# Egalitarianism, complementarianism, feminism and chauvinism



## Wannabee

The issue of women serving in combat, or other typically male related roles, came up in another thread. I put this in the family forum for a reason. This is a family issue. This is a marriage issue. This is a headship issue. Scripture makes it clear that some roles are particularly suited for men and women. There are many tasks that are gender neutral. But there are many that clearly are not. We need not discuss the obvious fact that only women can be wives and mothers and only men can be husbands and fathers. I hope that we don't need to discuss the fact that men are to lead the family as the head and women are to help them in godly submission. And, it is also established in Scripture that each is to do this regardless of how well their spouse fulfills or doesn't fulfill their own roles.

With this in mind, let's talk. Is a woman suitable for combat? Is she as capable physically, mentally or emotionally? What about women leaders? Corporate? Military? Political? And, if we step further into the secular arena, is there a point where headship is no longer an issue? A major issue here is also whether or not there is biblical justification to separate secular and religious.

I'm going to line up some Scripture here that is pertinent to the discussion, to some degree at least. Then we'll see how folks think through these things.

Women are: (references and subtitles from MacArthur Topical Bible)
_Weaker than man.
_1 Pet 3:7 Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.
_Timid_.
Is 19:16 In that day Egypt will be like women, and will be afraid and fear because of the waving of the hand of the Lord of hosts, which He waves over it.
Jer 50:37 A sword is against their horses, Against their chariots, And against all the mixed peoples who are in her midst; And they will become like women. A sword is against her treasures, and they will be robbed.
Jer 51:30 The mighty men of Babylon have ceased fighting, They have remained in their strongholds; Their might has failed, They became like women; They have burned her dwelling places, The bars of her gate are broken.
Nah 3:13 Surely, your people in your midst are women! The gates of your land are wide open for your enemies; Fire shall devour the bars of your gates.

Forms of employment,
_Household work_.
Gen 18:6 So Abraham hurried into the tent to Sarah and said, “Quickly, make ready three measures of fine meal; knead it and make cakes.”
Prov 31:15 She also rises while it is yet night, And provides food for her household, And a portion for her maidservants.
_Agriculture_.
Ruth 2:8 Then Boaz said to Ruth, “You will listen, my daughter, will you not? Do not go to glean in another field, nor go from here, but stay close by my young women.
_Tending sheep_.
Gen 29:9 Now while he was still speaking with them, Rachel came with her father’s sheep, for she was a shepherdess.
Ex 2:16 Now the priest of Midian had seven daughters. And they came and drew water, and they filled the troughs to water their father’s flock.
Drawing and carrying water.
Gen 24:15–16 And it happened, before he had finished speaking, that behold, Rebekah, who was born to Bethuel, son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham’s brother, came out with her pitcher on her shoulder. 16 Now the young woman was very beautiful to behold, a virgin; no man had known her. And she went down to the well, filled her pitcher, and came up.
1 Sam 9:11 As they went up the hill to the city, they met some young women going out to draw water, and said to them, “Is the seer here?”
John 4:7 A woman of Samaria came to draw water. Jesus said to her, “Give Me a drink.”
_Grinding grain_.
Matt 24:41 Two women will be grinding at the mill: one will be taken and the other left.
Luke 17:35 Two women will be grinding together: the one will be taken and the other left.
_Spinning_.
Prov 31:13–14 She seeks wool and flax, And willingly works with her hands. 14 She is like the merchant ships, She brings her food from afar.
_Embroidery_.
Prov 31:22 She makes tapestry for herself; Her clothing is fine linen and purple.
_Celebrating the victories of the nation_.
Ex 15:20–21 Then Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took the timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances. 21 And Miriam answered them: “Sing to the Lord, For He has triumphed gloriously! The horse and its rider He has thrown into the sea!”
Judg 11:34 When Jephthah came to his house at Mizpah, there was his daughter, coming out to meet him with timbrels and dancing; and she was his only child. Besides her he had neither son nor daughter.
1 Sam 18:6–7 Now it had happened as they were coming home, when David was returning from the slaughter of the Philistine, that the women had come out of all the cities of Israel, singing and dancing, to meet King Saul, with tambourines, with joy, and with musical instruments. 7 So the women sang as they danced, and said: “Saul has slain his thousands, And David his ten thousands.”
_Attending funerals as mourners._
Jer 9:17 Thus says the Lord of hosts: “Consider and call for the mourning women, That they may come; And send for skillful wailing women, That they may come.
Jer 9:20 Yet hear the word of the Lord, O women, And let your ear receive the word of His mouth; Teach your daughters wailing, And everyone her neighbor a lamentation.

The list of those who train and go to war are inevitably men/sons.
Numbers 1:20 Now the children of Reuben, Israel’s oldest son, their genealogies by their families, by their fathers’ house, according to the number of names, every male individually, from twenty years old and above, all who were able to go to war: 
Numbers 1:32 From the sons of Joseph, the children of Ephraim, their genealogies by their families, by their fathers’ house, according to the number of names, from twenty years old and above, all who were able to go to war: 
1 Chronicles 5:18 The sons of Reuben, the Gadites, and half the tribe of Manasseh had forty-four thousand seven hundred and sixty valiant men, men able to bear shield and sword, to shoot with the bow, and skillful in war, who went to war. 
1 Chronicles 7:11 All these sons of Jediael were heads of their fathers’ houses; there were seventeen thousand two hundred mighty men of valor fit to go out for war and battle. 
1 Chronicles 12:1 Now these were the men who came to David at Ziklag while he was still a fugitive from Saul the son of Kish; and they were among the mighty men, helpers in the war, 
1 Chronicles 12:24 of the sons of Judah bearing shield and spear, six thousand eight hundred armed for war; 
1 Chronicles 12:25 of the sons of Simeon, mighty men of valor fit for war, seven thousand one hundred; 

What about women leaders?
2 Kings 11:1 When Athaliah the mother of Ahaziah saw that her son was dead, she arose and destroyed all the royal heirs. 
Judges 4:4-9 - Deborah goes with Barak to battle and says, "nevertheless there will be no glory for you in the journey you are taking, for the LORD will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman." This is obviously a dishonor to Barak.

Women ruling over a nation is a curse
Is 3:12 As for My people, children are their oppressors, And women rule over them. O My people! Those who lead you cause you to err, And destroy the way of your paths.”

A word search with men and war brought up 55 verses. With women and war only 2 verses came up, neither of them referring women as fighting (Judg 21:22; Jer 41:16).


