# Women theologians?



## tcalbrecht (Jan 20, 2006)

Anyone have any thoughts on this article in the PCANews?

Women Theologians: A Spiritual Goldmine for the Church
By Carolyn Custis James

I wondering whether we have become so loose with terms like "theologian" that anyone attending seminary or some other course of study gets put into a category that was once reserved for a very few.

Or is this article just another under-the-radar egalitarian attempt to desensitize the church, the PCA in this case?


----------



## Arch2k (Jan 20, 2006)

It looks to me like a little of both perhaps. Either way, I don't like it.


----------



## kceaster (Jan 20, 2006)

I dislike the term "vocation". Women from the clear scriptural references are not called to a "vocation" outside their homes. A woman is not designed to seek a vocation other than to be a wife and a mother. This is not to say that they cannot take jobs to help out the family. It would be too dogmatic to say so.

But to talk about a woman in the context of a vocation in the context of the church is not right. Vocation is rooted in calling. And it is clear that women are called to be wives and mothers.

Having said that, I firmly believe that God has made women to be theologians as well. How do they apply that, then, is the question. They should teach. Pricilla taught. There's nothing wrong with them teaching. It is not ordained, there is no office attached to it. They are discipling and speaking to one another for the edification of the church. But I think that we overreact when we put woman and theologian into the same sentence. We automatically assume that any woman will use this knowledge to rise above her place. And I don't think that for one moment. I think the temptation is there. But how many men do the same thing who are not called? How many laymen rise above their elders and ministers? It is just as wrong.

Women should be afforded every opportunity to know as much as a man does about God and His Redeemer. But all that knowledge is tempered within her calling as wife and mother. The moment that vocation is hinted at, is the moment that a woman theologian is seeking to apply her knowledge and wisdom outside the bounds of how God made her.

How do you ladies feel about this? Am I off base?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Jan 20, 2006)

Two women from my church are currently attending Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia.

Both are probably in their forties. One is specializing in counseling and the other a teaching type degree. I know the latter plans on writing Bible studies for women. Both women lead women´s Bible studies at my church.

For the most part they appear to be more knowledgeable than the rest of the people in the church, including the elders. But seminary experience will do that. The elders have full time jobs (vocations) so it is not so easy for them to be seminary students.

I am very grateful for them and especially how they help guide my wife.


----------



## BrianBowman (Jan 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> Anyone have any thoughts on this article in the PCANews?
> 
> Women Theologians: A Spiritual Goldmine for the Church
> ...



... 

The title "Theologian" should be reserved for those who have done Doctral (and even post-Doc work) in the Biblical Languages, Historical Theology, Church History, Christian Philosophy, etc. Such *must* be well established, credible, and heavily published for many, many years.

No matter the gender of the graduate, obtaining a Seminary degree, does not alone justify this title. In a day and age where the writings of Beth Moore and Max Lucado are far better known to most Christians (including many in the PCA) than the great Reformed Theologians, obtaining an MA in Biblical Studies could be considered necessary to simply reverse the "dumbing down" consequent to decades of American Evangelicalism, Pentecostalism, and Dispensational influences. Never the less, a "Theologian" this does not make, but simply a truer disciple.

[Edited on 1-20-2006 by BrianBowman]


----------



## Scott (Jan 20, 2006)

Did not read the article. My wife read part of a book by James, though, and she is a quasi-feminist and wholly unreliable on gender issues.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Jan 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> I dislike the term "vocation". Women from the clear scriptural references are not called to a "vocation" outside their homes. A woman is not designed to seek a vocation other than to be a wife and a mother. This is not to say that they cannot take jobs to help out the family. It would be too dogmatic to say so.
> 
> But to talk about a woman in the context of a vocation in the context of the church is not right. Vocation is rooted in calling. And it is clear that women are called to be wives and mothers.



I'm not sure if I disagree with you, but I haven't found it to be by any means clear or obvious in scripture that women are (without exception) not called to any kind of vocation. The lack of clarity is precisely what makes this a difficult issue for women in the conservative churches today. If there are clear scriptural references, I would find it helpful to see them. In any case, not all women are called to be wives, and not even all wives are called to be mothers. What are they to do?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 20, 2006)

> Women should be afforded every opportunity to know as much as a man does about God and His Redeemer. But all that knowledge is tempered within her calling as wife and mother.



Titus 2:4-5 that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be discreet, chaste, *homemakers*, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed. 

oivkouro,j  {oy-koo-ros'} 
"Caring for the house, working at home; the (watch or) keeper of the house; keeping at home and taking care of household affairs 1c) a domestic


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Jan 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> 
> 
> > Women should be afforded every opportunity to know as much as a man does about God and His Redeemer. But all that knowledge is tempered within her calling as wife and mother.
> ...





Certainly being a wife and a mother are the two highest callings for a woman who is called to them. My question is whether this necessarily and scripturally excludes any other vocational calling (even for single women?). Being a husband and father are the two highest callings for a man who is called to them, but this doesn't exclude his having a sense of fulfillment from other ventures (which are simultaneously contributing to his fulfilling the other two roles) in and of themselves. His responsibilities in the home are quite extensive, including responsibility for the spiritual training of his wife and children, yet no one ever argues that a man who works hard to advance in his career is doing the wrong thing because he ought to do only as much work as is necessary to provide the basics and then spend the rest of the time at home teaching his family--so long as he _is_ teaching his family.

What I often hear, however, is something that essentially amounts to, "Women can work outside the home if they really have to, but if they feel they want any kind of fulfillment from anything besides being a wife and mother, they are sinning." Without doubt, being a wife and mother comes first and entails unique responsibilities, but being a husband and father _also_ comes first, and yet no one criticizes a man for feeling satisfaction in vocational success, so long as it hasn't been to the detriment, rather than the benefit, of his family. I'm not sure, then, why scripture excludes women from having a similar vocational satisfaction, even if the _degree_ of involvement is (seriously) limited by her other responsibilities.


