# Women Speaking at a Conference



## Hamalas (May 17, 2013)

What would y'all say about attending a conference where they had a woman doing breakout sessions or even as one of the key-note speakers? I'm not talking merely about someone like Joni Erickson Tada sharing a testimony but a woman giving a talk about counseling/theological issues?


----------



## Scott1 (May 17, 2013)

Can you give more details and description?


----------



## Pergamum (May 17, 2013)

Depends on the subject and purpose for the session.


----------



## Hamalas (May 17, 2013)

Okay, my attempts at sensitivty have proved useless.  I'm thinking about this conference: CCEF Conference


----------



## Pergamum (May 17, 2013)

Is she in her area of expertise? 

Is she exercising ecclesiastical authority?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (May 17, 2013)

Ben, I'm glad you brought this up, as it's been on my mind lately. I had a similar question with regard to a woman teaching a class that was _*not*_ part of the church's worship, and in principle it is really the same question you are asking. This would extend also into the seminaries. I'm not going to bring in particular women of excellence in their fields – spiritual, intellectual excellence – but simply look at the principle involved.


----------



## Hamalas (May 17, 2013)

I think the same issues are involved with women teaching a mixed group in Adult Sunday School.


----------



## Mushroom (May 17, 2013)

I dunno, Ben... you seem like a sensitive enough young man to me.


----------



## Kevin (May 17, 2013)

It is an educational conference for counselors. the counselors are women and men as are the clients. Some of the conselors no doubt do this as part of their ministry, but it is not a church or an ecclesiastical setting at all.

No problem at all in my opinion. Wish I could be there.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (May 17, 2013)

And I think it would apply to books they have written as well, for the principle is the same: women teaching.

If a woman passes on information / knowledge / wisdom she has learned from a man, what of this?


----------



## irresistible_grace (May 17, 2013)

I love Elyse Fitzpatrick! Then again, I'm a woman so I'm allowed to be taught by her 
Seriously, it is NOT corporate worship so I hardly see the issue. Though, I am willing to learn! This is a Christian Counseling Conference and all of the ladies that will be speaking are experts in their fields. Do you not learn from comments written by women members of the Puritan Board? I learn a lot from the ladies on the PB (far more than I do from some of the guys on here that tend to be overly combative, dismissive, or sarcastic).


----------



## Reformedfellow (May 18, 2013)

I am in no way a egalitarian. Men and women have distinct and specific roles to play by God's design. I am a complimentarian. But when I read this question, I was instantly reminded of Acts 18. 
Apollos was instructed by Priscilla and Aquila, and he was all the better for it. Note it does not say he was given their professional opinion on counseling, but that he was taught the way of God more accurately. 
What needs to be cleared up here I think is the proper context of gender roles. The bible gives TWO specifically. It's the home and the Church. Men will do well to rule their own homes in a godly manner, with Christ as our supreme Head, and our denominations will do well to keep the pulpit (which alao includes ELDERS) outfitted with godly MEN who rule their own homes well. 
My quick answer here while I'm on the run..


----------



## Scott1 (May 18, 2013)

:The conference is not worship.

It seems to me the one general session speaker has taken care in her biography to show her background and experience is in teaching women and children. I appreciate that care, her bio is not one that advocates women spiritually, authoritatively teaching over men.


> Elyse Fitzpatrick, M.A. has been counseling for over twenty years. She holds a certificate in biblical counseling from CCEF (San Diego) and an M.A. in Biblical Counseling from Trinity Theological Seminary, and is a member of the National Association of Nouthetic Counseling. Elyse is the author of numerous books including: the award winning Women Helping Women; Women Counseling Women; Idols of the Heart; You Never Stop Being A Parent; Helper By Design; Because He Loves Me: How Christ Transforms Our Daily Life, and many others. Elyse has been married to her husband Phil for over thirty years and has three adult children and six adorable grandchildren.


Now if her background or advocacy was that adult women ought be lone spiritual counselors to men, that would be a red flag.

I take the breakout session are choice, so women could go to women, etc. The women in one of those sessions might be advocating something wrong biblically (like women should exercise spiritual counsel or teaching authority over men), but that would be another issue- not a problem with the conference itself, but the substance of beliefs of one optional session.

The conference as a whole might be a waste of time and money, as "spiritual" counseling conferences often are, but that would be yet another issue.

Note: Ed Welch is one of the finest Christian authors integrating biblical principles and insights there is.


----------



## a mere housewife (May 18, 2013)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> And I think it would apply to books they have written as well, for the principle is the same: women teaching.
> 
> If a woman passes on information / knowledge / wisdom she has learned from a man, what of this?



It does seem like the principle would extend to any forum where a woman speaks (outside of worship). And what if she is passing on information / knowledge / wisdom she has not learned from a man, but from another woman? Christ is the source of all knowledge and wisdom: but He imparted the grandest news ever to Mary Magdalene directly, to share with his brothers; and she did not learn it from them. The Spirit was poured out (in fulfilment of prophecy) on daughters as well as sons: so the unmarried daughters of Philip had a gift of things revealed directly and not mediately through their father or through a husband.

As I understand it (and I am still thinking through these things, and certainly am willing to be corrected) there are two distinct concepts involved. One is that knowledge, wisdom, insight, skill etc. are the *property* of men, and women only partake of them indirectly; and ought always to present themselves in such a manner as to make this clear.

The other is that when we come to worship God, part of our worship is expressed in the order He has established in the creation -- in the way that submission to this order models the loving submission of the Son to the Father, and of the church to Christ?

PS. I notice my new tagline and feel I ought to offer an apology  It is the work of my beloved. I told him I thought it seemed a bit rude, and he thought that was part of the clever joke.


----------



## Jack K (May 18, 2013)

It's fine. It's a conference for counselors, not authoritative teaching from the church. The fact that the counselors happen to be Christians and that many hope to put what they learn to work in the church is a good thing. ALL we learn should be used that way to God's glory. This doesn't mean any professional training they receive from a woman is rendered improper.


----------



## Hamalas (May 18, 2013)

Thanks guys (and girls!) this is helpful. What about a woman teaching an adult Sunday School class? What say ye to that?


----------



## Scottish Lass (May 18, 2013)

Hamalas said:


> What about a woman teaching an adult Sunday School class? What say ye to that?


I have no problem with the conference setting. However, adult Sunday School should involve teaching scripture and the setting is (hopefully) under the purview of elders. This is a setting where I can't see biblical support for women teaching men.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (May 18, 2013)

I think that a host of distinctions need to be made here. 