----------



## Augusta




----------



## refbaptdude

> Forms of employment,
> Household work.
> Gen 18:6 So Abraham hurried into the tent to Sarah and said, “Quickly, make ready three measures of fine meal; knead it and make cakes.”
> Prov 31:15 She also rises while it is yet night, And provides food for her household, And a portion for her maidservants.
> Agriculture.
> Ruth 2:8 Then Boaz said to Ruth, “You will listen, my daughter, will you not? Do not go to glean in another field, nor go from here, but stay close by my young women.
> Tending sheep.
> Gen 29:9 Now while he was still speaking with them, Rachel came with her father’s sheep, for she was a shepherdess.
> Ex 2:16 Now the priest of Midian had seven daughters. And they came and drew water, and they filled the troughs to water their father’s flock.
> Drawing and carrying water.
> Gen 24:15–16 And it happened, before he had finished speaking, that behold, Rebekah, who was born to Bethuel, son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham’s brother, came out with her pitcher on her shoulder. 16 Now the young woman was very beautiful to behold, a virgin; no man had known her. And she went down to the well, filled her pitcher, and came up.
> 1 Sam 9:11 As they went up the hill to the city, they met some young women going out to draw water, and said to them, “Is the seer here?”
> John 4:7 A woman of Samaria came to draw water. Jesus said to her, “Give Me a drink.”
> Grinding grain.
> Matt 24:41 Two women will be grinding at the mill: one will be taken and the other left.
> Luke 17:35 Two women will be grinding together: the one will be taken and the other left.
> Spinning.
> Prov 31:13–14 She seeks wool and flax, And willingly works with her hands. 14 She is like the merchant ships, She brings her food from afar.
> Embroidery.
> Prov 31:22 She makes tapestry for herself; Her clothing is fine linen and purple.
> Celebrating the victories of the nation.
> Ex 15:20–21 Then Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took the timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances. 21 And Miriam answered them: “Sing to the Lord, For He has triumphed gloriously! The horse and its rider He has thrown into the sea!”
> Judg 11:34 When Jephthah came to his house at Mizpah, there was his daughter, coming out to meet him with timbrels and dancing; and she was his only child. Besides her he had neither son nor daughter.
> 1 Sam 18:6–7 Now it had happened as they were coming home, when David was returning from the slaughter of the Philistine, that the women had come out of all the cities of Israel, singing and dancing, to meet King Saul, with tambourines, with joy, and with musical instruments. 7 So the women sang as they danced, and said: “Saul has slain his thousands, And David his ten thousands.”
> Attending funerals as mourners.
> Jer 9:17 Thus says the Lord of hosts: “Consider and call for the mourning women, That they may come; And send for skillful wailing women, That they may come.
> Jer 9:20 Yet hear the word of the Lord, O women, And let your ear receive the word of His mouth; Teach your daughters wailing, And everyone her neighbor a lamentation.



Joe,

So if women worked and contributed to the income of their households in the ancient world (agrarian culture), how does that look or work itself out in the modern industrial or tech world?



> What about women leaders?



Does the bible forbid the office of queen?


----------



## FenderPriest

I think a distinction should be made between active combat (gun to gun, bombing, etc.) and war efforts in general. For example, I wouldn't support women in battle, but I would say it's honoring to God for women to contribute and help in non-combative roles (i.e. During the German blitz on London, my wife's grandmother helped run the communication lines to connect the firemen with the fires. She later married one of those guys! She wasn't in the battle, but she had a meaningful, significant, and risky position.). I think we can see evidence of this sort of thing being allowable in the blessing of Rahab's actions in hiding the spies, or in Esther's efforts - non-combative, yet still meaningful contributions to war efforts.


----------



## Wannabee

refbaptdude said:


> So if women worked and contributed to the income of their households in the ancient world (agrarian culture), how does that look or work itself out in the modern industrial or tech world?


That's a tough question, isn't it? I have a few, short, answers. 
Under the headship of their husbands. 
As keepers of the home. 
Without neglecting their ministry to their families.
If they fail in any of these then they are sinning. But I'll not be the one to draw everyone else's lines in the sand.
For what it's worth, I think there are inherent dangers in a woman in the work place. It's proven that the testosterone levels in women in corporate America rises significantly. These same women become more aggressive and assertive. More affairs happen in work relationships than any other environment. If we work a regular job we end up spending more time with our co-workers than our spouses.
"The fastest growing rate of infidelity is among young married women."



> What about women leaders?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the bible forbid the office of queen?
Click to expand...

I don't see that. However, neither do I see a good example of a queen. The examples before us are wicked. And the passage in Isaiah clearly shows that it is an indictment against a nation to have women (and children) as leaders.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

The RCUS has a good position statement on the illegitimacy of Women in Combat.

The RCUS website is down right now but I'll try and get a copy linked.


----------



## jwithnell

If the woman is married, I think it comes back to what is acceptable to her husband. That said, I think the woman herself needs to be extremely mindful of whether or not her outside employment interferes with her family.

Actual combat, no. A military career with children at home? No because she could be deployed for long lengths of time.

Women sometimes have unique capabilities for jobs often seen as male. For example, I remember doing one structural firefighting activity that measured the use of air from tanks. I did far better than most of the men. And with all that bulky equipment on, I was able to maneuver in smaller spaces better. So I'd be careful about imposing limits not specifically give in scripture.


----------



## LawrenceU

FenderPriest said:


> I think a distinction should be made between active combat (gun to gun, bombing, etc.) and war efforts in general. For example, I wouldn't support women in battle, but I would say it's honoring to God for women to contribute and help in non-combative roles (i.e. During the German blitz on London, my wife's grandmother helped run the communication lines to connect the firemen with the fires. She later married one of those guys! She wasn't in the battle, but she had a meaningful, significant, and risky position.). I think we can see evidence of this sort of thing being allowable in the blessing of Rahab's actions in hiding the spies, or in Esther's efforts - non-combative, yet still meaningful contributions to war efforts.



Technically the USA doesn't have women in combat roles, but the definition of combat role has changed. A fighter pilot is no longer considered 'combat' when it comes to women. And, on the ground there are women in transportation that are not in 'combat roles', but they find themselves in combat rather regularly. Just remember Lori Piestewa. Women also serve as helo pilots in dustoff. That places them right into a combat situation at times.


----------



## OPC'n

Wannabee said:


> refbaptdude said:
> 
> 
> 
> For what it's worth, I think there are inherent dangers in a woman in the work place. It's proven that the testosterone levels in women in corporate America rises significantly. These same women become more aggressive and assertive. More affairs happen in work relationships than any other environment. If we work a regular job we end up spending more time with our co-workers than our spouses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well! I suppose I should retire my stethoscope! I'm becoming way too aggressive and really should just stay at home....now how to come into some money in order to do that... Wow, I don't know maybe God will bring something if I just submit and stay at home and wait for it to come in.  Maybe I should stay off this thread so I'm not kicked off PB!
Click to expand...


----------



## Wannabee

sjonee said:


> Well! I suppose I should retire my stethoscope! I'm becoming way too aggressive and really should just stay at home....now how to come into some money in order to do that... Wow, I don't know maybe God will bring something if I just submit and stay at home and wait for it to come in.  Maybe I should stay off this thread so I'm not kicked off PB!


That was a strange reaction; somewhat aggressive too. Nobody claimed to have all the answers Sarah. It's an observation that needs to be considered though. I'm glad God has provided you with the skill and ability to provide the way He has. May you continue to be a blessing to your co-workers and mother.


----------



## TimV

> Act 16:14 One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.
> Act 16:15 And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay." And she prevailed upon us.



One could make quite the list of business and professional women from Scripture. People go through seasons. A woman with 9 young kids probably won't do as the Proverbs 31 woman did and buy and plant and care for a vineyard, but I don't think the Proverbs 31 woman did this necessarily at the same time as she was taking care of lots of young kids and her husband.

Nursing is a perfect example of where women come into their own, and if it doesn't interfere with family duties it should be encouraged.


----------



## OPC'n

Joe, you did strike a nerve. I just think it is unnecessary to say that women are not allowed to do this or that just because men don't want them to. Women are not allowed to be the head of the household if they are married and they are not allowed to be in authority in the church and that is where it ends. Anything more is just manmade laws.