----------



## Saiph (Jan 20, 2006)

> I dislike the term "vocation". Women from the clear scriptural references are not called to a "vocation" outside their homes. A woman is not designed to seek a vocation other than to be a wife and a mother. This is not to say that they cannot take jobs to help out the family. It would be too dogmatic to say so.



And what about single women ? ?

Proverbs 31 mentions several vocational works.

Would you mind using scripture to better explain what you meant by that paragraph. I think I am jumping to cnclusions you may not be truing to make.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Jan 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> Proverbs 31 mentions several vocational works.





The mention of vocational works (investing in land, producing and selling, etc.) in Proverbs 31 have been a source of sanity for me when I find the advice of my father and pastor (both of whom encourage to seek higher education so I can teach at the college level) in conflict with more conservative interpretations (which make some excellent points, especially in combating harmful feminist ideals, but seem to me to be a bit more exclusive than the Bible itself--though if I'm wrong on this, I need to know).


----------



## Kstone1999 (Jan 20, 2006)

This is an interesting topic to me specifically becuase I have been dating a young lady for about 8 months and we are talking about marriage. This young lady loves the Lord with all her heart. She is in her third year of Medial School and plans to be a Doctor. She feels its very important to be a good wife and mother. I havnt figured out how to approach this subject, to be honest Im still searching the scriptures and not sure if her being a doctor would be right or wrong. She seems to think that she can work a "part time" schedule when she becomes a doctor.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jan 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> What do we call folks who have not these degrees? Spurgeon, Bunyan and others? Were they not theologians?



I certainly would not consider Spurgeon a theologian. Godly, insightful pastor, yes, but not a theologian. I think skill (more than the requirements for your typical M.Div. program) in the original languages is an essential to be considered a theologian. Perhaps also a working knowledge of Latin in order to understand the church fathers. 

Calvin, Luther, Hodge, Machen would all qualify, but not Spurgeon or Bunyan.


----------



## Mike (Jan 20, 2006)

Perhaps take the example of Gill, then?


----------



## Saiph (Jan 20, 2006)

I would not consider anyone after Aquinas to be a true Theologian. Many theologians since, but no one has surpassed Augustine or Aquinas. Mainly because they were antecedent to all since that have built on their works.


----------



## Puritanhead (Jan 20, 2006)

They ought to be barefoot and pregnant instead of taking up valuable seats at seminary.

[Edited on 1-21-2006 by Puritanhead]


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Kstone1999_
> This is an interesting topic to me specifically becuase I have been dating a young lady for about 8 months and we are talking about marriage. This young lady loves the Lord with all her heart. She is in her third year of Medial School and plans to be a Doctor. She feels its very important to be a good wife and mother. I havnt figured out how to approach this subject, to be honest Im still searching the scriptures and not sure if her being a doctor would be right or wrong. She seems to think that she can work a "part time" schedule when she becomes a doctor.



PT after becoming a doctor might be doable, although perhaps difficult. But there's certainly nothing PT about residency, etc.


----------



## satz (Jan 20, 2006)

This is an issue i have thought about much in the past. Not that it applies directly to me, but as young men interested in marriage tend to do i have been thinking about the character of what makes a good christain wife.

I am not sure it is right to say women are never to have vocations. In Acts 16 when we meet Lydia why did Luke describe her as a 'seller of purple' instead of 'the wife/widow/daughter of XX?'

I think to sum up simply, a woman's first priority is her husband, children and home. If those are taken care of, she is free to work outside. This is not the worldly illusion of the modern superwoman, it is precisely what we see the virtous woman in proverbs 31 doing. Naturally not all women will work at all times. When children are young she obivously spends the majority of her time with them. But if there are no children at the moment, or if the children are grown and married, the christian wife naturally has more time for outside work. What level of commitment is 'keeping the home' is obviously subjective, but i think in the end it is at the discretion of the master of that home, her husband. If the husband is pleased ( and rich enough) to let servants (or slaves, like the dishwasher, dryer etc) handle the more menial household tasks while the wife works, there is nothing wrong with that.

Here is something i posted on another forum, uneditted and in all its horrible liberalness.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Keepers at home' does not mean a woman can never work outside the house. The virtuous woman from proverbs 31 worked outside the home, investing in land and planting a vineyard (v16), as well as selling linen to the merchants (v24). Some will claim that she was working from home but if you are investing in land 'from home' you might as well just take your money to the casino.To "˜consider a field´ would require substantial time spent away from home, examining the various aspects of this particular field as well as rejecting other possible pieces of property. To plant a vineyard, requires significant effort and care if it is done properly which would require her to spend at least some time away from home overseeing the project.

If you are going to hold to such a literal interpretation of proverbs,( a woman can only take those kind of jobs) then you might as well conclude she can only wear purple (v22). Nor can we assume her husband was involved in those ventures in any major way. Her husband had his own business to attend to, being on the city council (v23).

I believe the proper interpretation of those verses in proverbs is that the virtous woman does indeed work outside the home, not to become a 'career woman', but to build up her husband's estate. Naturally, such endeavours come after taking care of her husband, children and house. Now we don't know the age of her children but i suppose it is not unreasonable to assume they were older by this time. We do know she is rich enough to have servants (v 15) , so she can delegate some of the more mundane aspects of housekeeping to them.

Note also, that her jobs and businesses are part of what make her a woman who 'shall be praised.' It is not a concession to human nature or bad financial circumstances in the family.

Naturally, not all christian women will work like this. Demands of children and other things will factor into the decision, with the husband having the final say.

