# Should I be opposed to her going to seminary?



## no1special18 (Aug 27, 2005)

My girl friend and I were discussing our future (specifically us being married). Some how we got into spiritual submission and whether or not she should go to seminary. I have two questions: 1.) if we were married would it be within my duties as spiritual leader to make the final call on whether she goes into seminary? 2.) should I be opposed to her going to seminary (which I am).

Here is a little background that might be applicable to the situation:
- God willing I am going to be a pastor, so I am obviously going to seminary.
- She is studying to be a nurse, and wants to use her medical knowledge for the mission field.
- I pastor a overseas church, she works at the hospital or wherever they need nurses in the area (thats the general plan).


----------



## Poimen (Aug 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by no1special18_
> My girl friend and I were discussing our future (specifically us being married). Some how we got into spiritual submission and whether or not she should go to seminary. I have two questions: 1.) if we were married would it be within my duties as spiritual leader to make the final call on whether she goes into seminary? 2.) should I be opposed to her going to seminary (which I am).
> 
> Here is a little background that might be applicable to the situation:
> ...



Why does she want to go to seminary?


----------



## no1special18 (Aug 27, 2005)

To learn about the Bible, and to be a better missionary? I think that is an accurate some up of what she expressed.


----------



## turmeric (Aug 27, 2005)

Lots of wives go to seminary with their husbands and often there's a tuition discount for them. She might use it later to teach a women's group, or to give your kids a headstart. I don't see anywhere in the Bible that a woman can't get a theological education. If she wants to preach, however...


----------



## matt01 (Aug 27, 2005)

It is not prohibited for a woman to study theology, but it would be unwise to encourage her in the pursuit of a divinity degree--one specifically designed to prepare individuals for the pastoral ministry.


----------



## BrianBowman (Aug 27, 2005)

... I think that she can only grow from it. My wife has an undergrad in Biblical Studies (and 10 years of experience on the Mission Field with fluency in 3 languages). My Anne' is the most Godly woman I know and her Biblical knowlege springs from her heart, actions, and attitude. She is not a "Theologue".


----------



## Poimen (Aug 27, 2005)

I agree with the brothers and sister above: there is nothing wrong with her going to seminary as long as she does not take classes on preaching. Westminster West (my alma mater) offers MA degrees to women but does not allow them enroll in the preaching classes. 

Curious: why would you be opposed to her attending seminary?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Aug 28, 2005)

Remember Priscila and Aquila (Acts 18:26). She helped her husband correct Apollos who *may* have written Hebrews. 

Paul's injunction (1 Tim 2:12) is regarding the official ministry of the Word and Sacraments in divine worship. This verse does not intend to prohibit a female from teaching in a college or simply being a helpmate to her husband. 

It seems to me that we could use a good many more theologically trained laity, including laywomen.

rsc


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 28, 2005)

Sounds like you both may be a little immature for marriage. I don't mean that in an over criticizing way. Love can make you blinded to truth. I am living proof. Maybe God has two different paths for the both of you. Maybe he has one. If you were to be a husband you would want her to grow. Why would you oppose her going to seminary? Maybe you have a good reason. 
Christian authority is service to help others grow in the Grace and Knowledge of the Lord. It is not something where another necessarily lords anything over another unless discipline for wrong doing is in line. I do agree that the woman is to follow the leading of the husband but the husband is not suppose to stifle the wife. He is suppose to husband her.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Aug 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> ...



Josh, 

I don't know anything about the Sermon Audio matter. Contact Henry Doorn at [email protected] or 760 480 8474 x 120.

As to where folks should be trained, yes, catechism belongs to the church and any church rightly so called should see to the catechizing of the covenant children. 

Whether theological training *per se* belongs to the visible, institutional, church is another matter. Machen, a great old school Presbyterian, argued that it´s not the church's province to be teaching Greek and Hebrew or explaining Pannenberg to seminary students. It is the church's function to preach the gospel, administer the sacraments and discipline, confess the faith and to catechize the youth. These are theological functions, but the ACADEMIC study of theology belongs to the academy.

The history of ecclesiastically controlled seminaries in the USA is not promising. 

This argument doesn't mean that churches have no responsibility for the training of ministers. Quite the opposite is true.

