Hello, my name is Eric Wilson. I was raised as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses and was baptized in 1963 at the age of 14. I served as an elder for 40 years within the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses. With those credentials, I can say without fear of valid contradiction that the women in the Organization are treated as second-class citizens. It is my belief that this is not done with any bad intention. Witness men and women believe they are merely following the direction of Scripture with respect to the role of each sex.
Within the congregation arrangement of Jehovah’s Witnesses, a woman’s ability to worship God is severely restricted. She cannot teach from the platform podium, but can participate in interviews or demonstrations when a brother is chairing the part. She cannot hold any position of responsibility within the congregation, even something as menial as managing the microphones used for getting audience comments during meetings. The only exception to this rule occurs when there is no qualified male available to do the task. Thus, a baptized 12-year-old boy can perform the work of handling the microphones while his own mother must sit by submissively. Imagine this scenario, if you will: A group of mature women with years of experience and superior teaching skills are required to remain silent while a pimply faced, recently baptized 19-year-old presumes to teach and pray on their behalf before heading out into the preaching work.
I’m not suggesting that the situation of women within the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses is unique. The role of women within many churches of Christendom has been a source of contention for hundreds of years.
The question facing us as we strive to return to the model of Christianity practiced by the apostles and first century Christians is what is the real role of women. Are the Witnesses right in their hardline stance?
We can break this down into three principal questions:
- Should women be allowed to pray on behalf of the congregation?
- Should women be allowed to teach and instruct the congregation?
- Should women be allowed to hold positions of oversight within the congregation?
These are important questions, because if we get it wrong, we could hamper the worship of half of the body of Christ. This is not some academic discussion. This is not a matter of “Let’s agree to disagree.” If we are standing in the way of someone’s right to worship God in spirit and truth and in the way God intended, then we are standing between the Father and his children. Not a good place to be on Judgment day, wouldn’t you agree?
Conversely, if we are twisting the proper worship of God by introducing practices that are prohibited, there could also be consequences affecting our salvation.
Let me try to put this into a context I think everyone will be able to grasp: I am half-Irish and half-Scottish. I am about as white as they come. Imagine if I were to tell a fellow Christian male that he could not teach nor pray in the congregation because his skin was the wrong color. What if I claimed that the Bible authorized such a distinction? Some Christian denominations in the past have actually made such outrageous and unscriptural claims. Would that not be a cause for stumbling? What does the Bible say about stumbling the little one?
You might argue that that is not a fair comparison; that the Bible does not prohibit men of different races from teaching and praying; but that it does prohibit women from doing so. Well, that’s the whole point of the discussion isn’t it? Does the Bible actually prohibit women from praying, teaching, and overseeing in the congregation arrangement?
Let us not make any assumptions, okay? I know that strong social and religious bias is at play here, and it is very difficult to overcome bias ingrained since childhood, but we have to try.
So, just clear away all that religious dogma and cultural bias from your brain and let’s start from square one.
Ready? Yes? No, I don’t think so. My guess is that you’re not ready even if you think you are. Why do I suggest that? Because I’m willing to wager that like me, you think the only thing we have to resolve is the role of women. You may be working under the premise—as I was initially—that we already understand the role of men.
If we start with a flawed premise, we’ll never achieve the balance we seek. Even if we properly understand the role of women, that is only one side of the balance. If the other end of the balance holds a skewed view of the role of men, then we will still be out of balance.
Would you be surprised to learn that the Lord’s own disciples, the original 12, had a skewed and unbalanced view of the role of men in the congregation. Jesus had to make repeated attempts to correct their thinking. Mark recounts one such attempt:
“So Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers in this world lord it over their people, and officials flaunt their authority over those under them. But among you it will be different. Whoever wants to be a leader among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must be the slave of everyone else. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve others and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:42-45)
We all assume that men have a right to pray on behalf of the congregation, but do they? We’ll look into that. We all assume men have the right to teach in the congregation and exercise oversight, but to what extent? The disciples had an idea about that, but they were wrong. Jesus said, that the one who wants to be a leader must serve, indeed, he must take on the role of a slave. Does your president, prime minister, king, or whatever act like a slave of the people?