Some other points to consider;

Lydia, a worshipper of God, had the occupation of a merchant, not housewife, when she met Paul (Acts 16:14)

Paul sent Phoebe to Rome from Cenchrea (Romans 16:1-2). on church business.

Since scripture does not contradict itself, i think we understand titus 2:5 as being a general, not absolute description of a christian woman. It means a woman's first priority is her home and family. It does not however, condemn all outside work but rather condemns women being busybodies, idlers and whores who wonder around disgracing christianity. (1 Tim 5:13-14, Prov 7:11-12)

The bible does not address unmarried women that much that i know, but i think the same principles broadly apply with the father as the head instead of the husband. She should be growing in godliness and training to be a submissive helper and wife. If at that moment for whatever reason she is not yet married, i don't see any prohibitation of her undertaking outside work that her father approves off.

As for college, if you are still living at home under your father's authority and he approves, i can't think how you would condemn it with the bible. In fact, i think it is simply prudent for a woman to obtain a marketable skill whilst waiting for a husband.

[Edited on 1-21-2006 by satz]

[Edited on 1-21-2006 by satz]

[Edited on 1-21-2006 by satz]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by satz_
> This is an issue i have thought about much in the past. Not that it applies directly to me, but as young men interested in marriage tend to do i have been thinking about the character of what makes a good christain wife.



Excellent thoughts, Mark.



> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> I have heard some of my PCA friends speak of Deaconesses (i.e. women deacons).
> 
> This seems like a stretch to me as an official title, but certainly not as a trait (a servant).
> ...



Women are not allowed to be Deaconesses in the PCA. Unfortunately, some churches do something to the effect of bypassing that rule by giving certain women essentially the same roles and responsibilities of Deacons, but don't give them the "official" position.


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by satz_
> ...




What you mean is that women cannot in anyway right now be ordained in the PCA. However, in some churches they take on 'positions' that are called deacon.


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jan 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Did not read the article. My wife read part of a book by James, though, and she is a quasi-feminist and wholly unreliable on gender issues.



Who? Your wife?!? Be careful how you write.  It sounds like you wife is "a quasi-feminist and wholly unreliable on gender issues."


----------



## Robin (Jan 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kceaster_
> ...



 

Gentlemen, and pastors, as you know Scripture/Paul teaches not all are called to marriage. And beyond that, there are many cases of female vocation and theological abilities.

It is a fact that many wise, capable and obedient women (Titus 2) exist in the church -- coming from a variety of areas: married to unsaved men (both amiable and hostile to the Faith); married to weak or disobedient "Christian" men; single, mature and glorifying God in their labors; unmarried, having survived horrendous persecution for the Faith, losing husbands to death or divorce; young, old and in between; single mother's abandoned yet being faithful to their vocation.

The list goes on....

Everybody is a "theologian." We ALL have ideas about God. The question is, are they the right ideas?

It's interesting that the women who attended Christ, witnessing His resurrection, seemed to be not only faithful but fairly good theologians, too.

Martha was one of the best!

John 11:21--27
Martha said to Jesus, "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. But even now I know that whatever you ask from God, God will give you." Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again." Martha said to him, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day." Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?" She said to him, "Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world." 

Though it is clear Scripture teaches a basic (ideal) role of women in marriage, there are many cases (Lydia/merchant; women who attended Christ; Romans 16 Paul's mention of many; Lazarus' sisters, Etc.) that allude to women appointed to serve the Body in special ways.

A few are: Prisilla/tentmaker, who explained theology to Apollos; Phoebe/patron of the church; Prisca/worker in Christ; Mary/worker; Demaris/Acts 17; Anna/prophetess in Luke 2.

Talk about callings: how about Rahab/lied to protect God's spies; Abigail/intervenes for her unbelieving husband and exhorts David; Esther/intervenes for her country; Miriam; Rebekeh acts against her husband Isaac and intervenes to keep the covenant intact.

Not to mention the callings of Elizabeth and Mary which I imagine required them to be theologians as well as mothers....

Finally, be careful when using the word "calling." In Scripture, it is the word used to denote "election; regeneration." Calling = conversion.

A calling is not about a "job" in Holy Scripture; it's about Faith.

These are only a few of my theological musings....



Robin

[Edited on 1-21-2006 by Robin]


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jan 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> Women are not allowed to be Deaconesses in the PCA. Unfortunately, some churches do something to the effect of bypassing that rule by giving certain women essentially the same roles and responsibilities of Deacons, but don't give them the "official" position.



The PCA Book of Church order has a provision for non-ordained diaconal assistants.



> 9-7. It is often expedient that the Session of a church should select and appoint godly men and women of the congregation to assist the deacons in caring for the sick, the widows, the orphans, the prisoners, and others who may be in any distress or need.



The problem is with those churches that give a unique place to female assistants by calling them "deaconesses" while offering no title or ceremony to non-ordained male assistants.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> I would not consider anyone after Aquinas to be a true Theologian. Many theologians since, but no one has surpassed Augustine or Aquinas. Mainly because they were antecedent to all since that have built on their works.



Mark, we can't say that. That would mean that after Aquinas Christ gave no teachers to the church (the biblical deisgnation of those schooled in theology and the like- cf. Eph. 4). We obviously could not go there. Christ continues to give both pastors and teachers (theologians/doctors) to the church. 

Maybe we could designate it them as "good" theologians who actually offer something to the Christian community that others have not written on or explained that is both theologically and practially helpful? That is why doctoral dissertation are, by thier nature, suppose to do that.


