Lefora Free Forum
Join now
Heb 10:24 Let us consider one another in order to stir up love & good works
62 views

Changes made to the article titled "Should women be allowed to attend the mens meetings"

Page 1
posts 1–17 of 17
novice - member
19 posts

This is a topic that I know has been debated on, and I heard some discussion firsthand on this subject. Here is the arguement:
This was spoken by one of the men in a congregation when he was asked the question about women attending the men's meetings after services. This was brought up because one of the men at the congregation had a wife that wanted to attend the meeting. Neither he or his wife had a problem with it, and this was their justification that it was okay. "I don't think it is a problem as long as the women just sit in the meeting and don't comment. Plus, this is a way that they will know what is going on in the church."
To answer this question I came up to go along with the role of women in the church plus the role that men are to have?

What was the relationship that God had from the beginning?
One man and one woman for life. We have to go back to Genesis chapter two to see this point: Gen. 2:18 "God said, It is not good that man should be alone;I will make a helper comparable to him." Then go down to verse 23, "And Adam said; This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; She shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man. Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and the two shall be one flesh." After Adam and Eve sinned eating of the forbidden fruit God gave both of them certain roles they would have to carry. For Adam, In Genesis 3 he was told he would have to work, and Eve was told she would have to bear children. Genesis 3:16 "Your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you."
Man is to be head of the family, just as Christ is head over the church.
Eph. 5:23. Husbands are also told to "Love their wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it", (Eph. 5:25)This is very important to establish this point first before we go further. Much is said in the statement," For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the Church." This is the way God intended it to be, and we have to follow God's plan if we are truely a child of God. Fathers are to "not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the nuture and admonition of the Lord."
Women are to dress modestly, (I Tim. 3:9) "not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but which is proper for women professing Godliness, with good works." These next few verses pay close attention to for I think that they are very important. "Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or 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."(I Tim.3:11-15) Older women are told to teach the younger women. (Titus 2:3-5) I believe that these passages answers the question.
First, is it a womens place to attend the business meetings, and in doing so would she usurp authority over a man? I don't believe it is a womens place to attend the mens meetings. However, just sitting in there she would not be usurping authority if she was just in there listening. Second, if a husband and wife have the relationship that God intended then she should know through her husband what is going on in the church. If notes are done at the end of the meetings then women who are widowed or single could also be made aware of what is going on without actually attending the meetings. I made some changes after I re-read what I had written and after reading some of the other comments. Scripture is where we get all authority, and that is where these answers are based upon.
If their are eligible men in the congregation elders and deacons are to be appointed. Elders are to oversee the congregation and here are the qualifications of an elder. See (I Tim. 3, I Tim. 5:17,Titus 1, I Peter 5:1-3) Here are some passages for qualities of a deacon: (I Tim. 3:8,12) Even with a congregation having elders and deacons sometimes meetings might be necessary to have as it is not the elders and deacons responsibilites alone in helping the church to grow.

regular - founder
63 posts
This discussion can open a whole can of worms..


I'm stealing the verses from pleo's discussion on this. Innocent

Acts 6:

"summoned the multitude of the disciples" vs 2

" the saying pleased the whole multitude" vs 5

 

Acts 15:

"Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church" vs 22

"it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord" vs 25

 

vs. 23 says who they address their letter to:

the apostles, the elders and the brethren

 

verse 30 says they "gathered the multitude together" when they went to deliver the letter to them.

 

Do we even have authority for a men's only meeting? We see examples of all the brethren and the whole congregation together: Acts 6:1-6; 11:2-18, 22, 27-30; 14:27; 15:2-4, 12, 22-30, 40; 17:14; 18:22

__________________
Amy Shipley
novice - member
22 posts

You (Amy) are right about the can of worms. In this case you have people that want to hold to traditions and will twist the scriptures are think irrationally if you try to convince them otherwise. I understand the idea that since the man is the head of the household...and congregations can be huge...AND having the whole congregation together where everyone is trying to voice their opinion can be very difficult and then NOTHING would be accomplished. Thus, I can see why it is done. I don't think that men are the only ones that can make decisions for the church however, the elders rule over the church and the whole congregation works together. The women usurping the men idea only applies to worship....not to anything done in the church building. So if you get together for bible class or for a business meeting...it is NOT worship. I am not saying that those who have a MEN ONLY meeting are wrong because, like I said, it makes things easier. They should however realize that it is not the ONLY way it has to be done and that anything else is wrong, or that women are not allowed at all. What might be an alternative is to have everyone who wants to be present be there and if a husband and his wife are there and the wife wants to say something that she speaks to her husband and let him bring it up...mostly because he is the head of the household and might make the meeting less hectic than if 50 people (or however many) were trying to speak at once.

__________________
Gary Lackey
regular - founder
63 posts
Another issue: Are churches without elders scriptural?

Ryan and I were discussing this the other day. I'm still studying on it but wanted to open it up..


__________________
Amy Shipley
rookie - member
3 posts

Good Thoughts by everyone! I have come head to head with the exact scenario being discussed, especially as I am a single female. I have not made a precise conclusion either way, it really depends on the day, but am very thankful for your thoughts and scripture!

novice - member
18 posts

After much consideration, I'm going to say that I'm with Gary. I think that the Men's only group is an expedient method of doing business, however, I also wouldn't say that it's the ONLY legitemate way to do it.

