# Women teaching seminary- biblical?



## Scott1 (Nov 25, 2008)

> *Leslie
> Puritanboard Sophomore*
> 
> What, in your estimates, are duties prohibited for women as regards staffing schools of theology? Administration? Teaching English or church finance? Teaching Bible such as OT survey, or a book study? Teaching systematic or biblical theology? Teaching Greek or Hebrew? In Ethiopia the entire theological educational system of the protestant churches would collapse if it were devoid of female staff members. Is eliminating them a binding scriptural injunction under any and all circumstances, on the same level as "Thou shalt not kill"? If so, under the circumstances, the church would have to violate the express command of the Great Commission (to teach obedience) in order to comply. BTW I don't teach in any theological program nor have I aspirations of doing so.


 
1) What does Scripture say about women teaching seminary students?

2) Is there a biblical distinction between theology and other subjects being taught to seminary students, at a seminary, as part of a seminary degree?

3) Is there any biblical reason for women to not to serve as staff or support positions at a seminary?


----------



## satz (Nov 25, 2008)

My little thoughts…

While I do not necessarily think it should be promoted, I would tentatively say the bible does not forbid it.

I think the problem that arises when we ask “what does scripture teach us about women teaching seminary…” is that scripture really does not teach us anything (directly) because there were no seminaries that we see in the bible.

I believe that the direct context of 1 Tim 2 is the church(1 Tim 3:15), so there is no direct bible prohibition on women teaching men outside of the church either secular subjects or even spiritual matters, as long as it is not done with pastoral authority. I believe that evidence from the rest of the bible supports this conclusion.

I definitely understand that it will seem logical that a seminary teacher has some sought of spiritual authority over the students, but a seminary is not something that is instituted by the bible, neither is a seminary teacher or professor a biblically ordained position. It is a jump to take verses that apply to the church and attempt to equate the seminary with the church.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 25, 2008)

What does the bible say about seminaries?


Not much.


----------



## TimV (Nov 25, 2008)

There are examples, like the school of the Prophets.

And a person may want to consider a number for in the OP, What have Reformed churches historically done? Digging into that sometimes keeps people from pooling their ignorance, re-inventing the wheel, etc...


----------



## satz (Nov 25, 2008)

TimV said:


> There are examples, like the school of the Prophets.
> 
> And a person may want to consider a number for in the OP, What have Reformed churches historically done? Digging into that sometimes keeps people from pooling their ignorance, re-inventing the wheel, etc...



Must confess I never heard of the school of the prophets. What verse is that from?


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 25, 2008)

Personally, I would rather pastors who are in seminary be taught by professors who either are or have been ministers at some point. (I don't know if this is practical or right, but it seems to make some level of sense to me). So in my ideal seminary education, _exclusively upon the aforementioned basis_, there would not be women professors.


----------



## Leslie (Nov 26, 2008)

Personal preference and the implications of Biblical church order are really two different issues. When I first brought this up on another post, it was in the context of Ethiopia where the whole Bible School/seminary/theological educational system was dependent on female staff. There were simply not enough males to staff the institutions. The male staff that were there taught mostly the courses closest to the pulpit while the females taught the other stuff like English, languages, finance, Christian education, and the like. There were some exceptions with women PhD's teaching OT and NT survey. I personally see no problem with this. However, I did see a problem with a female PhD trying to wrench the administration of one of the institutions out of the hands of some national males who were qualified but not PhD's. I also would have had problems had a woman been permitted to preach in the large, international church.

It seems to me that commandments have various levels. It's like I tell my teen-aged son to be in by midnight but he comes in at 1 AM because he passed his grandmother's house and found her shoveling snow so he stopped to help. Priorities. The church aims for an entirely male leadership including educational insitutions but in order to get there, it's necessary to make interim compromises on issues of lesser importance. Is this off-base?


----------



## staythecourse (Nov 26, 2008)

Do you all know about the Southern Baptist shakedown when Mohler took over. He ousted a woman seminary professor because it was a woman teaching men theology. I'll get the details and post it.