----------



## BrianBowman (Jan 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> Mark, we can't say that. That would mean that after Aquinas Christ gave no teachers to the church (the biblical deisgnation of those schooled in theology and the like- cf. Eph. 4). We obviously could not go there. Christ continues to give both pastors and teachers (theologians/doctors) to the church.
> 
> Maybe we could designate it them as "good" theologians who actually offer something to the Christian community that others have not written on or explained that is both theologically and practially helpful? That is why doctoral dissertation are, by thier nature, suppose to do that.



... Matt, would you consider a man functioning as a Teacher or Pastor, who does not have an earned Doctorate a Theologian?


----------



## mybigGod (Jan 21, 2006)

1 Tim 2:8. Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain, 
9. but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 
10. These men must also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach. 
11. Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things. 
12. Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households. 
13. For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus. 

Here in the qualifications for church leadership section for deacons is this joint exortation for the husband and wife. Evidently this joint ministry is part of the qualifications for that office. Its interesting that the wives of elders take more of a back seat in their qualifications. I think this dual leadership can be supported by the Acts account.


----------



## kceaster (Jan 21, 2006)

In speaking to my wife on the subject, she came to the conclusion that the single woman scenario is different today than it was not long ago. It is expected for a woman to move out of her father's house, but that need not be so. A woman who is not a wife and mother still has a covenant head in her father. However, I can hear the objections now, "What if her father is dead." It could go on and on.

The vocation of a woman is to be wife, mother, nurturer. Whether she does it in her father's house or her husband's, this is her calling. Interpreting it any other way from scripture is reading the current day back onto it.

What about Lydia? Just because she had a profession before she became a Christian does not suggest that women can have other vocations in life. She was a head of household, but I think it is safe to say that she was continuing the household she either inherited from her father or from her husband.

Proverbs 31 is also misunderstood if we are reading back onto the text that this woman did all these things apart from her calling as wife and mother.

As to a man's calling to be husband and father, his vocation flows from this. God provides for the family through both the father and the mother's industry, but the husband is the responsible one for this. 

Please don't think for a second that I am saying that career women are sinning. I will not be so dogmatic. But how did God design them? That is the question.

Did God design them to have a vocation outside the home? From the creation account, and in the context of federal headship, a woman's calling is clear.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## satz (Jan 22, 2006)

Prehaps not everyone is on the same page as to what a 'vocation' is. Would it make any difference if we asked can women have 'jobs' instead?

Lydia was not an ignorant pagan with no idea about God or his rules. Luke describes her as someone who 'worshipped God', and Paul and his group found her on the Sabbath at a river 'where prayer was wont to be made'. It is reasonable to assume she was either a jew or else a gentile proselytess, and a faithful one, and if we assume women were forbidden vocations under christianity, i see no reason why that would not be the same under Judaism.

I am not sure i understand why federal headship and having a vocation are inconsistent. I am not saying women should move out of their parents home at whatever age. That is a different issue altogeather.

I believe those verses in proverbs 31 tell us that working for financial renummeration, either from home or outside the home, is not merely not inconsistent with a woman's calling as a wife and mother, it is a part of what makes her a great wife. It is the ability to attend to her husband, children, home and work ( in that order) that makes a woman more valuable than rubbies, and leads to the hyperbolic question in v10 'Who can find a woman like this?'

It is plain that a woman's first priorites are her duties as wife and mother. Depending on circumstances, not all women will be able to work. But having a job outside the home is no more inconsistent with her being a wife and mom than a man having a vocation is inconsistent with his being a christian. Now whether you want to call that having a vocation or merely having a job is another issue i guess.


----------



## kceaster (Jan 22, 2006)

*Mark...*

Vocation to me is calling, hence the root of the word. Calling is more than just what we do, it's who we are. This is how surnames came to be. Anyone whose name is Miller is one who made his living by milling grain. Anyone who is a Smith, probably worked in iron.

So are women called to be lawyers, MBA's, congressional members, or senators? That to me steps over the line. Deborah was a judge of Israel not to her credit but to Israel's shame.

I don't think a job is the same as a calling, so I'm very much in favor of a woman having a job outside the home, as long as her calling as wife and mother is not impinged upon. Selling a field or planting a vineyard is not a vocation. It is being a steward of the house, really. And women are fine stewards, often better than men.

I would still maintain that Lydia was selling her wares not as a vocation, but in support of a covenant household. She was wealthy, some say. Some say Phoebe was a woman of wealth. But in both of these cases, they were Proverbs 31 women who were doing the good work as a part of a household, which means that they were true to their calling as wife, mother, or daughter.

I don't wish to debate this further. I'm not saying I'm correct on this, and I'm not trying to be polemical or dogmatic. I just think that we need to foster this kind of idea with our daughters and wives. My wife takes great comfort in knowing that she's fulfilling her true purpose. And she's not chained to the house taking care of me and the boys. She's had success in landscaping and interior decorating. She also does some pretty fine works of art. But if you ask her what her vocation is, she'll tell you that she's a Christian, a wife, and a mother. And I think it's proper that she defines her calling in that way. It's not something I've imposed. She really does feel that way.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## satz (Jan 22, 2006)

Kevin,

It was never my intention to be argumentative nor was i really trying to 'refute' your points per se. I simply saw the issue come up in this thread and since i had been thinking on the subject recently i took the opporunity to dump down some of my musings. While i do not at present have any doubts about the position i am taking, i do acknowledge that it is fairly 'liberal' in the reformed camp and am always interested in hearing where i may have gone wrong.

Reading your post, i think we have indeed be interacting with different definitions of 'vocation'. I think ( in general ) what i was trying to say would be better understood if the word 'job' was substituted for 'vocation'.

I know this subject is one what has a tends to raise the emotions in both men and women. You mentioned your wife and i hope nothing i said was taken as an attack on her or what she does or does not do in anyway. I had no intention of offending anyone and i apologize if i did.