The church IS responsible for the admission of properly trained men to her ordained ministry. Presbyteries and Classes (the term used by the Dutch and German Reformed for "presbytery;" it refers to a fleet of ships) are responsible to examine men in licensure, candidacy, and ordination trials. 

They are ultimately responsible for the men they admit to their ministry. They also have a duty to see to it that their candidates are properly supervised and trained before they arrive. 

Too often we see men coming to seminary from Presbyterian and Reformed churches without much catechism training and with very little oversight from their session/consistory or Presbytery/Classis. Then the same bodies complain to us (sometimes) about "So and So you sent to us." Really? Who held a gun to the head of Presbytery to license and ordain and that candidate? 

How long did Presbytery/Classis examine that candidate? Our candidacy/ordination exams are 4-5 hours long and they seem rushed. Some Presbyteries/Classes only see their candidate on the floor for a short while. 

A school is only a school, but it is that. Church is not a school. Family is not church or state. These are distinct spheres of responsibility and each must fulfill its divinely ordained function. 

A school instructs and tests. If a student passes those tests the school is obligated to graduate him. He may be academically prepared; a necessary condition; and not spiritually prepared for ministry. The two together form the sufficient condition for ministry.

rsc

[Edited on 8-28-2005 by R. Scott Clark]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Aug 28, 2005)

I pretty much agree with everyone else on this issue.

Yes, you would have final say after marriage.

Yes, it IS common for wives of seminary students to take classes alongside their husbands in order to train them into the same mindset and encourage their growth as their path as a wife to a minister or missionary is not an easy one.

No, I don't believe she should seek to obtain a divinity degree.

No, I don't understand why you would be against her taking seminary courses...could you please explain that one?


----------



## doulosChristou (Aug 28, 2005)

At the seminary where I attend, our wives are encouraged to take classes. There is even an academic program called the Seminary Wives Institute, in which the wives may take classes for only $10 a class. These are taught by seminary professors and/or the professor's wives. My wife is currently taking a Worldviews class taught by Al Mohler. It has been very enriching for her and exciting for me to watch her mature in the faith. If God has called her to be a minister's wife, I don't understand why you would wish to prevent your wife from being educated, equipped, and prepared for that challenging life. Puzzled.


----------



## bond-servant (Aug 29, 2005)

For what it's worth: My husband is allowing me to attend Seminary (distance learning) to get a Maters in Christian Studies. No preaching. No over stepping of bounds, just a solid Biblical Reformed education. 

It has benefited me greatly; both personally and in the lay womens ministries in which I am involved. 

If you intend on becoming a pastor, and she a pastors wife, she will be giving a lot of 'unofficial' council to women in the different churches you are in. Why would you *not* want to be assured that her knowledge is Biblically grounded and sound?


----------



## Augusta (Aug 29, 2005)

Our church is home to a seminary that is separate from the church and uses the building. My husband and I are able to attend classes there. We only ever audit them because neither of us is seeking a degree we just want to learn more.


----------



## AdamM (Aug 29, 2005)

I do not see a problem with a wife taking non-ordination track courses while her husband is in seminary. I think Covenant allows the wives of the MDiv students to attend classes for free and many take counseling related classes, which come in handy when they get to the local church.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Aug 29, 2005)

James, could you please share with us your reasons/concerns with her taking courses at a seminary?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 29, 2005)

Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 
Eph 5:26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 

My opinion: It is the husbands duty to 'sanctify' his wife with the word. To train, correct, exhort, not an institution.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,
> Eph 5:26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,
> 
> My opinion: It is the husbands duty to 'sanctify' his wife with the word. To train, correct, exhort, not an institution.



 Although I am not dogmatically opposed to a woman auditing a seminary course to gain more Biblical knowledge, it seems to me that seminaries (which should be under church oversight) are for the instruction of men for the ministry. Women (and others) can learn under the preaching of the word/through their church's catechism class and from their husbands at home without becoming seminary students. 

1 Cor. 14.35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Aug 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,
> Eph 5:26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,
> 
> My opinion: It is the husbands duty to 'sanctify' his wife with the word. To train, correct, exhort, not an institution.



Scott,

Why is it logically necessary to juxtapose the the end of sanctity with the means of institutional education? Does not the Spirit use ends to accomplish all his purposes? Does he not use the preaching of the Word to bring his elect to faith (Rom 10)? 

rsc


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Aug 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



There is no question that a woman can and should learn at home from her husband, what about single women? 