Jesus was coming up with a pretty radical posture to governing, wasn’t he? I don’t see the leaders of many religions today following his direction, do you? But Jesus led by example.
“Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus, who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. No, but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form and became human. More than that, when he came as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, yes, death on a torture stake. For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground— and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.” (Philippians 2:5-11)
I know that the New World Translation gets a lot of criticism, some of it justified, some of it not. But in this instance, it has one of the best renderings of Paul’s thoughts about Jesus expressed here. Jesus was in God’s form. John 1:1 calls him “a god”, and John 1:18 says he is the “only begotten god.” He exists in the nature of God, the divine nature, second only to the almighty Father of all, yet he is willing to give it all up, to empty himself, and more to take on the form of a slave, a mere human, and then to die as such.
He did not seek to exalt himself, but only to humble himself, to serve others. God, it was, who rewarded such self-denying servitude by exalting him to a superior position and granting him a name above every other name.
This is the example both the men and women within the Christian congregation must strive to emulate. So, while focusing on the role of women, we will not overlook the role of men, nor make assumptions about what that role should be.
Let’s start at the very beginning. I’ve heard it’s a very good place to start.
Man was created first. Then the woman was created, but not in the same way as the first man. She was made from him.
Genesis 2:21 reads:
“So Jehovah God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, and while he was sleeping, he took one of his ribs and then closed up the flesh over its place. And Jehovah God built the rib that he had taken from the man into a woman, and he brought her to the man.” (New World Translation)
At one time, this was derided as a fanciful account, but modern science has shown us that it is possible to clone a living being from a single cell. Further, scientists are discovering that stem cells from bone marrow can be used to create various types of cells found in the body. So, using Adam’s genetic material, the master designer could easily have fashioned a female human from it. Thus, Adam’s poetic response to first seeing his wife, was not just a metaphor. He said:
“This is at last bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh. This one will be called Woman, Because from man she was taken.” (Genesis 2:23 NWT)
In this way, all of us are truly derived from one man. We are all from one source.
It is also vital that we understand how unique we are among physical creation. Genesis 1:27 says, “And God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them.”
Humans are made in the image of God. This cannot be said about any animal. We are part of God’s family. At Luke 3:38, Adam is called a son of God. As children of God, we have a right to inherit what our Father possesses, which includes eternal life. This was the birthright of the original pair. All they had to do was to remain loyal to their Father so as to stay within his family and receive life from him.
(In an aside, if you keep the family model in the back of your mind throughout your study of Scripture, you will find that a great many things make sense.)
Did you notice something about the wording of verse 27. Let’s take a second look. “God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him”. If we stop there, we might think that only the man was created in God’s image. But the verse continues: “male and female he created them”. Both the male man and the female man was made in the image of God. In English, the term “woman” means literally, “man with a womb” – womb man. Our reproductive capacities have nothing to do with being created in the image of God. While our physical and physiological makeup differs, the unique essence of humanity is that we, male and female, are children of God made in his image.
Should we disparage either sex as a group, we are disparaging God’s design. Remember, both sexes, male and female, were created in God’s image. How can we demean someone made in the image of God without disparaging God himself?
There is something else of interest to be gleaned from this account. The Hebrew word translated “rib” in Genesis is tsela. Of the 41 times it is used in the Hebrew Scriptures, only here do we find it translated as “rib”. Elsewhere it is a more general term meaning the side of something. The woman was not made from the man’s foot, nor from his head, but from his side. What might that imply? A clue comes from Genesis 2:18.
Now, before we read that, you may have noticed that I’ve been quoting from the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures put out by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society. This is an often-criticized version of the Bible, but it has its good points and credit should be given where credit is due. I have yet to find a Bible translation that is without error and bias. The venerated King James Version is no exception. However, I should also point out that I prefer to use the 1984 version of the New World Translation over the latest 2013 edition. The latter isn’t really a translation at all. It is just a re-edited version of the 1984 edition. Unfortunately, in an attempt to simplify the language, the editorial committee has also introduced a fair bit of JW bias, and so I try to avoid this edition which Witnesses like to call “The Silver Sword” because of its grey cover.