A woman who has written a book or a woman offering her views (privately or on this board, for example) is quite different than a woman teaching in an adult Sunday School class containing both men and women. The latter, while not worship, can scarecly escape the look and feel of the exercise of some sort of authority--teaching Scripture in the setting of the church. A book may be handled as one pleases, as well as comments on this board, without any sense of "being under the teaching" of the woman in question.

How about the cited conference? I think that women teaching there can have its place. In the seminary? Teachers there should ordinarily be those not only with appropriate academic training, but who also are ministers of the Word and Sacraments, holding, in other words, the teaching office of the church. This is because the seminary is training men for gospel ministry and those teaching there should be those who themselves are pastors and teachers in the church. Might a woman give a special lecture on something if, say, she's an expert in Calvin or women's issues for counseling? I think so, but I also think, generally, that we want to be very careful and not simply say that "as long as it's not public worship" a woman may in every other setting teach as properly as a man. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## a mere housewife (May 18, 2013)

Dr. Strange, would you say that there is an area relating more strictly to actual ecclesiastical authority (church office, ministering the word and sacraments in worship, which pertain to men), and an area relating to propriety and perceptions about that authority?

Can women teach children in the broad context of the church, where it does not involve the authority of corporate worship or church office -- because it additionally does not violate that area of propriety in perception?


----------



## reaganmarsh (May 18, 2013)

Ben,

You may find Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, New Edition a helpful and practical read. It addresses quite directly and faithfully many questions of this sort. Standard reading for every complementarian minister (and Christian).


----------



## Alan D. Strange (May 18, 2013)

Yes, Heidi, in response to the question in your first paragraph. Just to be clear, I have no problem with a woman teaching the academic disciplines in a college or university. 

I think that women can teach children and other women in the broader context of the church. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## a mere housewife (May 18, 2013)

Thank you, Dr. Strange. That's very clear and helpful.


----------



## Scott1 (May 18, 2013)

Hamalas said:


> What about a woman teaching an adult Sunday School class? What say ye to that?



Taking into account the pattern of creation, I Timothy 3, Titus 2, the principle is that men are qualified to the positions authoritatively teaching mixed adult audiences, women are not. That means, women may teach other women and young children, but not adult men. By analogy, Sunday School parallels corporate worship.

It's abnormal and all sorts of disorder flows from having women being given the office based spiritual oversight role that are qualified to men (I Timothy 3, Titus 1). A wrong structure reflects ignorance and rebellion against God's Word, and consequences follow.

But again, a "Christian conference" is not the same thing. The woman (or man) speaker may advocate wrong theology (such as women authoritatively spiritually teaching adult men), but that's another issue.

It really is worth it to go hear Ed Welch, if you can.


----------



## lynnie (May 18, 2013)

Scripture commands men to love their wives and live with them in an understanding way. It can be helpful for a man to listen to a female professional counselor talk about the way women are wired, and what kind of complex emotional reactions they have to various traumatic events. 

I see Julie Lowe is speaking at that conference. She counseled our daughter at CCEF when the birth mother showed up in Romania and expressed interest in contact. Our girl had a very difficult identity crisis, compounded by earlier years of crying at night about her mom dumping her in an orphanage, and never coming to visit or even trying to find out about her. (It didn't help my girl to find out that the lady kept her three sons by three fathers but dumped our daughter). By using the word "difficult", what I mean is that we and Julie came very, very, close to institutionalizing her.

I don't know how we would have survived without Julie at CCEF. There were major decisions that we decided to let Julie make.....not because hubby was reniging on his headship in the home, but because we never knew a cutter before slashing up their arms and behaving in all sorts of other ways that we understand now are very typical and normal for attachment disorder and extremely deep emotional pain, but were awful to deal with. Julie frequently with our permission decided when to give consequences and when to give grace. Ironically, sometimes when I would have been severe Julie asked us to give grace, and on occasion when I was trying to be merciful Julie insisted that I deal strictly with her sin. I can tell you, with all glory to God, that the girl who looked destined for a mental hospital has turned the corner, surrendered to the Lord, and last month Julie decided to close out her case file. My daughter looks up to Julie so very much, bought a couple dozen little CCEF booklets to study, and has had a steady string of girls pouring out their hearts to her while she tries to be just like Julie  


To have a trained person who has studied the human soul the way doctors study the body, in this case adopted and foster kids- but it could be any specialty such as depression or sex abuse or addictions- is a blessing and a gift. It is like listening to a female doctor talk about dealing with your diabetes or your allergies. How could any of you present and former pastors not want to learn all you can? 20% of teens in the USA today are cutters at some time in their teen years. It is all over in churches. Have you ever seen a towel covered with blood in the bathroom and arms slashed up, while a defiant kid tells you it feels good and makes them feel better and they don't care what you think? In the past two years I've found out that about 8 Christian kids she knows all cut in the past or still do. They crawl out of the woodwork when they see a fellow cutter's scars. 

We've had girls in our church that were raped. Do you have any idea what that does? Don't you want to know what to say to a teenage girl who was raped? How about the suicide ones......don't you want to learn more? Do you feel like you know what is hunger and thirst that needs to learn how to eat and drink from, the Lord, and what is sin and idolatry that must be repented of and dealt with strictly? Can you always tell when to be merciful to a hungry tormented soul, and when to rebuke and give hard discipline? 

We raised four normal biological kids, and I didn't think I'd ever be heading over to CCEF and going to pieces and getting a spastic colon when we adopted. I thought I was an imperfect but OK Mom. Little did I know! 

If you go to the conference, take advantage of all the workshops and learn all you can. If the topic a woman is speaking on applies to families in your church, by all means go and take notes and buy books and be thankful for the opportunity. I am a complementarian and I've been wearing a headcovering for 30 years now, but any CCEF female speaker, well, no different than getting rushed to the ER and a woman doctor is there to save your life. I feel like our CCEF counselor was part of God's means of grace along with my praying church when my husband I were sick at heart and coming unglued. It is not an egalitarian authority thing when they speak, it is God helping pastors and fathers understand female souls. CCEF is a gift of the Lord's grace.


----------



## Pergamum (May 19, 2013)

Wow Lynnie, great testimony....it makes me want to attend the conference very badly now.


----------



## Hamalas (May 19, 2013)

I feel like I've tread on some toes here, so let me explain a bit of where my question was coming from (this is part of why I didn't want to share the specifics of the conference).

I love CCEF. My family has used it in ministry (my Dad is a PCA pastor and he and my mom have been able to do a LOT of counseling over the years). CCEF has some of the best material out there from a practical, biblical, and theologically informed position and my parents almost always finding themselves turning to their resources as they minsiter. Any hesition in the OP is not the result of hesition about CCEF. 