It is not necessary for a male to go to seminary to become learned either.

Some, however, who take the approach that females should "sit down and shut up" (you're not saying this) by appealing to 1 Cor 14:35 only give ammunition to evangelical feminism. 

Yes, Paul gives very strict regulation regarding female leadership of worship and the exercise of authority. We must submit to the absolute authority of Scripture, but we must also apply those passages to their intended context. 

1 Cor 14 applies to corporate worship not to asking a cop for directions or listening to a prof expound a passage or teach Greek grammar. 

Further, even the most ardent anti-feminists among us need to recognize the vital role given to and played by females in the life of the NT church. Paul entrusted females with significant responsibility. Our reaction to feminism should not blind us to this fact.

Finally, context is all important. In the same book (ch 11) Paul seems to regulate female conduct not by telling them to "sit down and shut up," but to cover their heads, when they pray and prophesy. I know this isn't the most popular reading of that passage, but I think a careful, unemotional, reading of the text supports it. In that case, we must balance the one with the other.

Now, since Reformed folk do not believe in continuing revelation (ergo no more prophecy) and since the canon is closed (a corollary to the last) we do not expect and should permit females to stand to pray and prophesy, but nor should we allow a male to do so! Therefore the head covering requirement is moot.

These are just examples of how I think a careful, historical-grammatical, (and theological) reading of such passages takes us where we should go and keeps us from dead ends.

As I say, if we had been more careful about this 50 years ago, and if we had been willing to recognize Phoebe as a deaconess (I know this is hotly contested!), the feminists might not have *practically* (please mark this qualifier) won this argument. I don't think they won the day logically or theologically or exegetically, but the better exegesis of these passages (by Baugh and Strimple and CBMW) did not come until the tsunami of feminism had already washed over the churches. It was a little late. In most of evangelicalism feminism is a given. 

Our confessional Reformed churches are always, unfortunately, going to be influenced by pragmatic evangelical revivalism. Therefore this issue isn't going away anytime soon. Some of our churches have already, in practice, given in to the cultural pressure on this. 

Therefore it behooves us to be very careful in our application of these passages lest we wreck our own churches as the old fundamentalists helped to wreck the evangelical churches.

rsc

[Edited on 8-30-2005 by R. Scott Clark]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 30, 2005)

Dr. Clark,
I have nothing personal against educational institutions per se. But when it comes to wives, they should look to their husbands to educate, guide, direct and sanctify with the knowledge God has bestowed to them. This is the 'end' God uses to fulfill His purpose. It is the mans duty to his wife and family; God commands this.

The scripture is clear in this regard:

1 Cor. 14.35 *And if they will learn any thing,* let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. 

Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 
Eph 5:26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,

You mention the single woman above; if they are at home, they should look to their parent; if they are single, they should look to their pastor and elders. 

[Edited on 8-30-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



Right. I think it is important to keep in mind what the purpose and scope of seminary education is all about (I realize I am speaking to a seminary professor who is far more directly concerned with these matters and I highly esteem your qualifications to speak to this subject, so please understand that I am not seeking to lecture you personally, just speaking broadly to clarify where I am coming from). Seminaries are supposed to be for the training of ministers for the church. I believe that they are not primarily intended to be co-ed training programs for the laity. Whether single or married, women desirous of learning about theological things -- a very commendable desire -- can and should primarily seek out such education in the context of 1) church preaching and catechism and 2) a husband or father's teaching at home and 3) from the older women (cf. Titus 2). 



> Some, however, who take the approach that females should "sit down and shut up" (you're not saying this) by appealing to 1 Cor 14:35 only give ammunition to evangelical feminism.



Yes, in no way I am suggesting that women should "sit down and shut up." Far from it, women as well as men have gifts that the church can benefit from. 



> Yes, Paul gives very strict regulation regarding female leadership of worship and the exercise of authority. We must submit to the absolute authority of Scripture, but we must also apply those passages to their intended context.
> 
> 1 Cor 14 applies to corporate worship not to asking a cop for directions or listening to a prof expound a passage or teach Greek grammar.



