# Please discuss the role of women - in the church and out



## jules5solas

I don't know where to post this - still learning the ropes! Move if necessary 

I only have a few minutes to ask this and then on to my kids!

I am really trying to work through all that I learned growing up about women in and out of the church. I am no longer in the church that I grew up in but time and again I have had to work through all that was ingrained in me. 

I have trouble with all of these points in that some might have good general basis but then is taken too far. 

General things we learned that I am wanting scriptural reasons for or against:

1) Women are never to speak in the church during public worship. (Including reading scripture, giving out a hymn, only singing)

2) Women are never to teach men. Period. (except in Sunday School - interesting lack of consistency)

3) Women are to be mentors to other women but only in the realm of loving your husbands, being keepers at home, and in regards to the children. Not doctrine or anything that pertains to teaching the Bible. 

4) Women are to cover their heads in corporal gatherings including Bible studies at home with men around.

5) Women are not to teach doctrine. Parachurch organizations like BSF, Beth Moore groups etc. are not scriptural because they have one woman teaching doctrine to other women.

6) The only males women are to teach are their own children and perhaps in a small setting like Priscilla and Aquila with Apollos.

There's plenty more but I am so grieved writing this because of the restrictions that were placed on us over the years. We were limited to devotions, missionary ministries, serving food and cleaning the church and teaching Sunday school (they left teaching Sunday school to the women). I am interested in what your thoughts are. Just throw anything out there, I have a lot to work through!


----------



## CDM

See the short paper in the PB Theological Journal forum found here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f87/place-women-church-19543/. It might serve you as a good primer for further study.


----------



## OPC'n

> 1) Women are never to speak in the church during public worship. (Including reading scripture, giving out a hymn, only singing)


 Not sure exactly what you mean by this sentence. Did your church have men other than the Pastor reading Scripture during the service? This would be inappropriate for either sex to do while the pastor is leading the service. The worship service isn't a free for all for men either. There needs to be order and the one who establishes that order is the pastor (or a male who is allowed to lead the service who might be taking the pastor's place for that service). "giving out a hymn" don't really know what you mean here, but did men in your service call out hymns they wanted sung during the worship service? Again, if this is what you mean, this would be extremely disorganized and the leader really wouldn't be leading...the male congregation would be....not cool. So, really men and women in the worship service are to listen to the pastor's reading of the Scripture and his preaching without interruption (nothing wrong with saying "amen" while he preaches....our Baptist brothers enjoy doing so). Women are to be silent in church in that they are not to teach men or give them direction or be over them in any fashion. However, women are allow to sing, say the creeds and Lord's Prayer etc. To be honest, the men of our congregation don't do anything different during the service than the women except for passing the Lord's Supper and the offering plate.



> 2) Women are never to teach men. Period. (except in Sunday School - interesting lack of consistency)


 They really need to stick with "Period".... unacceptable for women to teach men in SS. 



> 3) Women are to be mentors to other women but only in the realm of loving your husbands, being keepers at home, and in regards to the children. Not doctrine or anything that pertains to teaching the Bible.


 Wrong!



> 4) Women are to cover their heads in corporal gatherings including Bible studies at home with men around.


 Well, now we've got a problem with this one....there are no head coverings in my denomination (OPC) but there are some here who believe that women should cover their heads....so you won't get a definite answer on this one....do still have my packer's hat handy though PRN. 



> 5) Women are not to teach doctrine. Parachurch organizations like BSF, Beth Moore groups etc. are not scriptural because they have one woman teaching doctrine to other women.


 Well, Beth Moore has her problems but it's not in the fact that she teaches women.



> 6) The only males women are to teach are their own children and perhaps in a small setting like Priscilla and Aquila with Apollos.


 They may teach the Gospel to unbelieving males and females in order to spread the Gospel, but once that male takes an interest that female Gospel-spreader should direct them to a Bible believing church. They must teach their children doctrine (for instance in homeschooling etc) which is ultimately overseen by their husbands.


----------



## jules5solas

I agree with everything you're saying. I am studying/researching to have a solid scriptural basis for this. They have their own reasons why they believe this is the proper place / role for women. I believe it's taken out of context (one verse setting boundaries or 'musts' instead of principles and 'shoulds'.)

The church I came out of has no pastor, only elders. Worship consists of all the men participating in prayer, giving out a hymn, giving a word. It's not chaotic, it's quite calm and organized. They believe they are allowing the Holy Spirit to lead. I have different opinions on this. Also, the women cover their heads with veils. The only males the women taught were the Sunday school kids classes.

I wish there was something that systematically laid things out concerning specific women's ministry or roles. Is there a book like that that anyone can suggest?


----------



## Grillsy

jules5solas said:


> I agree with everything you're saying. I am studying/researching to have a solid scriptural basis for this. They have their own reasons why they believe this is the proper place / role for women. I believe it's taken out of context (one verse setting boundaries or 'musts' instead of principles and 'shoulds'.)
> 
> The church I came out of has no pastor, only elders. Worship consists of all the men participating in prayer, giving out a hymn, giving a word. It's not chaotic, it's quite calm and organized. They believe they are allowing the Holy Spirit to lead. I have different opinions on this. Also, the women cover their heads with veils. The only males the women taught were the Sunday school kids classes.
> 
> I wish there was something that systematically laid things out concerning specific women's ministry or roles. Is there a book like that that anyone can suggest?



Hi Julie!
You perhaps I can help you out with these questions.
You should have just asked LOL 
Obviously, you know where I stand on the head covering issue but you would be better off have Angelica give you the full run down on the issue.
I have some books somewhere, they're all in boxes right now, dealing with the very issues that you have raised. I will try to find them for you. Would that be helpful?


----------



## jules5solas

So, give me a few pointers, Seminary Intern! 

I know your stance on headcovering. However, what are the biblical reasons for holding to whatever view you hold. I am trying to get more input here!

The reason why I'm asking this is because I know someone who has asked the elders of his church to approve of him participating in BSF (Bible study fellowship) as a leader in the men's evening study. Because of the women teaching women issue, they said they cannot approve. So, it sparked a discussion.

I have to say that all the years I've been at this church has led me to be sensitive to the topic. However, I'd like to take a good look at it since it comes up here and there.


----------



## Contra Marcion

> Well, now we've got a problem with this one....there are no head coverings in my denomination (OPC) but there are some here who believe that women should cover their heads....so you won't get a definite answer on this one....do still have my packer's hat handy though PRN.



There are, of course head coverings in the OPC, my wife and daughter being two of those heads. (See Sarah's famous "Packer Hat" thread for further discussion

Seriously, though - many OPC'ers do cover, most don't. No one makes a big deal about it either way. Obey the Scriptures as best you can, as you (and your elders) understand them.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

As far as SS goes,
I would say it isn't inconsistent for women to teach certain classes:

1) a women's class. Why? Titus 2:3-4

2) a children's SS class of boys and girls. Why? Because young children are under a woman's direct authority already--their mother. So, if they are already taught the Bible and doctrine by one (and Mom SHOULD be teaching them this--not just Dad's duty), then it isn't inconsistent to be taught by one in another context.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

In the congregation, gathered for worship, women should do everything the congregation does together. But they shouldn't lead--which would be getting up and praying or reading. Those would be "leading" functions, which the rest of the people should be entering into corporately as followers.

As for being mentors, Acts 18:26 puts Priscilla ahead of Aquila, leading me to conclude at the very least when "they" were explaining to Apollos the way more accurately, she wasn't being a wallflower.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I won't comment much on headcoverings. There's enough material from women on this board to keep you reading for a long time, and coming to clear conclusions for yourself. Personally, my wife thinks it's proper for her to wear something in public worship. Not every reformed church or denomination takes a decided stance on this topic.

Parachurch ministries are a strange item. They don't seem envisioned by Christ or the Apostles anywhere. They usually exist so that no church can tell the founders or present leadership what to do. Practically, it's about control, and about being able to draw financial support from the broadest possible spectrum (unconstrained by a common belief-system).

That some have as their primary teacher a woman only suggests to me another reason for stepping outside the accountability structure of the church.


----------



## Scott1

You may find the search function helpful in studying past threads on Puritan Board about this topic generally. (Search function is upper right, use a key word such as "women")

One recent thread that might be helpful on the topic of women teaching, preaching, exhorting as part of public (corporate) worship:http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/women-leading-public-worship-50838/

Here's one on whether the Bible qualifies women for church office of Deacon: http://www.puritanboard.com/f116/biblical-argument-men-only-deacons-34204/

Here was a thread discussing a list of things women may and may not do biblically in the life of the visible church:http://www.puritanboard.com/f47/women-cant-pastors-etc-but-what-about-all-these-others-roles-40418/

Regarding "head coverings" for women: http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/head-covering-10515/


----------



## Scott1

I'll try and hazard an answer based on Scriptural principles, including the creation order, as best I understand it. My suggestion is you avail yourself of the many good postings on the threads about this topic, some of them very recent (see links above).

Sin and the fall has made men not want to do their role. It has made women not want to do their role. There is a beautiful complimentary role of men and women that patterns from the creation order. 

Those who are married often come to understand this, though imperfectly, and though there is difficulty in this world because of sin, what a wonderful thing it is when a man and woman work together in a complementary way, in Christ! 

It is based on both being worthy of respect as made in the image of God. That doesn't mean God has not established authority relationships, which are really accountabilities upon which men and women will be judged.

That should not surprise us, nor that our culture today more and more reflects confusion about this, and while promising "equality" curiously is having the effect of devaluing the dignity of both men and women. Sin, rebellion, and God giving us over to our darkened imaginations result when we do not follow God's Word. Confusion, disorder and disturbance follow (though the world, flesh and devil say "equality" peace and freedom). Big topic 



jules5solas said:


> I don't know where to post this - still learning the ropes! Move if necessary
> 
> I only have a few minutes to ask this and then on to my kids!
> 
> I am really trying to work through all that I learned growing up about women in and out of the church. I am no longer in the church that I grew up in but time and again I have had to work through all that was ingrained in me.
> 
> I have trouble with all of these points in that some might have good general basis but then is taken too far.
> 
> General things we learned that I am wanting scriptural reasons for or against:
> 
> 1) Women are never to speak in the church during public worship. (Including reading scripture, giving out a hymn, only singing)
> Women should not teach, preach or exhort as part of public worship. Men are set by God to lead in this way as befits both the creation order pattern and specific Scripture (e.g. qualifying men as ministers, bishops, deacons, elders).
> 
> My understanding is women may speak informally, responsively, incidentally, certainly sing, pray responsively, be in choir, band, etc. While I think ordinarily a man ought lead a choir, band, etc. a woman might do that if she does not exhort or teach as part of it.
> 
> 2) Women are never to teach men. Period. (except in Sunday School - interesting lack of consistency)
> Women are not to teach men in church in the sense of leading men or mixed adult groups of men or women. Women teach other women, and while some may not agree here, I understand may teach young children. Women "teach" and "lead" by example in many ways, however.
> 
> 3) Women are to be mentors to other women but only in the realm of loving your husbands, being keepers at home, and in regards to the children. Not doctrine or anything that pertains to teaching the Bible.
> Titus 2 specifically has a place for more mature women teaching younger women, for example. I do not understand it to be limited to that.
> 
> 4) Women are to cover their heads in corporal gatherings including Bible studies at home with men around.
> Frankly, I had never heard of this until Puritan Board about a year ago. (Only then recalling my grandmother had worn a hat in church). You may find some of the thread discussions about this helpful. Some of the threads have been long and passionate, as well as informative.
> 
> 5) Women are not to teach doctrine. Parachurch organizations like BSF, Beth Moore groups etc. are not scriptural because they have one woman teaching doctrine to other women.
> As a general proposition, women may teach other women. Beth Moore's theology might be a separate matter. Women and men ought to be availing themselves of the ordinary means of grace, e.g. preaching and teaching through officers (male) God has called through the local church, however.
> 
> I have never thought of parachurch organizations as inherently unbiblical but there have been some good discussions about this on Puritan Board (use search function above, upper right). "Para" church does not replace the local church.
> 
> 
> 6) The only males women are to teach are their own children and perhaps in a small setting like Priscilla and Aquila with Apollos.
> Women may teach young children generally and I think informally as you seem to be describing.
> 
> There's plenty more but I am so grieved writing this because of the restrictions that were placed on us over the years. We were limited to devotions, missionary ministries, serving food and cleaning the church and teaching Sunday school (they left teaching Sunday school to the women). I am interested in what your thoughts are. Just throw anything out there, I have a lot to work through!



There is so much to be done in the local church through mercy and helps for both men and women, no one who is seeking God should feel limited or need to usurp authority. There are so many needs.


----------



## Tim

jules5solas said:


> There's plenty more but I am so grieved writing this because of the restrictions that were placed on us over the years. We were limited to devotions, missionary ministries, serving food and cleaning the church and teaching Sunday school (they left teaching Sunday school to the women).[...]



You might feel restricted now, but a prayerful petition for God to show you the places where you might Biblically serve may uncover some areas of church life that provide many challenging opportunities. There are many areas of great importance that although they are not part of formal/official teaching and leadership, are nonetheless crucial for a healthy local church body. 

As such, it's not so much of 'restriction' as it is "don't look there...look here - see how much there is to do?". 

Have you considered this verse?



> Tit 2:3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;
> Tit 2:4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
> Tit 2:5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.



No matter whether you find yourself on the end of mentor or protege, there is enough here to challenge one greatly for years and years. Being part of these behind-the-scenes relationships is a very worthwhile part of the church body. 

I myself am not in formal ministry, but the current burden on my heart is to encourage people to engage in deep and meaningful theological discussions. And it is exceedingly difficult! This is a function that is available to men and women both. 

Blessings to you! All Christians have a role to play. 



> 1Co 12:16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
> 1Co 12:17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
> 1Co 12:18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.


----------



## Peairtach

Women are a wonderful creation of God and very important - as important as men.

In the family they are equal but subordinate to their husbands. Children are equal but subordinate to their father and mother. This reflects the order within the Holy Triunity.

Since the church is the family of God, this order is also reflected in the church.

The outworking of this in society will naturally lead to certain roles for men and women, although the Bible seems to be more open on women taking leading roles in society e.g. being queens. Although I've still to read Knox's "First Blast" to see what he says.

In Heaven some (many) women will shine with more glory than the men, because they have been more godly and fruitful on earth, and some sisters outshine their brothers already. In that sense there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, male and female in the church. There are mysteries there about what we shall yet be in Heaven, where there is no marriage or giving in marriage.

This is a good book on the subject:-

[ame="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Recovering-Biblical-Manhood-Womanhood-Evangelical/dp/185684045X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248783610&sr=1-1"]Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: Reponse to Evangelical Feminism: Amazon.co.uk: John Piper, Wayne Grudem: Books[/ame]


----------



## SolaScriptura

I thought the purpose of women was to help their husband fulfill his duties in a supporting capacity.