I really was wondering about how and where to draw the lines as far as what God deems acceptable ways for women to serve through teaching. I respect and have learned from every one of the speakers who are listed and have no doubts about their maturity and expertise. 

Lynnie, I hope I did not come across as dismissive of these women or the ministry which God has given to them. I apologize if I mispoke. 

This has been a helpful thread. I really appreciate the words that have been spoken!


----------



## Steve Paynter (May 19, 2013)

So ... what do the Reformed confessions say about women's ministry?


----------



## lynnie (May 19, 2013)

Hamalas/Ben, you don't need to apologize. I have a gigantic problem myself with women pastors and preachers that has brought me into big conflict in the past with charismatics (and I don't think the gifts ceased either). Feminism is destructive. I just don't think CCEF is that, nor do I think a weekday workshop about a particular problem is putting women in doctrinal authority over men. Like I said, scripture commands men to live with their wives in an understanding way, and I've known quite a few men over the years who could have been helped to obey that command, by listening to an articulate woman explain the effects of childhood abuse. Just my opinion. I am sure the conference has workshop choices for any guy who does not feel comfortable listening to a CCEF woman teacher.


----------



## a mere housewife (May 19, 2013)

Ben, I was glad you asked! It is an area that tends to be incredibly confusing for some of us ladies, too. It's always helpful to come to greater clarity. 

And it is *wonderful* to hear the news of Lynnie's daughter (and to hear your input generally on this topic, Lynnie).


----------



## Scott1 (May 19, 2013)

Ben, as your question has been clarified, it still is a big one because there are so many applications.

In the end, counseling or teaching outside the church, whether it be marketed as "Christian" or para church, or individual counselors who happen to profess being Christian, does not replace the authoritative counsel within the church. Any conference ought be viewed through that lens.

We make sin too complicated, too gray in order to accommodate and rationalize it, and the counseling industry does that. We've turned alcoholism into a "disease," assumed sexual perversion is the way God created people, defined "abuse" as anything subjectively unpleasant, etc. And with all that so-called expertise, every social indicator shows we are worse off as a society. Everybody is a victim, therefore eligible for lots of special attention....

and our country, and the church is confused about everything now, and falling apart because of it.

And don't forget it is a money making business, even if it is put under nonprofit organization. 

It's not useless, but of limited value,
and any conference, whether taught by men or women operating outside true church authority is second best, and limited.
It's not where we look primarily for insights and answers, unless we wish to get lost in the vain imaginations of men, or women, as the case may be.

The Scripture doesn't model counseling conferences as the means the noetic effects are understood. Nor does it show the answer is there.

God can, and truly does change people and circumstances, and some of the most "abused" people in history (the apostles and early church) didn't going running to them either for comfort or any sort of ultimate wisdom.

Neither should we.


----------



## Boosterseat_91 (May 19, 2013)

I hope I don't throw this thread way off course, but I think this is a sub-question that needs to be asked. Where do we get the idea that there should be an exclusive "office," so to speak, of a counselor? I mean, counseling requires accountability and is a form of instructive or positive discipline. This type of instruction, as far as I know, is only proper for a head to teach those under his headship. So for like marital counseling one would go to a pastor who (1) has the authority to teach and (2) can hold one accountable because he has the authority to exercise church discipline in the case of unrepentance. Nouthetic counseling (which is the only biblical type of counseling) binds a person's conscience in teaching what is lawful and what is unlawful according to Scripture. 

So wouldn't counseling be considered one function of a pastor rather than an exclusive office in an of itself that can be held by anyone?


----------



## ChristianTrader (May 20, 2013)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Yes, Heidi, in response to the question in your first paragraph. Just to be clear, I have no problem with a woman teaching the academic disciplines in a college or university.
> 
> I think that women can teach children and other women in the broader context of the church.
> 
> ...



Dr. Strange,

If someone was uncomfortable with women teaching the academic disciplines in a college or university, how would you show such feelings to be misguided?

CT


----------



## Alan D. Strange (May 20, 2013)

Hermonta,

With respect to your question about "someone uncomfortable" with women teaching academic disciplines in a college or university, I would ask them what they mean by that ("uncomfortable") and upon what basis they would find such objectionable. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Hamalas (May 20, 2013)

Boosterseat_91 said:


> I hope I don't throw this thread way off course, but I think this is a sub-question that needs to be asked. Where do we get the idea that there should be an exclusive "office," so to speak, of a counselor? I mean, counseling requires accountability and is a form of instructive or positive discipline. This type of instruction, as far as I know, is only proper for a head to teach those under his headship. So for like marital counseling one would go to a pastor who (1) has the authority to teach and (2) can hold one accountable because he has the authority to exercise church discipline in the case of unrepentance. Nouthetic counseling (which is the only biblical type of counseling) binds a person's conscience in teaching what is lawful and what is unlawful according to Scripture.
> 
> So wouldn't counseling be considered one function of a pastor rather than an exclusive office in an of itself that can be held by anyone?



This is a valid question, but probably better suited to a separate thread. Perhaps you could start a discussion going?


----------



## Boosterseat_91 (May 20, 2013)

Hamalas said:


> This is a valid question, but probably better suited to a separate thread. Perhaps you could start a discussion going?



Sure thing! =)


----------



## Steve Paynter (May 20, 2013)

I was trying to answer my own question about what the Reformed confessions say about the ministry of women, so I did a search for "women" in the WCF/1689 BCF and came up with nothing. So I searched for "man" ... that was interesting. These confessions really are not very gender inclusive when viewed from the modern use of words. I hadn't realised before. There is probably a need for an update to our confessions over this issue alone.

Back to my original question, though. What are the pertinent paragraphs that impact on the complimentarian/egalitarian issue?


----------



## ChristianTrader (May 20, 2013)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Hermonta,
> 
> With respect to your question about "someone uncomfortable" with women teaching academic disciplines in a college or university, I would ask them what they mean by that ("uncomfortable") and upon what basis they would find such objectionable.
> 
> ...



Uncomfortable in the sense that they are unsure that it is defensible Biblically or by natural law. The way that I have seen such arguments would go along these lines... In 1 Timothy 2, Paul forbids women having authority over men in the church due to God having created them differently. Given such, having women with authority over a man is a bad idea. Now moving outside of the church context, and the foundation of the conclusion - men and women are created difference remaining, why should the conclusion change?

CT


----------



## Alan D. Strange (May 20, 2013)

ChristianTrader said:


> Originally Posted by Alan D. Strange
> 
> Hermonta,
> With respect to your question about "someone uncomfortable" with women teaching academic disciplines in a college or university, I would ask them what they mean by that ("uncomfortable") and upon what basis they would find such objectionable.
> ...