Thank you again for your posts. Though i cannot say i agree 100%, they raise many good points i will try to take to heart and consider.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 23, 2006)

Perhaps it's possible for women to have vocations as long as they fulfill their Vocation. This is a general observation and should not be interpreted as maligning anybody's views.

The command to "Be fruitful and multiply" and "Subdue the Earth" was given to the couple. Eve's job was to help Adam in that calling and Adam had headship of the union but it was given to the two of them.

If we wish to define a man's Vocation (with a capital V) then we could state that he has only one Vocation as well. Part of that includes his responsibility in his rule over Creation in the job he has chosen but a great part of it certainly includes his work in the home loving and training his wife and children.

One might argue that a man's chosen profession is not his true Vocation as well. For my part, however, I consider my chosen profession to be a calling. Certainly a calling to work and to effort that is subordinate to my larger calling but it is a vocation nevertheless and not merely my job.

I'll let people draw their own convictions about the propriety of their wives or daughters in the workplace. For my part, however, while I agree that a woman's heart should be in the home there is a real sense in which, in a different direction, the man's cannot blithely forget the home either. That said, I believe women should be excellent in what they do and well-educated for the task in the home. They should have a heart for the home but never trained or taught that their interests or expectations have to end there.

I have dear friends that never intend to educate their daughter beyond high school because "Why does someone whose primary vocation is in the home need more education?" I think that's a wooden and immature view of what a woman's caling is. I'm not accusing anybody here of that view but that is where Godly wisdom is misinterpreted and immaturely skewed.

The fact is that there is little clear didactic teaching on what a woman must do in the home or workplace and what they must not do. It's a matter of wisdom and prudence. But in a place where wisdom ought to speak, some Christians like to create hard rules that not only stifle the intellectual development of young women but also robs others' liberty in the matter. While feminists have maligned the profoundly important role of the wife and mother, some proud Christians now malign and judge any effort of women to pursue a vocation outside of the home making their convictions the rule of Law.

My wife and I waited until she completed her Master's Degree prior to the beginning of our family. She is now able to focus full time on our two (soon to be three) children. She gladly puts aside her vocation for a long season for the Vocation of raising and caring for our children. For my part, I am very happy to have a well-educated wife with a very sharp and wise mind who will have the most profound impact on the spiritual and intellectual development of my children. It is not my intention to malign any wives with less education but I am very blessed to have a wife that knows the rigors of study and can instill discipline and help my son and daughters with more than a 12th grade education.

I intend to raise my daughters to be excellent in everything they do to the Glory of God. I will support their education as far as their hearts and talents will take them. They will learn to be lovely, nurturing, firm, and the prime role of motherhod by seeing it in their Mother and having the two of us teach them. But I wish to train them to be excellent in other qualities that will make them even more wonderful Mothers. I want my grandkids educated by well-educated women who aimed for more than the bare minimum.

Finally, it is not an ungodly concern to consider what happens if I die while my children are young (or my future wives' husbands die young). It is certainly nice to wax rhapsodic about the good old tribal days when my brother would take my wife in but I don't live in those days and lamenting does not make it so. I trust in Providence but I am also to "...consider the ant." It is imprudent to ill prepare a woman with no real job skills in a culture that I cannot presume upon. She will trust in God but keep her powder dry.

[Edited on 1-23-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Jan 23, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> Perhaps it's possible for women to have vocations as long as they fulfill their Vocation. This is a general observation and should not be interpreted as maligning anybody's views...



Thank you so much for your entire post. I found it incredibly encouraging and edifying. Sometimes the views of much-respected brothers and sisters cause me to wonder if this path I seem to be on (heading to graduate school this fall) is really acceptable for me as a woman--and at the same time, I have a deeper confidence that this is really what I'm supposed to be doing right now and that it is right and proper for me to take my father's guidance as confirmation. It's difficult when I'm pushing traditional boundaries not to wonder if I'm attempting to justify something that isn't right, after all--but what you write helps me so much in seeing that my education is part of my role as a Christian woman, not something that is barely allowed.


----------



## Puritanhead (Jan 23, 2006)

** sits idle in amusement**


----------



## kceaster (Jan 23, 2006)

Mark,

I am not offended, nor is my wife. I was using debate in the good light, not as argumentative.

Rich,

I appreciate that distinction between big v and small v. I understand where you're coming from.

Evie,

I think that women should be afforded as much education as they want. And it is clear that you are under the headship of your father in the matter. So I don't see any problem with what you're doing. I would be concerned if you chose a career over a husband, or if married, a career over motherhood. But from what you've said, I don't think you want that. Calling isn't a tightrope, it is a framework. I was simply saying that in the framework of a woman, their calling is to be daughter, wife, and mother. The article seemed to suggest that a woman could have a vocation for which she would have a career within the confines of either church or parachurch organizations. It seemed to me something bigger than what I'm comfortable with. I hope I have not offended you. As I said before, I don't wish to be dogmatic about it.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Jan 23, 2006)

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> I hope I have not offended you. As I said before, I don't wish to be dogmatic about it.



Certainly not! I appreciate your thoughts.


----------



## puritangirl (Jan 23, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> 
> 
> > Women should be afforded every opportunity to know as much as a man does about God and His Redeemer. But all that knowledge is tempered within her calling as wife and mother.
> ...


----------



## Mike (Jan 23, 2006)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> ...





> _Originally posted by Mike_
> Perhaps take the example of Gill, then?


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Jan 24, 2006)

If you're a Christian you'd _better_ be a theologian. 

And not necessarily an original or speculative one. 

If you don't exercise your own God-given discernment, and self-motivated zeal, in the process of getting understanding of biblical doctrine you're just simply not serious about doctrine and the faith in general.