----------



## Montanablue

SolaScriptura said:


> I thought the purpose of women was to help their husband fulfill his duties in a supporting capacity.



I'm hoping that this is a little tongue in cheek, because you've completely left out single women and widows.

Furthermore, I would contend that the purpose of women is to "glorify God and enjoy him forever." How exactly we do that can be discussed at length, but to reduce the entire purpose of women to "help their husband" seems a bit simplistic.


----------



## Caroline

In regard to women teaching men, I think there's a lot of inconsistency and not just in Sunday School. 

For example, consider this board. There are lots of women and also men. There are even pastors and elders.

Now suppose we were discussing something theological, and, in a rare moment of insight, I said something profound. (Hey, shut up. It could happen. ) It's is theoretically possible that somebody here could learn something from what I said. Some pastor might even say, "Huh! I could use that as a sermon illustration!" (Ok, now I'm seriously flattering myself. But it's just to make a point). So whenever women and men are permitted to be around each other and both speak, generally men are likely to learn something from the women (and women learn from the men also, of course, but that isn't the disputed direction of education).

I have been to churches before where women aren't allowed to say much of anything even just in conversation lest they 'teach men'. (Needless to say, I didn't fit in well there, on account of my apparent inability to be quiet). But clearly, that isn't the rule in Reformed churches. So is the rule that women just aren't allowed to teach men in a FORMAL setting?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I was talking to my good friend, Jay, about this over a cigar the other day. He's a PCA elder and a fellow Marine that works with me so we get to talk a wide variety of topics. He just shared with me that one of their Deacons will be leaving their PCA Church because he's come to the conviction that women should be allowed to do anything a man can do.

As I've thought about this issue, it seems to me that to debate the issue of "how much can a woman do" or "why can't a woman do whatever a man does" is sometimes pointless because the underlying issue is a misunderstanding of the nature of the Body of Christ.

There's an implied sense (and it's probably borne out of leaders who act this way as well) that people are missing out on all the really "cool jobs" if they can't teach or lead in prayer or be a Deacon or have some other title of responsibility.

The Scriptures, however, do not elevate a man to a position in order to reward him but in order to be of service to the broader Body of Christ. When I hear about these debates the objections are never couched on "...it's a shame because Christ's Church is being spiritually impoverished because it is not allowing women to do everything men can do...." Rather, there is a certain indignation that arises out of another concern.

Frankly, until the debate is couched in the proper terms and why Christ gifts His Church, there's really no point in getting into specifics as to what roles women fulfill toward that end.

For my own part, I understand the desire (in my flesh) to stand out but, as a Christian, I am much more concerned that the entire Body be built up and that all of us strive and fear together and press in for the Day of salvation is Today. If I'm used of Christ and His Church toward that end then God be praised but I've also been used enough to know that there's nothing really glamorous when you're committed to the right end. There's much sorrow and grief and toil associated with it. Joy, of course, but I would never seek it out simply so I can stand out.


----------



## a mere housewife

> He just shared with me that one of their Deacons will be leaving their PCA Church because he's come to the conviction that women should be allowed to do anything a man can do.



I actually think that demeans the dignity of women -- it defines our usefulness and value in terms of 'what a man can do'.

Caroline, I think the Biblical teaching would be not that we shouldn't learn from each other and as you say that men can't learn from women; but as Rich points out that there are different roles and gifts for those roles in the church; and a woman's role in the church isn't that of publicly (formally, as regards 'having the floor' or being elected to leadership etc) teaching or ruling men?


----------



## Honor

I have struggled with this in the past and then I opened my eyes to the needs of the church around me... I can't preach or pass out communion but I have compassion that my husband simply doesn't... when the boys scrape a knee the come crying to me.. why? Because my husband says 'aww rub some dirt in it and then walk it off... blood (or whatever is fitting for the moment) grows hair on your chest' I give kisses and band aids and I listen patiently to what happened. I know that there are people in my church that need that same compassion... there is always a need...like a Meals for Mothers, how many women would love a weeks worth of dinners delivered hot and to their front door at 6pm the week or so after a baby is born? that takes planing and organizing... Or what about counciling at the local pregnancy crisis center? Or reaching out to the homeless in your area? we don't like to think of them but they are there.... and they are tired hungry and hopeless... we can clothe them and feed them and tell them the love and hope of Christ. How then if you are doing all this can you think that we women are being restricted? Frankly if you are able to do all this and keep your house up and your children clean and smart, and you are still feeling restricted you need to examine your heart. because I think if you were organizing and doing all that You would welcome the break on Sunday where the men do all the "work". We give and give and give... all week long we need a time every week where we get to come and "fill up" spiritually. I hope that helps....
and just a side note... I used to feel like you and then God opened my eyes to all the other things I could be doing and then He laid on my heart a real desire to master one thing at a time and so now I am home cleaning, cooking. homeschooling the boys, having a baby and am about to embark on raising chickiens. I want so desprately to help out but really... I'm to busyLOL


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Amen Sister.

One of the most touching scenes in Scripture is when the widows, overcome with grief over the death of Dorcas, can probably not speak a word but simply lay the clothes that she made for them at Peter's feet. It's as if that's all the testimony of the love of a Saint needs. We focus on the title, Servant, where the accent is on the love she demonstrated to the Church.

Peter, by the power of God, brought her back to life and in this magnificent act of compassion restores her to the Church that love her so much. Leadership and service don't always require titles or honoraria. Such things arise out of the compassion and commitment shown by men and women that love Christ. Those that fret about being "named" for such service are missing the point.

My wife is one of the sweetest, most accepting people I've ever met. She's a hugger. She's compassionate. She notices when someone is left out. She notices when someone's countenance is downcast. She loves on our kids in ways I can't. I joy over seeing my youngest run up to her in the morning with a smile on his face so he can give Mom a hug.

Thank God for women. Life would be lonely and despondent and incomplete without them. God did us a great service in giving them to us. Perhaps the honor they deserve is not given them (as the vessels God gave us) and the desire to be honored ends up manifesting itself in other ways....


----------



## a mere housewife

Rich, I'm out of my thanks again -- thank you.

Julie I reread your opening post:



> There's plenty more but I am so grieved writing this because of the restrictions that were placed on us over the years. We were limited to devotions, missionary ministries, serving food and cleaning the church and teaching Sunday school (they left teaching Sunday school to the women.


It seems the church you were in was devaluing these things (at the least, some of the other points you bring up don't speak of a biblical balance in what you were taught about a woman's place), putting them off on the women as a restricted place that perhaps wasn't for whatever reason good enough for men (as with the Sunday School teaching). But God certainly does not devalue them.


----------



## Peairtach

_I thought the purpose of women was to help their husband fulfill his duties in a supporting capacity. _

E.g. the woman of Proverbs 31, "God's Bionic Superwoman" or "Swiss Army Wife"

I'm sure that independent-minded and yet godly woman would have had plenty of wise advice to give to her husband and other men - if that was culturally acceptable then.

Like the woman in Proverbs 31, Lydia had her own business. She also appears to be the head of the household; at least we don't read of a husband.

Priscilla (along with Aquila) taught Apollos the faith more accurately.

Women have plenty to do, although they must recognise their place in home, church and society, as must men.

If Christian women and men forget their place and roles they are being influenced by humanism, feminism, and also existentialism, which teaches that existence comes before essence. I.e. that we are in no way to allow ourselves to be defined by God or by who God made us; if we're women it doesn't matter if we want to act like men, or if we're men it doesn't matter if we want to act like women. According to atheistic existential thought we can define our essence in whatever way we wish.

In Christ we must glorify God by acting as we were created to be, Christian men or Christian women.

The Triune Image of God in Man is glorified when men, women and children, all equally made in God's Image, compliment each other in their different roles in family, church and society.

The Image of the Triune God must be preserved in God's family, the Church, against all feminist encroachments. We were saved to glorify the Triune God in this way. Women preaching to mixed classes/congregations, female ministers, elders and ordained deaconesses, etc, etc, i.e. women exercising authority over men in the church, goes against this.


----------



## a mere housewife

> If Christian women and men forget their place and roles they are being influenced by humanism, feminism, and also existentialism, which teaches that existence comes before essence. I.e. that we are in no way to allow ourselves to be defined by God or by who God made us; if we're women it doesn't matter if we want to act like men, or if we're men it doesn't matter if we want to act like women. According to atheistic existential thought we can define our essence in whatever way we wish.



I've sometimes felt that the labels I used to think most 'generic' as in woman, wife, mother, etc are most deeply defining of who one turns out to be: I suppose that is because our individuality was created precisely to fill such roles. It's ironic that we are being false not just to God but to our own selves when we advocate throwing out all roles and 'being true to ourselves' -- defining what self we are apart from what we were created to be.


----------



## jules5solas

Richard Tallach said:


> This is a good book on the subject:-
> 
> Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: Reponse to Evangelical Feminism: Amazon.co.uk: John Piper, Wayne Grudem: Books



Reading this! It has some very good and helpful articles in there.


----------



## jules5solas

Contra_Mundum said:


> Parachurch ministries are a strange item. They don't seem envisioned by Christ or the Apostles anywhere. They usually exist so that no church can tell the founders or present leadership what to do. Practically, it's about control, and about being able to draw financial support from the broadest possible spectrum (unconstrained by a common belief-system).
> 
> That some have as their primary teacher a woman only suggests to me another reason for stepping outside the accountability structure of the church.



I disagree with the generalization about the intentions of parachurch organizations. I agree that there are not explicit examples in Scripture of this sort of organization but it doesn't mean that some of Christ's mandates wouldn't develop into organizing ministries that serve the community in various ways. I do agree that they should be under the umbrella of a local assembly in order to have accountability and leadership. However, to say that they 'usually exist so that no church can tell the founders or present leadership what to do' undermines the good intentions of their origins.

All that to say, I agree too that we need to use caution as to the function of an organization. I'll say more on this later. Thank you very much for your input!

-----Added 7/28/2009 at 08:25:11 EST-----



Caroline said:


> In regard to women teaching men, I think there's a lot of inconsistency and not just in Sunday School.
> 
> For example, consider this board. There are lots of women and also men. There are even pastors and elders.
> 
> Now suppose we were discussing something theological, and, in a rare moment of insight, I said something profound. (Hey, shut up. It could happen. ) It's is theoretically possible that somebody here could learn something from what I said. Some pastor might even say, "Huh! I could use that as a sermon illustration!" (Ok, now I'm seriously flattering myself. But it's just to make a point). So whenever women and men are permitted to be around each other and both speak, generally men are likely to learn something from the women (and women learn from the men also, of course, but that isn't the disputed direction of education).
> 
> I have been to churches before where women aren't allowed to say much of anything even just in conversation lest they 'teach men'. (Needless to say, I didn't fit in well there, on account of my apparent inability to be quiet). But clearly, that isn't the rule in Reformed churches. So is the rule that women just aren't allowed to teach men in a FORMAL setting?



Caroline, I've often thought this. As we were not encouraged to discuss doctrine, I always thought of how impossible that is as it comes out of the overflow of my heart! How glorious are the doctrines of God and how rich and deep the scope of it! It is worth finding out! Whenever I asked any questions, I would be met with quite a short answer and then move on to talk about 'how is homeschooling going? how's your mom and dad?' etc. In other words, you shouldn't think too deeply about these things. It was very discouraging. Especially when the Lord was revealing great and troubling things in His word regarding the doctrines of grace, I could not turn to the elders for questions (esp. if my husband didn't have the answer - we were on this journey together). But anytime there was a discussion and I asked a question, it would be frowned upon. 

I see that 'teaching' is in the sense of a more formal instruction in a church setting or as someone who is in authority. It would be different than 'teach' in the sense that you shared information that was new to someone else so they 'learned'. Does that make sense?


----------



## jules5solas

*Honor*



Honor said:


> I have struggled with this in the past and then I opened my eyes to the needs of the church around me... I can't preach or pass out communion but I have compassion that my husband simply doesn't... when the boys scrape a knee the come crying to me.. why? ... How then if you are doing all this can you think that we women are being restricted? Frankly if you are able to do all this and keep your house up and your children clean and smart, and you are still feeling restricted you need to examine your heart. because I think if you were organizing and doing all that You would welcome the break on Sunday where the men do all the "work". We give and give and give... all week long we need a time every week where we get to come and "fill up" spiritually. I hope that helps....
> and just a side note... I used to feel like you and then God opened my eyes to all the other things I could be doing and then He laid on my heart a real desire to master one thing at a time and so now I am home cleaning, cooking. homeschooling the boys, having a baby and am about to embark on raising chickiens. I want so desprately to help out but really... I'm to busyLOL



Honor, 
I appreciate your reply but I think you're misunderstanding what I'm trying to find out. My question was posted in a rush so I couldn't really elaborate and now that I re-read it, its limited explanation could make one think that I wanted more equality for women and more glamorous roles (as one person put it). That is certainly not the case. What grieved me was that women were not encouraged to really dig into the deeper doctrines in Scripture. That's where I felt limited. Questions were answered with mere 'elementary' responses where you're left thinking, 'Yes, I KNOW that but give me more!'

Secondly, I completely agree on our primary role as women to be keepers at home! I have four needy and eager young ones who I homeschool. It is truly a full-time job! However, we can get so caught up with our own families that we don't find time to minister to others - but have time to do something that might not be quite as productive. (not saying in a judgmental way as I certainly praise you for all that you do!)

I want to state what I think right now and then ask a few questions. Sorry this is ending up sooooo long!!! 

Here's my stance:
* I see that God created man and woman as two very distinct creatures. As many in reformed circles are emphasizing, men and women were created to be complementarian rather than equal as the world knows it.

* Women are not to take the role of elder, pastor, teacher over men, and arguably, deacons. We are, however, able to help our husbands (my husband is a deacon) and that often requires being the hands and feet (and secretary and organizer - and sometimes advisor!) to or for them. However, we, in no way, replace our husbands in those leadership roles.

* Women are not to speak authoritatively on biblical doctrine where men are also congregating. I'm starting to think that we need to be cautious but not totally discount 'parachurch' organizations where the women are teaching very systematically and authoritatively other women. I think under the leadership and approval of your local church, a Bible study, for instance, in your neighborhood, might be ok - even if it mainly consists of those who don't go to your church. Any input here?

* Women are called by God to serve the body of believers as He equips and gifts us. Women should not ask, 'What are my spiritual gifts?" Rather, the question should be, "Where is there a need and what can I do to fill it?"