It seems to me that the burden of proof is on someone making this argument, which extends far beyond a woman teaching in a college class. The logic of this argument, for example, is that a woman may not be a monarch, a position on which the Reformers themselves differed. It may be taken to mean that a woman is not to do anything outside of the home that interacts with men in any way other than a subservient one. Doe that Bible teach that? Where?

That which applies in the home and the church (proper household rule being basic to ecclesiastical rule) does not necessarily apply in the same way in every other sphere. This does not seem to be Paul's immediate concern, which is the household of God. Yes, he makes a creational argument, but he applies it in a particular sphere. I can understand why one may think that it applies in the same way to all spheres but that must be argued and not simply asserted or assumed. 

Think of the business dealings of the Proverbs 31 woman and of Lydia, the seller of purple. The former buys and sells, among many other things, and Lydia is out in the marketplace, all for the welfare of their households. How would teaching a course in literature or philosophy at the local college for the welfare of one's household be essentially different? If a woman has a family and is a "career woman" and neglects them, that's wrong. But one need not neglect such if outside occupations are properly pursued, with an eye to the good and not the detriment of the family.

A friend of ours comes to mind: she and her husband home-schooled their children and when the children had left to start households of their own, she completed her education and became a professor of literature, with the full approbation and support of her husband. We have another friend who never married and teaches philosophy in a university. One of the most influential persons in my life was a dear saint who never married and worked in the library at WTS. My mother never neglected us and was later a director of a nursing home and had men and women under her. If one argues in the way you suggest, all of that is wrong. But I don't read Scripture as proscribing such.

I am not trying to argue practice instead of precept. I don't see any clear scriptural precepts that forbid a woman from laboring both in and out of her house for the good of her family (obviously only with the approval and encouragement of her husband) and the glory of God. I think that it is up to a godly couple to figure out how this works best for them both. And I don't mean by this, in any measure, that men and women are the same. There are clear differences that unsuit women for certain sort of work, combat, and the like. That having been said, I don't see Paul's prohibiton of a woman to teach or have authority over a man in an ecclesiastical context (obviously in a domestic context as well) meaning that a woman could not teach in a college, work in a store, or the like. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## ChristianTrader (May 21, 2013)

Alan D. Strange said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted by Alan D. Strange
> ...



Why would the burden be something beyond what I put forward here? A creational order argument is basically a natural law argument. One needs to prove exceptions not the other way around.

That there was a dispute among Reformers does nothing to imply that there is no right and a wrong position to take or that one could never come to a conclusion either way. 



> That which applies in the home and the church (proper household rule being basic to ecclesiastical rule) does not necessarily apply in the same way in every other sphere. This does not seem to be Paul's immediate concern, which is the household of God. Yes, he makes a creational argument, but he applies it in a particular sphere. I can understand why one may think that it applies in the same way to all spheres but that must be argued and not simply asserted or assumed.



Because a creational argument is applied to a particular sphere does not give any basis that it does not apply generally. To defend the position that it does not apply generally, one would need to put forward an argument. To state otherwise is to be confused as to what a creational argument is.



> Think of the business dealings of the Proverbs 31 woman and of Lydia, the seller of purple. The former buys and sells, among many other things, and Lydia is out in the marketplace, all for the welfare of their households. How would teaching a course in literature or philosophy at the local college for the welfare of one's household be essentially different? If a woman has a family and is a "career woman" and neglects them, that's wrong. But one need not neglect such if outside occupations are properly pursued, with an eye to the good and not the detriment of the family.



On what basis do you see buying and selling as analogous to teaching etc.? That a person could do evil for a good purpose/end means that one cannot simply say that the end is good in determining if the action is just/proper.



> A friend of ours comes to mind: she and her husband home-schooled their children and when the children had left to start households of their own, she completed her education and became a professor of literature, with the full approbation and support of her husband. We have another friend who never married and teaches philosophy in a university. One of the most influential persons in my life was a dear saint who never married and worked in the library at WTS. My mother never neglected us and was later a director of a nursing home and had men and women under her. If one argues in the way you suggest, all of that is wrong. But I don't read Scripture as proscribing such.



I have no problem calling a large group of God fearing folks wrong/in error. An interesting example, is the discussion about birth control in another thread. Either every Christian who wrote on the issue until 1930 was wrong for forbidding it or a large number of God fearing folks in recent years are wrong for either allowing/engaging in such.



> I am not trying to argue practice instead of precept. I don't see any clear scriptural precepts that forbid a woman from laboring both in and out of her house for the good of her family (obviously only with the approval and encouragement of her husband) and the glory of God. I think that it is up to a godly couple to figure out how this works best for them both. And I don't mean by this, in any measure, that men and women are the same. There are clear differences that unsuit women for certain sort of work, combat, and the like. That having been said, I don't see Paul's prohibiton of a woman to teach or have authority over a man in an ecclesiastical context (obviously in a domestic context as well) meaning that a woman could not teach in a college, work in a store, or the like.
> 
> Peace,
> Alan



I don't see any way for you to avoid putting forward an argument that the creational argument used by Paul does not apply outside of the household or ecclesiastical context. 

CT


----------



## Alan D. Strange (May 22, 2013)

Hermonta:

I am not saying that the creational argument of Paul does not bear wider implications. I am saying that I do not assume that those implications are precisely the same in every sphere.

Here's what would help me, as I'm not sure that we're not talking past each other: what is it that you see with respect to this? What do you see the implications of Paul's creational argument to be outside of the domestic and ecclesiastical sphere? If you are saying that a woman should not teach literature in the local community college, do you mean any women, even single? Please tell me how you see this as working out.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## THE W (May 22, 2013)

If this conference isnt a place where corporate worship is taking place then "you go girl"!


----------



## smhbbag (May 22, 2013)

The world treats the Church's distinction between men and women as arbitrary, with nothing but tradition backing it up.

We do the same when we feel squeamish about obeying it in the church and home (while making every effort to circumvent it where it doesn't _look_ like outright disobedience), and then throw all the gates open outside of that.

It seems that on this issue, many of the Reformed start saying "well, if the Bible doesn't expressly prohibit women doing X, then it must be fine." You'd never see that in most other areas. We are supposed to hold fast to what scripture specifically commends, and be very hesitant about what it does not (needing very good and very necessary consequence). We look for principles and foundational truths that inform us on those things. Because Paul makes an argument from Creation and Fall, 100% of the burden of proof is on those who want completely different rules outside of church/home.