All that being said, the reason I’m using the New World Translation here is that, of the dozens of versions I’ve reviewed, I believe it offers one of the best renderings of Genesis 2:18, which reads:
“And Jehovah God went on to say: “It is not good for the man to continue by himself. I am going to make a helper for him, as a complement of him.”” (Genesis 2:18 NWT 1984)
Here the woman is referred to both as a helper to the man and his complement.
This might appear demeaning at first glance, but remember, this is a translation of something recorded in Hebrew over 3,500 years ago, so we need to go to the Hebrew to determine the writer’s meaning.
Let’s start with “helper”. The Hebrew word is ezer. In English, one immediately will assign a subordinate role to anyone called “a helper”. However, if we scan the 21 occurrences of this word in the Hebrew, we will see that it is often used with reference to God Almighty. We would never cast Yehovah in a subordinate role, would we? It is, in fact, a noble word, often used of one who comes to the aid of someone in need, to give succor and comfort and relief.
Now let’s look at the other word the NWT uses: “complement”.
Dictionary.com gives one definition which I believe fits here. A complement is “either of two parts or things needed to complete the whole; counterpart.”
Either of two parts needed to complete the whole; or a “counterpart”. Of interest is the rendering given this verse by Young’s Literal Translation:
And Jehovah God saith, 'Not good for the man to be alone, I do make to him an helper -- as his counterpart.'
A counterpart is an equal but opposite part. Remember that the woman was made from the man’s side. Side by side; part and counterpart.
There is nothing here to indicate a relationship of boss and employee, king and subject, ruler and ruled.
This is why I prefer the NWT over most other versions when it comes to this verse. Calling the woman a “suitable helper”, as many versions do, makes it sound like she’s a really good assistant. That is not the flavor of this verse given all the context.
At the start, there was balance in the relationship between the man and the women, part and counterpart. How that would have developed as they had children and the human population grew is a matter of conjecture. It all went south when the pair sinned by rejecting God’s loving oversight.
The result destroyed the balance between the sexes. Yehovah told Eve: “your craving will be for your husband, and he will dominate you.” (Genesis 3:16)
God didn’t bring about this change in the male/female relationship. It grew out naturally from the imbalance within each sex that resulted from the corrupting influence of sin. Certain traits would become predominant. One has only to look at how women are being treated today in the various cultures on earth to see the accuracy of God’s prediction.
That being said, as Christians, we do not look for excuses for improper conduct between the sexes. We can acknowledge that sinful tendencies may be at work, but we strive to imitate the Christ, and so we resist the sinful flesh. We work to meet the original standard God intentioned to guide relationships between the sexes. Therefore, Christian men and women have to work at finding the balance that was lost due to the sin of the original pair. But how can this be accomplished? Sin is such a powerful influence after all.
We can do it by imitating the Christ. When Jesus came, he did not reinforce old stereotypes but instead laid the ground work for the children of God to overcome the flesh and put on the new personality fashioned after the model he set for us.
Ephesians 4:20-24 reads:
“But you did not learn the Christ to be like this, if, indeed, you heard him and were taught by means of him, just as truth is in Jesus. You were taught to put away the old personality that conforms to your former course of conduct and that is being corrupted according to its deceptive desires. And you should continue to be made new in your dominant mental attitude, and should put on the new personality that was created according to God’s will in true righteousness and loyalty.”
Colossians 3:9-11 tells us:
“Strip off the old personality with its practices, and clothe yourselves with the new personality, which through accurate knowledge is being made new according to the image of the One who created it, where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, foreigner, Scythian, slave, or freeman; but Christ is all things and in all.”
We have much to learn. But first, we have much to unlearn. We will begin by viewing what roles God has assigned to women as recorded in the Bible. That will be the topic of our next video.
Archived Comments
We have moved to the Disqus commenting system. To post a new comment, go to the bottom of this page.