* Women have so much they can do even if they are not in public roles or church offices. In fact, public church offices are not the place for women. God has given women a special gift and capacity to be compassionate, kind, gracious, sensitive, sympathetic and patient. Often while ministering to others, women are given the opportunity to wisely explain what Scripture says concerning ______ (fill in the blank). Often, one cannot help but bring doctrine into the picture - as I often speak of the Sovereignty of God in suffering, circumstances, salvation or biblical manhood and womanhood, marriage, submission. If a woman does not study to show herself approved, she cannot teach a younger (in age or spiritual maturity) woman what Titus 2 entreats us to.

* Women are not restricted to talking about baking, cleaning, loving our husbands, knitting and whatnot. There's nothing wrong with women discussing theology even in other settings (like when friends come over for dinner or when we have informal gatherings somewhere).

I'll post my questions separately! This is getting too wordy!

-----Added 7/28/2009 at 09:00:40 EST-----



Semper Fidelis said:


> My wife is one of the sweetest, most accepting people I've ever met. She's a hugger. She's compassionate. She notices when someone is left out. She notices when someone's countenance is downcast. She loves on our kids in ways I can't. I joy over seeing my youngest run up to her in the morning with a smile on his face so he can give Mom a hug.
> 
> Thank God for women. Life would be lonely and despondent and incomplete without them. God did us a great service in giving them to us. Perhaps the honor they deserve is not given them (as the vessels God gave us) and the desire to be honored ends up manifesting itself in other ways....



How wonderful to praise your wife (in the gates!). Thank you for your lovely description of Dorcas as well!


----------



## Montanablue

> * Women are called by God to serve the body of believers as He equips and gifts us. Women should not ask, 'What are my spiritual gifts?" Rather, the question should be, "Where is there a need and what can I do to fill it?"



I am going to argue a little with you here -although I do think that there is definite merit in this statement. I do think that it can be useful for us to take inventory of our spiritual gifts before we simply jump in to try to fill a need. For example, I have a friend who is not a good cook. She' s trying to learn and improve, but as of now, she is just not gifted in this area. In our church, we often have a need for people to make "mercy meals" (for the ill, new moms etc). Just because that need is there does not mean that my friend should fill it. It would actually be kind of horrible if she cooked for someone who is ill - she readily admits this! Instead, she helps our church in other ways - she sometimes organizes people to deliver meals, she helps with the church cleaning every week, and she occasionally prepares bulletins. These are all things that she can do well. 

I most definitely agree that we should look for needs that we can fill! However, I also think its important to know whether or not we are qualified to fill that need. I can cook meals for the ill, but I cannot play the piano on Sunday mornings, for instance. (My playing the piano during worship would another rather horrifying experiment). We need to be careful that we aren't barging in and doing something we shouldn't just because "I'm good at this" or "I have a gift." But neither should we assume that we should fill a need just because its there.


----------



## jules5solas

Here is where I'd like more scriptural clarity:

* I've gotten the comment, "Should a woman be reading so much doctrine? Enough of your Calvin-worship and your puritan-worship!' when I talk about what I'm reading, or quote something I've recently been edified with.

* I've been told to stick with what makes me a better wife and mother -devoting myself solely to those things. By this they mean that to be through reading books on decorating, cookbooks, devotionals, Bible studies - like Beth Moore (yes, I used to do a bunch of them before I became reformed). 

I wholeheartedly agree but I believe that we need to take the whole counsel of God, that the Word was not meant only for men but also women, that the passages pertaining to women were specifically for our edification and exhortation but doesn't exclude other portions of Scripture that applies to ALL believers, men or women. What makes me a better wife and mother than to know more and more the God who alone can make me the wife and mother He created me to be?

* What do you think of these situations? I'm not as clear in these areas:

- Women reading Scripture out loud during worship 
- Women leading a large group of women through expository teaching through a book of the Bible - but with solid biblical foundation
- Women meeting to discuss a Puritan classic or Grudem's systematic theology instead of a book specifically aimed at women.
- Women joining in theological discussions where both men and women are present in an informal setting.
- Women standing in front during worship, not leading, but standing with 3 or so others to aid in the singing especially if there's a new song. 

There's nothing in those scenarios, just thinking of several situations where I'm not one convinced one way or the other. Any thoughts?

-----Added 7/28/2009 at 09:17:47 EST-----



Montanablue said:


> * Women are called by God to serve the body of believers as He equips and gifts us. Women should not ask, 'What are my spiritual gifts?" Rather, the question should be, "Where is there a need and what can I do to fill it?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am going to argue a little with you here -although I do think that there is definite merit in this statement. I do think that it can be useful for us to take inventory of our spiritual gifts before we simply jump in to try to fill a need. For example, I have a friend who is not a good cook. She' s trying to learn and improve, but as of now, she is just not gifted in this area. In our church, we often have a need for people to make "mercy meals" (for the ill, new moms etc). Just because that need is there does not mean that my friend should fill it. It would actually be kind of horrible if she cooked for someone who is ill - she readily admits this! Instead, she helps our church in other ways - she sometimes organizes people to deliver meals, she helps with the church cleaning every week, and she occasionally prepares bulletins. These are all things that she can do well.
> 
> I most definitely agree that we should look for needs that we can fill! However, I also think its important to know whether or not we are qualified to fill that need. I can cook meals for the ill, but I cannot play the piano on Sunday mornings, for instance. (My playing the piano during worship would another rather horrifying experiment). We need to be careful that we aren't barging in and doing something we shouldn't just because "I'm good at this" or "I have a gift." But neither should we assume that we should fill a need just because its there.
Click to expand...


Awesome point! You are so correct! LOL! Thanks for adding that!


----------



## AThornquist

jules5solas said:


> * I've gotten the comment, "Should a woman be reading so much doctrine? Enough of your Calvin-worship and your puritan-worship!' when I talk about what I'm reading, or quote something I've recently been edified with.



Whoever said that is a dope.


----------



## jules5solas

*Heidi, I got your pm*

You are so sweet! I think that perhaps my question was really not very clear so I came across as putting down those ministries. I am more grieved about the restrictions they had on what women should and shouldn't be reading, discussing, studying, learning, teaching. They really didn't think that we needed to get into it, that we needed to leave it to the men. Of course, not really saying it in those terms but very obviously not encouraging it. 

I appreciated everyone's comments because I mostly agree. However, I think they're coming from a different angle - most people who ask questions like this are wanting someone to give a more egalitarian answer. I'm not looking for that in the least bit!


----------



## TimV

> * I've gotten the comment, "Should a woman be reading so much doctrine? Enough of your Calvin-worship and your puritan-worship!' when I talk about what I'm reading, or quote something I've recently been edified with.



You'd be praised for that kind of talking if there were any real male leaders in your congregation.



> * I've been told to stick with what makes me a better wife and mother -devoting myself solely to those things. By this they mean that to be through reading books on decorating, cookbooks, devotionals, Bible studies - like Beth Moore (yes, I used to do a bunch of them before I became reformed).



If what you say is true, I'm sorry for you, since there is no male leadership in your congregation.



> I wholeheartedly agree but I believe that we need to take the whole counsel of God, that the Word was not meant only for men but also women, that the passages pertaining to women were specifically for our edification and exhortation but doesn't exclude other portions of Scripture that applies to ALL believers, men or women. What makes me a better wife and mother than to know more and more the God who alone can make me the wife and mother He created me to be?



Never did like Hegel. In Trinitarian thought we don't need weird dialectics.

* What do you think of these situations? I'm not as clear in these areas:



> - Women reading Scripture out loud during worship



If you stay here long enough, you'll learn to read whatever Pastor Buchanan writes at least twice. I'd do it on this thread, if I were you.




> - Women joining in theological discussions where both men and women are present in an informal setting.



It could be formal!!! Why not? Our OPC pastor is as conservative as they come, and he encourages participation during Bible studies.



> - Women standing in front during worship, not leading, but standing with 3 or so others to aid in the singing especially if there's a new song.



Debatable, but there are female singers mentioned in the OT.


----------



## a mere housewife

Julie I was thinking earlier that your former church seemed to have taken something that applies to gifting for a public role and applied it across the board, so that it winds up seeming as if a woman needs a mediator to have a relationship with Christ -- in that she is not allowed women to discuss truth without male headship, and is discouraged from taking much interest in it. 

Yes you are right that we need to learn of Christ just as any other member of the body, and that it is our relationship with Him that is our strength. I think there are balances in how that works out throughout our life, and that balances are different for different dispositions -- but no woman is so constituted that she can have joy in practical labor for Christ without the blessing of learning and enjoying the Truth that He is. 

I am not knowledgeable enough to speak to all the questions you raised and others here are more qualified; but I did want to say (since I'm still out of my thanks button  thanks for these useful posts.


----------



## Caroline

a mere housewife said:


> He just shared with me that one of their Deacons will be leaving their PCA Church because he's come to the conviction that women should be allowed to do anything a man can do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually think that demeans the dignity of women -- it defines our usefulness and value in terms of 'what a man can do'.
> 
> Caroline, I think the Biblical teaching would be not that we shouldn't learn from each other and as you say that men can't learn from women; but as Rich points out that there are different roles and gifts for those roles in the church; and a woman's role in the church isn't that of publicly (formally, as regards 'having the floor' or being elected to leadership etc) teaching or ruling men?
Click to expand...


That's an interesting point ... defining usefulness in terms of someone else. I suppose that applies to a lot of things, now that I think of it. For example, I get annoyed when people try to say brightly that they think that with a little sorting out of details, I can do anything that a non-disabled person can do, because (1) no, I can't and (2) it tends to suggest that my life is not worthwhile if I can't. Not that this has much to do with the topic at hand except that I'm considering the overall meaning of what you said.

And yes, I can see how it would be different teaching as in learning from someone vs. having someone in leadership. I suppose I can learn something from my daughter once in a while, but that doesn't put her in charge of the house. To be clear, I'm not arguing in favor of female pastors, etc. In fact, although I don't know that I could really defend this biblically at this point, churches with female pastors give me the heebie-jeebies, and I would never attend one.

I wonder (and this is not necessarily responding to Heidi's post as much as a few other posts here regarding women and their natural inclinations) if any of the women here sometimes feel rather like their natural inclinations are not quite the expected norm, though?

For example, I do not cook. I hate cooking, and I'm terrible at it, and the last time I tried, I accidentally set the cookbook on fire (really). My husband is a very good cook and quite enjoys it, so he has always been the family chef, and good thing or we would have all died of starvation by now. And, while I have nothing against people who are 'huggers', per se, I have never been one, and I'm a little uncomfortable with it. I'm quite fond of my own children, but I do not particularly enjoy caring for the children of others, although I do from time to time when necessity calls for it.

When I am put in a role that is generally viewed as 'women's work', I find that I am generally without anything to do, or at least nothing that I can do well, so it is discouraging. In fact, this is one of the biggest difficulties that I have in 'fitting in' with other Christians. At least with non-Christians, I generally feel like I have something to talk about. But at church, things generally split up into groups of men and groups of women, and the women all get together and talk about homeschooling and gardening and cooking, and I just sit there smiling like an idiot because I don't even know what they are talking about most of the time. And sometimes I try to help in the kitchen or something, but it's always a disaster. One time, a woman asked me to section a grapefruit, and I asked her what that meant, and she said that you are supposed to take a knife and cut around the grapefruit pieces to make them easier to pick up with a spoon. I thought she was joking and I laughed and said, "Haha! Can you imagine if people really did that?"

Oops. Turns out people really DO that. Who would have guessed? I dunno .... I always peel my grapefruit ... I thought we were being fancy by cutting it in half. I'd never even heard of cutting around the pieces.

I run the website for my church (and a couple of other churches that saw ours and liked it), but that's not a lot of conversation. My husband says I should probably look for friends at places other than church, like at work, where there aren't quite the same traditional type roles. But he feels kinda left out at church too. They have hospitality meetings and invite all the women, but nobody invites him, even though he goes to quite a lot of work hosting fellowship dinners, and when I asked him, he totally knew about sectioning grapefruits. My husband is a big bearded construction worker that looks like he could crush me with one hand (and he probably could, although we won't test that theory), so I suppose it didn't occur to anyone that he might want to help with the cooking and such.

I'm not sure exactly where I'm going with this, actually. Venting a little frustration, maybe. It's not that I'm looking for a reason to not be involved at the church. In fact, I suppose fitting in at church is rather more important to me than it should be, and I keep thinking if I could change myself somehow ...

I guess my question would be whether God requires women to be interested in cooking and cleaning, and if so, where does that leave me? The idea of trying to be that kind of person ... well, I LIKE those people (don't get me wrong), but, for me to try ... it's like a tone-deaf person trying to sing.


----------



## Grillsy

Jules, I think is this discussion it would be important to understand what women are specifically forbidden to do in Scripture in the context of the Church. The big things would be prohibition form having authority over a man and leading worship. Likewise a woman cannot hold the office of Elder or Deacon.
This would disqualify a woman from the public reading of Scripture during the worship service.


----------



## a mere housewife

Caroline I love it that you set your cookbook on fire  I just today had to put down yet another cookbook I was trying to read through in bottomless despair because I will never understand food.

I certainly don't think we have to be Stepford Wives -- God gave us to individual men, and it sounds like you and your husband work very well together. The role you are supposed to fill is not necessarily 'cook' but 'helpmeet'. It's a great blessing that it is our own husbands we're supposed to be suitable to, and not anybody else's -- they love us more than anybody else for exactly the person we are.

And yes having an illness, being disabled etc., can make it very difficult to relate to the normal sphere of others. I know that real love and understanding for one another exists in the church beyond such dissimilarities, and it is part of mutual growth in grace to learn to enter into that fellowship more completely. I wish my head were less foggy -- I do understand what you are saying.


----------



## Caroline

Thanks, Heidi. It's late and my head is more than a little foggy too. lol. But 'helpmeet', not necessarily 'cook' .... that make sense. Certainly, I don't think my husband would consider it helpful for me to cook. Especially not after the cookbook incident.  (I left the cookbook on a burner that I believed to be off and then turned on the wrong burner. I know, I know ... several mistakes there. It's the sort of thing I do when I try to cook, though.)

Well, I'll head to bed and maybe this will all be more clear when I read over it again tomorrow.


----------



## jules5solas

Grillsy said:


> Jules, I think is this discussion it would be important to understand what women are specifically forbidden to do in Scripture in the context of the Church. The big things would be prohibition form having authority over a man and leading worship. Likewise a woman cannot hold the office of Elder or Deacon.
> This would disqualify a woman from the public reading of Scripture during the worship service.



Grills,
Can you give me Scripture where the public reading of Scripture is only for men? Not disagreeing, just wanting more because your statement linked the office of Elder or Deacon with disqualifying a woman from public reading of Scripture. I see it as a therefore. So, can you back that up a bit more please? Thank you!


