Gender Roles , expectations in Christ

[Rami]

Hi Everybody,

Today I was pondering over the issues of gender. I am female, enjoy being a woman, feminine, and also am strong, capable.  I love jewelry , make- up dresses.
I was thinking about the fact that as a young woman , and an older one, I always heard people say that  " I need a man" and I thought I did also. I thought God made men and women to "need" each other for balance and for daily duties, among other things.
  I thought children " needed " fathers for protection and guidance and covering.
  I raised two children by myself, and although I prayed for  the right partner, God never answered with one.  My own father was unable to be in their lives, neither was my brother. I was thinking about challenging the concept that as women , we need a man. I  am figuring that God Himself thinks I do not need one. I am okay with that now, enjoying it as much as a can fully, but wondering about this.
  I love men and appreciate them very much. God has placed certain men at different times in my life to be a blessing- although not in a husband or father role.  This is not an anti- man thing. But I wonder about the ideas I had that held me miserable for so long in the past.  If I thought I needed something that God never provided, I might be angry or have a real cause for resentment.
However, if Jesus is the only man I "need" then all is well, and I have all I need in Him.
  Is that a feminist idea, or a God idea? God freed women from many cultural chains that held us in bondage. There is an instance in scripture in which He allows for women to inherit, which was against Jewish culture. In every culture that has embraced the Gospel woman have been liberated. Jesus appeared first to a woman in His glorified state.
Galatians 3: 28 states that:

 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

  Often wrong expectations and ideas about what "should" be have caused me some unnecessary frustration in the past. What do you all think about this?

  How do we balance the fact we are "whole in Christ" with the cultural and biblical concepts of , " He thought it was not good for man to be alone" and so made the female counterpart?

Adam apparently "needed" Eve , so God provided.  Adam was already there when Eve came along, so she never experienced that alone-ness.

That doesn't mean I personally "need a man"

  Is the use of the word," need" improper- since all we truly "need" is Christ Himself who makes us whole?

Since everything God chooses is the right thing for us, then the idea that a woman "needs" a man is not helpful. I think some of my anger in the past at God was the misconception that He was not giving me something I needed and it seemed not consistent with His nature, and appeared to me as mean. I am in so much peace now because I understand better that His choices for me are based on His perfect love and knowledge of what would be the best blessing for me.
Is it possible that God thinks I do not need a man?

Does that mean that He thinks I am better off without one? I accept what ever God chooses as delightful and best , and I can see the blessing in both states, and I want to truly enjoy whatever state I am in.  Is it "right" for me to say I don't need"  a man?

Or does this fuel a feminist idea that is not proper for Christians?

Any ideas? Thoughts? Reflections on being fully man/ or woman without the other?

Are there general principles that apply that do not necessarily apply to individual cases? Perhaps for His higher purpose some people do, and others don't- according to His perfect will and personal plan for each person?

What are your thoughts?





 

[Rx]

 Everyone has really been coming up with great threads and posts.
 
 I sometimes dont respond because of the variety of applicable answers.

 When I think about this sort of thing in my own life
 I often recall what
Daniel said:
 
  Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever:
  for wisdom and might are his:
  And he changeth the times and the seasons:
  he removeth kings, and setteth up kings ...
 
That chafes a little when it comes to things that have been engrained in
 my mental view of what I expect from my culture,
 and are suddenly taken from me
 or are continually bucking against me
 even tho all the factors are in place
 that SHOULD have rendered a "better" result, in my view.

 Maybe Timothy struggled with that also, as Paul directed him:

I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings,
 be made on behalf of all men,
 for kings and all who are in authority,
 so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.

It seems like a constant theme:

Obey them that have the rule over you,
 and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls,
 as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy,
 and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
Hebrews 13:17

I hope you can see the connection here.
 A lot of what befalls us as individuals
 is the fallout of a miriad of linked events...
 all of which God has had control over
 and even directly caused in many cases;
 and yet He fully expects us to submit graciously.

 I for one am (obvoiusly) not always on top of this concept.
 (Like when people I challenge for meddling in my life,
 just plug their ears and walk away.)

 In any case,
 I really think this idea you mention from Galatians of
 "neither male nor female" is closer to the mark than might initially
  seem to fit the "rational" concept of life.

Jesus said

For in the resurrection they
 neither marry nor are given in marriage,
 but are like angels in heaven.

 I wonder if part of the MERCY of being single for example,
 is a preparation for that. It just doesn't feel like mercy,
 just like not having ice cream for every meal
 didnt feel like mercy when I was a little younger.

 

[C_Ruth]

Adam was alone in a way different from what any person after him ever was--he was the only human being around! One aspect of God's provision for companionship, was giving him a human companion who was his equal, rather than just the inferior companionship of the animals.  And He gives us companionship with other humans as well, whether or not we are married.