We have absolutely no Biblical precedent for any of this stuff. Beth Moore isn't being Priscilla when she preaches to men at Passion, and a female seminary professor isn't being Eunice or Lois when she lectures current and future ministers about the Bible.

Our general rules in broader society shouldn't make the church and home seem like an anachronism or contradiction. That's exactly what conservative Churches look like today, when trying to embrace opposites for public life and the church.



> If you are saying that a woman should not teach literature in the local community college, do you mean any women, even single?



I am not (yet) willing to say a woman doing that is in sin. But I do think that everyone should prefer that a man has that job, for a host of reasons.


----------



## ChristianTrader (May 22, 2013)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Hermonta:
> 
> I am not saying that the creational argument of Paul does not bear wider implications. I am saying that I do not assume that those implications are precisely the same in every sphere.



I don't have a problem with you having a different assumption than mine; my question is what is your assumption and on what basis do you hold to that assumption?



> Here's what would help me, as I'm not sure that we're not talking past each other: what is it that you see with respect to this? What do you see the implications of Paul's creational argument to be outside of the domestic and ecclesiastical sphere? If you are saying that a woman should not teach literature in the local community college, do you mean any women, even single? Please tell me how you see this as working out.
> 
> Peace,
> Alan



I don't see being single or married has any bearing on this scenario any more than such has bearing on Paul's creational argument for the ecclesiastical sphere. 

At the end of the day, I do not dogmatically hold that women should not be able to hold authority over a man outside of the domestic or eccleisiastical spheres but I have yet to see any good counters to the argument that I put forward earlier.

CT


----------



## a mere housewife (May 22, 2013)

smhbbag said:


> The world treats the Church's distinction between men and women as arbitrary, with nothing but tradition backing it up.
> 
> We do the same when we feel squeamish about obeying it in the church and home (while making every effort to circumvent it where it doesn't _look_ like outright disobedience), and then throw all the gates open outside of that.
> 
> ...



Lydia had a business of her own. Priscilla also seems to be in trade along with her husband as a tentmaker. Teaching literature may be a more educated trade, but it is still a trade. If it's fine for women to be involved in uneducated trades, but not in educated ones -- why is that?


----------



## Caroline (May 22, 2013)

I can't even imagine what the host of reasons would be that I should prefer that a man teach literature. Men have deeper voices and can read more dramatically? Men are taller and can reach books on the top shelf? You've really got me there. 

But Deborah (who was married) judged all Israel and told the army when to go out to fight, so I'd say there is good Biblical precedent for a married woman to have a job.

But in regard to people saying that something is accepted unless it is forbidden (whether for men or for women), I think that's more or less the definition of Christian liberty. The Bible does not tell me I can wear socks, and in fact, by historical precedent, the Bible only expressly mentions the wearing of sandals, and yet I have socks on my feet right now. I don't think that's a matter for church discipline. We do all kinds of things that the Bible doesn't have specific commands about.

If the rule is that you can't do anything at all unless you prove it is permitted by Scripture, then all Christian liberty is removed. You may not own a computer. You may not wear a tie. You may not take your trash to the curb for pick-up. Anyone can make up any arbitrary rules they like and claim that you have to do it unless you can prove that the Bible permits you to do otherwise. If the Bible has examples of women working and there is no command that forbids it, I can't imagine how the burden of proof is beyond that.


----------



## THE W (May 22, 2013)

I doubt anyone here is actually arguing that it's against scripture for women to hold a job or own a business. 

Right?


----------



## Edward (May 22, 2013)

smhbbag said:


> If you are saying that a woman should not teach literature in the local community college, do you mean any women, even single?
> I am not (yet) willing to say a woman doing that is in sin. But I do think that everyone should prefer that a man has that job, for a host of reasons.



My freshman honors English prof was a very masculine lesbian. Is that close enough?


----------



## Caroline (May 22, 2013)

> I doubt anyone here is actually arguing that it's against scripture for women to hold a job or own a business.
> 
> Right?



I think it was implied by someone saying women shouldn't teach literature, but perhaps I misunderstood. I think that is pretty much invariably where we end up whenever there are things asked like, "Can a woman teach at a conference about something that is not a church office at all?"

What happens with these things is that men end up taking a lot of credit for women's work, and women are not able to functionally do their jobs. Can a woman not present her own research findings in mixed company? If not, doesn't that pretty much mean that she may as well not do research? Should the woman give her conclusions to a man who did not do the work so that he can present it? 

This sort of thing happens more often than you'd think. And it all seems a bit silly to me and borderline dishonest.

Any woman owning a business will find herself teaching and having some authority over men, if her business is successful at all. She will need to hire and train people. 

Some of this just seems to be a question of wisdom anyway. If I am in charge of a project, and I know the most about it, then I should be the one to make the decisions about what should be done and instruct people who know less about it, within the limits of my job. That's common sense. It's even true in the church. When my pastor writes something for the website, I correct his grammar. He never yells, "I'm not taking orders from a female! I'm a pastor!" He says thanks, and he changes it. You could say he is learning from a woman. And that happens in churches and elsewhere every day all the time. It happens in the home also, when a wife says, "Honey, I think you calculated our taxes incorrectly." Every man learns things from women. except a monk that has forsworn human company, and even he learned from his mother. In the church, a woman is not to have preaching authority, but in grammar, website development, etc, it is generally a matter of who knows best.


----------



## THE W (May 23, 2013)

what does having a secular job or owning a business have to do with a church worship service?

what does this CCEF conference have to do with a church worship service?


----------



## irresistible_grace (May 23, 2013)

THE W said:


> what does having a secular job or owning a business have to do with a church worship service?
> 
> what does this CCEF conference have to do with a church worship service?



The individual who started the thread changed the focus from the conference to Sunday School and women teaching men etc.

I think that Caroline is doing a wonderful job of responding to questions that have been posed and/or implied throughout this thread.


----------



## THE W (May 23, 2013)

Women teaching grown men in Sunday school is a no no as Sunday school is part of the church worship service.


----------



## Edward (May 23, 2013)

THE W said:


> Women teaching grown men in Sunday school is a no no



Right



THE W said:


> as Sunday school is part of the church worship service.



Wrong.


----------



## irresistible_grace (May 23, 2013)

I agree that women teaching men in Sunday School is not a good idea (or as you say a "no no")...
HOWEVER, Sunday School (Sabbath School, Catechism Class, Adult Education etc.) is NOT part of the church "worship service."

I am of the persuasion that the Pastor (Teaching Elder) is the one who should be teaching when the church is assembled (be it preaching and/or a "separate" time designated for teaching). I believe that at times an ordained Elder (Ruling Elder) can do this as well but that it is not the place for laymen (or women) in the congregation to teach the congregation as a whole.