----------



## Grillsy

Well, I mean the reading of Scripture in the context of worship and teaching men. Certainly women would not read the Scripture aloud as part of public worship as this would be instructing and teaching over a man.


----------



## jules5solas

Grillsy said:


> Well, I mean the reading of Scripture in the context of worship and teaching men. Certainly women would not read the Scripture aloud as part of public worship as this would be instructing and teaching over a man.



I'm just giving you a hard time, Willie. You're one of the smartest guys I know. 

But I do have to say, is it automatic that women reading aloud scripture as part of public worship be instructing and teaching? Is the reading of Scripture out loud instructing? Or just reading? Or both? getting nit-picky I know.


----------



## OPC'n

jules5solas said:


> Grillsy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I mean the reading of Scripture in the context of worship and teaching men. Certainly women would not read the Scripture aloud as part of public worship as this would be instructing and teaching over a man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just giving you a hard time, Willie. You're one of the smartest guys I know.
> 
> But I do have to say, is it automatic that women reading aloud scripture as part of public worship be instructing and teaching? Is the reading of Scripture out loud instructing? Or just reading? Or both? getting nit-picky I know.
Click to expand...


It would be an authoritative position bc you would be leading a part of the worship service. So even though it's not teaching as you wouldn't be instructing others on it's meaning you would be placing yourself in an authoritative position.


----------



## kvanlaan

> I actually think that demeans the dignity of women -- it defines our usefulness and value in terms of 'what a man can do'.



Amen. Amen. Amen. I am not created to birth a child; my wife is fearfully and wonderfully made to do so. She has a role, laid out by God, as do I. 

The _only_ context for those roles is scripture, the rest is just the white noise of the world.

One other thought: I think that the abdication by men of their rightful place in and out of church has both lead women to reject their own roles (if we are meandering blindly, as their heads, who is providing them leadership in the temporal world?) as well as take on ours out of desperation. 

I know far too many families (two-parent families, mind you) lead by women both in and out of the church. Those in chuch are taking spiritual headship in their families, because the men simply won't. The gravity of this tragedy is completely unrecognized, but it is a cultural undercurrent of incredible proportions.


----------



## jules5solas

TimV said:


> * I've been told to stick with what makes me a better wife and mother -devoting myself solely to those things. By this they mean that to be through reading books on decorating, cookbooks, devotionals, Bible studies - like Beth Moore (yes, I used to do a bunch of them before I became reformed).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If what you say is true, I'm sorry for you, since there is no male leadership in your congregation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, not in the congregation I'm in right now! The male leadership is strong, scriptural and wholly supportive of biblical womanhood! They have a much clearer understanding of women's role and place in the church, home and community. I am so thankful to have found this church and left the other!
Click to expand...


----------



## Scott1

It's difficult to say absolutely from Scripture because particular situations like those you mention are often not mentioned specifically in Scripture. Sometimes, best we can do is infer from biblical principles.





> *jules5solas *
> Women reading Scripture out loud during worship
> No, reading Scripture formally during corporate worship is an authoritative act.
> - Women leading a large group of women through expository teaching through a book of the Bible - but with solid biblical foundation
> I think so, it's particularly appropriate for mature women to do this for younger women.
> - Women meeting to discuss a Puritan classic or Grudem's systematic theology instead of a book specifically aimed at women.
> Same as above.
> - Women joining in theological discussions where both men and women are present in an informal setting.
> Absolutely. These ought also happen at home- discussing the doctrines of grace, e.g. how Calvin explained them, etc.
> - Women standing in front during worship, not leading, but standing with 3 or so others to aid in the singing especially if there's a new song.
> This is more difficult. I think ordinarily, a man should ordinarily be out front "leading" this before the congregation and in this posture- and that's how I'm understanding your question.
> 
> A woman should not be reading Scripture or exhorting from it between songs because that is an authoritative active.
> 
> However, a woman who does not read or exhort Scripture could probably be the director, being careful.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Montanablue said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the purpose of women was to help their husband fulfill his duties in a supporting capacity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm hoping that this is a little tongue in cheek, because you've completely left out single women and widows.
> 
> Furthermore, I would contend that the purpose of women is to "glorify God and enjoy him forever." How exactly we do that can be discussed at length, but to reduce the entire purpose of women to "help their husband" seems a bit simplistic.
Click to expand...


If you read past posts of mine on the subject, hopefully you will see that I’m not a thuggish brute on the subject of how women should be treated.

That said, I really do think that the majority of modern women – even Christian women – have imbibed too much of our culture’s values to think that a supportive role is God’s primary plan for them.

To appease the modern woman books and treatises have been written trying to minimize the offense of what the Bible teaches about male leadership by trying to list two or three things a woman “can” do for every one thing she can’t. 

You ask about singles and widows. Has it ever occurred to you that the modern notion that it is acceptable for women to be single is just that: modern? In Scripture the revealed normative plan for a woman is to serve her family. Even widows (young ones) are told to remarry. 1 Tim 2: 15, that bane of a passage for so many, seems to point to or indicate conformity to God’s revealed will instead of a life of rebellion from that will.

In all of life – whether it be in the church or in the home – I reiterate with Scripture that woman was created "for" man – specifically in the role of wife and mother. (1 Cor 11:8-9) Sure, the human race as a whole was created to glorify God and enjoy him forever... but for women the context in which they accomplish that task is to be within their role as helpmeet. Instead of focusing on what women supposedly “can” do outside of the home, or in addition to their responsibilities in the home, women should be discouraged from seeking “fulfillment” in these other ways and encouraged to find their joy, meaningfulness, and contentment in their role as helpmeet.


----------



## Montanablue

> If you read past posts of mine on the subject, hopefully you will see that I’m not a thuggish brute on the subject of how women should be treated.



Yes - this is why I thought perhaps that was a tongue-in-cheek comment.



> You ask about singles and widows. Has it ever occurred to you that the modern notion that it is acceptable for women to be single is just that: modern? In Scripture the revealed normative plan for a woman is to serve her family. Even widows (young ones) are told to remarry. 1 Tim 2: 15, that bane of a passage for so many, seems to point to or indicate conformity to God’s revealed will instead of a life of rebellion from that will.



I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly here. Are you suggesting that for a woman to be single means that she is in rebellion? Or that a widow who does not remarry is in rebellion? I don't want to leap to a wrong conclusion and then respond. 



> Sure, the human race was created to glorify God and enjoy him forever... but for women the context in which they accomplish that task is to be within their role as helpmeet. Instead of focusing on what women supposedly “can” do outside of the home, or in addition to their responsibilities in the home, women should be discouraged from seeking “fulfillment” in these other ways and encouraged to find their joy, meaningfulness, and contentment in their role as helpmeet.



I certainly agree that women are to be a "helpmeet" to their husband and active in caring for the home - Proverbs 31 seems quite explicit on this point. For unmarried women, I'm not sure the Bible is as explicit, although I do think that Proverbs 31 applies to us as well. That said, I think its a good thing for women to be active in caring for their churches and communities as well as their homes - as long as the home comes first.


----------



## py3ak

SolaScriptura said:


> You ask about singles and widows. Has it ever occurred to you that the modern notion that it is acceptable for women to be single is just that: modern? In Scripture the revealed normative plan for a woman is to serve her family. Even widows (young ones) are told to remarry. 1 Tim 2: 15, that bane of a passage for so many, seems to point to or indicate conformity to God’s revealed will instead of a life of rebellion from that will.



How far are you willing to take that, Ben? Let's say war has broken out, lots of young men are gone, so in Village X there are 3 women for every man. Is singleness still a problem?


----------



## SolaScriptura

py3ak said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ask about singles and widows. Has it ever occurred to you that the modern notion that it is acceptable for women to be single is just that: modern? In Scripture the revealed normative plan for a woman is to serve her family. Even widows (young ones) are told to remarry. 1 Tim 2: 15, that bane of a passage for so many, seems to point to or indicate conformity to God’s revealed will instead of a life of rebellion from that will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How far are you willing to take that, Ben? Let's say war has broken out, lots of young men are gone, so in Village X there are 3 women for every man. Is singleness still a problem?
Click to expand...


Argue with Scripture. 

Exceptional circumstances do not nullify a general reality.


God's normative plan - as indicated by the clear teaching of multiple passages of Scripture - is for women is to take care of their husband and kids.

At the risk of being insanely offensive: I can only think of a very small handful of reasons why a woman in our culture could legitimately remain single.


----------



## satz

SolaScriptura said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ask about singles and widows. Has it ever occurred to you that the modern notion that it is acceptable for women to be single is just that: modern? In Scripture the revealed normative plan for a woman is to serve her family. Even widows (young ones) are told to remarry. 1 Tim 2: 15, that bane of a passage for so many, seems to point to or indicate conformity to God’s revealed will instead of a life of rebellion from that will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How far are you willing to take that, Ben? Let's say war has broken out, lots of young men are gone, so in Village X there are 3 women for every man. Is singleness still a problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Argue with Scripture.
> 
> Exceptional circumstances do not nullify a general reality.
> 
> 
> God's normative plan - as indicated by the clear teaching of multiple passages of Scripture - is for women is to take care of their husband and kids.
> 
> At the risk of being insanely offensive: I can only think of a very small handful of reasons why a woman in our culture could legitimately remain single.
Click to expand...


Ben,

What exactly are these clear scriptures that say a woman "must" be married?

Passages telling wives their duties cannot be used to compel single women to be married.

Just to understand you better, what are the reasons you believe a woman may legitimately remain single?


----------



## Peairtach

*Quotes from jules5solas*



> Here is where I'd like more scriptural clarity:



Your not always going to get total clarity, and knowing from Genesis 3:16 that part of our fallenness is that the women like to usurp their place (and the men can abuse their power) - I'm not talking about you specifically - there's a thin end of the wedge argument in the minds of some Christian men, that if they give women certain possibly legitimate functions, they'll soon be asking for those forbidden to them.



> * I've gotten the comment, "Should a woman be reading so much doctrine? Enough of your Calvin-worship and your puritan-worship!' when I talk about what I'm reading, or quote something I've recently been edified with.



Well you have the example of Priscilla. As long as duties are attended to first.



> *I've been told to stick with what makes me a better wife and mother -devoting myself solely to those things. By this they mean that to be through reading books on decorating, cookbooks, devotionals, Bible studies - like Beth Moore (yes, I used to do a bunch of them before I became reformed).



Priscilla. But other things can sometimes be neglected because reading and study are so enjoyable.



> I wholeheartedly agree but I believe that we need to take the whole counsel of God, that the Word was not meant only for men but also women, that the passages pertaining to women were specifically for our edification and exhortation but doesn't exclude other portions of Scripture that applies to ALL believers, men or women. What makes me a better wife and mother than to know more and more the God who alone can make me the wife and mother He created me to be?



Fine.



> * What do you think of these situations? I'm not as clear in these areas:
> 
> - Women reading Scripture out loud during worship



We do have Scriptural warrant for this as in the first century women had the gift of prophecy and gave out their revelations in the church. Reading Scripture is just reading inscripturated prophecy. But some men would think it the thin end of the wedge, and for some women/churches it may be. A woman should make no comments on the passage. Usually it's sufficient for the preacher to read the passage anyway.



> Women leading a large group of women through expository teaching through a book of the Bible - but with solid biblical foundation



There would need to be some oversight by the elders - just even to keep an eye on things.



> - Women meeting to discuss a Puritan classic or Grudem's systematic theology instead of a book specifically aimed at women.



Fine.



> - Women joining in theological discussions where both men and women are present in an informal setting.



Like a Bible study. Even better if there's always a man there



> - Women standing in front during worship, not leading, but standing with 3 or so others to aid in the singing especially if there's a new song.



We have two female precentors in our church. Very good too. Some might think it the thin end of the wedge, but all they do is provide the tune.



> There's nothing in those scenarios, just thinking of several situations where I'm not one convinced one way or the other. Any thoughts?



It's sometimes just the motive behind some of these things. As long as it's not about power. We should learn to be happy in our roles. The Holy Trinity shows us the way in all areas of life. The Son is eternally equal in power and glory to the Father, but He didn't complain or chafe about taking a subordinate role for the purposes of redemption. Neither does the Spirit feel robbed of equality power and glory in His role.

This is where feminism has gone wrong - apart from all the other places. In order to be equal to men feminists believe they have to have the same roles, functions, clothes, bodies, etc, etc as men. The Bible teaches that all humans are equally the image of God and yet different and have different roles. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equal but different and do not complain about being subordinate and complimentary to one another. Men, women and children are equal but different and have different roles.

The same considerations apply to employer/employee relations as to man/woman, husband/wife relations, and the doctrine of the Holy Trinity has practical implications for all human relations. God is an example to us all, because we are all made in His Image.


----------



## py3ak

SolaScriptura said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ask about singles and widows. Has it ever occurred to you that the modern notion that it is acceptable for women to be single is just that: modern? In Scripture the revealed normative plan for a woman is to serve her family. Even widows (young ones) are told to remarry. 1 Tim 2: 15, that bane of a passage for so many, seems to point to or indicate conformity to God’s revealed will instead of a life of rebellion from that will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How far are you willing to take that, Ben? Let's say war has broken out, lots of young men are gone, so in Village X there are 3 women for every man. Is singleness still a problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Argue with Scripture.
> 
> Exceptional circumstances do not nullify a general reality.
> 
> 
> God's normative plan - as indicated by the clear teaching of multiple passages of Scripture - is for women is to take care of their husband and kids.
> 
> At the risk of being insanely offensive: I can only think of a very small handful of reasons why a woman in our culture could legitimately remain single.
Click to expand...


It's good we have heroes willing to take such risks.

When you suggested I argue with Scripture, did you have in mind [KJV]1 Corinthians 7:8[/KJV]? Or were you thinking more in terms of [KJV]1 Corinthians 7:34[/KJV]? Perhaps you figured that fathers should take to heart the words of [KJV]1 Corinthians 7:38[/KJV]? Or maybe it was the Dominical saying in [KJV]Matthew 19:12[/KJV] that had most particularly caught your attention.


----------



## Montanablue

> I can only think of a very small handful of reasons why a woman in our culture could legitimately remain single.



Such as if no one proposes? To be quite honest, whether or not a woman is single is very often not really her choice. If there are no interested males, than that's usually the end of the story, unless you are suggesting that we single women start proposing to men. However, even if a woman stays single of her own volition, I do not believe that that is necessarily rebellion and I don't think that it can be shown scripturally. 

I would also be interested in your responses to the passages in 1 Corinthians 7 that Ruben has pointed out.


----------



## Peairtach

*Quote from Ben*


> At the risk of being insanely offensive: I can only think of a very small handful of reasons why a woman in our culture could legitimately remain single.