----------



## Wannabee

Who said women weren't allowed to nurse? You mentioned in the other thread that it would take Scripture to show you any limitation of women's roles. I provided verses that show just that. But I did not force any lines and made it clear that it was difficult to do so in many situations. Read the verses, come up with some more, and seek the Lord's guidance.


----------



## satz

refbaptdude said:


> So if women worked and contributed to the income of their households in the ancient world (agrarian culture), how does that look or work itself out in the modern industrial or tech world?



I would respectfully submit that in a general sense (that is, not applying to individual situations) the answer is not really that complicated. Women can, and did, work both within and without their homes to bring in income into the household. Sometimes I hear it said that the modern phenomenon of women working outside is something that started only in the industrial revolution / WWII. But in OT Israel many people had maidservants working for them. God just assumed that would be the state of affairs even when writing the Decalogue which is why he addressed men not working their maidservants on the Sabbath and not coveting your neighbour’s maidservant.

As JWithnell said, it will ultimately come down to the husband to decide what is acceptable to him, what he requires for the care of his home, and what is ultimately for the good of the family. And yes, sometimes circumstances (like young children at home) may make the decision for the couple.


----------



## TimV

Joe the problem with your list is that it is one sided! You selectively picked verses that support your fear (a very real fear) that the office place can be dangerous for young women.

Someone else could come along and make a list ignoring all water drawing type verses and pick only verses that show women running things, and both lists would be inherently dishonest.


----------



## OPC'n

Wannabee said:


> Who said women weren't allowed to nurse? You mentioned in the other thread that it would take Scripture to show you any limitation of women's roles. I provided verses that show just that. But I did not force any lines and made it clear that it was difficult to do so in many situations. Read the verses, come up with some more, and seek the Lord's guidance.



You said women in the work force...that would be me and many others. Those verses don't apply to most jobs now. Who reaps wheat etc etc? I definitely think that if a woman can prove that she is physically and mentally capable of handling a job and wants to do it, then she should. It is the same with a man. I have more male patients with weak constitutions than I do women. I'm not so sure men are anymore capable of handling mental stress than woman. In fact, I would have to say the opposite in many cases. I'm sorry if I sound grumpy it just irritates me when mankind starts making up laws not supported by Scripture.

-----Added 2/18/2009 at 10:31:20 EST-----

Ok, Joe! Now I feel bad and I apologize. I'm not going to worry about what people think about what women should and shouldn't do....doesn't really effect me so I should just keep out of it.


----------



## JBaldwin

TimV said:


> Act 16:14 One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.
> Act 16:15 And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay." And she prevailed upon us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One could make quite the list of business and professional women from Scripture. People go through seasons. A woman with 9 young kids probably won't do as the Proverbs 31 woman did and buy and plant and care for a vineyard, but I don't think the Proverbs 31 woman did this necessarily at the same time as she was taking care of lots of young kids and her husband.
> 
> Nursing is a perfect example of where women come into their own, and if it doesn't interfere with family duties it should be encouraged.
Click to expand...



I would wholeheartedly agree with this statement. It is not humanly possible for a woman to fulfil Proverbs 31 all at the same time. While she is in the early stages of marriage and raising children, she can not be out buying and selling, but when her children are grown, there is time for that, AND she can be quite a blessing to others around her, because of her wisdom and years of experience. 

When it comes to women in combat roles, I just don't see that it's a good idea, and can't find support for combat roles in Scripture, though I am certain that during times of war, there are things that women can contribute which are just as important as fighting on the front lines. 

As far as the headship issue goes. Before my children were born, I served on a the board of directors of a countywide taxpayers association (most of the time, the only woman). I was originally asked to serve as secretary/treasurer which I did for a number of years. When I resigned because my children needed me, I was unanimously voted to be an honorary member of the board. 

My children are older now, and two years ago, the men called me and asked me to serve on this board again. I relucantly agreed, my husband came one step short of ordering me to serve on the board, and even told me he would pick up the slack at home when I had to attend meetings. So I did it. 

This year I was ready to resign, and I got a call from the board asking me again to serve. I finally said, "Why? What good am I?" The man told me. This board needs your perspective. You always have a different viewpoint that helps us make good decisions. I was rather taken aback, but I bring it up to make the point that women can serve in roles other than the home, and in my case, my husband wants me to do it.


----------



## Marrow Man

I by no means want to hijack this thread, but if I could piggy-back on the whole nursing example and give a hypothetical: how many of you would be in favor of a hospital/hospice chaplaincy-type situation for a woman *if* it did not involve spiritual authority matters (e.g., proclamation of the word and sacraments). I don't know of whole lot about the various requirements and duties in this situations, so I may be way off here. I'm also not sure where to draw the line with counsel in such situations. But if it is truly a ministry of mercy sort of situation, is there a place for this sort of thing as a non-ordained position.

Please don't flame me! I'm just thinking out loud, more or less.


----------



## Wannabee

TimV said:


> Joe the problem with your list is that it is one sided! You selectively picked verses that support your fear (a very real fear) that the office place can be dangerous for young women.
> 
> Someone else could come along and make a list ignoring all water drawing type verses and pick only verses that show women running things, and both lists would be inherently dishonest.



A couple of things.
First, I invited others to bring in Scripture for the discussion. You brought up one good example, which I "thanked." 

Second, I didn't even have the work place in mind when I drew those verse up. I was more focused on combat roles. Steve asked about work, and I responded. I am concerned about women in the work place. Fear? I dunno. But I've seen enough to have very real and well founded concerns. And there are studies to back up my personal observations. But I also was clear that it isn't mine to draw lines. Wives have their own husbands who are to live with them with understanding and guide them in such cases.

If you have verses to help the discussion, then by all means bring them. But I would encourage you to stop short of accusing anyone of dishonesty (which you did).


----------



## TimV

I by no means want to bring theonomy into this discussion, but we can't avoid the question of law and liberty.

Do I think a Queen is a good idea? No, of course not. Why? Because God Himself said a King is a bad idea. Now, ask yourself what John the Baptist denounced Herod for, and then ask yourself if any Queen in Scripture was denounced for the specific sin of being a Queen.

There are lots of things that aren't optimal in this life. Eating fat isn't optimal, but many here do it, and claim Christian liberty, and they may very well be right, and probably are. But how can you (even rightly) brush of OT law and at the same time demand laws that God never demanded?

Edit: Joe, Jael is an example of a woman in a combat role. It is not optimal. It should be discouraged. Women should not be drafted. It should be discouraged. More after work!


----------



## Wannabee

What laws did I "demand"? I basically said the same thing you did, except I put more emphasis on different gender roles. ????


----------



## TimV

OK, work got postponed to 8:30



> What laws did I "demand"? I basically said the same thing you did, except I put more emphasis on different gender roles. ????



You said



> With this in mind, let's talk. Is a woman suitable for combat? Is she as capable physically, mentally or emotionally? What about women leaders? Corporate? Military? Political? And, if we step further into the secular arena, is there a point where headship is no longer an issue? A major issue here is also *whether or not there is biblical justification to separate secular and religious.*



And I sought to answer. A Queen is allowed in the Bible, but a woman Elder isn't. So it is clear that there is a difference between secular and religious concepts of headship.

A harder question to me is the one MM brought up. I don't see how a Chaplain could Biblically function outside the direct authority of a local Church. There's one posting today, though, and he's the kind of man that would have given the issue a great deal of thought.


----------



## Wannabee

Thanks Tim.