Comment by Beroeans Creed on 2020-10-24 07:42:20
Excellent topic Eric and one that is very timely for our day, looking forward to the next one!
Aside note, maybe put this series in book form so marriage counselor’s can have a hard copy. LolReply by Meleti Vivlon on 2020-10-24 08:50:40
It, and the following ones, are all going into the book I'm currently writing. Working Title:
IN THE TRUTH?
A Scriptural Analysis
of the Teachings and Policies
Unique to Jehovah's WitnessesReply by Beroeans Creed on 2020-10-24 09:03:02
Excellent, more and more, although not leaving the organization are Waking up and this forum along with others are a “no agenda here” tool for the dazed and confused escaping the “deluding influence” of the self proclaimed FDS.
Any release date set for this book?Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2020-10-24 09:06:05
I'm working hard to have the final manuscript to the printer by year's end. Trouble is, I keep having to produce these darn videos. <grin>
Reply by marielle on 2020-10-26 05:59:40
Ce livre sera t-il traduit en français ?
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2020-10-26 09:44:18
Nous commencerons en anglais et en espagnol. Ce sera entre 200 et 300 pages, donc ce serait une tâche ardue de le traduire en français. Je ne parle pas français, mais si des bénévoles se manifestent, je pense que nous pouvons le faire.
Comment by Jack on 2020-10-24 20:47:08
Women in the OT were prophets.
But they were not leaders. Christ did not appoint a woman to the twelve. Why? Because God did not say that women should be appointed to leadership positions.
She is emotionally subject to her husband and rightfully connected to her children. While a man can, if called for, put God above all things including wife and children. Man and woman are created differently.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2020-10-24 20:52:29
None of us are to be leaders. The apostles were not leaders. I agree that women should not be leaders. But neither should men. One is our leader, the Christ.
Reply by Jack on 2020-10-24 21:00:11
Christ said we should not call one another, Leaders. The bald fact is that Paul, Peter, and those that came after were leaders in the practical sense.
It they were not then why are we following what they wrote to the extent of putting their word above all else?Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2020-10-24 21:06:01
So your reasoning is that we can be a leader as long as we don't call anyone a leader. That doesn't fit, because Jesus doesn't continue saying "because only Christ is called your leader". He says that "for your leader is one".
I also disagree with the implication in your statement "While a man can, if called for, put God above all things including wife and children." I infer from that that you are suggesting that a woman is not capable of putting "God above all things including husband and children."Reply by Jack on 2020-10-24 21:27:44
(Matthew 23:10) . . .Neither be called ‘leaders,’ for YOUR Leader is one, the Christ.
I believe this is plain. But the reality is men have always taken a leadership position with the result that millions follow.
Is there an example in the Bible where a mother has left her young children to follow God or Christ? No.
But in the Watchtower yes! Where mothers have deserted their children not for God but for the Watchtower.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2020-10-24 21:35:39
I really don't understand what your point is.
"But the reality is men have always taken a leadership position with the result that millions follow." This is obvious, but what's your point?
"Is there an example in the Bible where a mother has left her young children to follow God or Christ? No." Again, what's your point?
"But in the Watchtower yes! Where mothers have deserted their children not for God but for the Watchtower." Are you suggesting something negative about the female of the species? Are you suggesting that men are different in this regard?
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2020-10-24 21:10:24
Additionally, we are following what they wrote because we consider it to be the inspired words of God, not because we are following men. There are words from women in the bible which we also follow. Barak followed the instructions from Judge Deborah.
Reply by Jack on 2020-10-24 21:35:16
True, but Barak took the lead.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2020-10-24 21:47:48
No, Deborah told him what to do as God's prophet, and he obeyed, but he wouldn't even do it unless she came along. He may have been the general, but she was the commander in chief. Check it out for yourself.