Dear Ben,

It's not offensive, just an unusual point of view, that would have to be backed up.

What if a woman believed it was God's will or calling for her to be single? What if there were no suitable prospective husbands? What if no man was interested in getting married to her?

-----Added 7/29/2009 at 07:22:14 EST-----

*Quote from Kathleen*


> I do not believe that that is necessarily rebellion and I don't think that it can be shown scripturally.



It might be a form of rebellion against God's better will for her, if she had no good reason for avoiding marriage. Some women - and no doubt some Christian women - realise with regret too late, that they have been putting off marriage and children for sometimes quite superficial reasons.


----------



## Montanablue

> It might be a form of rebellion against God's better will for her, if she had no good reason for avoiding marriage. Some women - and no doubt some Christian women - realise with regret too late, that they have been putting off marriage and children for sometimes quite superficial reasons.



This is why I said that its not _necessarily _ rebellion. It _could_ be rebellion, but its certainly not automatically so.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Richard Tallach said:


> What if no man was interested in getting married to her?



You're right... I should be more sensitive. See, being a male with no physical or personality defects, I never experienced a shortage of interested female companions... so I have a hard time relating to the concept. It just doesn't compute. 




To the rest: I'll respond later, though I'm really surprised that the normalcy of God's plan for people to be married would have to be defended here. But I will. 

For right now I'm taking my wife on a date. Later folks!


----------



## Montanablue

> 'll respond later, though I'm really surprised that the normalcy of God's plan for people to be married would have to be defended here.



Ben -just to clarify - I'm certainly _not _saying that the "normal" plan for most people is marriage. My point was that single women and unmarried widows are not automatically or necessarily in rebellion. I just wanted to make that clear before you responded to an argument that I (and I don't think anyone else) is making.


----------



## satz

SolaScriptura said:


> To the rest: I'll respond later, though I'm really surprised that the normalcy of God's plan for people to be married would have to be defended here. But I will.



To be fair I fully accept marriage is normal, but what is presented as normal cannot be made into a command (and there is no bible support for making it so). 



> For right now I'm taking my wife on a date. Later folks!



Enjoy!


----------



## Idelette

Hi Julie,

I haven't read through the entire thread yet, but I wanted to suggest a website in case you haven't heard of it! I struggled with this issue for quite sometime, and this website has been instrumental in learning more about biblical roles for women and what God created women specifically for! I may write more after I finish reading this thread, but, I truly hope that you will be able to glean much from this resource! It has been incredibly useful to me!

CBMW

And this link specifically will answer many of your questions thoroughly: http://www.cbmw.org/Resources/Evang...Vision-of-Manhood-and-Womanhood-in-the-Church


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Should a "talented" woman teacher be teaching a mixed group?

As far as a church-function goes, inside our church or by its sponsorship, there will be no religious instruction taught to a mixed group of believing men and women _by a woman_. This would be the case whether Sunday worship, or Sunday School, or a midweek Bible study. I can see a presentation being made with church sponsorship, mid week and not as a teaching ministry, by JoniET, but that's where I'd draw the line.

A "Deborah" situation is hardly a proper appeal, since it is evident in the story itself that Israel was painfully lacking in male leadership. If the church needs a godly woman leader like that, they better hope they get someone like Deborah, who rebukes Barak for not showing enough faith-character, and calling her out to war with him.

The principle of exercising an authority-function--in this case teaching--doesn't start and stop between the hours of eleven and twelve o'clock (for instance) on Sunday. Discipline is a 24/7 governmental process. Talent for teaching, leading, governance--none of that is relevant, if the regular order of things is to be followed. Unless there are no men who WILL lead, in which case her main job is to be like Deborah, and goad one to lead.

If it isn't a church-function, then the church doesn't have direct jurisdiction over that arena in our culture.

Sometimes there are radio-shows that are oriented to women. If a man listens and gets insight, OK. But the show wasn't billed as "for him." He's sort-of eavesdropping, in a non-invasive way.

But I wouldn't recommend a man cultivating a taste for a woman-teacher. With the availability of male teachers on recorded media, why should a grown man pursue sitting under a lady's "ministry"? And I mean "pursuit" and not "opportunity." I'm talking about a man who says, "I want her to rule me, biblically."

If he says, "Because her style suits me," of something similar, that's not a good reason, if in fact he shouldn't be so suited morally. That's akin to someone saying that he prefers to swipe lunch, because he's "good at it, and God wants me to use my light-fingered talents."

The "God-made-me-this-way" defense is terrible, whether it is the woman or the man. It is subjective, and not objective, in moral-methodology.


----------



## Scott1

Thanks, Reverend Buchanan

You have articulated this well and clearly... and with much foresight.


----------



## JoyFullMom

> But I wouldn't recommend a man cultivating a taste for a woman-teacher. With the availability of male teachers on recorded media, why should a grown man pursue sitting under a lady's "ministry"? And I mean "pursuit" and not "opportunity." I'm talking about a man who says, "I want her to rule me, biblically."



This is one thing that always puzzled me when I worked for a Christian ministry, (years ago), the number of men who would sit under the woman teacher...and at that time, a well-known pastor was teaching in the evenings, yet they would come in the mornings and sit under the woman.


----------



## Montanablue

> This is one thing that always puzzled me when I worked for a Christian ministry, (years ago), the number of men who would sit under the woman teacher...and at that time, a well-known pastor was teaching in the evenings, yet they would come in the mornings and sit under the woman.



Really? That's so...odd.


----------



## JoyFullMom

Wow, I should have previewed that sentence structure! 

I did want to *cautiously* add, I noted an attitude amongst some of the women who regularly attended EVERYTHING that was held there. It was definitely one of superiority, *in my opinion*. I observed women who, by listening to their prayer requests and *sharing*, seemed to feel that their knowledge surpassed their husband's so much so that they questioned their husband's ability to lead them. It was an observation that bothered me because most men DON'T have hours to sit under in-depth teaching a couple of times a week....but it doesn't disqualify them from leading.

I am not painting with a broad stroke here. I know this doesn't apply to *all*, but I have avoided women's studies pretty much since I left my employment there.


----------



## Idelette

There have been some good solid responses above! After reading the thread it seems to me that you've had exposure to complementarianism so the real issue lies in strictly defined roles for every woman. (If I'm wrong, please correct me!) I can understand this struggle because it is difficult to know what the Biblical role of a woman looks like practically speaking. Partly, because of our time period as well as the culture we live in. I think in other parts of the world and during Biblical times this wouldn't have been such an issue as it is today.....since the roles of woman and man have been blurred so greatly! 

In regards to reading theological books, you have encountered much of what I have as well.....people telling you stop reading deep theological books or the puritans and that you should focus exclusively on "wifely/motherly" learnings. While I do wholeheartedly believe that it is good for a woman to learn and grow at cultivating her skills within the home, I don't believe that our learning should end there!

I think it is the _DUTY_ of every believer, whether a man or woman or even child.......to search the Scriptures, to learn and grow in the knowledge of God, and to work out our salvation with fear and trembling! On that note, I think we need to examine ourselves and why we are learning .....is our motivation to rule over husbands or men in the church? Is it to usurp their headship and authority over us? Is it to make up for any lack in their leadership or authority? (If that is the case we ought to be encouraging Godly leadership and learning among men, but not take over their roles!) _And are we learning at the neglect of our households or are we learning to the profit of our households?_ That should be the real question for every woman!

God has clearly laid out unique and complementarian roles for both men and women. And while we are equal in our worth, we are not equal the roles that God has created for us. Individual women may or may not be married....but the principle of being a helpmeet will transcend every role that God has placed us in! We were created specifically as helpers, and God is glorified and well-pleased when we fulfill that role with joy in our hearts in whatever capacity! Whether we are single, or married, or widowed....we ought to be _CHARACTERIZED_ by the spirit of gentleness and submission in our lives! (1 Peter 3: 1-7) We may not all perform the exact same "duties" or have the exact same gifts or talents, but the principle of being a helper should still apply! We can't strictly define what that will look like, but the older women ought to teach and encourage the younger women to be keepers of the home and care for their families. (Titus 2: 3-5) This is the goal that we ought to strive for.......the principle should remain but the application of it will vary with every woman and calling in her life! 

Anyhow, those are _SOME _of my thoughts on this broad subject, but I hope it helps somewhat!


----------



## Montanablue

> I think it is the DUTY of every believer, whether a man or woman or even child.......to search the Scriptures, to learn and grow in the knowledge of God, and to work out our salvation with fear and trembling! On that note, I think we need to examine ourselves and why we are learning .....is our motivation to rule over husbands or men in the church? Is it to usurp their headship and authority over us? Is it to make up for any lack in leadership or authority? (If that is the case we ought to be encouraging Godly leadership and learning among men!) And are we learning at the neglect of our households or are we learning to the profit of our households? That should be the real question for every woman!



Yvonne,

I think you've hit on something really important here - motivation (for both men and women) is key. If we are learning theology just to appear smart or to one up someone else, its all useless. This point is particularly relevant to this conversation about women in the church, but I think its quite relevant to all Christians, really. Thanks!


----------



## jules5solas

Wow! Some really great responses! Thank you so much to all! Totally agreeing with Yvonne, that we need to examine our hearts. Often, women have that attitude of 'my husband doesn't study as much as I do and doesn't attend as many Bible studies as I do therefore he is not being the type of spiritual leader he should be.' or some equivalent. 

I am going to be studying this a little more to formulate some solid scriptural basis for what I see developing here. 

My comment on the whole 'being single' vs 'marriage is God's normative plan for women' is: Of course, God purposed that marriage should be the normative plan for us however, there are situations that God has not introduced a suitable man to marry. There is no rebellion in that.

However, I think you are meaning to say that modern women often shun marriage and choose to live single (and sometimes, rebellious) lives. I have 'Christian' friends who would rather continue to hang out with friends, have a long-term relationship with a boy but not get married for now. I cannot understand how that is in line with Scripture. Anyway, I don't know if I'm making sense any more. I'm going to go read a Puritan. 

Good night!


----------



## Peairtach

Interestingly I was surprised to learn that Calvin had female deacons/deaconnesses. But I do not know whether they had an authoritative role and were ordained, or whether they just had certain functions e.g. cooking for the poor, or visiting other women, under the authority of ordained male deacons.

I think "their women" in I Timothy 3:11, either refers to the wives of the deacons, or possibly women who acted under the male ordained/authoritative deacons in providing meals for the poor. I Timothy 2:12 and Acts 6:1-6 goes against ordained and authoritative deaconnesses. But women carrying out _certain_ functions under the authority of the male deacons' court (Presbyterianism) is fine. 

Maybe they should be called church workers rather than deaconnesses to avoid confusion and people thinking that they are ordained and not under authority.

-----Added 7/30/2009 at 07:59:49 EST-----

*Quote from Julie*
_However, I think you are meaning to say that modern women often shun marriage and choose to live single (and sometimes, rebellious) lives. I have 'Christian' friends who would rather continue to hang out with friends, have a long-term relationship with a boy but not get married for now. I cannot understand how that is in line with Scripture. Anyway, I don't know if I'm making sense any more. I'm going to go read a Puritan._

Well it would go completely against Scripture if there was any hanky-panky! Larger Catechism 139, speaks of "undue delay of marriage" as being against the 7th Commandment.


----------



## Neopatriarch

jules5solas said:


> 1) Women are never to speak in the church during public worship. (Including reading scripture, giving out a hymn, only singing)



1 Corinthans 11:5 - Did Paul Allow Women To Prophesy in Church?



> 2) Women are never to teach men. Period. (except in Sunday School - interesting lack of consistency)



This is practically the definitive work on 1 Timothy 2:9-15:[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Women-Church-Analysis-Application-Timothy/dp/080102904X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1248956205&sr=8-1"]Women in the Church[/ame]. Also, I thought William Mounces commentary on the pastoral epistles was good on this. [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Word-Biblical-Commentary-Pastoral-Epistles/dp/0849902452/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1248956310&sr=8-4"]Mounce's commentary[/ame] 



> There's plenty more but I am so grieved writing this because of the restrictions that were placed on us over the years. We were limited to devotions, missionary ministries, serving food and cleaning the church and teaching Sunday school (they left teaching Sunday school to the women). I am interested in what your thoughts are. Just throw anything out there, I have a lot to work through!



After you're done with Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood by Piper and Grudem you should read Grudem's book Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth (you can read it online, just google the title).

Also, William Mouser has some good bible studies. See: 

ICGS News (Five Aspects of Man and Five Aspects of Woman are quite good in my opinion)

Of course, there is always a wealth of infomation at cbmw.org. And CCC-Forum at Yahoo!Groups is set up specifically to discuss questions like the ones you've raised. Mike McMillan is on the ball regarding headcoverings.