We all learn from the best teachers, whether we are doing it in institutions of higher learning or in our private studies.

(Anyway, ponder what prophet, priest, and king mean and require.)

And unless we're going to say the Word of God doesn't communicate in translation (Jesus might have a different impression considering His use of the LXX) let's give proper respect and gratitude to those who know the original languages (Tyndale and predecessors, and the awesome scholars who trans. the AV1611, for instance), but let's not get Romish about such things. And let's not also overestimate what modern scholars really know in terms of being fluent in the original languages. In many cases, compared to the Elizabethans mention alone, they are delinquents and frauds.


----------



## Mike (Jan 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by TimeRedeemer_
> If you're a Christian you'd _better_ be a theologian.
> 
> And not necessarily an original or speculative one.
> ...


I think the problem here is how we are using terms, not that anyone here is denying what you say. You are talking about a theologan as someone who studies matters of God, which we obviously do. People like tcalbrecht are using the term as one of esteem. 

Someone who cooks is not necesarily a chef. Someone who conducts is not necessarily a maestro. They are using the term theologan like the latter terms. I don't tend to do that myself, but it certainly makes the issue a different one than the one I think you want to make it about.


----------



## BrianBowman (Jan 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by TimeRedeemer_
> . . . And let's not also overestimate what modern scholars really know in terms of being fluent in the original languages. *In many cases, compared to the Elizabethans mention alone, they are delinquents and frauds.*



 ... and that's exactly why _until_ my original language skills, expository acumen, and knowledge of historical theology approximate those of the "old dead guys", I'll remain a disciple, but yet not a theologian.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jan 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Mike_
> 
> Perhaps take the example of Gill, then?



While Gill was largely self-educated, there is no doubt regarding his skills in the original languages, esp. his knowledge of Hebrew. For this reason I would consider him a theologian. One can be both pastor and theologian (Calvin and Gill, for example), but being a pastor does not automatically make one a theologian.


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Jan 25, 2006)

Yes we are using the term theologian differently. I wrote what I wrote intentionally walking over that fact. Because it's just very important to realize that not every Christian has to be a doctor or a plumber, but every Christian does have to be a theologian.

Lawfully ordained or degreed means nothing. Does that sound like an overstatement? It's not. It means literally NOTHING. Take all the lawfully ordained and officially degreed theologians and put them in a large stadium and them parachute into the midst of them, and your chances of landing on top of an on-the-mark orthodox one will be about 1 in 5,000. 

God elect are such that if there is a need they will fill it. If there was a need today for an accurate translation of Scripture into English, for instance, God's people would rise to the challenge, guided and aided by the Spirit, and get it done. 

This is a servant ethic, though. When the lawfully ordained and officially degreed see themselves as a class apart and 'more' of a theologian in any way than the lowliest of God's elect they get off-the-mark and worse.

[Edited on 1-25-2006 by TimeRedeemer]


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Feb 26, 2007)

If you are right then the apostles were no theologians - and where does it leave the Son of God?


----------



## Gryphonette (Feb 26, 2007)

In y'all hadn't come across it yet, the Bayly brothers (Tim and David) have a blog and have addressed this rather extensively.

Here's a post from Dec. of 2005 which talks about this particular article. If one wishes to read the other posts regarding Carolyn Custis James, just click on the tag.

(BTW, in the spirit of full disclosure, the "Anne" who comments is _moi_.)


----------



## Archlute (Feb 26, 2007)

I realize that this is an old thread, but I'll post my 2 cents anyways.

Developing scenarios, such as what we read in the article, are exactly why I have held that women should not be allowed to attend seminary in the first place. Seminary should be a training ground for the church's ministers and ordained theologians, period. Any lay training should take place through those men, and in the church. Otherwise what happens is that you have a bunch of women who attend seminary, who then become frustrated that they have no outlet for their education, who then want to step outside the bounds of their proper position within the church/home, who then put pressure on the minsters of their churches and administrators of the churches' seminaries to expand the boundaries of appropriate interaction, and follow up articles are written by feminists like Custis (who is obviously trying to abuse her wrongly acquired seminary training), and denominations slide into liberalism. 

I do not believe that seminary should be an equal opportunity enroller -too bad for all the egalitarians that I just offended. I don't believe that I should be studying with women in my pastoral theology courses, such as the Senior Seminar capstone. I don't find it amusing that the prof appointed the only women in one of the class groupings to be their "suzerain head" and appointed spokesman, even in jest. I like the fact that although GPTS allows women to study the M.A., they have made explicit that those said women are to sit humbly in class, and not assert themselves in debate with other male students or "lecture" those men or the profs in discussion.

I also think that it is a perversion of the creation order that our country employs women as police officers, security guards, armed forces, executive heads, etc. I've been called a bigot before, but I don't mind. Usually the same individuals who accuse me of that, also harbor sympathy for the gay agenda, and various other perversions of the said creation order. And yes, these folk can be found in the church (which is where I've caught the vast majority of flak on this issue).


----------



## etexas (Feb 26, 2007)

Archlute said:


> I realize that this is an old thread, but I'll post my 2 cents anyways.
> 
> Developing scenarios, such as what we read in the article, are exactly why I have held that women should not be allowed to attend seminary in the first place. Seminary should be a training ground for the church's ministers and ordained theologians, period. Any lay training should take place through those men, and in the church. Otherwise what happens is that you have a bunch of women who attend seminary, who then become frustrated that they have no outlet for their education, who then want to step outside the bounds of their proper position within the church/home, who then put pressure on the minsters of their churches and administrators of the churches' seminaries to expand the boundaries of appropriate interaction, and follow up articles are written by feminists like Custis (who is obviously trying to abuse her wrongly acquired seminary training), and denominations slide into liberalism.
> 
> ...