Now, if several of the member of a congregation go to someone's house after they leave the Kirk on the Lord's Day or they gather some other day of the week and discuss Scripture together ... I think the rules change.


----------



## irresistible_grace (May 23, 2013)

Edward said:


> THE W said:
> 
> 
> > Women teaching grown men in Sunday school is a no no
> ...





It took me more words and more time to say the exact same thing!


----------



## Alan D. Strange (May 23, 2013)

ChristianTrader said:


> At the end of the day, I do not dogmatically hold that women should not be able to hold authority over a man outside of the domestic or eccleisiastical spheres but I have yet to see any good counters to the argument that I put forward earlier.



Not to be obtuse, brother, but I am not aware of any argument that you put forward earlier. All that you did was note that Paul adduced creation as a part of his argument. I asked you the questions that I did because I wanted to see how you would apply this outside the domestic/ecclesiastical sphere. 

And then you say that you don't see the bearing of being married. Really? Isn't Paul's argument in the first place submission of wife to the headship of husband? His argument is not, is it, all women everywhere are to be in sumbission to all men everywhere? I say this especially with respect to women who do not marry--may they have employment in the world? As has been noted more than once with Lydia and Priscilla, were they not engaged in activities that your adducing of the creational order would forbid? I agree that Deborah's leadership was a rebuke but we do have these other examples of women engaging in the give and take of the marketplace in a way that cannot be argued to be subservient to all men with whom they would deal. 

I don't think that you've put forth any clear argument, just cited a general principle that Paul applies in the domestic and ecclesiastical spheres, but it is not clear precisely how such applies outside of those spheres. Was Lydia wrong to be a seller of purple? Was Priscilla wrong to instruct Apollos? Is is OK for a woman to manage a store but not to teach in the local college? In all of this I assume that the woman does this in submission to her husband and in support, not neglect, of her family.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## THE W (May 23, 2013)

Edward said:


> THE W said:
> 
> 
> > Women teaching grown men in Sunday school is a no no
> ...



alright let me ask you this, 

do you believe women should teach sunday school at all?


----------



## ChristianTrader (May 23, 2013)

Alan D. Strange said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> > At the end of the day, I do not dogmatically hold that women should not be able to hold authority over a man outside of the domestic or eccleisiastical spheres but I have yet to see any good counters to the argument that I put forward earlier.
> ...



A further argument would only be necessary if one could maintain an assumption other than mine. In attempt to make the position/argument clearer, let me try this: Paul says no to authority over a man explicitly in certain spheres. He grounds his position in two things: Adam was created first and then Eve was deceived while Adam was not. If we were to change the sphere of the application, would the reasoning still hold or would the conclusion lose grounding?



> And then you say that you don't see the bearing of being married. Really? Isn't Paul's argument in the first place submission of wife to the headship of husband? His argument is not, is it, all women everywhere are to be in sumbission to all men everywhere?



The reason that marriage is not relevant is because Paul isn't saying only married women could not have authority over a man but single women could? Are there certain women who can have authority over men/some men in the Church? Who are these women and who are these men? Are there certain women who can teach a mixed sex adult Sunday School? It seems that people are having trouble applying the principle in a new sphere because they are not understanding the original context.



> I say this especially with respect to women who do not marry--may they have employment in the world?



Not only can they have employment in the world but I see no reason to say that they cannot have employment in the church? Can you explain to me why they cannot be employed by the church? What has been written that seems to imply otherwise?



> As has been noted more than once with Lydia and Priscilla, were they not engaged in activities that your adducing of the creational order would forbid? I agree that Deborah's leadership was a rebuke but we do have these other examples of women engaging in the give and take of the marketplace in a way that cannot be argued to be subservient to all men with whom they would deal.



Are you assuming that not having authority over/submission will look the same concerning all men and women in a certain context? Let us think of a married women in the context of a church service. Her submission would look different concerning her husband, the church leadership, and a fellow male congregant. However, I don't think one can sustain that she is to have authority over any of them.

Now, taking a step back, the question is teaching a subject at a community college/university etc. Why would we exclude women from teaching a mixed Sunday School class while allowing some other subject? What is the difference? Or taking a different direction, what in Paul's reasoning ceases to hold when one moves from Church to University context?



> I don't think that you've put forth any clear argument, just cited a general principle that Paul applies in the domestic and ecclesiastical spheres, but it is not clear precisely how such applies outside of those spheres. Was Lydia wrong to be a seller of purple? Was Priscilla wrong to instruct Apollos? Is is OK for a woman to manage a store but not to teach in the local college? In all of this I assume that the woman does this in submission to her husband and in support, not neglect, of her family.
> 
> Peace,
> Alan



First, I see no basis for making the analogy between selling purple or whatever with teaching whatever subject. I think you would need to flesh that out, before I can see how to respond. Next, if you see Priscilla as a basis for university teaching, then could you flesh out why? As far as managing vs. teaching, I would currently have a problem with both.

CT


----------



## Marrow Man (May 23, 2013)

Reformedfellow said:


> Apollos was instructed by Priscilla and Aquila, and he was all the better for it. Note it does not say he was given their professional opinion on counseling, but that he was taught the way of God more accurately.



This is technically not correct, since the word for "taught" is not the one used in the passage, as Daniel Wallace explains here: Did Priscilla

NANC (and I am assuming CCEF as well) is very big on women counseling other women, so this may be the reason for inclusion of women at the CCEF national conference.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (May 23, 2013)

Thanks, Hermonta. That's very helpful to see you position more fully.

So a woman could work in the world (say as a waitress) or in the church (e.g., as the pastor's secretary) but could not be in a position in which she would have any authority (or is it just authority over men?) or teach (again, presumably, just men). This is what you take Paul's argument from creation to mean for women working outside the home. Do I have that right? 

What about a wealthy woman who has household servants? Does she have no right to tell the butler what to do? Does a queen have a right to rule her subjects? Could a female usher at the opera (who has no men under her) tell me to be quiet if I'm talking loudly during _Lohengrin_? What about the local crossing guard (they're all female in our area): should see tell me to stop my car so that the kids can cross? The meter maid? You don't need to answer any of this, brother: I am not seeking to badger you; just wondering if this really means for you what you say it does. What of the store clerk who reprimands me and my kids for being disorderly? Can only a man do this? 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## smhbbag (May 23, 2013)

> I can't even imagine what the host of reasons would be that I should prefer that a man teach literature.



To add another angle to the rest of this thread, consider these questions:

What happens to household formation and maintenance, parenting, community, church, etc. when men don't have good work? What happens to those things when women have less work available?