----------



## Scott1

Richard Tallach said:


> Interestingly I was surprised to learn that Calvin had female deacons/deaconnesses. But I do not know whether they had an authoritative role and were ordained, or whether they just had certain functions e.g. cooking for the poor, or visiting other women, under the authority of ordained male deacons.
> 
> 
> Richard,
> 
> I don't want to side-track the good discussion going on in this thread but thought this deserves comment for those following.
> 
> Yes, Mr. Calvin's church had 'deaconess' at his Geneva consistory- an unordained position (often nurse-like function) that assisted the I Timothy 3 office of Deacon, which is qualified to men only.
> 
> However, they were not at all based on the egalitarian notions cited in the debate in this generation.
> 
> Mr. Calvin did not base them on I Timothy 3 as an authoritative office as is sometimes done in our generation.
> 
> Read Mr. Calvin's commentary on I Timothy and elsewhere and you will see he was never uncertain about the I Timothy 3 office of deacon being qualified to men- or that the wives of I Timothy 3 deacons had to be qualified (nor that the office of deacon is an authoritative role, part of the basic governance of the particular church).
> 
> Mr. Calvin’s commentary shows his understanding that the “wives” or “women” referred to in I Timothy 3 were the “wives” of both elders (bishops) and deacons.
> 
> Mr. Calvin speaks of "two classes" with the 'deaconess' patterned more after the (unordained) I Timothy 5 servant-widow model, not after the authoritative governing office mentioned in I Timothy 3.
> 
> The servant widow qualifications of I Timothy 3 are very specific (e.g. 60 years old minimum, unmarried, destitute, will not remarry, godly characteristics in life pattern). When the church failed to follow them, as in Calvin’s generation, by for example lowering the age to 40, etc. problems arose. Moral problems, breaking vows of celibacy, etc. so the practice of ‘deaconess’ fell into disuse.
> 
> Don't forget, in Calvin's day, the practice was that 'deaconess' were required to take a lifetime vow of celibacy. This reflected both that they did not have the responsibilities of husband and children and really had nobody to provide for them. In that time, they were destitute so the church took them on as support in return for a lifetime vow of celibacy, under the authority of the Deacons and Elders, not an ordained function. Often, Mr. Calvin used them in nurse functions to the refugee families that flooded into Switzerland at that time.
> 
> This is completely unlike the debate going on today in for example, the PCA, where egalitarian arguments are "wishing" into I Timothy 3, devaluing the spiritual role of ordination and church government, etc. all to accommodate a view they want (not the God wants).
> 
> So, Mr. Calvin understood the office of I Timothy 3 Deacon as an authoritative one, qualified to men only in accordance today (contrary to modern assertions).
> 
> For a well-written examination of both Scripture and church history on this point (that the office of deacon is not for women, like the office of elder and pastor, and bishop, etc.), you may find helpful Mr. Brian Schwertley’s paper on this:
> A Historical and Biblical Examination of Women Deacons
> 
> 
> 
> I think "their women" in I Timothy 3:11, either refers to the wives of the deacons, or possibly women who acted under the male ordained/authoritative deacons in providing meals for the poor. I Timothy 2:12 and Acts 6:1-6 goes against ordained and authoritative deaconnesses. But women carrying out _certain_ functions under the authority of the male deacons' court (Presbyterianism) is fine.
> 
> Maybe they should be called church workers rather than deaconnesses to avoid confusion and people thinking that they are ordained and not under authority.
> 
> -----Added 7/30/2009 at 07:59:49 EST-----
> 
> *Quote from Julie*
> _However, I think you are meaning to say that modern women often shun marriage and choose to live single (and sometimes, rebellious) lives. I have 'Christian' friends who would rather continue to hang out with friends, have a long-term relationship with a boy but not get married for now. I cannot understand how that is in line with Scripture. Anyway, I don't know if I'm making sense any more. I'm going to go read a Puritan._
> 
> Well it would go completely against Scripture if there was any hanky-panky! Larger Catechism 139, speaks of "undue delay of marriage" as being against the 7th Commandment.


.


----------



## jules5solas

Neopatriarch said:


> jules5solas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, William Mouser has some good bible studies. See:
> 
> ICGS News (Five Aspects of Man and Five Aspects of Woman are quite good in my opinion)
> 
> Of course, there is always a wealth of infomation at cbmw.org. And CCC-Forum at Yahoo!Groups is set up specifically to discuss questions like the ones you've raised. Mike McMillan is on the ball regarding headcoverings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All your resources look great! I am particularly interested in the ones by Mouser. So, this is a study from a reformed viewpoint? I am intrigued with the 5 aspects studies.
Click to expand...


----------



## A2JC4life

Julie, I must admit I haven't taken the time to read all of the replies to this thread yet. 

But I am one that you may have heard comment about women's ministries (either within the church or para-church) and teaching doctrine, so let me clarify _my_ perspective on this, and maybe that will be helpful for you (or not).

I have concerns with ministries such as Beth Moore's, or with similarly structured women's ministries within the local church, not because they teach doctrine, but because that seems to be their _primary_ purpose. My concern stems from two different directions. First, when women are receiving a large proportion of their theological teaching completely apart from their husbands, it undermines the spiritual leadership of the home. (This is especially true where there are not comparable men's studies going on.) Women in these ministries have a tendency to "grow beyond" their husbands, setting them up to feel more spiritual and, thus, disrespect their husbands, rather than to grow along with them. There is reason that we are to "ask [our] husbands at home" if we don't understand things. But I don't see anywhere in Scripture that we are _forbidden_ to teach doctrine, or that we're forbidden to ask anyone else a question. (If that were the case, I would certainly not be here!)

Second, there are specific things that women _are_ commanded in Scripture to teach other women. These tend to be the more practical things. The emphasis on doctrine in woman-to-woman ministries usually results in the neglect of these. Not that they cannot be neglected without that teaching! But so much time is devoted, in these ministries, to the teaching of doctrine that there really is not often time left for teaching the things we are specifically told to teach.

So the issue for me is emphasis or focus. To use a totally unrelated example, I would have the same issue if I sent my children to school and they spent 95% of the time playing baseball. I have no issue with baseball. There is nothing sinful about baseball. But that's not the purpose of school, and by focusing so much on baseball they're neglecting the real purpose. That doesn't mean they can't play baseball for a little while as part of their education regarding teamwork, physical fitness, etc. But I would expect that to be a small percentage and not the bulk.

-----Added 8/17/2009 at 02:19:31 EST-----

I would have to agree, in essence (and as a generality), with Ben's comment regarding single women, with one minor alteration - the understanding of "singleness" as being completely alone and independent, rather than unmarried.

Biblically, it is normative for a woman to be part of a family, whether she is married or not. The situation of a single woman living on her own, making her own living, etc., is largely a modern one. (Again, this is a generality. I'm sure there will exceptions, but we won't teach from them.  ) An unmarried woman living with her "family of origin" still has nearly all of the same opportunities available for ministry to her family as does a married woman - it's just her parents and siblings to whom she's ministering, rather than her spouse and children. And most of those very same actions can carry over to ministry in the church at large. Look at what "widows indeed" were expected to have done with their lives - essentially to be faithful spouses (as obviously they had been married), to raise children, and to provide hospitality in various ways. Unmarried women can still "raise" children and can certainly provide hospitality.


----------



## LeeJUk

jules5solas said:


> 1) Women are never to speak in the church during public worship. (Including reading scripture, giving out a hymn, only singing)
> 
> 2) Women are never to teach men. Period. (except in Sunday School - interesting lack of consistency)
> 
> 3) Women are to be mentors to other women but only in the realm of loving your husbands, being keepers at home, and in regards to the children. Not doctrine or anything that pertains to teaching the Bible.
> 
> 4) Women are to cover their heads in corporal gatherings including Bible studies at home with men around.
> 
> 5) Women are not to teach doctrine. Parachurch organizations like BSF, Beth Moore groups etc. are not scriptural because they have one woman teaching doctrine to other women.
> 
> 6) The only males women are to teach are their own children and perhaps in a small setting like Priscilla and Aquila with Apollos.





1) I think that women absolutely can speak during worship and in the church. I think that you need to look at the context in which that verse is written.

We're talking about a church here where there was disorder and disruption in the services - this is the entire theme of 1 Corinthians. I think what Paul is saying is just re-iterating that the services must be done in order and not confusion. E.g. when someone is speaking women are to not to be shouting out during the sermon or asking their husbands during the services about something, instead they should wait till they get home and then ask their husbands if they didn't hear / understand something during the preaching.

To dogmatically declare that this means women aren't to speak in church from this verse in 1 cor is absolutely destroyed by the fact that in 1 Corinthians 11:2 onwards we see that 

"And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved."

so we see women not being forbidden to pray or prophesy in the church. 

2) Again I would reject the view that women aren't to teach in church. For various reasons that you can msg me about. 

3) Actually I think women are to teach bible and doctrine to other women, i think again we've taken a few passages and ripped them out of context and imposed them on women.


4) lol at this one. no pauls not saying women are to wear hats in church.

5) again, i don't see any verses in the bible saying that women cannot teach doctrine or the bible to other women.

6) If we are to legalistically take that one verse in 1 timothy 2, without challenging the greek behind it and the context it was written in then I doubt you can even teach male children from that interpretation! It just says men it doesn't specify any age.


----------



## Montanablue

> An unmarried woman living with her "family of origin" still has nearly all of the same opportunities available for ministry to her family as does a married woman - it's just her parents and siblings to whom she's ministering, rather than her spouse and children.



If I tried to live at home at 23 years of age to "serve" my family, my parents would kick me out. (And rightfully so, in my opinion). I think there are very few families that can afford to financially support their grown unmarried daughters. Also, I think at a certain point, there are too many adults in the house. My mother and I do things very differently at times. We would be constantly tempted to argue if we lived together. I think this is often seen in families that take in an older female (or even male) relative.

Edit: to clarify, I don't think that its a bad idea to take in older relatives! I was just using that as an example of having too many adults in the house. Obviously, its a situation that takes a lot of patience, grace, and forbearance on everyone's part and I applaud those that do it. I just don't see a reason to take in a young person who has the ability to build their own home.


----------



## A2JC4life

Well, my dad is not rich by any means, but I have a 25-year-old and a 24-year-old sister who both live at home and serve in that context.


----------



## CatherineL

The question was posed by Julie relating to casual theological discussions in mixed gender groups, but I'd also be interested in hearing thoughts about men and women in mixed-gender discussion based bible studies. If a theological question is thrown out by the teacher, and a women answers it insightfully, is she teaching (in a sense) men there? Should she be silent in all cases, or restrict herself only to asking questions, not offering answers?

I'd appreciate it, since we're in this situation right now with our small group - gone from studying/praying separated into men and women, and now the study is together. So far I've just been trying to learn in silence, asking my husband questions on the way home if they come up. But it sure is hard to keep my mouth shut! LOL


----------



## Montanablue

A2JC4life said:


> Well, my dad is not rich by any means, but I have a 25-year-old and a 24-year-old sister who both live at home and serve in that context.



Fair enough, but this is simply not an option extended to all single women. Even if I wanted this option, it would not be possible.


----------



## A2JC4life

CatherineL said:


> The question was posed by Julie relating to casual theological discussions in mixed gender groups, but I'd also be interested in hearing thoughts about men and women in mixed-gender discussion based bible studies. If a theological question is thrown out by the teacher, and a women answers it insightfully, is she teaching (in a sense) men there? Should she be silent in all cases, or restrict herself only to asking questions, not offering answers?



This is one that we have struggled with, as well. We have found that it is beneficial for us ladies to at least hold back until it is apparent that all of the men have responded who wish to do so. (Otherwise, the women tend to jump in first and sort of "squash" those men who have less outgoing personalities.) But we have struggled with whether or not it is appropriate for us to take part in the discussion at all, and _why_, scripturally, it is the case that we should or should not.


----------



## Scott1

CatherineL said:


> The question was posed by Julie relating to casual theological discussions in mixed gender groups, but I'd also be interested in hearing thoughts about men and women in mixed-gender discussion based bible studies. If a theological question is thrown out by the teacher, and a women answers it insightfully, is she teaching (in a sense) men there? Should she be silent in all cases, or restrict herself only to asking questions, not offering answers?
> 
> I'd appreciate it, since we're in this situation right now with our small group - gone from studying/praying separated into men and women, and now the study is together. So far I've just been trying to learn in silence, asking my husband questions on the way home if they come up. But it sure is hard to keep my mouth shut! LOL





> I Timothy 2
> 
> 8I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
> 
> 9In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
> 
> 10But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
> 
> 11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
> 
> 12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
> 
> 13For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
> 
> 14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
> 
> 15Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.



It's helpful when reading this part of Scripture to put it in context. I Timothy 2 and 3 were all run together in the original (Chapters were added later by the translators). So Chapter 3 where Paul qualifies offices in the church to men (e.g. elders and deacons), is built on the earlier doctrine (we call this a "didactic" part of Scripture, teaching doctrine as opposed to "historical narrative" and other parts of speech). 

The Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture here goes right back to the creation order in establishing the authority patterns, relationships and responsibilities.

The context is "in the church" which one reasonably takes to mean under church authority, whatever location or circumstance that might be in.

So, understanding that,


> If a theological question is thrown out by the teacher, and a women answers it insightfully, is she teaching (in a sense) men there? Should she be silent in all cases, or restrict herself only to asking questions, not offering answers?



I think this is referring to an authoritative situation "in the church" where men might be present. It seems this is what the passages have in view. (This means it does not have in view, for example Titus 2 where older women are told to instruct younger women).

So, I don't see this as preventing a woman from asking or answering a question in a Sunday School class, even if the "answer" reflects deep theological insight.

Now teaching a mixed adult audience- no. Because to teach authoritatively is...based on that authority that ought not be usurped as explained in I Timothy 2.

Now, we are all, men and women, under other duties and responsibilities- e.g. not causing others to stumble, avoiding even the appearance of evil, etc. so as one ought use great care not to give appearance of usurping authority. That's both a subjective and objective concept, like most things in the Christian life, involves both inward motivation (subjective) and external act (objective).

One other thing to consider- it is a wonderful when a woman asks her husband privately about doctrinal things. That is to be encouraged, and one reason it helps husband settle into his accountability for leading spiritually in the family.

But there are lots of situations where that is not possible- the woman is not married, husband is deployed fighting in Iraq, husband is not a Christian... one can think of many such situations. A woman is under the same command to grow in the nurture and admonition of the Lord as is a man, even if her role is not one of ordinary ecclesiastical leadership or title.


----------



## Knoxienne

A2JC4life said:


> CatherineL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question was posed by Julie relating to casual theological discussions in mixed gender groups, but I'd also be interested in hearing thoughts about men and women in mixed-gender discussion based bible studies. If a theological question is thrown out by the teacher, and a women answers it insightfully, is she teaching (in a sense) men there? Should she be silent in all cases, or restrict herself only to asking questions, not offering answers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is one that we have struggled with, as well. We have found that it is beneficial for us ladies to at least hold back until it is apparent that all of the men have responded who wish to do so. (Otherwise, the women tend to jump in first and sort of "squash" those men who have less outgoing personalities.) But we have struggled with whether or not it is appropriate for us to take part in the discussion at all, and _why_, scripturally, it is the case that we should or should not.
Click to expand...


I've seen this a lot. The women tend to crowd out the men during study discussions, Bible teachings, etc. I'm ashamed to say I've done it. A lot. And my excuse was, Oh, we're just supposed to be silent during worship, so now I can talk all I want! Such deception. It's still a church function. I don't speak even in Sunday School type situations anymore. If I want a concern addressed I hand Bill a note I've written on the bulletin or syllabus so that he can address it. I'm not saying that all Christian women should do this and I'm not judging women who talk during Sunday school. I just know myself and my own sin and temptation and I think it's better for me to be silent even in Sunday School type discussions. 

A similar deception to the "It's Sunday school so I can talk all I want" subject is seen with these women's conference speakers (you mentioned this while mentioning Beth Moore) who teach women theology. They figure that since they're not teaching men, it's okay. Actually, if they're teaching theology publickly, they're playing the role of elders, whether or not they realize it. I refuse to support those programs. 

William Einwechter has a sermon on sermonaudio.com where he discusses a part of worship which he calls interaction and why it is necessary. After the sermon he asks the male members of the church to critique his sermon, ask questions, etc. It's an excellent opportunity for the men. His is the only church that I know of that does this, but I like the idea. It only lasts for about 10 minutes, then they have the doxology, benediction, etc.