Also, regarding seminaries in the Bible. You have the school of prophets mentioned but it can be argued that a church should raise up men within as our church does, without seminary education. I am not being smarmy when I say it is not mentioned in the list of qualifications for the elders. If you stick with the book you have to say either seminaries are permitted but not required or not permitted.

I think it's a big shame to pull qualified men out of a local church and put them somewhere else as it leaves the local church "fatherless" and then less equipped than before.


----------



## satz (Nov 26, 2008)

Bryan,

Where is the school of the prophets mentioned? I can't quite find it...


----------



## staythecourse (Nov 26, 2008)

I'll look but it was Elisha and the group of prophets he had I believe - the same ones that lost the axe head and he made it float.


Here it is

2 Kings 6:1 ff


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 26, 2008)

staythecourse said:


> Do you all know about the Southern Baptist shakedown when Mohler took over. He ousted a woman seminary professor because it was a woman teaching men theology. I'll get the details and post it.
> 
> Also, regarding seminaries in the Bible. You have the school of prophets mentioned but it can be argued that a church should raise up men within as our church does, without seminary education. I am not being smarmy when I say it is not mentioned in the list of qualifications for the elders. If you stick with the book you have to say either seminaries are permitted but not required or not permitted.
> 
> I think it's a big shame to pull qualified men out of a local church and put them somewhere else as it leaves the local church "fatherless" and then less equipped than before.



It appears Mohler did not oust her because she was a women but because she had errant theology.


Ousted seminary professors praise Texas committee's report

Tenured SBC woman forced to resign - Molly Marshall; Southern Baptist Convention | Christian Century | Find Articles at BNET


Deviance from doctrine included errors in the atonement and also universalism.

Baptists And Liberalism She believes that faith in Jesus is not needed to be saved.



And here's an article supporting Dr. Marshall as well: 

2006 August 27 « Levellers




Summary: Mohler did not fire a person because of gender, but because of error.


----------



## staythecourse (Nov 26, 2008)

There is not one single woman professor at SBTS teaching men theology. Coincidence?
-----Added 11/26/2008 at 09:40:45 EST-----
SBTS Faculty:


----------



## Prudence and Passion (Nov 26, 2008)

I have thought a lot about the issue of women teaching in seminary. (I am currently reading a Martha Peace book, and she is one such woman). I think we all agree that women should not have an office as an elder. But, we have so many women instructing the men who will one day be in that role. (I don't mean just in seminary. Look in on your child's Sunday school class.) But, then again, men may read books by women and that may influence their theology... and, I am a homeschooling mom - I will not doubt influence my sons theology. This question bears much thought!


----------



## staythecourse (Nov 26, 2008)

I think most of us on the board would fall into the category that women are designed to teach women and children. They do a great job of teachers all the time in a good household where little eyes and ears take in godly examples

And men teach men, women and children.

There are exceptions but I am not the first to say that exceptions are just that: exeptions to the rule.

As soon as anyone gets dogmatic they can be proven wrong somewhere in history where a woman should have taught a man and did. If she hadn't it would have been sin. None come to mind but it's a big board and someone can.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 27, 2008)

staythecourse said:


> There is not one single woman professor at SBTS teaching men theology. Coincidence?
> -----Added 11/26/2008 at 09:40:45 EST-----
> SBTS Faculty:



Probably not a coincidence. But the reasons given for Marshall's removal were theological. However, recently at SWBTS a Hebrew professor named Sheri Klouda was denied tenure because she was a woman. 

Baptist Press - Newspaper reports tenure refusal for Southwestern woman prof - News with a Christian Perspective

Baptist Press - Judge dismisses suit against Southwestern - News with a Christian Perspective


----------



## staythecourse (Nov 27, 2008)

The reason I said it was becuase she was a women is because that's the way it's portrayed on campus. In short, they have pictures of the goings on when Mohler fired tenured professors. The emphasis was not on her theology being wrong, if mentioned at all, but that she was teaching men.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 27, 2008)

Then Mohler is guilty is lying if your charge is correct because the stated reasons seem to be theological. 