During the Depression, and in other parts of our history, it was common for employers to restrict employment of women for exactly these kinds of reasons. When a man gets good work, that ripples through our other social systems. When he doesn't, that also affects broader things.

The median man in America today will make less over his career, in real terms, than his grandfather did. That messes with the building blocks of our society.


----------



## ChristianTrader (May 23, 2013)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Thanks, Hermonta. That's very helpful to see you position more fully.
> 
> So a woman could work in the world (say as a waitress) or in the church (e.g., as the pastor's secretary) but could not be in a position in which she would have any authority (or is it just authority over men?) or teach (again, presumably, just men). This is what you take Paul's argument from creation to mean for women working outside the home. Do I have that right?
> 
> ...



Before we go into case studies, it would be helpful if you would answer a question, that I put forward a while back concerning 1 Tim. 2- "I don't have a problem with you having a different assumption than mine; my question is what is your assumption and on what basis do you hold to that assumption?"

CT


----------



## Caroline (May 23, 2013)

Jeremy, if men cannot get good work, I'd advise them to take it up a notch. I see no reason to take a dive because a man is too lazy/unqualified/whatever to compete. I don't believe in entitlement employment that way. Similarly, I'm sure that having to pay farm workers instead of using slaves makes farming more challenging, but it's still the right thing to do. One segment of society does not have a right to take advantage of another segment just to make their lives easier.

The fact is that poor women have always worked. They were maids, housekeepers, nannies, washing women, shopkeepers, etc, etc. If you read Victorian writings, they are full of references to their nannies and maids and cooks and nurses--all working women. They worked as seamstresses and in factories. Sometimes, they were authors, but they usually had to publish under male pseudonyms to be taken seriously. And yet they often got paid far less than men for working twice as hard. I will agree that feminism has taken things too far, and yet I don't think the answer is to take things back to throwing women out of work so that men can get paid more without working as hard, while women go back to scrubbing toilets for pennies.

PS I think I have a different perspective because I come from a low-income family. My grandmother worked as a waitress, and didn't make enough money to finish her college degree. She was extremely poor all her life because her husband had psychological and moral problems. My other grandmother had to drop out of high school to work to support her younger brothers and sisters. She later went back to school and became the first person in her family to lift herself out of poverty by becoming a teacher. She went through a divorce (for good reason--her husband was abusive) but managed to support her kids and send them to college. It's important for women to be able to earn money.


----------



## Edward (May 23, 2013)

THE W said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > THE W said:
> ...



Yes. I have no problem with women teaching women or women teaching young children.


----------



## The Calvinist Cop (May 23, 2013)

Dr Strange, 

Would the Danvers Statement apply to this thread and what is your view on this statement?


----------



## ChristianTrader (May 23, 2013)

Edward said:


> THE W said:
> 
> 
> > Edward said:
> ...



But you would be against women teaching a mixed sex adult Sunday School, correct? If that is correct, on what basis would you defend such since you do not believe that such is part of the Sunday Worship service?

CT


----------



## irresistible_grace (May 23, 2013)

ChristianTrader said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > THE W said:
> ...



On what basis do you defend that Sunday School and the "Worship Service" are the same and not distinct/separate? (Please, forgive me if that is not what your question implies.)


----------



## ChristianTrader (May 24, 2013)

irresistible_grace said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> > Edward said:
> ...



I'm comfortable with the two being distinct/separate. The issue is if they are separate and women are not allowed to teach mixed sex adult classes, then one is going to have to defend a broader view of Paul's command or one is going to have to somehow limit men in approximately the same way (as you do by limiting such to ordained men).

CT


----------



## smhbbag (May 24, 2013)

> Jeremy, if men cannot get good work, I'd advise them to take it up a notch. I see no reason to take a dive because a man is too lazy/unqualified/whatever to compete. I don't believe in entitlement employment that way. Similarly, I'm sure that having to pay farm workers instead of using slaves makes farming more challenging, but it's still the right thing to do. One segment of society does not have a right to take advantage of another segment just to make their lives easier.
> 
> The fact is that poor women have always worked. They were maids, housekeepers, nannies, washing women, shopkeepers, etc, etc. If you read Victorian writings, they are full of references to their nannies and maids and cooks and nurses--all working women. They worked as seamstresses and in factories. Sometimes, they were authors, but they usually had to publish under male pseudonyms to be taken seriously. And yet they often got paid far less than men for working twice as hard. I will agree that feminism has taken things too far, and yet I don't think the answer is to take things back to throwing women out of work so that men can get paid more without working as hard, while women go back to scrubbing toilets for pennies.
> 
> PS I think I have a different perspective because I come from a low-income family. My grandmother worked as a waitress, and didn't make enough money to finish her college degree. She was extremely poor all her life because her husband had psychological and moral problems. My other grandmother had to drop out of high school to work to support her younger brothers and sisters. She later went back to school and became the first person in her family to lift herself out of poverty by becoming a teacher. She went through a divorce (for good reason--her husband was abusive) but managed to support her kids and send them to college. It's important for women to be able to earn money.



You are making a case that some women will be harmed if women do not have full access to the working world and decent wages.

I am saying that _everyone_ is harmed when a man doesn't have that, by definition.

We can tackle the problems for the abused, the widowed, and the abandoned without having all our women pursue school, careers, etc. at the same rates as men just in case they end up being one of the unlucky ones. 

We've done that, and all we ended up with is fewer families, smaller families, families starting later, families breaking more, more unemployed men, more men working at lower wages that can't support a family, and more women who are forced to work as a primary plan instead of a backup plan. It is a greater slavery for a woman to be trapped by having to work than it is for her not to have as many opportunities to work. And that's what it creates - first it's an opportunity, then it's a prison.

Not to mention, daily living under such arrangements will subtly (and not so subtly) condition the society to look at men and women as the same. That's one reason I think it is relevant to this discussion about women speaking at conference. When we treat the Church or the home as separate spheres where Paul's creation-argument applies seriously (while not applying much outside it), we will not be able to maintain the Church and home when we have a vision of public life that is contrary to them.


----------



## ChristianTrader (May 24, 2013)

Caroline said:


> Jeremy, if men cannot get good work, I'd advise them to take it up a notch. I see no reason to take a dive because a man is too lazy/unqualified/whatever to compete. I don't believe in entitlement employment that way. Similarly, I'm sure that having to pay farm workers instead of using slaves makes farming more challenging, but it's still the right thing to do. One segment of society does not have a right to take advantage of another segment just to make their lives easier.