----------



## a mere housewife

> Biblically, it is normative for a woman to be part of a family, whether she is married or not. The situation of a single woman living on her own, making her own living, etc., is largely a modern one. (Again, this is a generality. I'm sure there will exceptions, but we won't teach from them.  ) An unmarried woman living with her "family of origin" still has nearly all of the same opportunities available for ministry to her family as does a married woman - it's just her parents and siblings to whom she's ministering, rather than her spouse and children. And most of those very same actions can carry over to ministry in the church at large. Look at what "widows indeed" were expected to have done with their lives - essentially to be faithful spouses (as obviously they had been married), to raise children, and to provide hospitality in various ways. Unmarried women can still "raise" children and can certainly provide hospitality.


I think this is to misunderstand Paul's commendation of singleness, which was that a married woman must care for the things of the world in pleasing her husband; but the unmarried is free to serve the Lord. Free from what? Sex, merely? Surely, from all the cares of having one's life focused around serving a man (I presume the argument is that the woman should be under a male head in the household -- this puts her in the same position as her mom as regards serving her father and family -- there is therefore no advantage to her in being single, on Paul's line of argumentation). 

Lydia appears to have been the head of her own household.


----------



## A2JC4life

I did not mean to suggest that an unmarried woman should not do anything except serve her family. But our culture seems to have so lost this whole "side" of things that it's easy for unmarried young adult women to wonder what there is for them to do, besides a full-time career. These things provide a simple starting point.


----------



## calgal

A2JC4life said:


> I did not mean to suggest that an unmarried woman should not do anything except serve her family. But our culture seems to have so lost this whole "side" of things that it's easy for unmarried young adult women to wonder what there is for them to do, besides a full-time career. These things provide a simple starting point.



Actually, the idea of a woman working is more than cultural: back in "the day" unmarried women worked as maids for the rich, as teachers for kids and nurses/nannies for centuries. The idea of staying home with the family was limited for most of recorded history to the wealthy.


----------



## a mere housewife

Rachel, I don't think a full time career is necessarily outside of that 'side' of things -- Lydia was a seller of purple; she probably went on being a seller of purple -- Christians have always found ways to serve God in the cultural context in which they find themselves (so there are single girls working 'full time' with street children in Mexico; and a single girl I know takes her free time and spending money from a full time office job to visit nursing homes and give to the elderly etc. as she doesn't have a husband and family depending on her) -- but I understand what you're saying, though I personally thought Ben's post a little imbalanced (no offense meant Ben! : I don't know a _single unmarried _Christian lady  (and I know quite a few) who doesn't wish to be married; but in keeping with a submissive role, they don't have much choice in the matter and have to wait for some guy to take the initiative. If one is serious about this view of things -- all women should be submissive to some man in the form of a husband -- it seems like the frontal attack ought to start with single guys, on whom the fate of all these ladies depends? Indeed it's a bit ironic to attack women meekly waiting for someone to ask them to share his life for insubordination in their single estate! (I realise that some women need such a rebuke, but the puritanboard is probably not their major gathering place.)

I also have to take some issue with the idea that women should not meet to study theology, as stated: I think we're probably mostly in agreement; but if theology is leading women to despise their husbands or leading a married woman to neglect her duties at home, then it is possibly a problem with the woman and quite as possibly with the theology (a misunderstanding of Paul's teaching about the difference between married and single women, even?) but I don't think it can be attributed to a problem with women getting together to learn and discuss theology _per se_. God is our portion and joy; He is that to a married woman in a different way than to the single; but that being so, theology is hardly the most dangerous thing for a group of women to take interest in (though I'm just as pleased to discuss Pampered Chef -- they used to have the coolest oil dispensers). If women are not learning theology anywhere but in such a group, surely the problem is with the church and the husband, not with women meeting to take joy in such things? I just don't think such principles (she is not to learn something apart from her husband) can really be taken and extended as if they were moral laws -- this seems to make a man a mediator between us and Christ. We learn from men and women on the board who have no headship relation to us: we read books by men who aren't our rightful husbands or pastors: presumably we can discuss what we learned from another woman with our husbands quite as ably as we can discuss what we learned from a book. & what we learn, if true and learned in the sincere hunger for truth, _will _lead us to be more submitted to our husbands as we apply it biblically. I have sometimes winced at some of the things women say, where they hold stronger or different theological positions than their husbands (and I'm sure I have made such blunders myself); but I haven't attributed this to either one of us knowing _too much_ about God? 

I think we would agree that there are many cases where a theological discussion group for women is not the best use of a woman's time (even as regards time we have available for enjoying theology); but I don't think a case can be made that it is simply an inappropriate thing for women to do?


----------



## Montanablue

And once again, Heidi says it better than I could!


----------



## amishrockstar

1) Women are never to speak in the church during public worship. (Including reading scripture, giving out a hymn, only singing)
Nope

2) Women are never to teach men. Period. (except in Sunday School - interesting lack of consistency)
Nope

3) Women are to be mentors to other women but only in the realm of loving your husbands, being keepers at home, and in regards to the children. Not doctrine or anything that pertains to teaching the Bible. 
Nope

4) Women are to cover their heads in corporal gatherings including Bible studies at home with men around.
Nope

5) Women are not to teach doctrine. Parachurch organizations like BSF, Beth Moore groups etc. are not scriptural because they have one woman teaching doctrine to other women.
Nope

6) The only males women are to teach are their own children and perhaps in a small setting like Priscilla and Aquila with Apollos.
Nope

I don't agree with any of these statements


----------



## kvanlaan

> I don't agree with any of these statements



And _why_, pray tell?


----------



## A2JC4life

Heidi, I think that we are in substantial agreement. 

I wasn't intending to discount careers for single women, either (that would be a whole other discussion, for one thing!). I just know that in our current culture, it is assumed that a career is the _only_ thing available for a single woman to do, so those nurturing/hospitable ministries can tend (as a whole, not necessarily by individual women) to get overlooked.

And I think I agree with your whole paragraph about studying theology.


----------



## calgal

A2JC4life said:


> Heidi, I think that we are in substantial agreement.
> 
> I wasn't intending to discount careers for single women, either (that would be a whole other discussion, for one thing!). I just know that in our current culture, it is assumed that a career is the _only_ thing available for a single woman to do, so those nurturing/hospitable ministries can tend (as a whole, not necessarily by individual women) to get overlooked.
> 
> And I think I agree with your whole paragraph about studying theology.



But there are a lot of single women/empty nesters who are gifted in nurturing and hospitality and can and do use their gifts in work and in ministries (then there are those of us marrieds and singles who cannot cook, sew or entertain... ).


----------



## A2JC4life

Some of us married ladies cannot cook, sew, or entertain by nature, either.  We manage, out of necessity!


----------



## calgal

A2JC4life said:


> Some of us married ladies cannot cook, sew, or entertain by nature, either.  We manage, out of necessity!



Thankfully my husband cooks better than I do (and he works earlier and comes home earlier than I do). Sewing is something I want to learn and luckily my friends are nerds or we go out for dinner (we are a good mom and dad's night out....)


----------



## Idelette

This discussion brings up another question that I have. What does a woman do in the case that she has no spiritual head? How does she learn and whom does she go to for counsel if she cannot be taught spiritual things by other women, or cannot ask questions at church?


----------



## JennyG

In His Grip said:


> This discussion brings up another question that I have. What does a woman do in the case that she has no spiritual head? How does she learn and whom does she go to for counsel if she cannot be taught spiritual things by other women, or cannot ask questions at church?



... or supposing she is married, but she is converted and her husband isn't?


----------



## jwithnell

When single, I was very blessed to have some elders see me as a bit more directly under their care -- they and their wives were very free with their counsel, encouragement, instruction and so forth. Much of what made me appealing to my husband can be attributed to what they taught me!


----------



## JBaldwin

In His Grip said:


> This discussion brings up another question that I have. What does a woman do in the case that she has no spiritual head? How does she learn and whom does she go to for counsel if she cannot be taught spiritual things by other women, or cannot ask questions at church?



I haven't responded so far in this thread, because honestly, I just didn't want to get into the topic again, and I've said a lot in the past, but this question immediately sets off red flags in my mind. 

Christ is our head. There is no mediator between God and man except Christ. Men are not the mediators between God and women. There is a teaching that has gone around the church for many years, (I've seen leanings toward this on this board) that somehow because God made man the spiritual head of his wife, that men are the spiritual head of the church and that women married or single are always to be under the physical leadership of man. That is NOT what Ephesians 5 says. It says, that man is head of his wife, and Christ is the head of His church. 

Ephesians teaches a comparison between men and their wives and Christ and His church. It does not set up a headship of men over the church. Now before everyone goes nuts on me, let me continue by saying that I in no way advocate women leadership in the church. It is clear from Scripture that men are to be elders and pastors. However, if we forget that Christ is the head of His church, then sometimes we let men think they are the head. They are not the head, they are the appointed leadership until Christ comes back. 

Going on to the issue of submission. That means that women are to respect that leadership role that Christ has given to the men and listen and pay attention and learn when they speak. That does NOT mean that everything that the leadership says is right, nor does it mean that women are to blindly obey everything that is said. Women are just as responsible before God to search out the Scriptures as the men are. The only difference is that men are the ones Christ put in charge. It is a natural order. 

In my mind it is pure nonsense to think that women who are not married, who have no father and who are forced to be out on their own can't think for themselves or make wise decisions. Scripturally speaking, those women should look to Christ as their head, and find a good church where they can taught the Scriptures under the leadership of godly men. 

I deeply respect and follow the leadership of my pastor and elders, and I have no desire to fill their shoes, and they know that. I also see from them a deep respect for me as an individual, and in no way do they treat me as their inferior. In many cases over the years, I have been treated more with disdain than respect because I'm a woman. 

What does a woman do when her husband is not a believer, or her husband does not follow the Lord? Christ is still her spiritual head, and to the best of her ability, she should submit to the leadership of her husband. If the husband openly disobeys the Lord and asks her to do the same, then she will have to follow the Lord first.

There is absolutely nothing wrong in my mind with women going to both men and women for counseling depending on the situation. My husband is not a godly man, so when it comes to spiritual advice, it's pretty much useless. However, my sister is a godly woman, and she is married to a godly man. I go to them both for advice all the time. My father is no longer alive, and so I often go to my mother for godly counsel. She is wealth of wisdom. There are also other godly women in my church I go to. I've sought advice from men on this board, from my pastor, from my elders. 

I know this is a long post, but let me add just one more point. Women who buck God's authority and try to lord it over the men miss out on a lot. The same is true for the men. Men who lord it over the women in their lives, and lord it over the churches where they lead, are also missing out on a lot. In both cases, they are destroying the beautiful picture of how Christ and the church works, they are damaging the testimony of the Gospel to the world, and worse, they are damaging one another.

-----Added 8/18/2009 at 09:56:18 EST-----

NOTE: On my comments about single women. In US society, women are still pretty much free to support themselves more than in other societies. One of the roles of fathers and husbands is to protect their daughters and wives, and keeping them at home may be a way to do this. However, unless someone can show me, I don't see anywhere in Scripture that commands fathers to keep their daughters at home until they are married.


----------



## a mere housewife

Rachel, yes we are agreed .

Yvonne and Jenny, those scenarios are one reason why I agree with Joy that a strict association of theology with headship isn't biblical or practical (we have the example of Timothy's mother who was knowledgeable in the Scriptures without being able to learn via her husband); and why it seems important not to apply teaching about the sphere of the church as if it were teaching about all other spheres. It's clear that a woman married to an unbeliever is under the headship of her husband as regards submitting to his will and pleasing him; but as I understand from other discussions on the board, she is at least in some respect considered a 'spiritual' head of her household in the church? (because her children are considered 'clean' on her account?) It seems from the example of Timothy that such a woman is right to take up the responsibility of educating her children in God's word. I think that a single woman in more of Lydia's circumstance is the legitimate head of her own household (whether you're a paedo or a credo baptist, the way 'and her household' is used seems to indicate that she and her household didn't have to come under male _household_ headship to come into the church?).

However all of us are under male headship in the realm of the church as Joy lays out. I think life can be especially hard for single ladies, widows, and those married to unbelieving husbands; and it's important to have good encouragement and counsel from godly men in the church.


----------



## Idelette

a mere housewife said:


> However all of us are under male headship in the realm of the church as Joy lays out. I think life can be especially hard for single ladies, widows, and those married to unbelieving husbands; and it's important to have good encouragement and counsel from godly men in the church.



So, practically speaking, couldn't we still apply the principle of headship here? The Scriptures give a clear command that the Church should care for the widows and the orphans for this very reason. So could we say that in the case of a woman without a head that the session of the church now becomes her head?


----------



## a mere housewife

Yvonne, I don't think they become her head in the same way that a husband is the head of his wife -- that is a different relationship involving a different covenant, and a different picture. I don't think they can, in that case, be responsible for the decisions of her household (she is still the head of her own household). But I do think they are commanded to take special care of these ladies who are without male protection from all the cares of the world, as God takes special care of those who are defenseless.


----------



## Scott1

> I Timothy 5
> 
> 3Honour widows that are widows indeed.
> 
> 4But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God.
> 
> 5Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day.
> 
> 6But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.
> 
> 7And these things give in charge, that they may be blameless.
> 
> 8But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
> 
> 9Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man.
> 
> 10Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work.
> 
> 11But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry;
> 
> 12Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith.
> 
> 13And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.
> 
> 14I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
> 
> 15For some are already turned aside after Satan.
> 
> 16If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.



Great discussion- edifying and helpful, reflects spiritual maturity.


I Timothy 5 specifically details how dependent widows were taken on as a support charge of the church.

They have to be destitute financially- that is without visible means of support, especially from family, including of course a husband.

At least 60 years old, vow to remain unmarried (vow to the church), without responsibility for children.

They must have the exemplary life qualities mentioned.

(Incidentally, this is the only place where the concept of 'deaconess' came from historically in the church- not at all the same thing as the authoritative office of Deacon and Elder in I Timothy 3, as modern proponents now assert). 

I'm not exactly sure how this fits into the discussion about headship, but it does show how the church is to care for one destitute class of persons as part of its witness.

It's interesting to note that if one of these "servant widows" were to marry, the implication is they would come under the support charge of their husband, and would no longer be qualified as a "widow indeed" for the church to assume the support charge for.

It also seems clear that if a widow were able to support herself financially or was otherwise provided for, she would not be qualified as a "widow indeed."


----------



## A2JC4life

I don't typically hear headship supported primarily from Ephesians 5, but from 1 Corinthians 11. This says that "the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." How does one derive an exception from that?


----------



## a mere housewife

Rachel I don't think anyone is trying to derive exceptions from 1 Corinthians 11, which addresses the created order in the context of the church? Is that what you are asking?