Amen.


----------



## calgal (Feb 26, 2007)

Archlute said:


> I realize that this is an old thread, but I'll post my 2 cents anyways.
> 
> Developing scenarios, such as what we read in the article, are exactly why I have held that women should not be allowed to attend seminary in the first place. Seminary should be a training ground for the church's ministers and ordained theologians, period. Any lay training should take place through those men, and in the church. Otherwise what happens is that you have a bunch of women who attend seminary, who then become frustrated that they have no outlet for their education, who then want to step outside the bounds of their proper position within the church/home, who then put pressure on the minsters of their churches and administrators of the churches' seminaries to expand the boundaries of appropriate interaction, and follow up articles are written by feminists like Custis (who is obviously trying to abuse her wrongly acquired seminary training), and denominations slide into liberalism.
> 
> ...



What is the proper position of women in church or at home?  What happens when the husband is unable to work? What about when husband is laid off from their job? And if the husband works 2 or 3 jobs to support the family is he really head of the household?


----------



## Archlute (Feb 26, 2007)

calgal said:


> What is the proper position of women in church or at home?  What happens when the husband is unable to work? What about when husband is laid off from their job? And if the husband works 2 or 3 jobs to support the family is he really head of the household?




The husband is head of the household by God's appointment. This is true whether or not he happens to be disabled, unemployed, or working multiple jobs to support his family (as an aside, why would a man's working two or three jobs make him any less of a head in your opinion?). The idea that the one who "brings home the bacon" is therefore the head of the house is not a biblical idea. 

Sure, the man needs to support his family, but in our modern egalitarian age, where you may have a wife bringing home more money as a pediatrician (when she should be raising a family) than her husband who happens to be an electrician, should the wife be seen as the head just because she makes more money? Sadly, this thinking often does affect the marriage relationship, as I have a friend in a position similar to this. Part of his problem is black culture (where male leadership is often abdicated), and part of it is that his wife brings home much more money than he does. She basically runs the show, even to the point of deciding where they will go to church. Who is the head of the home here in God's eyes? The answer is that it is still the man, even though his wife doesn't recognize it, and he needs to step up to the plate.

If you'd like to know the proper role of women in the church and in the home, study these passages: Acts 18:24-26; Romans 16:1-15; 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, 14:34-35; Ephesians 5:22-24; Colossians 3:18; 1 Timothy 2:9-15; Titus 2:3-5; Hebrews 11:31; 1 Peter 3:1-6; there are others, but these are primary passages.

What we gather from these passages is that a woman should display a modest, humble, and submissive attitude within the church and home; that she should be given to hospitality, the younger women raising children at home, the older women instructing the younger in the ways of Christian home management and life; that she should be desirous to learn, to teach her children, even to instruct other Christians on a one-on-one basis with her spouse (see Acts 18), but never to teach the church in a formal capacity in theological or biblical areas, nor to teach the men who will become future ministers by way of seminary classroom. 

If there is discontent among the women in our churches regarding these things, it shows that we have failed them by giving them formal study that they should not have, that we have not sufficiently instructed our young women regarding the glorious role that they have been appointed to fill in both home and church, and that we have been cowed by the pressures of the world, allowing those patterns to shape the thought and life of the church, rather than having the church be formed by the Scriptures.


----------



## Davidius (Feb 26, 2007)

Archlute said:


> I do not believe that seminary should be an equal opportunity enroller -too bad for all the egalitarians that I just offended. I don't believe that I should be studying with women in my pastoral theology courses, such as the Senior Seminar capstone. I don't find it amusing that the prof appointed the only women in one of the class groupings to be their "suzerain head" and appointed spokesman, even in jest.



This is at WSC?


----------



## Archlute (Feb 26, 2007)

Yeah, I have been less than impressed with things like this that have happened on several occasions. 

In fact, during my first semester I got into a slight tangle during class with a prof who said he was going to mark up our papers whenever we failed to use gender neutral language. I told him I had just finished going through that garbage at a liberal state university, and that I wasn't about to let him push it on me at an institution that was supposed to be _the_ flagship Reformed seminary in the U.S. We haven't been on very good terms since. I, however, do not much care for how popular a prof may be in broader reformed circles, if he's compromising on an issue like that, I'm going to call him on it.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Feb 27, 2007)

Excellent comments, Adam. I've debated this very issue with a WSC professor on the PB before, and I thought at the time that I was the only PB'er to hold such views.


----------



## calgal (Feb 27, 2007)

Archlute said:


> The husband is head of the household by God's appointment. This is true whether or not he happens to be disabled, unemployed, or working multiple jobs to support his family (as an aside, why would a man's working two or three jobs make him any less of a head in your opinion?). The idea that the one who "brings home the bacon" is therefore the head of the house is not a biblical idea.
> 
> Sure, the man needs to support his family, but in our modern egalitarian age, where you may have a wife bringing home more money as a pediatrician (when she should be raising a family) than her husband who happens to be an electrician, should the wife be seen as the head just because she makes more money? Sadly, this thinking often does affect the marriage relationship, as I have a friend in a position similar to this. Part of his problem is black culture (where male leadership is often abdicated), and part of it is that his wife brings home much more money than he does. She basically runs the show, even to the point of deciding where they will go to church. Who is the head of the home here in God's eyes? The answer is that it is still the man, even though his wife doesn't recognize it, and he needs to step up to the plate.
> 
> ...



I agree the man is head of the household. I brought the question of the husband working 2 and 3 jobs so the wife could stay home up to a pastor friend after hearing MacArthur discussing the issue of women staying home. His reply was that the man is in sin: he is not with the family enough to be an *effective* head of the household. He would counsel that family to share the workload. I have relatives who worked 2 or 3 jobs to allow mom to stay home. Daddy was either at work or asleep and is NOT to be disturbed. Dad working 80+ hours a week means he is not as involved in the daily life of the family. How is headship lived out in that scenario? 