If one wants to go to a completely merit based society, then there can be no affirmative action, quota etc for women in various fields due to under-representation. One cannot have it both ways. If employers are unwilling to hire women at the same rate as men due to the likely hood that they will become pregnant and at the very least miss substantial time at work, then that is all fine when merit is the only game in town. Next, it seems that your objection here assumes some battle of the sexes aspect, while in actuality that which helps men earn enough to provide for families, helps everyone.



> The fact is that poor women have always worked. They were maids, housekeepers, nannies, washing women, shopkeepers, etc, etc. If you read Victorian writings, they are full of references to their nannies and maids and cooks and nurses--all working women. They worked as seamstresses and in factories. Sometimes, they were authors, but they usually had to publish under male pseudonyms to be taken seriously. And yet they often got paid far less than men for working twice as hard. I will agree that feminism has taken things too far, and yet I don't think the answer is to take things back to throwing women out of work so that men can get paid more without working as hard, while women go back to scrubbing toilets for pennies.



And these people simply worked because they liked to do these hard jobs or due to their husbands/fathers/etc could not earn enough to be sole breadwinners?



> PS I think I have a different perspective because I come from a low-income family. My grandmother worked as a waitress, and didn't make enough money to finish her college degree. She was extremely poor all her life because her husband had psychological and moral problems. My other grandmother had to drop out of high school to work to support her younger brothers and sisters. She later went back to school and became the first person in her family to lift herself out of poverty by becoming a teacher. She went through a divorce (for good reason--her husband was abusive) but managed to support her kids and send them to college. It's important for women to be able to earn money.



I don't think any system supported by anyone in this thread, would make it illegal for women to earn money by working outside of their home, especially in the case of deep financial difficulties. The question is what does one see as a just/properly functioning society, and how does one get there. Every social policy assumes some vision for society. Even laissez-faire assumes some vision. An example is children. If a good society has fertile married women bearing children, then the society must figure out a way to make it economically feasible. If such is not in the vision for a good society, then the policies will go in a different direction.

CT


----------



## Caroline (May 24, 2013)

I have never supported affirmative action (in the sense of giving jobs to people BECAUSE they are women or minorities), and in fact, anyone who suggests that men should be hired preferentially over women is supporting affirmative action of another sort. I support justice--fair pay for equal work. I do not believe justice harms society. I have seen injustice harm society. Simply because there are problems today does not mean that we should revert back to a system with deep flaws also. People who have the upper hand in something always think it is a good idea. Slaveowners argued that ridding society of slavery would harm society--and in fact, I'm sure it made things difficult and more competitive for the people who were benefiting from slavery. I'm sure many of the wealthy landowners fell on hard times when slavery ended, but it was still the right thing to do. We should not return to slave-owning just because it made life easier for some people. And we shouldn't force women to work menial jobs to make it easier for men to get good pay. (And that is where this ends up when women are not allowed professional work because "they are taking men's jobs.")

Women will always have to work in many situations. To say otherwise is just not an acknowledgement of fact. My brother-in-law has muscular dystrophy and his wife has to support their family. A woman at church had her husband abandon her and refuse to pay child support. She has to work. And sometimes women just want to work. A woman who has no children providentially or whose children are grown and moved out or who is a widow should not have to sit at home all day with nothing to do.

I stick by my statement. I don't support allowing men to be lazy and trample the competition just because they can. People complain about entitlement all the time, and yet, when it benefits them, they suddenly feel differently about it. People complain about lazy welfare moms who take money without working, and yet people also want to prevent women from working so that they don't take jobs. In my view, if men want work, let them be the better candidate. Nobody owes it to them to throw great-paying high-level jobs loaded with money at them just so they are not inconvenienced by searching for work and building a career like the rest of us. 

Anyone who thinks society is not harmed by refusing education and employment to women has never seen that in action. My grandmother who was a teacher set her family on much better footing. My other grandmother who could not finish college was tied to a man who abused her children and grandchildren all his life, and she could not do anything about it because she could not support the children on her own. That harms society also. It harmed my family's society very deeply, and I don't think my aunts and uncles will ever fully recover from it.

There are always two errors one can fall into, and people tend to go to harmful extremes on one end or the other--either feminism or throwing all women out of employment--when neither is the ideal. Personally, I believe that if a woman can stay home to raise her kids, that is a good thing. However, I recognize that not everyone can do that. I also recognize that there are single women, widows, women with abusive husbands, women with shiftless husbands, divorced women, poor women, and just women whose kids are grown and gone and want something productive to do. I see no reason to keep them in grinding poverty or receiving charity. Ruth worked. Deborah worked. Lydia worked. etc, etc. Proverbs 31 holds up an example of a working woman who sells goods in the marketplace to help support the family as an ideal spouse (The Bible never says she is taking a job that could be a man's by making linen garments and selling them). It seems to me that this isn't even an issue of "what is good for society" (although we can argue that). If the Bible is our standard, then I think the case is closed.


----------



## irresistible_grace (May 24, 2013)

Caroline said:


> I have never supported affirmative action (in the sense of giving jobs to people BECAUSE they are women or minorities), and in fact, anyone who suggests that men should be hired preferentially over women is supporting affirmative action of another sort. I support justice--fair pay for equal work. I do not believe justice harms society. I have seen injustice harm society. Simply because there are problems today does not mean that we should revert back to a system with deep flaws also. People who have the upper hand in something always think it is a good idea. Slaveowners argued that ridding society of slavery would harm society--and in fact, I'm sure it made things difficult and more competitive for the people who were benefiting from slavery. I'm sure many of the wealthy landowners fell on hard times when slavery ended, but it was still the right thing to do. We should not return to slave-owning just because it made life easier for some people. And we shouldn't force women to work menial jobs to make it easier for men to get good pay. (And that is where this ends up when women are not allowed professional work because "they are taking men's jobs.")
> 
> Women will always have to work in many situations. To say otherwise is just not an acknowledgement of fact. My brother-in-law has muscular dystrophy and his wife has to support their family. A woman at church had her husband abandon her and refuse to pay child support. She has to work. And sometimes women just want to work. A woman who has no children providentially or whose children are grown and moved out or who is a widow should not have to sit at home all day with nothing to do.
> 
> ...


----------



## Alan D. Strange (May 25, 2013)

ChristianTrader said:


> Before we go into case studies, it would be helpful if you would answer a question, that I put forward a while back concerning 1 Tim. 2- "I don't have a problem with you having a different assumption than mine; my question is what is your assumption and on what basis do you hold to that assumption?"
> CT



I am sorry, brother, I did not realize that you asked me a question. It is not my intention to ignore such. 

What do you mean when you ask "What is your assumption?" What assumption? Could you clarify for me what it is that you are asking? Thanks.

Peace,
Alan


----------