I agree that a queen is "allowed." But I also think Scripture makes it clear that a nation with a queen is being judged for lack of leadership (Is 3 is probably the clearest example). And, as you said, an elder cannot be a woman. You mentioned the problem is because they shouldn't have king. Your point is well taken, and I agree, but would submit that it's both, not one or the other.

Furthermore, the king in Israel was to be both a religious and political leader. They were decidedly inseparable. As the king went, so did the nation. Furthermore, every king was to write down the law. I see no separation of secular and religious here.

Much of the reason I made that statement is because we have been taught to believe that morals (inherently religious) do not affect political ability/performance/integrity. Clinton is an excellent example. If we are to do all things to the glory of God, then in what capacity can we separate secular and religious activity? Does Scripture ever separate the two?

Also, Tim, please notice that my statement that you put in bold was not an assertion, but a desire to help put this in the discussion.


----------



## TimV

> Furthermore, the king in Israel was to be both a religious and political leader. They were decidedly inseparable. As the king went, so did the nation. Furthermore, every king was to write down the law. I see no separation of secular and religious here.



That still won't work, since none of the Prophets would have allowed a woman Priest. Again, if John the Baptist denounced Herod for a technicality of Biblical law that's hard to understand, how much more would a Queen have been denounced if she were to have been thought of as a spiritual head?



> Much of the reason I made that statement is because we have been taught to believe that morals (inherently religious) do not affect political ability/performance/integrity. Clinton is an excellent example. If we are to do all things to the glory of God, then in what capacity can we separate secular and religious activity? Does Scripture ever separate the two?



We could look at other examples, but if the one I gave isn't accepted, why look for another?

Please! We're on the same side when wanting politicians who are Elders in good standing. In a perfect world, we'd have that, and young men and women marry after the man can afford for his wife to stay at home, the wife could conceive right away and they'd never separate.

But we don't live in a perfect world, and God in his mercy has made allowances for the rest of us.



> Also, Tim, please notice that my statement that you put in bold was not an assertion, but a desire to help put this in the discussion.



Thanks!


----------



## Wannabee

TimV said:


> That still won't work, since none of the Prophets would have allowed a woman Priest.



I'm sorry Tim. I'm missing your point.


----------



## BG

Since this is the Puritan board, what did the Puritans have to say about this topic?


----------



## Marrow Man

TimV said:


> A harder question to me is the one MM brought up. I don't see how a Chaplain could Biblically function outside the direct authority of a local Church. There's one posting today, though, and he's the kind of man that would have given the issue a great deal of thought.



The thought occurred to me when I ran into a female chaplain at a hospital. While I am completely opposed to that because of the ordination/authority issues, it seemed that a ministry of mercy position (and I am including an adequately paid staff position in a hospital) might be a _via media_ here. There may be women who go into such a position because they genuinely want to minister sick and dying people. I completely agree that this should not be done outside of the authority of the local church. Perhaps I am way off as it might create more problems than it solves.


----------



## he beholds

I appreciate the comment on Proverbs 31. I have never before heard or considered the idea that I have a long time to try to be completely like her. Thanks!!

What would the list of jobs that men can hold look like, if we took it straight from Scripture? Soldier, farmer, carpenter, etc. I do not see any cable guys, electrical engineers, professors...

And what about single women? What if their fathers are dead? Or widows? I heard RC Sproul JR say that they need to come under the direct authority of an elder, and cannot even lead their own family in devotions, but should attend another family's where there is a man present. 
I think if a woman is unmarried, and her father is not living, she cannot be under any more authority than a man, as far as in the church. I am under my husband's authority, and we are both equally under the authority of our elders, who is equally under the authority of Christ. 
I do think a wife would need the approval of her husband to do any job, but this leaves no guidelines for a single, fatherless, woman. 
I do think there is something wrong with a country to allow/require women to fight, (because this shows a lack of brave men OR it shows an abuse/over-extension of the military) but I do not think that a woman is necessarily wrong for accepting the offer, if it does not get in the way of her fulfilling any primary obligations (ie: she's a mother or wife who needs to be her husband's helpmeet). 

As far as a woman being president or queen, etc. *If* I could be president and yet honor my husband's _spiritual_ authority and even accept his headship in our home, and continue to be his helpmeet, then I do not see why it would be sinful for me to do so. The people may not like that I am not my own head, and thus may not vote for me, but if they did, I do not think I would be sinning. (But I personally could not take care of both my husband and my country, so I will not be running in 2012.)

When I was a teacher, leading many students, my husband did not exercise any authority over my teaching. He maintains his authority over me, and would rebuke me if I sinned in my teaching, but otherwise, I was the head of that classroom. I do not think this is unbiblical. Now, I have new obligations that require me to be at home.

I guess what I am saying is that if a woman can lead in one arena that isn't usurping her husband's authority or work in such a way that does not add to her husband's woes, then she is not sinning. If another woman has no husband, I do not think she would be sinning in doing _any_ job that is not in and of itself sinful, unless scripture forbids it.


----------



## a mere housewife

TimV said:


> A woman with 9 young kids probably won't do as the Proverbs 31 woman did and buy and plant and care for a vineyard, but I don't think the Proverbs 31 woman did this necessarily at the same time as she was taking care of lots of young kids and her husband.



The Proverbs 31 woman had servants (and those servants were probably someone's wives?) 

I think that when women have to be in _active_ combat it is a dire day for a country -- either they are in a desperate struggle, or they are being judged. However Ruben has already trained me in a battle cry should I ever be in a position where I have to defend others -- I am to rush out like a madwoman screaming 'The sword of the Lord and of Gideon!' .


----------



## py3ak

It is also acceptable to shriek "Hot Pies".


----------



## lynnie

Anything that women did for thousands of years up until the modern industrialized age of electricity they can do now.

That includes nursing the sick, many kinds of economic activity, teaching kids, etc.

Military battle- no, never.

One exception is that I think we need to have Mom home with preschoolers (and school kids during the summer). It would be nice to see churches help with finances when people make this decision.


----------



## Ex Nihilo

lynnie said:


> Anything that women did for thousands of years up *until the modern industrialized age of electricity* they can do now.
> 
> That includes nursing the sick, many kinds of economic activity, teaching kids, etc.
> 
> Military battle- no, never.
> 
> One exception is that I think we need to have Mom home with preschoolers (and school kids during the summer). It would be nice to see churches help with finances when people make this decision.



When people talk about how new it was for women to work outside the home, I have a sense that throughout history, the ideal for _men_ was to work in close proximity to their homes, perhaps farming their own land. This certainly seems to be the system described in the Mosaic law. It was not ideal, but apparently necessary, as pointed out above, for some men and women to work in others' households. Spending so much time in an activity that isn't linked to one's own home and land creates problems for men _and_ women, in different ways -- though most of these are unavoidable today. But I just wanted to point out that it's a little anachronistic to assume that the women at home throughout most of history were engaging only in mothering/housework. I have no data to back this up, only a general sense, but I suspect most were also helping their husbands and fathers in economic activity. (Indeed, look at Rachel the shepherdess, the Proverbs 31 woman, and Priscilla the tentmaker.) 

