men's roles – La Vista Church of Christ

Can a woman greet people at the door?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Wed, 27 Aug 2025 17:27:53 +0000

Question:

I have a question. Can women serve as door greeters alongside men? And should young men be participating in overseeing the nursery? For years, our door greeting has been done only by men, and I think it’s odd to change that. We have a young man who participates in the nursery, and I feel that it doesn’t look right at all, nor is it good training for a young man who aspires to be a leader in the church.

Answer:

First, I must note that there is no "door greeter" or "nursery attendant" role in the Bible. I have no idea why parents aren't watching their children in your congregation.

Second, your reasoning is based on not liking traditions being changed. But since those traditions are not from God, they carry no weight.

Women are not allowed to usurp authority over men (I Timothy 2:12). Greeting people at the door does not usurp anyone's authority.

There is nothing wrong with a young man taking care of children. One day, he will be managing his household (I Timothy 3:4, 12), and this would be good practice in dealing with children.

Response:

Thank you. I appreciate your input.

Gender Roles Within the Sacrificial System

Jeffrey Hamilton — Wed, 12 Mar 2025 02:35:44 +0000

by Perry Hall

Gender requirements were specified in the Mosaic sacrificial system. We will reveal how this is important to our topic of gender roles within the church. Before that, let's examine the gender specifications.

The priesthood and the Levitical ministers were all males. This is undisputed and must be meaningful since pagan religions had both male priests and female priestesses. Either pagan religions were more enlightened or less enlightened.

There is another aspect worth considering. Were there gender-specific requirements for the animals being sacrificed?

Burnt offerings had to be male (Leviticus 1:3, 10).
Peace or Fellowship offerings could be male or female (Leviticus 3:1,6).
Sin offerings had to be male for leaders (Leviticus 4:3, 14, 23), but female for the common people (Leviticus 4:28, 32).
Guilt offerings were males (Leviticus 5:15; 6:6).

What is the point of this exercise?

God specified males for both the priesthood and Levitical ministers.
God specified when he wanted male-only sacrifices.
God specified when sacrifices could be male or female.

First, regardless of whether we can discern a reason for God's gender-specific requirements, that is not the point. God declared it. Therefore, that is valid enough.

Second, patriarchy is often negatively described as a power play of male domination over women. However, within the sacrificial system, we see a different dynamic of males sometimes being prioritized - sacrifice, not domination.

Third, whether a sacrifice was male or female did not determine the intrinsic value of the animal. The point was not value within gender. The value is ultimately found in faithfully following God.

Fourth, some exceptions were made when the person was poor. They could offer certain birds that were not gender specific. However, no one had the authority to make the exception the rule. No one had the right to argue that if a female bird was acceptable for some, why not a female cow for atonement for all?

Fifth, if God specified only males for certain sacrifices, who had the right to add female sacrifices? Likewise, if God allowed male or female animals to be sacrificed, then no one had the right under God's law to restrict.

Today, within the church, God has gender-specific roles. The determining factor is not whether males and females are equal; it is God. The sacrificial system in the Law of Moses demonstrates this principle.

Man as the Head

Jeffrey Hamilton — Thu, 13 Jan 2022 17:21:11 +0000

by Doy Moyer

Let’s start with this well-known statement:

“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” (Ephesians 5:23).

The immediate thought seems to be that the man is where “the buck stops” in the home. This makes him responsible in multiple ways. But I want to explore this idea of his being the head beyond that. What I think is sometimes missing here is that the passage itself defines the implications of this.

Notice the qualifying statement about Jesus in context: “He Himself being the Savior of the body.” Let’s clear something up right now. While the man is the “head of the wife,” he is not the “head” to the same extent that Jesus is head over the church. Jesus has authority that no man has, so we need to be careful we aren’t taking this metaphor further than intended. “Head” implies a level of authority, but authority to do what exactly in this context? Boss her around? Give orders to her like a drill sergeant? Of course not. Look at the context because it tells us what this means.

The man here is head in that he has the charge of being a type of “savior” of the body. He cannot save her from her sins as Jesus does, but he can be a protector of the body. This would imply taking caring for, nourishing, and loving the body. And this is the point Paul makes in Ephesians 5:25, 28-30: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her… In the same way, husbands are to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hates his own flesh but provides and cares for it, just as Christ does for the church, since we are members of his body.”

This context defines what it means to be the head and presents the servant-leader model to us. The man gives himself up for his wife. See again Philippians 2:3-5 to see the mind of Christ, a mind that ought to be followed fully in marriage. In this relationship, we do nothing selfishly or in conceit, but in humility treat one another as more important than self. Husbands need to follow this pattern. Headship has its limitations for the husband, and rather than seeing it as a place of power, see it as a position of service.