When the man is disabled or sick as in end stage renal failure, ALS, MS, MD, stage 3 and above cancer where the wife working means they get decent medical care, wouldn't having the wife work be advisable? The church can and should assist the family but the church cannot pay for medical expenses (and the expenses are insanely high). Same thing goes for a husband being laid off and needing the second income while husband is looking for full time employment. And the woman needs enough of an education to be able to do more than flip burgers. When mom is working to afford the BMW's and Lake Havasu trips, there is a problem. Lastly, if God gives a woman a gift in medicine or teaching, why would He give her that gift if He did not want her using it? And women can teach other women in a formal capacity. We are not discussing Elderettes: that IS unbiblical. A female speaker for a WIC (Women in the Church) meeting should teach in biblical areas. Should she not?


----------



## Gryphonette (Feb 27, 2007)

*Wow! Most excellent, to be sure.*



Archlute said:


> In fact, during my first semester I got into a slight tangle during class with a prof who said he was going to mark up our papers whenever we failed to use gender neutral language. I told him I had just finished going through that garbage at a liberal state university, and that I wasn't about to let him push it on me at an institution that was supposed to be _the_ flagship Reformed seminary in the U.S. We haven't been on very good terms since. I, however, do not much care for how popular a prof may be in broader reformed circles, if he's compromising on an issue like that, I'm going to call him on it.


----------



## CDM (Feb 27, 2007)

Archlute said:


> I realize that this is an old thread, but I'll post my 2 cents anyways.
> 
> Developing scenarios, such as what we read in the article, are exactly why I have held that women should not be allowed to attend seminary in the first place. Seminary should be a training ground for the church's ministers and ordained theologians, period. Any lay training should take place through those men, and in the church. Otherwise what happens is that you have a bunch of women who attend seminary, who then become frustrated that they have no outlet for their education, who then want to step outside the bounds of their proper position within the church/home, who then put pressure on the minsters of their churches and administrators of the churches' seminaries to expand the boundaries of appropriate interaction, and follow up articles are written by feminists like Custis (who is obviously trying to abuse her wrongly acquired seminary training), and denominations slide into liberalism.
> 
> ...



*:APPLAUSE:*


----------



## CDM (Feb 27, 2007)

Archlute said:


> I realize that this is an old thread, but I'll post my 2 cents anyways.
> 
> *Developing scenarios, such as what we read in the article, are exactly why I have held that women should not be allowed to attend seminary in the first place.* *Seminary should be a training ground for the church's ministers and ordained theologians, period.* Any lay training should take place through those men, and in the church. Otherwise what happens is that you have a bunch of women who attend seminary, who then become frustrated that they have no outlet for their education, who then want to step outside the bounds of their proper position within the church/home, who then put pressure on the minsters of their churches and administrators of the churches' seminaries to expand the boundaries of appropriate interaction, and follow up articles are written by feminists like Custis (who is obviously trying to abuse her wrongly acquired seminary training), and denominations slide into liberalism.
> 
> ...



This is a major part of my reasons for leaving RTS and joining with GPTS this semester.


----------



## CDM (Feb 27, 2007)

See this new thread: _The Place of Women in the Church_


----------



## satz (Feb 27, 2007)

calgal said:


> I agree the man is head of the household. I brought the question of the husband working 2 and 3 jobs so the wife could stay home up to a pastor friend after hearing MacArthur discussing the issue of women staying home. His reply was that the man is in sin: he is not with the family enough to be an *effective* head of the household. He would counsel that family to share the workload. I have relatives who worked 2 or 3 jobs to allow mom to stay home. Daddy was either at work or asleep and is NOT to be disturbed. Dad working 80+ hours a week means he is not as involved in the daily life of the family. How is headship lived out in that scenario?
> 
> When the man is disabled or sick as in end stage renal failure, ALS, MS, MD, stage 3 and above cancer where the wife working means they get decent medical care, wouldn't having the wife work be advisable? The church can and should assist the family but the church cannot pay for medical expenses (and the expenses are insanely high). Same thing goes for a husband being laid off and needing the second income while husband is looking for full time employment. And the woman needs enough of an education to be able to do more than flip burgers. When mom is working to afford the BMW's and Lake Havasu trips, there is a problem. Lastly, if God gives a woman a gift in medicine or teaching, why would He give her that gift if He did not want her using it? And women can teach other women in a formal capacity. We are not discussing Elderettes: that IS unbiblical. A female speaker for a WIC (Women in the Church) meeting should teach in biblical areas. Should she not?



I am fairly sure that in the sorts of 'extreme' situations you describe, there is no sin in the wife going to out to work. If a wife is created be a help 'meet' or suited for her husband then surely she ought to help him in the particular areas of life he needs help, even financially. There is a lot of chaos regarding the roles of men and women today, but to take the position that a christian man is a wimp if he doesn't work multiple shifts and 20 hour days so that his wife can stay home is a conservative overreaction. If despite his most diligent efforts a man is pressed to make ends meet financially, he obviously needs help, and who else is charged primarily with helping him than his wife?

Regarding the general idea of the wife working, I do not believe it is inconsistent with godly womanhood per se. Even the fourth and tenth commandments imply the existence of a class of woman in OT Israel called maidservants. So it is not God's moral will that a woman is not to be anything else apart from a homemaker (though that is still an important part of who she is today). It is simply a matter of getting her priorities right. If she is taking care of her family and home, she can work beyond that. Whether it is even possible for her to do so will depend on the individual circumstance of each family, as well as her husband's preferences.


----------