I think there are important concerns about women working outside the home, and these need to be addressed in individual situations. And it's clearly implied in the Bible that a woman's work is to be in service to her family, not to herself, and under her husband's headship. At the same time, a huge problem mentioned in the Bible that is often ignored in these kinds of discussions is _idleness_. The Bible frequently admonishes women not to be idle; the Proverbs 31 woman is praised for not eating the bread of idleness. Titus 2:5 is sometimes cited to prove that women should work at home and not outside, but in light of Paul's concerns in 1 Timothy 5:13 ("Besides that, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not"), I wonder if the emphasis is on _working_ at home rather than working at _home_ -- though all the words in the phrase are important. 

It is clear that women should not be idle. They should work. The question is where and how, and I find it to be more useful, generally, when other people give guidance on what is most helpful to the family rather than which types are "permissible" and "impermissible" or which are traditionally female. I do not mean to downplay how difficult housekeeping can be, but with modern appliances, a woman with grown children who stays at home has to be fairly disciplined to keep herself from idleness. It certainly can be done. My own mother recently retired from teaching and is busier than ever painting her house, sewing blankets for premature babies, and doing other church work. But idleness is a real concern, and it's very clear, despite stereotypes that men are to be active and women passive, that _both_ are to be active, strong, and skillful at their tasks.


----------



## a mere housewife

py3ak said:


> It is also acceptable to shriek "Hot Pies".



Yes, I forgot that one -- but I would also forget it in the heat of battle. I would rush out like a madwoman shrieking, 'Hot . . . wait, wait just a minute . . . hot potato? Hot ham and cheese? Hot muffins? Lightly salted ricecakes?'


----------



## Augusta

One thing not mentioned yet is that even when women did have roles outside their homes in the scriptures 1) they were single 2) they were under authority sent by their family or bought as a slave, or 3) were working to keep their household Prov 31.

There wasn't this modern idea of a solitary independant woman that we have today. With Ruth and Naomi they returned to Naomi's tribe and family structure and were surviving by working in that tribe's fields until someone would redeem them. Which meant marrying her in order to raise up seed for the dead husband.

And just because we have historical narrative of what Lydia did at the time of her conversion does not a rule make for women in business. 

Now a days I understand that this is unheard of and women who are single do what they can in their various situations. But I hope that they would try to do all they can to live out the rule of faith set forth in the scriptures and that they would pray that God would help them to get in a situation where they are under authority of some sort because that seems to be the biblical model for us weaker vessels. Especially in light of the fact that we will automatically usurp the role when we can a la Gen. 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; _and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. _



> Matthew Henry on Gen. 3:16
> 
> II. She is here put into a state of subjection. The whole sex, which by creation was equal with man, is, for sin, made inferior, and forbidden to usurp authority, 1 Tim. ii. 11, 12. The wife particularly is hereby put under the dominion of her husband, and is not sui juris—at her own disposal, of which see an instance in that law, Num. xxx. 6-8, where the husband is empowered, if he please, to disannul the vows made by the wife. This sentence amounts only to that command, Wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; but the entrance of sin has made that duty a punishment, which otherwise it would not have been. If man had not sinned, he would always have ruled with wisdom and love; and, if the woman had not sinned, she would always have obeyed with humility and meekness; and then the dominion would have been no grievance: but our own sin and folly make our yoke heavy. If Eve had not eaten forbidden fruit herself, and tempted her husband to eat it, she would never have complained of her subjection; therefore it ought never to be complained of, though harsh; but sin must be complained of, that made it so. Those wives who not only despise and disobey their husbands, but domineer over them, do not consider that they not only violate a divine law, but thwart a divine sentence.


----------



## refbaptdude

> And there are studies to back up my personal observations.



Joe,

Don’t you think that studies would show that men, who no longer work on the family farm and now work out in the world, business, factory, etc.., would have a higher percentage of infidelity? Are we then to suggest that men can only work on a family farm if the studies prove there is a higher infidelity rate when they work elsewhere?

These kinds of studies can cut both ways.


----------



## Wannabee

That's a good line of questioning Steve. I just opened this up for discussion and invited others to share thoughts and verses because of the other thread. Why don't you share with us what you think. This line of questioning does lead somewhere...


----------



## refbaptdude

Joe,

I think the Bible teaches complementarianism ( The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood ) I’m just concerned that many sectors of the church are pressing further than Scripture on some of these issues, i.e. Vision Forum. There seems to be a lot of Biblical interpretation through the lenses of the “Victorian” age or the “Leave It to Beaver” age  

Concerning working women, below is what I consider a solid Biblical understanding of the issue. 

An excerpt from the book “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood – A Response to Evangelical Feminism” edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem. The selection is from chapter 20, page 348. 



> *B. What About the Wife and Mother Working Outside the Home?*
> Some Christians have interpreted Titus 2:5 (“workers at home,” NASB)4 to mean that
> any work outside the home is inappropriate for the wife and mother. But the fact that
> wives should care for their home does not necessarily imply that they should not work
> outside the home, any more than the statement that a “overseer” in the church should
> “manage his own household” (1 Timothy 3:4-5) means that he cannot work outside the
> home. In neither case does the text say that! The dynamic equivalent translation of Titus
> 2:5 by the niv, “to be busy at home,” catches the force of Paul’s admonition, namely, that
> a wife should be a diligent homemaker. Moreover, Proverbs 31:10-31 depicts a wife and
> mother whose support for the family extends well beyond ordinary domestic chores (cf.
> e.g., verses 16 and 24: “She considers a field and buys it . . . she plants a vineyard. . . .
> She makes linen garments and sells them, and supplies belts to the tradesmen,” NASB).
> Since Scripture interprets Scripture and its teaching is consistent and unified, we realize
> that the picture of Proverbs is not contradicted by the Apostle Paul.
> Furthermore, we must realize that the emphasis on the home is the very point of the
> Proverbs passage. The woman in Proverbs works to care for her family and to fulfill her
> responsibility to her family (cf., e.g., verses 21 and 27). She does this not only for her
> children but also to support her husband’s leadership role in the community (verse 23).
> She is seeking the good of her family. Furthermore, she seeks to aid the poor and needy
> by her labors (verse 20).
> Here, then, are keys to the question of a wife and mother working outside the home:
> Is it really beneficial to her family, does it aid her husband in his calling, and does it, in
> correlation with these first two, bring good to others? Can she do it while still being
> faithful to her primary calling to be wife and mother and to care for her home? It must be
> noted that even though the woman in Proverbs has not sought to “find herself” or to make
> her own career, but rather to serve her family, in the end she receives praise from her
> family (verses 28, 29) and recognition for her labors (verse 31) because she has
> conducted the whole endeavor in obedience to the Lord she reverences (verse 30). The
> decision in this realm must not be unilateral on the part of the woman but made under the
> leadership of her husband as the head of the marriage and the family.


----------



## OPC'n

So far no one has given a Biblical command for woman to stay out of combat. Saying that there isn't a command for them to do so isn't supportive Scripture. No where does it say that women are to partake of the Lord's Supper but we do.


----------



## Wannabee

Bingo Steve. Read my posts through that lens and you understand what I've stated.

Sarah, make a biblical argument FOR women in combat.


----------



## OPC'n

Joe, make a Scriptural argument *for* women to take the Lord's Supper. It's the same deal. I, in fact, don't believe that anyone (male or female) who is married should be in the military, as they could die and leave their families without a spouse and parent. I believe it should be single males and females who do not have any responsibilities towards anyone else.


----------



## Augusta

sjonee said:


> So far no one has given a Biblical command for woman to stay out of combat. Saying that there isn't a command for them to do so isn't supportive Scripture. No where does it say that women are to partake of the Lord's Supper but we do.