Let’s go a little further. Ephesians 5:25 says that Christ gave Himself up for the body, and this is the example of what the man is to be doing for his wife. The phrase “gave Himself” is important for seeing the servant-leader model. To get this point firmly fixed, I want to remind us that marriage is intended to be an example of what Christ’s relationship is to those for whom He died in a specific way (Ephesians 5:32). It is to model the love and sacrifice of Christ. With that in mind, consider the point Jesus made to His disciples when they had problems with each other:

“You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those in high positions act as tyrants over them. But it is not so among you. On the contrary, whoever wants to become great among you will be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you will be a slave to all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:42-45).

Now apply this to marriage because there is a direct correlation. Men, you are not to be rulers who lord it over your household, acting like tyrants. If that is expressly forbidden among all disciples, then it would especially be forbidden in a marriage meant to showcase what Christ did for His body. “It is not so among you.” Rather, you are a servant to all. Following Christ’s example, you are not there to be served by your wife, but rather to serve and give your life for her. Isn’t that what Ephesians 5 tells us? You are the head and, yes, the buck stops with you, but as the head, you are the servant who is giving your life. This is the love Jesus showed.

Do not conceive of headship, then, as a position in which you get to wield power and demand whatever you want. You are not God, and that attitude should not be found in husbands. If you are following Christ, then you are a servant who is giving your life and putting her first. That’s the example Jesus gives, and that’s what the text teaches us. Be the godly, loving servant-leader, not the ungodly tyrant-leader.

Man Up

Jeffrey Hamilton — Mon, 10 Jan 2022 16:38:47 +0000

by Doy Moyer

I’d like to talk again with the men here.

Men blaming women for their own sins is as old as Adam and Eve. Literally. You remember what Adam did when confronted by the Lord: “the woman you gave me…” It didn’t work then and it doesn’t work now.

That blame game gets played in multiple ways. “If she wouldn’t dress immodestly, I wouldn’t lust.” “If she just knew how people like me think…” “If she would have stopped, I would have…” In other words, my thoughts and actions that stem from them are her fault. I wouldn’t if she wouldn’t, and she needs to do better. This is a failure at many levels.

God judges those who would purposefully put stumbling blocks in front of others, but this is not what we are talking about here. Even if someone puts that stumbling block in front of you, you are still the one who takes the steps to trip over it (read Proverbs 7). We aren’t children, and if we are, we better grow up. We can accept that God strengthens us to overcome temptations or we can essentially deny our free will. “I can’t help it” is not an acceptable position for God’s people.

In my experience, men are often not very good at accepting blame and they find ways to push their weaknesses off on others. “It’s not my fault.” The spirit of Adam lives on, but God expects better of us. Self-control is a fruit of the Spirit, and we need to add it to our faith (Galatians 5:23; II Peter 1:6). If I lack control in my thoughts and actions, that is on me. Not you. Not her. Me. Remember, too, that it is those described as selfish and brutal who lack self-control (II Timothy 3:1-5).

David didn’t blame Bathsheba for his sin, and Psalms 51 is a testimony to his taking personal responsibility for his actions. This is what we all need to do in the face of our own guilt. If we expect forgiveness to be personal, then we need to take personal responsibility for our thoughts and actions.

Women are not depersonalized objects. They are made in God’s image and need to be treated with godly respect regardless of what they do, how they dress, and what they say. Men, we need to recognize our own sins, repent, and seek the Lord’s mercy without excusing ourselves based on what others say or do. When we do this, we are on our way to spiritual maturity.

“But as for you, exercise self-control in everything …” (II Timothy 4:5). May God help us to do this.

Our Roles Are Not Shameful

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sun, 11 Apr 2021 13:36:10 +0000

by Jarrod M. Jacobs

God created man and woman (Genesis 2:7, 18-25; Matthew 19:4). He also made them to fulfill specific roles on this earth. In Genesis 2:18-25, God states that man and woman have certain roles and responsibilities. These roles have transcended the years and the confines of countries and are with us to this day. For example, God says the husband has the role of headship or leadership in the family (Ephesians 5:23-24). At the same time, neither the husband’s nor the wife’s father is the head of that home. These two must “leave” their parents and “cleave” to one another (Matthew 19:4-6), just as their parents and grandparents did before them. What was stated as fact beginning in Genesis 2 has not changed. These roles must be fulfilled on earth today by men and women who are married.

Within the roles of male and female, we find God assigning to the man such responsibilities as public teaching (I Timothy 2:12), being an elder or a deacon in a local congregation (I Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9), and other roles of leadership in a congregation (I Timothy 2:12). The woman is not permitted to usurp authority over the man in her position or work (I Timothy 2:12).

