that I will see in heaven, about this same topic. Currently I am a WELS member. In all, the Bible says, in English, that overseers and deacons are to be men. Of course, this would be our pastors and elders at church. I have and will never have a problem with that, God has clearly spoken on that. Those are both roles that deal with the spiritual life of the members. But I really have a problem with the church council and voting. The council roles are administrative and there are women, if they are so inclined and are able, that should have the ability to serve the Lord in this way. I have read the printed matter that WELS publishes that are sample constitution and bylaws for congregations. The nature of those seems to be that they are written in a way in that they are designed to have all the council discuss both the administrative and the spiritual, in that way it will always be safe to tell women that they cannot be on the council, and, for some churches, to tell women that they are not welcome at the council meetings. It hardly sounds Christian to me. Also, the same for voting, I don't believe that it can possibly be correct that there are women so active in their churches, but when the time for voting comes, they cannot, but some guy who happens to be there on that Sunday, or even men that come every Sunday, but take little interest in the church or the workings of the church, are able to vote. I am deeply saddened when I read some of the email that you receive, written by men and women, that are concerning women even being at the Voter's meeting. That really seems as if it is bordering on sinful to me on the part on those that are insisting that women not be present. God never spoke about votes, voters meetings, or the like. Could you please comment on this in Christian love? It causes problems for me at times, I want to get beyond that and grow in my faith, but this is something that hurts. I am not content to just let this go Also, could you answer this question... I have read the places in the Bible in which Paul writes about the role of women. How do you know that what Paul is writing is exactly what it says at face value, and not a response to some other problem that was going on, or a reflection of the social system that they lived during Bible times (which, what I gather from reading the Bible, was that the man took charge in leading the family, at least in public, while the women were to be submissive, but I am aware of examples contrary to this.) Also, I don't know Greek, but I am trusting that you have studied the original languages of the Bible; I know that you have. I know that in Spanish there are definite pronouns for a man (men) and woman (women). For example, for "men" a person would use the pronoun "ellos", for "women", "ellas", but for a group of men and women, "ellos", the same as for a group of men only. This is true also if you have sons & daughters, you would call them all sons collectively. Does this happen in the Greek also? If so, or you don't know, how do you know if they are only talking to men and not women, too? | ||||||
| A: | I will try to respond to your main concerns, one by one. In what positions and activities can women serve the church? Our WELS doctrinal statement on this subject says, "Women are encouraged to participate in offices and activities of the public ministry except where the work involves authority over men." Women should not serve in offices of the church which have governing authority in the church and responsibility for discipline of men, such as elder. If such administrative tasks as treasurer and financial secretary were service positions separated from governing responsibility for the church, there is no reason women could not serve in such positions. Women can certainly function as deaconesses, evangelists, teachers, ushers, greeters, counselors, and visitors of the sick if their service in these areas is in harmony with the scriptural principles of headship and submission. Women are serving in all these positions in churches of our fellowship. We have not maintained that all voting always involves authority. We have, however, said that only men should cast votes which exercise authority over men. In our system of church government the voters' assembly is the authoritative governing body of the congregation. Among its more important responsibilities are the calling and removal of pastors and teachers, electing or removing the leaders of the congregation, and the acceptance and exclusion of members. For this reason, participation in this and other governing bodies in the church should be limited to adult males who are able to properly exercise authority over other men. Some people have suggested that the issue of voting rights for women can be defused by changing the voters' assembly of the congregation into an advisory body without final authority. It is questionable if allowing women to vote in a body which was only advisory would satisfy people who believe women must have more power to determine the program of the congregation. This solution or trying to define which votes in the course of a meeting are authoritative and which are not would just move the potential for conflict or hurt feelings to a different level. The valid desire of many women to have their needs and wishes considered when the programs of the congregation are determined can be met by other methods than changing the nature of the voters' assembly. Congregations can take many steps to insure that the voices of all of the congregation are heard. In Christian decision making which aims at best meeting the needs of all of the members of the congregation, including the minority, gathering and assessing the needs and desires of the members should be done prior to the decision making. The responsible governing body should make decisions on the basis of an informed concern for all of the members of the congregation, not merely on the basis of personal preference. The congregation may use mechanisms such as questionnaires, family discussions, home visitations, or informative meetings to obtain input about the needs and desires of all the members. If the men of the congregation are to carry out their headship in a God-pleasing way, they will make sure that they hear and consider the needs of all of the members of the congregation. There is no scriptural reason why women cannot be present at congregational voters' or council meetings, but as a regular practice, this may not solve the perceived problem. To be present at such meetings, but to be unable to debate or vote may increase frustration and hurt feelings rather than to decrease them. It may not be wise to promote this practice as a way of lessening offense and anger on the part of women who feel excluded from the government of the congregation. Congregations which have tried this practice report various degrees of satisfaction. Those who feel very uneasy about the practice of having women attend the meetings may also have concerns that this could be used as a wedge to undermine the scriptural principles. The experience of other churches shows that this is a valid concern, though the fear that a practice could be misused should not be the decisive factor in determining our practices. The best solution to this problem in the church lies not in tinkering with the mechanisms of church government but in sincere and determined efforts by the pastors and leaders of the congregation to promote good communication with all the members of the congregation which assures them that in the church voting is not a power tool for gaining one's way, but a responsibility for serving the body in love. Why do we say that Paul's teaching is not just addressing cultural situations of his day? Paul does address social customs of his day like head coverings, but in all his discussions he bases his practices on principles that were established by God at creation ( 1 Corinthians 11:8, 1 Corinthians 14:34,37, 1 Timothy 2:13). We may have different customs to evaluate in the light of the principles, but the principles Paul taught are timeless. Inclusive and exclusive language in the Bible Both Greek and Hebrew have masculine and feminine pronoun forms in the singular and plural. The masculine form can also be used as the inclusive form for all people, men and women. Masculine nouns like "sons" can also be used inclusively. We translate "sons of Israel" as "children of Israel" when it is inclusive. In 2 Corinthians 6:18 Paul translates inclusively, "You will be my sons and daughters." The Greek word for "fathers" sometimes means "parents" (Hebrews 11:23). The use of "sons" in Gal 3:23 is an example of a masculine word to refer to all human beings, male and female alike. For this reason, the King James translated, "You are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." Hebrew and Greek also have different words for "man" when the reference is to all people (Adam and anthropos) and when the reference is to males (ish and aner), so biblical writers can signal a clear distinction when they chose to. In 1 Tim. 2:4-6 Paul uses the inclusive word, which could be translated "God wants all people to be saved." In 1 Timothy 2:8 Paul switches to the word which emphasizes maleness, "I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing." Our goal in translation is to be inclusive where Scripture is inclusive and exclusive where it is exclusive. The NIV, which was translated just before inclusive language become a hot issue, could be improved in this regard. We need to distinguish between bad inclusive language which denies scriptural usage (baptism in the name of the Mother, Daughter, and Friend) and good inclusive language which reflects scriptural truth (God wants all people to be saved). In our evaluation and use of inclusive language we should have three aims:
| ||||||
| |||||||