Sarah, no, the scriptures do not have a command for every single thing that the modern mind can come up with. It has principles and precepts, only ten in fact, that are the basis for ALL of the case laws that are spelled out in Leviticus, Exodus, and Deuteronomy. Tell me, which one of those calls for you to compensate your neighbor if you dig a pit and the their ox falls in it? It's deduced from thou shalt not steal. We have to make the connection. We have to search the scriptures.

I don't think you can ignore that it is unprecedented in scripture for women to go to war. This is one of those things that isn't spelled out in the scriptures because it is so obvious that you don't even have to say it.


----------



## Knoxienne

Augusta said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far no one has given a Biblical command for woman to stay out of combat. Saying that there isn't a command for them to do so isn't supportive Scripture. No where does it say that women are to partake of the Lord's Supper but we do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah, no, the scriptures do not have a command for every single thing that the modern mind can come up with. It has principles and precepts, only ten in fact, that are the basis for ALL of the case laws that are spelled out in Leviticus, Exodus, and Deuteronomy. Tell me, which one of those calls for you to compensate your neighbor if you dig a pit and the their ox falls in it? It's deduced from thou shalt not steal. We have to make the connection. We have to search the scriptures.
> 
> I don't think you can ignore that it is unprecedented in scripture for women to go to war. This is one of those things that isn't spelled out in the scriptures because it is so obvious that you don't even have to say it.
Click to expand...


 

It's a dying nation which will not protect its women. It's a form of genocide, really.


----------



## Ex Nihilo

Augusta said:


> *I don't think you can ignore that it is unprecedented in scripture for women to go to war*. This is one of those things that isn't spelled out in the scriptures because it is so obvious that you don't even have to say it.



I definitely do not support women in combat, but as TimV pointed out, Jael provides some precedent for women getting involved in really desperate situations. But may we pray that never happens in our nation!


----------



## OPC'n

Ok, ok! I relent! All of you guys are probably right and I'm probably wrong. I'll agree to agree with you all!


----------



## Augusta

Ex Nihilo said:


> Augusta said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I don't think you can ignore that it is unprecedented in scripture for women to go to war*. This is one of those things that isn't spelled out in the scriptures because it is so obvious that you don't even have to say it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I definitely do not support women in combat, but as TimV pointed out, Jael provides some precedent for women getting involved in really desperate situations. But may we pray that never happens in our nation!
Click to expand...


I am glad most people are willing to say no to women in combat. I think though that the exception of Jael makes the rule. That fact that you only hear of this one lone incident, which is very unique, is telling in my opinion. I can't remember off the top of my head but wasn't there some judgment on the fellow that he was killed by a woman? I might be thinking of Abimelech in Judges who had the rock dropped on him by a woman.


----------



## Knoxienne

sjonee said:


> Ok, ok! I relent! All of you guys are probably right and I'm probably wrong. I'll agree to agree with you all!



No, it's not about anyone here being right. The scriptures are the standard, not what anyone says. There are times when I'm very wrong, and other times when I say what the scriptures say, but act like a banshee (sp)? toward the person I'm saying it to, and the message gets lost because of my attitude. Search the scriptures and enjoy God's feeding you from his Word and give yourself time (years and years in some cases) to grow and learn about how his Word applies to all areas of life. We don't "get it" all at once. And our society has so programmed us to think unbiblically about all sorts of things that it's hard to wrap our minds around many, many biblical applications.


----------



## py3ak

[KJV]Deuteronomy 25:11-12[/KJV]


----------



## Ex Nihilo

Augusta said:


> Ex Nihilo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Augusta said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I don't think you can ignore that it is unprecedented in scripture for women to go to war*. This is one of those things that isn't spelled out in the scriptures because it is so obvious that you don't even have to say it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I definitely do not support women in combat, but as TimV pointed out, Jael provides some precedent for women getting involved in really desperate situations. But may we pray that never happens in our nation!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am glad most people are willing to say no to women in combat. *I think though that the exception of Jael makes the rule. That fact that you only hear of this one lone incident, which is very unique, is telling in my opinion.* I can't remember off the top of my head but wasn't there some judgment on the fellow that he was killed by a woman? I might be thinking of Abimelech in Judges who had the rock dropped on him by a woman.
Click to expand...


I think that's a good point! I think the incident maybe shows that if a woman is forced into this role, she does not sin to fight. But those who put her in that position sinned.

My objection to women in combat, however, is based more on general revelation, and then confirmed by the implications in the Bible.


----------



## Archlute

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> The RCUS has a good position statement on the illegitimacy of Women in Combat.
> 
> The RCUS website is down right now but I'll try and get a copy linked.



I would like to read that statement. I haven't been able to access their site for some time now. Do you have a copy you could post, or email out?


----------



## OPC'n

Knoxienne said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, ok! I relent! All of you guys are probably right and I'm probably wrong. I'll agree to agree with you all!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not about anyone here being right. The scriptures are the standard, not what anyone says. There are times when I'm very wrong, and other times when I say what the scriptures say, but act like a banshee (sp)? toward the person I'm saying it to, and the message gets lost because of my attitude. Search the scriptures and enjoy God's feeding you from his Word and give yourself time (years and years in some cases) to grow and learn about how his Word applies to all areas of life. We don't "get it" all at once. And our society has so programmed us to think unbiblically about all sorts of things that it's hard to wrap our minds around many, many biblical applications.
Click to expand...


Yes, but surely you feel you are right because of what you've studied in Scripture about this subject. That is what I mean by being right. I would never say that you might be right just because of your intellect. I take it that everyone who is against women in combat has studied this more than I have. I'll take Joe's recommendation and read a book he suggested I read.


----------



## Augusta

Are you playing in left field today Ruben?


----------



## Knoxienne

sjonee said:


> Knoxienne said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, ok! I relent! All of you guys are probably right and I'm probably wrong. I'll agree to agree with you all!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not about anyone here being right. The scriptures are the standard, not what anyone says. There are times when I'm very wrong, and other times when I say what the scriptures say, but act like a banshee (sp)? toward the person I'm saying it to, and the message gets lost because of my attitude. Search the scriptures and enjoy God's feeding you from his Word and give yourself time (years and years in some cases) to grow and learn about how his Word applies to all areas of life. We don't "get it" all at once. And our society has so programmed us to think unbiblically about all sorts of things that it's hard to wrap our minds around many, many biblical applications.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but surely you feel you are right because of what you've studied in Scripture about this subject. That is what I mean by being right. I would never say that you might be right just because of your intellect. I take it that everyone who is against women in combat has studied this more than I have. I'll take Joe's recommendation and read a book he suggested I read.
Click to expand...


Absolutely.


----------



## py3ak

Augusta said:


> Are you playing in left field today Ruben?



Not at all! I think it's quite applicable. It is taken for granted that men will fight; but if a woman gets involved....


----------



## OPC'n

py3ak said:


> Augusta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you playing in left field today Ruben?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all! I think it's quite applicable. It is taken for granted that men will fight; but if a woman gets involved....
Click to expand...


So what are your thoughts on this subject py3ak? I'm interested if you want to share them.


----------



## py3ak

Well, it's interesting that a woman is to be punished for getting involved in a certain way in a physical dispute between men. That punishment _could_ relate to the specific manner of getting involved (thereby implying that it would have been fine for her to become involved by smiting the head of her husband's contrincant with a frying pan), or it could relate to the fact of getting involved at all. If the second view is correct, then if women are not supposed to get involved in _personal_ disputes, how much less in _national_?