Even more basic than these roles within families and within the Lord’s church, we find the male’s role as protector and provider and the female’s role as nurturer and caregiver to be God-given as well. This is seen as we study Ephesians 5:22-33; Titus 2:3-5; Proverbs 31; and many other passages. In truth, what seems “innate” to us has, in fact, been explained by God in the Bible.

More can be said about this. These roles are fundamental to our relationships on earth. Yet, I am sorry to say that we live in a world where people try to “deprogram” us from our roles. At times, the attempt is made because some have an agenda to produce a society that is “tolerant” of homosexual sins, bisexual sins, and the like. After all, if the God-given roles of males and females are, in fact, not “God-given” but based upon men’s thoughts and experiences, then males and females can act outside of these roles and not feel ashamed in so doing.

Attempts at destroying the God-given roles of men and women are not new. It is a tool of Satan that he uses to attempt to dethrone God. As proof that this war has been waged for a while, I am reminded of a newspaper article written almost ten years ago!

In the Messenger-Inquirer on Sunday, July 3, 2011. On page E4, A.P. writer Jennifer Soffel wrote about a preschool in Stockholm, Sweden, that made a name for itself by not using “gender terms” when speaking to the preschoolers. They hired “gender pedagogues” to train the staff to avoid using gender terms such as “he,” “she,” “boy,” “girl,” and the like in front of the little children. (Remember, this is ten years ago! These preschoolers in the article are now in Jr. High!) They trained children to use the word “hen” (a word not extant in proper Swedish language but used in the homosexual community of Sweden) when referring to males and females instead of “han” or “hon” (him or her in the Swedish language). In fact, the toys and books used in this preschool were specifically chosen to not “confuse” children into thinking about boys’ and girls’ toys or books which “reinforce stereotypes.”

How ridiculous! One person interviewed in the article said that such an approach actually emasculates the males. I believe this is the case. It is not so much that these people wish for “neutrality” of genders, but an elimination of the male role from society.

Remember, this article was written ten years ago! How much more “progress” has been made since that time? One can also observe how folks are working hard in our country to try to reverse and eliminate the roles of men and women. This is wrong! God gave men and women certain responsibilities and roles within the church, the home, and society. When these are respected, good can come from it. When these are ignored, we have chaos.

For example, how many heads in a family can we have? Can we have 1? 2? More? Would some suggest that none should be the head? Allowing men to answer these questions results in chaos because men might respond in a multitude of ways.

In contrast, the Bible says headship is the man’s role (Ephesians 5:23). He must step up and take responsibility. He must not leave it for others to do! At the same time, the wife must be in submission, taking her role just as the church submits to Christ (Ephesians 5:24). This does not mean one gender is better or worse than the other. This means we have different roles to fulfill in life. This is God’s orderly manner (I Corinthians 14:33).

When thinking about roles, consider the role Christ fulfills. The Bible declares that just as the man is the head of the woman, so also God is the head of Christ (I Corinthians 11:3). Does such a statement make Christ inferior? Does this mean Christ is not deity, or He is “lesser” in some way? By no means! It speaks to a role or work He has done. It is the same way between man and woman. Our job, however, is not to deny this, hide this, eliminate it, etc., but to embrace our God-given roles. Truly, God’s ways are best, and His ways are for our good.

Teaching little children that they ought not to say “him,” “her,” etc., is to deny the obvious! Those who are taught there are no genders or no gender roles are growing up confused and frustrated people.

Let us go back to the Bible and let us respect the Lord’s plan for the home and the roles He has given men and women! Just as His ways are best in salvation, worship, and spiritual matters, so are they the best with earthly relationships!

Is it right for husbands to stay home and raise the children?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Tue, 28 Jan 2014 03:40:00 +0000

Question:

I have a question about providing for the family. I know that if you don't provide you are like the unbelievers, but what about stay-at-home dads who care for kids? I know is not easy taking care of a household: kids, laundry, etc. Do you think it is right in God's eyes?

Answer:

"But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever" (I Timothy 5:8).

This passage is dealing with the requirement that a Christian is responsible for providing for his own family. It is repeated again at the end: "If any believing man or woman has widows, let them relieve them, and do not let the church be burdened, that it may relieve those who are really widows" (I Timothy 5:16).

The managing of the household is the woman's primary responsibility (I Timothy 5:14; Proverbs 14:1; Titus 2:8). It doesn't mean a man can't do the tasks or assist in the tasks, but the woman is better capable and it was assigned to her by God.

Providing for the family is the man's primary responsibility (Ephesians 4:28; II Thessalonians 3:10-12). It doesn't mean a woman can't earn money or assist in the support of the household, but the man is better capable (overall) and it was assigned to him by God.

There are exceptions. A wife might lose her husband and have to both provide for her family and manage the household. A man might become disabled, so his wife must work and he helps as he can at home. These aren't wrong, but they don't change the roles assigned to each. The wife still is responsible to see that the house is cared for even if circumstances cause the husband to do most of the work. The husband is still responsible to see that there is sufficient income even if the wife brings more income in than he does.