I hope they are ferreting out false views equally, whether from a man or from a woman.


----------



## TimV (Nov 27, 2008)

I suppose it's praiseworthy to defend your missions group, but there's more than a bit of stretching going on here. Now we're down to the only time women can't teach men is in a pulpit on Sunday morning. Sunday afternoon a woman can walk across the street and teach men theology, just as long as it's at a Christian university and not in a Christian church building.


----------



## satz (Nov 27, 2008)

TimV said:


> I suppose it's praiseworthy to defend your missions group, but there's more than a bit of stretching going on here. Now we're down to the only time women can't teach men is in a pulpit on Sunday morning. Sunday afternoon a woman can walk across the street and teach men theology, just as long as it's at a Christian university and not in a Christian church building.



Tim,

I would not really call it a stretch. First we have to see what are the verses that prohibit women teaching men, and if they apply outside of the church. Why should we operate from a default position that women may not teach in a seminary?


----------



## TimV (Nov 27, 2008)

> Tim,
> 
> I would not really call it a stretch. First we have to see what are the verses that prohibit women teaching men, and if they apply outside of the church. Why should we operate from a default position that women may not teach in a seminary?



Because we're on the Puritan Board? In a way I still can't believe we're having this conversation in 10 different forms. 2000 years of tradition don't make things right, but why wouldn't you hold it as a default position? I can just see Calvin, Knox, Owen, Luther etc.. sitting there in class..."but Ms. Smith, are your sure that imputation isn't like air wafting around the courtroom?"

I looked up information on the translation team who did the ESV. All the translators were men, but they had a couple of women on the support staff, one in particular in editing. To me, that's the obvious pattern. There was evidently a woman skilled in editing, the men in charge saw that she was gifted and utilized her gift. Editing isn't teaching anymore than directing the choir is teaching men, or typesetting the church bulletin is teaching men.

About the smartest person in our Bible study is a woman, and she's greatly honored by everyone, and has a women's Bible study that show much fruit. Yet she never clamors to lead. Even though it's not Sunday morning in a church. She'd never want to, and would look down on the men if they weren't willing to do the leading. When she speaks, everyone listens to her carefully.

We can take this apart all day, and end up reducing it until it has no meaning. OH! Well you say she's smart! OH! Well you say you listen to her!!! AH HAH!!! She's teaching you. In your face! You've just been schooled!!! So why can't she be an Evangelist? Or teach men at a seminary?? Huh?? Huh??

I really don't know how to even answer those questions. Perhaps if I were as smart as A--- I would be able to.


----------



## satz (Nov 27, 2008)

I am sorry to have frustrated you (if I have). 

To make my position a little clearer: 

The primary verse that deals with women and teaching is 1 Tim 2:12. I believe that the direct context of that verse is the church itself (1 Tim 3:15). I believe the rest of the bible shows that women can teach men, even in spiritual matters, informally or outside of the church, whether it be mothers giving advice to grown sons, or just godly women advising men (Gen 27:8, Prov 1:8, 6:20, 31:1-2, 1 Sam 25:32-35, Acts 18:24-28). 

You mentioned the lady from your bible study who would never clamor to lead. But why do we consider teaching in seminary to be “leading” in the biblical sense? I would go back to the point that I made in my first post that nowhere in the bible do I see seminaries or similar institutions are being ordained by God. If these institutions are not ordained by God, why do we assume he has rules for them?

As I understand the bible, pastors-to-be should be trained and mentored by other pastors (acting in their capacity as pastors, not seminary professors) – 2 Tim 2:2, Titus 1:5. That is God’s ordained way for the training up of new men for the ministry. Additional forms of training may be practical and even necessary, be it books or an educational course at an institution, but they are not God’s ordained way. So I do not see how learning from a woman in a seminary is much different from learning from a woman in any other informal setting, whether in a conversation after church, or from a thread on the puritanboard. 