----------



## TimV

> Joe, make a Scriptural argument for women to take the Lord's Supper. It's the same deal. I, in fact, don't believe that anyone (male or female) who is married should be in the military, as they could die and leave their families without a spouse and parent. I believe it should be single males and females who do not have any responsibilities towards anyone else.



Yes, you can't put the burden of proof on her, you have to point out where she can't hold her belief. We know from the verses below that only males should serve in combat during normal conditions. We know from Jael and Deborah that women can serve in extraordinary conditions. The below verse would be very hard to get around when it comes to drafting women. The examples of Jael and Deborah are hard to get around as examples of women who not only served in extraordinary times, but were praised for their service.

The above post also has a humanitarian element which has to be addressed as well. There is no prohibition against married males in combat, but there is leeway given in the Deu. 20 Scripture for making exceptions to general military service. Cossacks even today wear a ring if they are an only child, so commanders won't risk them unnecessarily. I can easily see this tradition as being Biblically defensible from Scripture. These examples from Scripture are very general.

Also a pet peeve of mine is 18 year old kids who are at a brainwashable age being recruited, but that's for another thread. 




> Deu 20:5 Then the officers shall speak to the people, saying, 'Is there any man who has built a new house and has not dedicated it? Let him go back to his house, lest he die in the battle and another man dedicate it.
> Deu 20:6 And is there any man who has planted a vineyard and has not enjoyed its fruit? Let him go back to his house, lest he die in the battle and another man enjoy its fruit.
> Deu 20:7 And is there any man who has betrothed a wife and has not taken her? Let him go back to his house, lest he die in the battle and another man take her.'
> Deu 20:8 And the officers shall speak further to the people, and say, 'Is there any man who is fearful and fainthearted? Let him go back to his house, lest he make the heart of his fellows melt like his own.'
> Deu 20:9 And when the officers have finished speaking to the people, then commanders shall be appointed at the head of the people.





> Num 1:2 "Take a census of all the congregation of the people of Israel, by clans, by fathers' houses, according to the number of names, every male, head by head.
> Num 1:3 From twenty years old and upward, all in Israel who are able to go to war, you and Aaron shall list them, company by company.


----------



## Augusta

Her hand being chopped off is because of what she grabbed, I think, not that she tried to help her husband. I do agree that it is somewhat related in that, she really has no other weapon in her arsenal except to hit him in the most sensitive spot. She is no match for him.


----------



## TimV

> Her hand being chopped off is because of what she grabbed, I think, not that she tried to help her husband. I do agree that it is somewhat related in that, she really has no other weapon in her arsenal except to hit him in the most sensitive spot. She is no match for him.



If this had an element discouraging women from fighting under extraordinary circumstances, then a woman would have to stand there and do nothing while her child was being assaulted. Why allow a woman a gun if she can't use it? Besides, Heidi with an iron pan wouldn't be allowed her little fun with Rueben.

PS, Traci, there's an historical parallel to the story you mentioned of a woman fighting under extraordinary circumstances



> Jdg 9:52 And Abimelech came to the tower and fought against it and drew near to the door of the tower to burn it with fire.
> Jdg 9:53 And a certain woman threw an upper millstone on Abimelech's head and crushed his skull.



Richard the Lion Hearted died in the same way.


----------



## Wannabee

TimV said:


> Yes, you can't put the burden of proof on her, you have to point out where she can't hold her belief.


Tim, that's really an empty assertion. I've provided Scriptures that show principles and precedents that Sarah refutes. I can do no more because Scripture does not say, "Thou shalt not put women in combat." Contrary to your accusation against me earlier, I've been honest about this. But it is fair to point out that she has no biblical grounds for desiring women to be in combat. The biblical examples, principles and precedents are clearly against her assertion.

Other than that, I think we're in general agreement.


----------



## Theognome

Even under the caveat of extraordinary conditions, I do not see how Deborah or Jael can justify Women having combat (or even military) roles. In Deborah's case, it was still Barak, and not her, who led the army into battle. Deborah's actions were consistent with a political/spiritual leader, not a military one. As an example, President Bush, as a political leader, ordered the invasion of Iraq- but he didn't personally do it as a military officer.

In the case of Jael, her actions, though noble, were by no means combatitive. Driving a tent peg through the temple of a sleeping man in a tent is definately not a combat (or even military) situation. Yes, her actions had very significant military consequences, but I've never heard of a battle fought against folks snoozing under the canvass. The death of Sisera was done in the most ignominious manner as a judgment against Barak for his cowardice- a combat death is not, for a military leader (which Sisera was) dishonorable for either the victor or the defeated.

Theognome


----------



## TimV

> Tim, that's really an empty assertion. I've provided Scriptures that show principles and precedents that Sarah refutes. I can do no more because Scripture does not say, "Thou shalt not put women in combat." Contrary to your accusation against me earlier, I've been honest about this. But it is fair to point out that she has no biblical grounds for desiring women to be in combat. The biblical examples, principles and precedents are clearly against her assertion.



Joe, it may be something I'm missing, (and I never meant that you were being dishonest intentionally, although I guess that's implied and I'm sorry) but I'm having a hard time following what you are saying. You said



> What about women leaders? Corporate? Military? Political? And, if we step further into the secular arena, is there a point where headship is no longer an issue? *A major issue here is also whether or not there is biblical justification to separate secular and religious.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> and I showed that God forbade Priestesses but allowed Queens. I thought that settled the matter of whether the religious principles of headship are the same as secular principles. We could go to the dozens of examples like women with male servants for further proof. And you answered
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, the king in Israel was to be both a religious and political leader. They were decidedly inseparable. As the king went, so did the nation. Furthermore, every king was to write down the law. I see no separation of secular and religious here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we're just going to realize neither one of us understands the other one or disagrees with the other one on this issue. You disagree with what I've tried to support with Scripture, and I look at the above statement ask myself if you really know where you idea of secular headship being the same as religious headship will lead you.
> 
> Another problem may be simply one of writing style.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tim, that's really an empty assertion. I've provided Scriptures that show principles and precedents that Sarah refutes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Means to me that Sarah successfully showed your argument flawed, although I doubt you really meant that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it is fair to point out that she has no biblical grounds for desiring women to be in combat. The biblical examples, principles and precedents are clearly against her assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Her assertion was that she does believe women should be allowed in combat along with me under normal circumstances, (and I disagree as I said) but is willing to be shown differently by the Bible. But I don't think you've proven your case. Rather, that in insisting on the principle of headship being the same in both religious and secular matters you torpedo yourself.
> 
> 
> I personally think that everyone participating on this thread would come to a 99% agreement level over a prolonged dinner with good wine (except for Moderator "R" because due to his domestic situation he's hoping for a blanket ban on all forms of female violence).
Click to expand...


----------



## Wannabee

Perhaps you missed this post Tim.


Wannabee said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> That still won't work, since none of the Prophets would have allowed a woman Priest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry Tim. I'm missing your point.
Click to expand...

As you propose, there must be a serious communication issue here. From where I sit you crossed my assertions as though they supported one another in a way that is foreign to me. In fact, during our whole discussion I've perceived that you have been accusing me of something that I've not be able to discern clearly. I'm just not following your thought process at all. But, I know where I can get some good wine, so let me know when you're coming over.