Scott thank you for posting that explanation: I was wondering how that would play into the discussion.


----------



## A2JC4life

I was wondering how the teaching referenced here:



JBaldwin said:


> In His Grip said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a teaching that has gone around the church for many years, ... that women married or single are always to be under the physical leadership of man. That is NOT what Ephesians 5 says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...is not in keeping with Scripture. Ephesians five does not make the claim that all women are to be under the headship of man, but 1 Corinthians 11 seems to do so. How does one who believes that this teaching is erroneous understand these passages?
Click to expand...


----------



## a mere housewife

Rachel, I think the answer lies in the context -- 1 Corinthians is addressing the created order as it functions in the church. No one is disputing the created order, and no is disputing the way it functions in the church -- what we do not wish to do is to apply teaching specific to one sphere (the church) across the board and come up with something Scripture never teaches or even assumes (ie, that every single woman must be under a male _household_ authority, whether her own husband or somebody else's)?


----------



## A2JC4life

Gotcha! I was missing the distinction that was being made between the church and the home. Thank you for clarifying.


----------



## Idelette

A2JC4life said:


> I was wondering how the teaching referenced here:
> 
> 
> 
> JBaldwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In His Grip said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a teaching that has gone around the church for many years, ... that women married or single are always to be under the physical leadership of man. That is NOT what Ephesians 5 says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...is not in keeping with Scripture. Ephesians five does not make the claim that all women are to be under the headship of man, but 1 Corinthians 11 seems to do so. How does one who believes that this teaching is erroneous understand these passages?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why the quote above is referenced to me, but I did not actually make that statement. I just wanted to clarify that.
Click to expand...


----------



## A2JC4life

I'm not sure what happened with that quote. I just used the quote button at the bottom of the one post, and it seems to have nested them. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## Scott1

> Calvin's Commentaries
> I Corinthians 11:3-12
> 
> 3. But I would have you know. It is an old proverb: "Evil manners beget good laws."10 As the rite here treated of had not been previously called in question, Paul had given no enactment respecting it.11 The error of the Corinthians was the occasion of his showing, what part it was becoming to act in this matter. With the view of proving, that it is an unseemly thing for women to appear in a public assembly with their heads uncovered, and, on the other hand, for men to pray or prophesy with their heads covered, he sets out with noticing the arrangements that are divinely established.
> 
> He says, that as Christ is subject to God as his head, so is the man subject to Christ, and the woman to the man. We shall afterwards see, how he comes to infer from this, that women ought to have their heads covered. Let us, for the present, take notice of those four gradations which he points out. God, then, occupies the first place: Christ holds the second place. How so? Inasmuch as he has in our flesh made himself subject to the Father, for, apart from this, being of one essence with the Father, he is his equal. Let us, therefore, bear it in mind, that this is spoken of Christ as mediator. He is, I say, inferior to the Father, inasmuch as he assumed our nature, that he might be the first-born among many brethren.
> 
> There is somewhat more of difficulty in what follows. Here the man is placed in an intermediate position between Christ and the woman, so that Christ is not the head of the woman. Yet the same Apostle teaches us elsewhere, (Galatians 3:28,) that in Christ there is neither male nor female. Why then does he make a distinction here, which in that passage he does away with? I answer, that the solution of this depends on the connection in which the passages occur. When he says that there is no difference between the man and the woman, he is treating of Christ's spiritual kingdom, in which individual distinctions12 are not regarded, or made any account of; for it has nothing to do with the body, and has nothing to do with the outward relationships of mankind, but has to do solely with the mind -- on which account he declares that there is no difference, even between bond and free. In the meantime, however, he does not disturb civil order or honorary distinctions, which cannot be dispensed with in ordinary life. Here, on the other hand, he reasons respecting outward propriety and decorum -- which is a part of ecclesiastical polity. Hence, as regards spiritual connection in the sight of God, and inwardly in the conscience, Christ is the head of the man and of the woman without any distinction, because, as to that, there is no regard paid to male or female; but as regards external arrangement and political decorum, the man follows Christ and the woman the man, so that they are not upon the same footing, but, on the contrary, this inequality exists. Should any one ask, what connection marriage has with Christ, I answer, that Paul speaks here of that sacred union of pious persons, of which Christ is the officiating priest,13 and He in whose name it is consecrated.
> 
> 4. Every man praying. Here there are two propositions. The first relates to the man, the other to the woman. He says that the man commits an offense against Christ his head, if he prays or prophesies with his head covered. Why so? Because he is subject to Christ, with this understanding, that he is to hold the first place in the government of the house -- for the father of the family is like a king in his own house. Hence the glory of God shines forth in him, in consequence of the authority with which he is invested. If he covers his head, he lets himself down from that preeminence which God had assigned to him, so as to be in subjection. Thus the honor of Christ is infringed upon. For example,14 If the person whom the prince has appointed as his lieutenant, does not. know how to maintain his proper station,15 and instead of this, exposes his dignity to contempt on the part of persons in the lowest station, does he not bring dishonor upon his prince? In like manner, if the man does not keep his own station -- if he is not subject to Christ in such a way as to preside over his own family with authority, he obscures, to that extent, the glory of Christ, which shines forth in the well regulated order of marriage. The covering, as we shall see ere long, is all emblem of authority intermediate and interposed.
> 
> Prophesying I take here to mean -- declaring the mysteries of God for the edification of the hearers, (as afterwards in 1 Corinthians 14.) as praying means preparing a form of prayer, and taking the lead, as it were, of all the people -- which is the part of the public teacher,16 for Paul is not arguing here as to every kind of prayer, but as to solemn prayer in public. Let us, however, bear in mind, that in this matter the error is merely in so far as decorum is violated, and the distinction of rank which God has established, is broken in upon. For we must not be so scrupulous as to look upon it as a criminal thing for a teacher to have a cap on his head, when addressing the people from the pulpit. Paul means nothing more than this -- that it should appear that the man has authority, and that the woman is under subjection, and this is secured when the man uncovers his head in the view of the Church, though he should afterwards put on his cap again from fear of catching cold. In fine, the one rule to be observed here is to pre>pon -- decorum. If that is secured, Paul requires nothing farther.
> 
> 5. Every woman praying or prophesying. Here we have the second proposition -- that women ought to have their heads covered when they pray or prophesy; otherwise they dishonor their head. For as the man honors his head by showing his liberty, so the woman, by showing her subjection. Hence, on the other hand, if the woman uncovers her head, she shakes off subjection -- involving contempt of her husband. It may seem, however, to be superfluous for Paul to forbid the woman to prophesy with her head uncovered, while elsewhere he wholly
> 
> prohibits women from speaking in the Church.
> (1 Timothy 2:12.)
> 
> It would not, therefore, be allowable for them to prophesy even with a covering upon their head, and hence it follows that it is to no purpose that he argues here as to a covering. It may be replied, that the Apostle, by here condemning the one, does not commend the other. For when he reproves them for prophesying with their head uncovered, he at the same time does not give them permission to prophesy in some other way, but rather delays his condemnation of that vice to another passage, namely in 1 Corinthians 14. In this reply there is nothing amiss, though at the same time it might suit sufficiently well to say, that the Apostle requires women to show their modesty -- not merely in a place in which the whole Church is assembled, but also in any more dignified assembly, either of matrons or of men, such as are sometimes convened in private houses.
> 
> For it is all one as if she were shaven. He now maintains from other considerations, that it is unseemly for women to have their heads bare. Nature itself, says he, abhors it. To see a woman shaven is a spectacle that is disgusting and monstrous. Hence we infer that the woman has her hair given her for a covering. Should any one now object, that her hair is enough, as being a natural covering, Paul says that it is not, for it is such a covering as requires another thing to be made use of for covering it. And hence a conjecture is drawn, with some appearance of probability -- that women who had beautiful hair were accustomed to uncover their heads for the purpose of showing off their beauty. It is not, therefore, without good reason that Paul, as a remedy for this vice, sets before them the opposite idea -- that they be regarded as remarkable for unseemliness, rather than for what is an incentive to lust.17
> 
> 7. The man ought not to cover his head, because he is the image. The same question may now be proposed respecting the image, as formerly respecting the head. For both sexes were created in the image of God, and Paul exhorts women no less than men to be formed anew, according to that image. The image, however, of which he is now speaking, relates to the order of marriage, and hence it belongs to the present life, and is not connected with conscience. The simple solution is this -- that he does not treat here of innocence and holiness, which are equally becoming in men and women, but of the distinction, which God has conferred upon the man, so as to have superiority over the woman. In this superior order of dignity the glory of God is seen, as it shines forth in every kind of superiority.
> 
> The woman is the glory of the man. There is no doubt that the woman is a distinguished ornament of the man; for it is a great honor that God has appointed her to the man as the partner of his life, and a helper to him,18 and has made her subject to him as the body is to the head. For what Solomon affirms as to a careful wife -- that she is a crown to her husband, (Proverbs 12:4,) is true of the whole sex, if we look to the appointment of God, which Paul here commends, showing that the woman was created for this purpose -- that she might be a distinguished ornament of the man.
> 
> 8. For the man is not from the woman. He establishes by two arguments the pre-eminence, which he had assigned to men above women. The first is, that as the woman derives her origin from the man, she is therefore inferior in rank. The second is, that as the woman was created for the sake of the man, she is therefore subject to him, as the work ultimately produced is to its cause.19 That the man is the beginning of the woman and the end for which she was made, is evident from the law. (Genesis 2:18.)
> 
> It is not good for a man to be alone. Let us make for him, etc.
> 
> Farther,
> 
> God took one of Adam's ribs and formed Eve.
> (Genesis 2:21, 22.)
> 
> 10. For this cause ought the woman to have power.20 From that authority he draws an argument21 in favor of outward decorum. "She is subject," says he, "let her then wear a token of subjection." In the term power, there is an instance of metonymy,22 for he means a token by which she declares herself to be under the power of her husband; and it is a covering, whether it be a robe, or a veil,23 or any other kind of covering.24
> 
> It is asked, whether he speaks of married women exclusively, for there are some that restrict to them what Paul here teaches, on the ground that it does not belong to virgins to be under the authority of a husband. It is however a mistake, for Paul looks beyond this -- to God's eternal law, which has made the female sex subject to the authority of men. On this account all women are born, that they may acknowledge themselves inferior in consequence of the superiority of the male sex. Otherwise it were an inconclusive argument that Paul has drawn from nature, in saying that it were not one whit more seemly for a woman to have her head uncovered than to be shaven -- this being applicable to virgins also.
> 
> Because of the angels. This passage is explained in various ways. As the Prophet Malachi 2:7 calls priests angels of God, some are of opinion that Paul speaks of them; but the ministers of the word have nowhere that term applied to them by itself -- that is, without something being added; and the meaning would be too forced. I understand it, therefore, in its proper signification. But it is asked, why it is that he would have women have their heads covered because of the angels -- for what has this to do with them? Some answer: "Because they are present on occasion of the prayers of believers, and on this account are spectators of unseemliness, should there be any on such occasions." But what need is there for philosophizing with such refinement? We know that angels are in attendance, also, upon Christ as their head, and minister to him.25 When, therefore, women venture upon such liberties, as to usurp for themselves the token of authority, they make their baseness manifest to the angels. This, therefore, was said by way of amplifying, as if he had said, "If women uncover their heads, not only Christ, but all the angels too, will be witnesses of the outrage." And this interpretation suits well with the Apostle's design. He is treating here of different ranks. Now he says that, when women assume a higher place than becomes them, they gain this by it -- that they discover their impudence in the view of the angels of heaven.
> 
> 11. But neither is the man without the woman. This is added partly as a check upon men, that they may not insult over women;26 and partly as a consolation to women, that they may not feel dissatisfied with being under subjection. "The male sex (says he) has a distinction over the female sex, with this understanding, that they ought to be connected together by mutual benevolence, for the one cannot do without the other. If they be separated, they are like the mutilated members of a mangled body. Let them, therefore, be connected with each other by the bond of mutual duty."27
> 
> When he says, in the Lord, he by this expression calls the attention of believers to the appointment of the Lord, while the wicked look to nothing beyond pressing necessity.28 For profane men, if they can conveniently live unmarried, despise the whole sex, and do not consider that they are under obligations to it by the appointment and decree of God. The pious, on the other hand, acknowledge that the male sex is but the half of the human race. They ponder the meaning of that statement -- God created man: male and female created he them. (Genesis 1:27, and Genesis 5:2.) Thus they, of their own accord, acknowledge themselves to be debtors to the weaker sex. Pious women, in like manner, reflect upon their obligation.29 Thus the man has no standing without the woman, for that would be the head severed from the body; nor has the woman without the man, for that were a body without a head. "Let, therefore, the man perform to the woman the office of the head in respect of ruling her, and let the woman perform to the man the office of the body in respect of assisting him, and that not merely in the married state, but also in celibacy; for I do not speak of cohabitation merely, but also of civil offices, for which there is occasion even in the unmarried state." If you are inclined rather to refer this to the whole sex in general, I do not object to this, though, as Paul directs his discourse to individuals, he appears to point out the particular duty of each.
> 
> 12. As the woman is of the man. If this is one of the reasons, why the man has superiority -- that the woman was taken out of him, there will be, in like manner, this motive to friendly connection -- that the male sex cannot maintain and preserve itself without the aid of women. For this remains a settled point -- that it is not good for man to be alone. (Genesis 2:18.) This statement of Paul may, it is true, be viewed as referring to propagation, because human beings are propagated not by men alone, but by men and women; but I understand it as meaning this also -- that the woman is a needful help to the man, inasmuch as a solitary life is not expedient for man. This decree of God exhorts us to cultivate mutual intercourse.
> 
> But all things of God. God is the Source of both sexes, and hence both of them ought with humility to accept and maintain the condition which the Lord has assigned to them. Let the man exercise his authority with moderation, and not insult over the woman who has been given him as his partner. Let the woman be satisfied with her state of subjection, and not take it amiss that she is made inferior to the more distinguished sex. Otherwise they will both of them throw off the yoke of God, who has not without good reason appointed this distinction of ranks. Farther, when it is said that the man and the woman, when they are wanting in their duty to each other, are rebels against the authority of God, the statement is a more serious one than if Paul had said, that they do injury to one another.


.


----------



## Idelette

Scott,

Thanks for posting that excerpt for us, I look forward to reading it tomorrow when I have more time!


----------



## ericknowsChrist

Richard Tallach said:


> Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: Reponse to Evangelical Feminism: Amazon.co.uk: John Piper, Wayne Grudem: Books



I am 99% sure this book can be downloaded from Desiring God :: God-centered resources from the ministry of John Piper 




Montanablue said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, I would contend that the purpose of women is to "glorify God and enjoy him forever."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amen!
Click to expand...


----------