There are ways in which a seminary may be more “official”, but again, that officalness is something men ascribe to it, not God.



> ….When she speaks, everyone listens to her carefully.
> 
> We can take this apart all day, and end up reducing it until it has no meaning. OH! Well you say she's smart! OH! Well you say you listen to her!!! AH HAH!!! She's teaching you. In your face! You've just been schooled!!! So why can't she be an Evangelist? Or teach men at a seminary?? Huh?? Huh??
> 
> I really don't know how to even answer those questions. Perhaps if I were as smart as A--- I would be able to



That is a scornful way of speaking and approaching a subject, and I hope I would not engage in such rhetoric. Yet if the word of God is perfect, than its precepts or positions will not leave us in confusion. I would humbly suggest that is some value in soberly looking at such contradictions, as I believe they show that to take the bible’s teaching from 1 Tim 2 on women in the church and to make a blanket application to all of life will leave us with contradictions in our practice. Not just against the situation you describe, but against the verses I have listed above.


----------



## staythecourse (Nov 27, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Then Mohler is guilty is lying if your charge is correct because the stated reasons seem to be theological.
> 
> I hope they are ferreting out false views equally, whether from a man or from a woman.



I believe based on you posted, what I've read and the absence of women teachers on campus except for womens' studies and music that she was ousted for both. Women are not allowed to teach men in Mohler's view of Scripture apparently.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 27, 2008)

Stay the course: But the published reasons for her oust are doctrinal. There should be no "hidden agendas" in a seminary.




TimV: 

About this woman in your bible study; you say "When she speaks, everyone listens to her..." Under your logic; what is she doing even speaking, for by speaking, she is teaching - especially if everyone listens carefully. She should just shut up, right?






*MY POSITION*

Here is my position on women and leadership:

I do not want to impose much more than a male elders and deacons.

I think there are four consistent positions: 

Women may not exercise:

1) all teaching/authority, secular and ecclesial, 
2) all teaching on spiritual/theological matters, which by nature is authoritative, 
3) all teaching/authority in an ecclesial context, 
or 4) teaching/authority that is intrinsically linked to the office of elder.

My position is 4). I tend to read 1 Tim. 2:12 in the context of 1 Tim. 3, the qualifications for elders. 

i.e. Women are told not to teach and have authority, and the two distinguishing marks of the elder is teaching and having authority. That seems to be the most straight-forward reading.

#1 is generally regarded as too restrictive. 
#2 seems to go against the idea that we are to teach and admonish one another using Scriptures. I imagine husbands get taught a lot on spiritual matters from their wives. 
#3 seems plausible, 
but I think #4 makes the most sense exegetically.

I wouldn't necessarily be against a woman teaching bible study, at a seminary but in some cases you run the risk of having functional female elders if they do it regularly. I would think that languages might be okay, more okay than systematics. Homiletics would definitely be a male-led class.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 27, 2008)

staythecourse said:


> The reason I said it was becuase she was a women is because that's the way it's portrayed on campus. In short, they have pictures of the goings on when Mohler fired tenured professors. The emphasis was not on her theology being wrong, if mentioned at all, but that she was teaching men.



It may well have been for both reasons, but it certainly wasn't *just* because she was a woman since she was arguably the most liberal professor there among a group that was far to the left of what you can find in any Southern Baptist seminary today. Although she may have garnered more attention because she was a woman, Marshall would have been fired just the same were she a man because of her beliefs and inability to honestly subscribe to the Abstract of Principles. I contrasted the Klouda case at SWBTS because the *only *reason given for her being denied tenure was that she was a woman teaching men.