----------



## a mere housewife

> (except for Moderator "R" because due to his domestic situation he's hoping for a blanket ban on all forms of female violence).



Actually canine violence. Zack terrorizes both of us with the skillet.


----------



## BG

Knoxienne said:

our society has so programmed us to think unbiblically about all sorts of things that it's hard to wrap our minds around many, many biblical applications.


----------



## BG

Are women really safe in the work place or the Army?


----------



## Ex Nihilo

WDG said:


> Are women really safe in the work place or the Army?



Depends on the workplace, doesn't it?


----------



## OPC'n

I don't think I'm safe! Someone, please get me out of this hospital from all these crazy violent psychotic people!


----------



## calgal

WDG said:


> Are women really safe in the work place or the Army?



Why is the workplace unsafe for women? Are men not practicing self control? 
Using your logic, are we "delicate flowers of womanhood" safe going to the grocery store alone? After all we might provoke a man to lust. And certainly we delicate womens should not drive by ourselves. And we should not be walking by ourselves without being fully covered.






Think about this before you call me "aggressive or feminist:" God calls some women to work in medicine or law or commerce. He calls others to stay home. Would you refuse medical attention from a female MD?


----------



## satz

Speaking of getting our definitions right, here is something that came to me;

Would you consider a woman who worked full time at an outside job with the approval/blessing of her husband/father to be under her father/husband's headship (if single, assume she remains in her parents home)? 

(For what its worth, I would say yes)


----------



## TimV

Did you all notice the Chaplaincy issue in post 2 and 5 in this thread?

http://www.puritanboard.com/f116/definition-local-church-44006/


----------



## a mere housewife

Sarah, just wanted to say that I think what you do in nursing is splendid. God grant you every grace in your field which is very worthy and in which all your womanly tenderness and compassion and strength are called upon.

As Gail points out the grocery store can also be a very scary place  So can the laundry facility in the basement. Nevertheless we must boldly go where thousands of our kind have gone before. God bless those women and grant them the 'strength' that we are to be clothed with, who have to work outside the home for their families. My mother did it for years; though she would much rather have been home with us, though it stressed her to the point of having hives for months together etc. We women do engage in 'active combat' in a very real war, and there is very real courage and heroism involved: but we fight in a different sphere.


----------



## OPC'n

TimV said:


> Did you all notice the Chaplaincy issue in post 2 and 5 in this thread?
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f116/definition-local-church-44006/



Tim, what does the definition of a church have to do with women in combat?...just curious of your line of thinking.


----------



## Marrow Man

sjonee said:


> I don't think I'm safe! Someone, please get me out of this hospital from all these crazy violent psychotic people!



Sometimes I think along these lines, except it's more like this:

"I don't think I'm safe! Someone, please get me off of this board away from all these crazy Reformed Calvinistic people!"


----------



## TimV

Sarah, it was something Marrow Man brought up in post 18 of the thread we're on now.


----------



## Marrow Man

TimV said:


> Sarah, it was something Marrow Man brought up in post 18 of the thread we're on now.



For reference sake, here are the two posts I made on chaplaincy:



> # 18: I by no means want to hijack this thread, but if I could piggy-back on the whole nursing example and give a hypothetical: how many of you would be in favor of a hospital/hospice chaplaincy-type situation for a woman if it did not involve spiritual authority matters (e.g., proclamation of the word and sacraments). I don't know of whole lot about the various requirements and duties in this situations, so I may be way off here. I'm also not sure where to draw the line with counseling in such situations. But if it is truly a ministry of mercy sort of situation, is there a place for this sort of thing as a non-ordained position.
> 
> 
> # 27: The thought occurred to me when I ran into a female chaplain at a hospital. While I am completely opposed to that because of the ordination/authority issues, it seemed that a ministry of mercy position (and I am including an adequately paid staff position in a hospital) might be a via media here. There may be women who go into such a position because they genuinely want to minister sick and dying people. I completely agree that this should not be done outside of the authority of the local church. Perhaps I am way off as it might create more problems than it solves.


----------



## satz

Ex Nihilo said:


> I think there are important concerns about women working outside the home, and these need to be addressed in individual situations. And it's clearly implied in the Bible that a woman's work is to be in service to her family, not to herself, and under her husband's headship. At the same time, a huge problem mentioned in the Bible that is often ignored in these kinds of discussions is _idleness_. The Bible frequently admonishes women not to be idle; the Proverbs 31 woman is praised for not eating the bread of idleness. Titus 2:5 is sometimes cited to prove that women should work at home and not outside, but in light of Paul's concerns in 1 Timothy 5:13 ("Besides that, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not"), I wonder if the emphasis is on _working_ at home rather than working at _home_ -- though all the words in the phrase are important.



I would agree about idleness being the primary focus of that phrase in Titus 2:5. The point is, I think even more obvious if you take 1 Tim 5:13-14 together.



> 1 Tim 5:13 Besides that, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not. 14So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, manage their households, and give the adversary no occasion for slander.



Paul first notes that young women have a tendency toward idleness and being busybodies (his words, not mine!). He then carries on in v14: “SO I would have…”. As a response to women tending toward idleness, Paul wants them instead to marry and focus on domestic duties. 

Nowadays when we use the words “homemaker” or “stay at home wife” we tend to assume that the opposite of that is a career or working woman. But these verses tell me that in Paul’s, and hence the Holy Spirit’s thought, the opposite of being a good homemaker is being an idler and wondering busybody. That is the primary sin being condemned in Titus 2:5 when younger women are told to be homemakers or keepers at home. There is no indication at all from the context that outside work was what Paul had in mind when writing to Titus.

-----Added 2/19/2009 at 10:41:11 EST-----

By way of general comment on the topic of outside work for women, as I indicated, as long as the family does not suffer, I believe there is a fairly wide area of liberty for each couple to decide (with the man having the final say, off course). Of course, I am dealing only with what I think the bible would present as allowable. The exact application for an individual family will vary a lot and as Paul would say, not everything lawful is always edifying in all circumstances.

I believe proverbs 31:16 and 24 teach by precept that it is acceptable, and sometimes even commendable for women to have outside pursuits. I do not believe there is much profit in getting caught up on the exact activities she was engaging in, whether it was a home business or working from home or the equivalent of what we would consider a job today. She was engaged in activities that took her time and energy away from strictly domestic concerns. And this was something God considered praiseworthy. Of course, as Tim mentioned, this will not apply to all women at all times, for some wives will just be too busy to have significant outside pursuits.

If we ask is it lawful for a woman to enter into an employment relationship and hence under another authority, again, I believe the bible allows it. Sometimes this will not be wise, but that is a matter of prudence and discretion. I already noted how in the OT many women were under the authority of other men as their maidservants. Under God’s own civil law such a maidservant getting married did not break her relationship with her master (Ex 21:4). And as long as the decision has the blessing of the husband, there is no usurpation of headship. Numbers 30 allows a husband to annul his wife’s vows, but it also allows him to hold his peace and let her vow stand. He can choose that his household can take the wife being away for a certain amount of time or occupied with such and such. 

I think it really comes down to each individual family circumstances, and to a certain degree, preferences.


----------



## Wannabee

Other than Mark's comment above, I think it's interesting that the clearest and most solid answers given in this thread have been by a handful of women. They've shown that they understand and embrace God's order in creation, and are in no way threatened by it. This is true submission to God and the essence of feminine beauty.


----------