“She sent for Barak [He didn’t send for her, she summoned him.] and said to him: “Has not Jehovah the God of Israel given the command? ‘Go and march to Mount Tabor, and take 10,000 men of Naphtali and Zebulun with you. I will bring to you Sisera, the chief of Jabin’s army, along with his war chariots and his troops to the stream of Kishon, and I will give him into your hand.’” [Who is planning military strategy here? Not Barak. He’s taking his orders from God by the mouth of Deborah whom God is using as his prophet.] At this Barak said to her: “If you go with me, I will go, but if you do not go with me, I will not go.” [Barak will not even go on this military campaign unless Deborah comes along. He knows that God’s blessing is coming through her.] To this she said: “I will certainly go with you. However, the campaign you are going on will not bring you glory, for it will be into the hand of a woman that Jehovah will give Sisera.” (Judges 4:6-9)Reply by Jack on 2020-10-24 22:02:14
Who did the "marching" not Deborah. It is men who do the dirty work women cannot lead into battle.
Did not Jehovah tell Deborah to get Barak for the Battle?
Deborah was a prophet so it makes sense that Barak would not go into battle without her but the actual fighting, the battle, was Barak's.
They worked together.Reply by Jack on 2020-10-24 22:31:45
This is the truth of it. Today and tomorrow and forever.
Women are given the privilege of nurturing their children. Men the privilege of keeping his family safe.
It will never change.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2020-10-25 00:08:08
You are sounding very much like the man of Genesis 3:16
Reply by Frankie on 2020-11-07 16:22:22
Eric, I would like to have your patience ;o)
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2020-11-07 16:33:30
?
Reply by Fani on 2020-10-25 03:06:08
Romains 16 : 1 "Je vous recommande Phœbé notre sœur, qui est ministre de la congrégation qui est à Cenchrées, 2 pour que vous l’accueilliez dans [le] Seigneur d’une manière digne des saints, et que vous l’assistiez en toute affaire où elle peut avoir besoin de vous, car elle aussi s’est faite le défenseur de beaucoup, oui, de moi-même."
Les femmes peuvent être appelées à une autre fonction que élever des enfants (élever des enfants etant très louable) .Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2020-10-25 09:09:23
An excellent point, Nicole.
Reply by safeguardyourheart on 2020-10-25 10:52:21
Men are giving the privilege of nurturing their children. Women the privilege of keeping his family safe.
This is the truth of it. Today tomorrow and forever. We can't be LEGALISTIC here. Correct? It will never change.
The use of NURTURE carries the sense of feeding. Since they feed physically you bet they do so spiritually too.
Listen, my son, to your FATHER'S INSTRUCTION and do not forsake your MOTHER'S TEACHING.
We can't be LEGALISTIC about this
Reply by Fani on 2020-10-25 02:53:37
Je suis une femme et je me permets de parler.
Nous les suivons tant qu'ils nous enseignent ce que Christ leur a appris.
Lorsqu'ils enseignent des commandemments d'hommes, nous ne les suivons pas. Ils ne sont pas nos chefs, pas nos maîtres.
Lorsque Pierre cachait qu'il mangeait avec des incirconcis, nous ne suivons pas son attitude. Paul n'a pas suivi Pierre dans cette circonstance. Au contraire, il le reprend. Pourtant Pierre a été choisi par Christ.
Il n'y a aucun leader chez les hommes ou les femmes.
Ta soeur Nicole
Ta semblable.
Reply by safeguardyourheart on 2020-10-25 10:43:59
They were LEADING but not LEADERS.
Paul said be obedient to those TAKING THE LEAD. They are not LEADERS
Reply by simon1288 on 2020-12-06 07:05:14
what does it mean to be a leader?
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2020-12-06 08:59:20
In the context of Christianity, it means to be the Christ.
Reply by safeguardyourheart on 2020-10-25 10:31:28
Everyone LEADING should be called a LEADER according to Jack at it seems. Since that is the case you should accept WOMEN equally occupy LEADING positions at home and where ever and by EXTENSION are LEADERS.
Jesus said Peter feed my sheep now equals PETER is a SHEPHERD but we know by PROFESSION Peter is a Fisherman. The reason we cannot say Peter is my SHEPHERD despite being asked to feed us who are the SHEEP by his own master and SHEPHERD