----------



## staythecourse (Nov 27, 2008)

I want Fred Greco to jump in here since he had to present his view formally recently. Fred, can you give a short sweet answer with a link to more precise teaching. What do you say about women in seminary settings - you had to deal with the deaconess issue.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 27, 2008)

staythecourse said:


> I want Fred Greco to jump in here since he had to present his view formally recently. Fred, can you give a short sweet answer with a link to more precise teaching. What do you say about women in seminary settings - you had to deal with the deaconess issue.



Stay the course,

Just to clear up any misunderstanding, from what I can tell there is only one person in this thread arguing that it might be permissible for women to teach men in a seminary setting and it isn't me. (I suspect Fred will answer in the negative as well.) Does the church only exist within the four walls and between the call to worship and the benediction? 

My point was that you were arguing (at least initially) that Molly Marshall was dismissed from Southern *solely* because she was a woman and as I noted nothing could be further from the truth. In her case she would have been dismissed either way just as a lot of men were at that same time due to their liberal beliefs.


----------



## staythecourse (Nov 27, 2008)

Perg's quote



> Women may not exercise:
> 
> 1) all teaching/authority, secular and ecclesial,
> 2) all teaching on spiritual/theological matters, which by nature is authoritative,
> ...




If it were a poll asking "How do you interpret the Bible as to a woman's roll in exercising authority over a man" I would say the third option is the most accurate with the exclusion of other women and children.

But since the OP concerned seminary and if we believe seminaries are biblically legal then what you say undermines the value of the male elders at the local church where people (men women children) are to get their doctrine from. In your case, a woman theologian at a seminary would be the seed (that word chosen on purpose) to give root to men in the church to lead the branches of the people of the congregation. To me this is dangerous doctrine.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 27, 2008)

Deaconesses and a woman teaching church history or Greek are different - one is a church office.


----------



## staythecourse (Nov 27, 2008)

Nevertheless, Fred has probably thought about the issue a couple times....


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 27, 2008)

I'm of the view that teachers in seminary for the most part and maybe always should be elders. They shouldn't be viewed as just some kind of technician. The latter view that tends to lead to unorthodox views being propagated from the seminaries.


----------



## staythecourse (Nov 27, 2008)

> My point was that you were arguing (at least initially) that Molly Marshall was dismissed from Southern solely because she was a woman and as I noted nothing could be further from the truth. In her case she would have been dismissed either way just as a lot of men were at that same time due to their liberal beliefs.



I agree, Chris,

My sources did not have that she was fired for theology but for teaching in an area she had no right to teach in. But to reiterate, there in no women teaching men at a large and distinguished institution like SBTS for a reason and it's a clarion note to wise women to stay out of theological professorships over men. It makes a clear statement to many wise and learned women out there who may be tempted to get in a role they have no biblical right to take.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 27, 2008)

If a women can teach at the university level, than she can teach some peripheral classes at seminary, i.e. languages, history, logic or philosophy. 

I have already before expressed that systematics, etc, should be reserved for men.



There need not be even a "woman theologian" at the seminary since one can teach philosophy without being ordained. Define "theologian."


I am afriad that many think that a woman is not allowed to teach a man anything; but I think the NT stresses the ecclesiastical authority of a man. And in many roles in Bible schools and some roles in seminary a woman might even be able to teach without her role being blurred or her being mistaken to exercise an ecclesiastical authority role.



Being overly-restrictive with the Word of God and people's lives is just as much sin as being overly-permissive.


----------



## staythecourse (Nov 27, 2008)

I hear you Chris - a separate thread on the validity, benefits, and weaknesses might be in order... But it's Thanksgiving in the US (I read your thread on how the people you are among responded to Thanksgiving Day Perg and am glad they had a positive response) and I gotta bird to eat with 2 (count 'em TWO) of my pastors. One went to seminary and one did not!


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 27, 2008)

If you believe that all seminary and bible school professors should be ordained elders, than logically this would exclude women. I do not see why a Bible School course in philosophy needs to be taught by an ordained elder, unless all seminaries and Bible schools were subordinated underneath the local church and the authority of such school was the leadership of said local church (which is not the present case of seminaries). 