Is it wrong for the husband to cook instead of the wife?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 02:14:00 +0000

Question:

Is it wrong for the husband to cook instead of the wife? It appears that it is the role of the wife, but at the same time, we see that men clearly cooked in the Old Testament, such as Esau was told to cook by his father.

I know you might think, "It's in the old covenant", but even in the old covenant when Solomon describes the virtuous woman, she cooks doesn't she? So both can do it?

Is there a problem with the husband cooking instead of the wife?

Answer:

When you find examples of both men and women doing something, then the conclusion must be that it doesn't matter who does it.

Jesus cooked bread and fish: "Then, as soon as they had come to land, they saw a fire of coals there, and fish laid on it, and bread. Jesus said to them, "Bring some of the fish which you have just caught." ... Jesus said to them, 'Come and eat breakfast'" (John 21:9-10, 12).
Jacob cooked red bean stew: "Now Jacob cooked a stew; and Esau came in from the field, and he was weary" (Genesis 25:29).
Martha cooked dinner for the Lord and his disciples: "But Martha was distracted with much serving, and she approached Him and said, 'Lord, do You not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Therefore tell her to help me'" (Luke 10:40).
Lot cooked: "But he insisted strongly; so they turned in to him and entered his house. Then he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate" (Genesis 19:3).
Sarah and a young man cooked: "So Abraham hurried into the tent to Sarah and said, "Quickly, make ready three measures of fine meal; knead it and make cakes." And Abraham ran to the herd, took a tender and good calf, gave it to a young man, and he hastened to prepare it" (Genesis 18:6-7).
Gideon cooked: "So Gideon went in and prepared a young goat, and unleavened bread from an ephah of flour. The meat he put in a basket, and he put the broth in a pot; and he brought them out to Him under the terebinth tree and presented them" (Judges 6:19).
Peter's mother-in-law prepared food: "Now when Jesus had come into Peter's house, He saw his wife's mother lying sick with a fever. So He touched her hand, and the fever left her. And she arose and served them" (Matthew 8:14-15).

Generally, meal preparation falls in the realm of the wife because she is the manager of the household (I Timothy 5:14; Titus 2:5), but it does not follow that men cannot help with the preparations or when men are on their own that they cannot fend for themselves.

Should the man always make the first move in a relationship?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Mon, 01 May 2006 02:28:09 +0000

Question:

I am now in a community where most men at my age are married; only one is single. I think he is a very good person, I don’t dress immodestly like I used to. I think physical attraction would not be important for a man seeing a good woman, although, yes it is a must that he must not dislike her looks and that she has to be attractive to him a bit, although not too much. But this person seems to be not interested in a relationship. I believe that the man is the one who must find the woman and tell her that he loves her not the woman, right? Although I have women friends who have asked the men themselves instead of waiting for the men to ask them. What is your opinion about this?

Answer:

The methods employed in locating a spouse varies widely between cultures. Generally, it is expected that the man initiates the relationship and if you consider it for the moment, it does make a bit of sense. In a marriage relationship, the man is required to be the head of the family (I Corinthians 11:3; Ephesians 5:23). The willingness to speak first is a small demonstration of the ability to lead.

At times, though, a man might need a small push to see what is obvious to the woman. For example, in the story of Ruth, Ruth worked in the fields as a charity case to supply food for her mother-in-law and herself. Ruth didn't realize it, but the field she selected was owned by a relative of her deceased father-in-law. Boaz spoke to her, realized she was related, and made sure that she was protected (Ruth 2:8-13). He even asked her to join him for lunch (Ruth 2:14). Nothing more might have happened, but Naomi, Ruth's mother-in-law, told Ruth that at the celebration at the end of harvest to dress up. "Therefore wash yourself and anoint yourself, put on your best garment and go down to the threshing floor; but do not make yourself known to the man until he has finished eating and drinking. Then it shall be, when he lies down, that you shall notice the place where he lies; and you shall go in, uncover his feet, and lie down; and he will tell you what you should do" (Ruth 3:3-4).

Many scholars conjecture as to what this symbolic action represented, but the most sensible is that Ruth was indicating that she was willing to serve Boaz (willing to be under his feet). Boaz wouldn't hear of Ruth becoming a servant in his house. He was impressed that she had not chased after men as other women did (Ruth 3:10) and he realized that she had an excellent character (Ruth 3:11). Thus, Boaz realized that he wanted Ruth as a wife, not as a servant. Yet, Ruth had to give him a small push to make him realize that she was available and worthy to be his wife by offering to be his servant.

Now, I'm not saying that this is what you need to do to find a husband, but I am saying that you can give a man "hints" that you are interested in marriage if he would consider it.