Indeed, this is quite a can of worms.

novice - member
22 posts

To Amy's question about elders...

Although it was God's design that elders be set up in every church...

If there are no men qualified to be elders you are faced with 2 situations:
Appoint men who are not qualified (not a good idea and probably not what God intended)
or try to work together to make decisions (the better choice)

The second option gets complicated when you have a large congregation that still has no men qualified to be elders. If the congregation is like that there is PROBABLY something wrong...but not necessarily.

Only my opinions.

__________________
Gary Lackey
regular - founder
63 posts

After much consideration, I'm going to say that I'm with Gary. I think that the Men's only group is an expedient method of doing business, however, I also wouldn't say that it's the ONLY legitemate way to do it.

-rshipley



..yah, what he said :)



__________________
Amy Shipley
regular - founder
63 posts
Here are some thoughts on an elder-less congregation, make of it what you will, they are a man's words:

__________________
Amy Shipley
rookie - member
5 posts

The problem often today is the family qualifications, especially faithful children. That's why we don't have elders where we attend. And while I used to believe that the family qualifications were somewhat relative, through study I've come to see them as quite restrictive for a purpose, namely to ensure that those who do serve are qualified and able beyond (reasonable) reproach.

Something that needs to be repeated ad infinitum, especially to young families, is the promise that is found in Proverbs 22:6. "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it." True, it's not absolute, and there will always be exceptions. But one of the major problems with the church today is that most view a fully faithful family as against the norm, the exception to the rule. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

Until we convince parents that there is a way to raise a family where full faithfulness is relatively certain, there will always be a problem of churches without qualified elders.

rookie - member
5 posts

Concerning the men's business meeting, consider that it is an expediency in the absence of elders. As such, we have to use careful judgment concerning our actions so that all that we do results in edification.

If there were elders in a congregation, would there be anything unscriptural about women sitting in on an elders' meeting? Not that I can tell. But is it helpful and edifying? In some cases, yes, i.e. the elders seeking specific input and discussion with the women. But there are some things that the elders need to be free to talk about behind closed doors, not to hide, but to deliberate and discuss before presenting a united decision. (Compare to parents being discrete about disagreements in front of children for the good of the family.) In most cases, it just wouldn't be expedient or edifying. And this line of reasoning not only applies to women, but also to the men as well who are not elders.

 Now translate that to a congregation without elders. The same applies, except that it's not really an expedient option to exclude certain men and not others. (Which can unfortunately make for some dicey discussion during some meetings, believe me!) And it's not really expedient to not have meetings at all because decisions still have to be made.

"All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify." (1 Cor. 10:23)

 

novice - member
18 posts

I liked the article...I must say that this, to me, was the crux of the "elderless" congregation argument

"In Titus 1:5-6a the apostle Paul issues the following charge to Titus: "For this reason I left you in Crete, in order that you might set in order that which is lacking, and that you might appoint elders, as I directed you, in each city IF anyone is..." Paul then lists the qualities Titus must perceive in those who would serve the Lord and His people in this position within the church. Thus, shepherds are to be appointed in each city IF there are those who can be identified as possessing the qualities enumerated by the inspired apostle. The implication is unmistakable -- those who do not possess these qualities are not to be appointed, and if none possess these qualities, then none are to be appointed. That extremely large little word IF makes this whole statement a conditional one. Before the desired result can be attained, conditions must be met. If those conditions can not be met, then the desired goal must be deferred until such time as the conditions can be met. "

novice - member
18 posts

I'm not sure who you are kbraddock (probably just my bad memory), but I do appreciate your posts.

rookie - member
5 posts

We met once in Pasadena. I'm Kris Braddock, Amanda Wright's brother-in-law. I also know the Lackeys from W.Columbia.

Hope y'all don't mind me hopping into some discussions.

novice - member
19 posts

oops, somehow I missed who that message was for, and thought it was for me.

regular - founder
63 posts

Hope y'all don't mind me hopping into some discussions.

-kbraddock



No, that's great! Hey Kris!
__________________
Amy Shipley
rookie - member
2 posts

First off, let me warn you about Al Maxey. This is a man who denounced me as a patternist because of an article I wrote entitled "Why We Don't Build Fellowship Halls." So I would be careful holding him out as a beacon of sound words.

That being said, he makes good points that show it is wrong to appoint men who are not qualified to be elders to the office. The qualifications of elders and deacons in scripture is more than a checklist but men must meet the list.

I like Kris' analogy to parents. I've been in business meeting that I feel strongly would have gone very differently if wives and/or single women were present. Some would have gone better, others not so much.

I would never saying that a church that allows women in a business meeting is wrong, but it would be a red flag and would cause me to question the corporate wisdom of the church and examine very closely if I wanted to be a member there.

-Jeff

Page 1
posts 1–17 of 17

This Topic Is Locked To Guest Posts

It's been a while since this topic was active, if you'd like to get it going again, please post as a registered member

join now