Staythecourse: Whatever your sources are, why don't they reflect the news sources I have already linked, which clearly put the root cause of Dr. Marhsall's dismissal on errant theology.
-----Added 11/27/2008 at 12:36:41 EST-----
Happy Thanksgiving and God bless; I'm signing off - thanks for the good thread.


----------



## staythecourse (Nov 27, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> If a women can teach at the university level, than she can teach some peripheral classes at seminary, i.e. languages, history, logic or philosophy.
> 
> I have already before expressed that systematics, etc, should be reserved for men.
> 
> ...



My thank button quit.

I'll think about that more and see if that is not getting too close to the fire. The last statement is a good truth and we agree there for certain P.


----------



## Ivan (Nov 27, 2008)

staythecourse said:


> > My point was that you were arguing (at least initially) that Molly Marshall was dismissed from Southern solely because she was a woman and as I noted nothing could be further from the truth. In her case she would have been dismissed either way just as a lot of men were at that same time due to their liberal beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Let me add a personal note here. At one time I was considering getting another Masters degree and going on to a PhD. I visited Southern Seminary and sat in on one of the classes taught by the woman in question. In my personal opinion from that one class it was evident that she was very liberal(saying she is liberal is actually being kind to her). Hence, I didn't attend Southern.

Regardless her gender, I believe the trustees of the seminary had good reason to dismiss her.


----------



## TimV (Nov 27, 2008)

> I am afriad that many think that a woman is not allowed to teach a man anything;



Can you name one person here? Or are you thinking about some other people you know?



> but I think the NT stresses the ecclesiastical authority of a man.



What do you mean by ecclesiastical? A building? A denomination? The Church, which includes all believers, which the Greek word of origin means?



> You mentioned the lady from your bible study who would never clamor to lead. But why do we consider teaching in seminary to be “leading” in the biblical sense?



What do you think this verse from James 3 means?


> 1 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. 2For we all stumble in many ways.



If one determines to look at the broad picture without quibbling to the point of reducing everything to meaningless rhetoric, then the lady in my Bible Study can indeed teach men by answering questions during the study, the several ladies here who've asked about the subject can witness Christ at work, the lady here who is in charge of the church choir does her thing with a pure conscience and my daughters can teach kids they baby sit.

It would be absurd to make this verse mean everyone who teaches anything.

It's talking about a gift and calling, that is used in the Church, which doesn't mean a building and on Sunday.



> If you believe that all seminary and bible school professors should be ordained elders, than logically this would exclude women. I do not see why a Bible School course in philosophy needs to be taught by an ordained elder, unless all seminaries and Bible schools were subordinated underneath the local church and the authority of such school was the leadership of said local church



It's neither logical nor reasonable. The gift and office of the Teacher isn't restricted to or defined by a building.


----------



## cbryant (Nov 27, 2008)

2 Kings 5:22 is the verse everyone is referring to in regard to the 'school of the prophets.' This verse is weak support for not allowing women to teach in a seminary because. 1) there are no more prophets (Christ being the last) and 2) the context of the verse is Gehazi trying to deceive Namaan. The only examples of 'seminary type training' is of either Christ and the Apostles to which there were no women and no qualifications for succession. One could use Acts 18:26 (Priscilla and Aquila) but I think that would be stretching the context of the verse.

My personal conviction is that if a Seminary is for the sole or primary purpose of training men for the pastorate then I believe that those training those individuals should be pastors themselves thus being men. While the instruction aspect can be done by the non-ordained, but the shepherding aspect cannot. One of my professors told us in one of my classes, "This is my pastorate and you are my flock." Also, even if a Seminary has secondary purposes via other degree schemes (Master of Arts type schemes, doctorate degrees, etc) that do allow for those not seeking ordination (open to both men and women) then the primary purpose and reason should not be overridden just because there are those who's reason for being at the seminary is not to seek ordination.


----------