Another aspect of God's providing help and companionship was that He gave Adam a wife. And from a purely practical standpoint, if the human race was to continue, and there were to be additional companions beyond the one God created, it needed to be a wife that God gave him.

Having said that, I do believe God was establishing an important example of his plan for the home and society when He gave Eve to Adam.  He gave Adam a wife--not a harem of them, and not another man instead of a woman. And it is still in His plan that many people marry and have families.

But other Scriptures would indicate that His statement about not being good for man to be alone does not mean it is His plan for every individual man to have a wife, and every individual woman to have a husband.

• In Jeremiah 16:2, God specifically instructed the prophet Jeremiah not to take a wife.
• Jesus spoke of those "which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake" (Matthew 19:12).
  
• First Corinthians 7 has a number of verses explaining the benefit it is to remain single, at least in certain circumstances. "I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I" (v. 8 ). "But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord" (v. 32). "And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction" (v. 35). (Read the whole passage.)
• Jesus Himself lived His earthly life as a single person.  If God's will were for every person to be married, I believe Jesus would have set the example in that also. "
• We have no reason to believe that Martha and her sister Mary were married, (as well as various other Bible characters) but neither do we have any record that Jesus told them, "I am going to send you husbands so you can have the very best I have for you." At one point, He specifically said of Mary that she had chosen the good part, and it would not be taken away. (I know that conversation had nothing to do with marital status. But he was pronouncing a blessing on her and her actions in her single state--not suggesting she needed to change it to reach the "best.")

If the statement "I don't need a man" is made with an independent, selfish spirit--"I am all I need. I don't want a man, and I won't get one until I decide I am good and ready!" it may well be fueling a feminist idea.

But if the statement comes from a spirit of submission to God and delight in His will, that is an entirely different story.  It is perfectly proper to say, "I have committed my life to God for whatever He wants; if He wants me to serve Him as a married person, I am ready for that; but if He wants me to serve Him as a single person, I am ready for that. My fulfillment is in doing His will--not from any other person."

I am reminded of the words of a song in one of our hymn books.  "I Love You, Lord Jesus" by Wilmer Shenk, printed in Zion's Praises. (The song is not copyrighted, so there is no problem copying it here.)

Lord, light the great fires of your love in my soul,
O kindle those burnings divine;
And let your great Spirit flow freely within
To witness that Jesus is mine.

Chorus:
I love you Lord Jesus, I love you today,
I love you in spirit and mind,
My body is yours for anything, Lord,
I'm satisfied now in your love.
I'm satisfied now in your love.

O wonderful, wonderful Jesus my Lord,
O wonderful Savior Divine;
O wonderful, wonderful Jesus my friend,
The dearest that I may call mine.
(Chorus)

O fill me and use me and bless me I pray
And grace all my life with Your love,
That I may breathe humbly and boldly the truth
That blazes Your glory above.
(Chorus)

[Rx]

Awesome thoughts CR.
 I just had a couple observations to offer
 for the sake of at least two specific but important circumstances.

To add to your list of persons that should remain single:

I think  any man who cant afford it,
for any of the three reasons listed in
Exodus 21:10 should remain single.
 Paul says a certain aspect of that is her "burden" as well.

He gave Adam a wife--not a harem of them...

Im... a little reluctant to disclude ALL categories
 of men in agreeing with your thought.

For example I realize he gave Adam one wife,
 but he "didnt NOT" give him a second wife.

One instance is Boaz and Ruth.
 Not to claim he was already married:
Just that a 'near kinsman-redeemer' need not be single,
as Boaz's brother seemed not to be.

There are FEW categories of men that fit the 'subsequent wife' model,
but the bible does specify that
kings and
bishops,
decons, and
elders,  and
those who have rejected a prior wife,
 or those who would be breaking a civil law
"must" avoid it while their fomer partners are living.

Infact given all those limits,
the only category that comes to mind is
a man that is not view by civil law to be married,
even tho he is veiwed to be by holy scripture,
AND has been divorced by his wife.

Of course, in western culture, even the kinsman-redeemer is denied by law,
 thanks to the 'new' teaching by the church* that ALL polygamy is satanic,
 (*see Canon II).
 (I wish they would show me the "divine law" where they claim to have based this.)
Their believing it is better to be a virgin is one thing,
 but I personally think that spun-off some jealous law making
against men who were not commanded to celibacy by their "order".

Now it seemeth to be our lot to bow to all manner of "reformation".

Hope you dont see this as a
blanket disregard for your many good thoughts CR.
Far from it. Keep up the good work.