I agree the primary application of 1 Cor. 14 is to public worship. However, I view the seminary as an extension of the church, and while there are important distinctions between what goes on in seminary education and what goes on in public worship, nevertheless, I do not think it is an institution that is bound by completely different rules than those which govern the church. I do think the principle of women learning at church in silence and at home with questions is relevant to what goes on in the seminary classroom, an extension of the church.



> Further, even the most ardent anti-feminists among us need to recognize the vital role given to and played by females in the life of the NT church. Paul entrusted females with significant responsibility. Our reaction to feminism should not blind us to this fact.



Agreed. Women have an extremely vital role to play in the church. However, I think the role of women in general is to contribute to the service of the kingdom of Christ primarily in a supportive sense and primarily wrt domestic matters.



> Finally, context is all important. In the same book (ch 11) Paul seems to regulate female conduct not by telling them to "sit down and shut up," but to cover their heads, when they pray and prophesy. I know this isn't the most popular reading of that passage, but I think a careful, unemotional, reading of the text supports it. In that case, we must balance the one with the other.
> 
> Now, since Reformed folk do not believe in continuing revelation (ergo no more prophecy) and since the canon is close (a corollary to the last) we do not expect and should permit females to stand to pray and prophesy, but nor should we allow a male to do so! Therefore the head covering requirement is moot.



I do not agree that the headcovering requirement is moot. It is binding at all times and in all places (in public worship). See other threads on this subject. 



> These are just examples of how I think a careful, historical-grammatical, (and theological) reading of such passages takes us where we should go and keeps us from dead ends.
> 
> As I say, if we had been more careful about this 50 years ago, and if we had been willing to recognize Phoebe as a deaconess (I know this is hotly contested!), the feminists might not have *practically* (please mark this qualifier) won this argument. I don't think they won the day logically or theologically or exegetically, but the better exegesis of these passages (by Baugh and Strimple and CBMW) did not come until the tsunami of feminism had already washed over the churches. It was a little late. In most of evangelicalism feminism is a given.
> 
> ...



I also do not support the idea that the Bible condones deaconesses. 

Feminism has been the bane and scourage of the church for the last couple of centuries. I agree that we need to avoid over-reaction, but it is not too far off the mark to say that feminism has deeply affected how the church views the role of women for the worse and this can only be remedied by a return to the Scriptures. Paul's teaching on the role of women does not in my view lend support to co-ed seminary education (the primary goal of which -- as an extension of the church -- is supposed to be training _men_ for the ministry). 

As I view seminaries falling under the jurisdiction of what the Westminster Form of Presbyterian Church Government refers to as the "office of teacher or doctor," so likewise I view the example of Gamaliel's school as instructive for seminaries today and I am not aware that women were taught at Gamaliel's school.

[Edited on 8-30-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Aug 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Dr. Clark,
> I have nothing personal against educational institutions per se. But when it comes to wives, they should look to their husbands to educate, guide, direct and sanctify with the knowledge God has bestowed to them. This is the 'end' God uses to fulfill His purpose. It is the mans duty to his wife and family; God commands this.
> 
> ...



Scott,

Does this requirement cover learning English and math? 

What do you think is the context in view in 1 Cor 14? It seems to me that if we address this, some of the disagreement disappears. Was it Paul's intention to give a universal rule for all circumstances or to speak to a very specific circumstance?

Here's something I prepared for another setting:

On the question of the role of women in worship, Paul was not a misogynist nor was he a sexist. Women had an active and significant role in his ministry (Romans 16:3,12; Acts 18:26). He was, however, bound by basic Biblical teaching concerning the created order (1 Tim 2.9-15) and the regulative principle. 

Therefore it is useful to notice two important terms which Paul uses to describe the role and function of women under his leadership, sunergos and diakanos. 

Sunergos is used of Timothy (Romans 16.21; 1 Thess 3.2); Urbanus (Romans 16.9); of the Corinthian church (1 Cor 3.9); of Paul himself (2 Cor 1.24); Titus (2 Cor 8.23); Epaphroditus (Phil 2.25); Philemon (Philemon 1.1); Mark, Aristarchus, Demas and Luke (Philemon 1.24) and by the Apostle John of his congregations in Asia Minor (3 John 1.8). It is susceptible of both formal and informal senses, but it carries a sense of exalted and significant service in each case.

<<RO 16:3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers (sunergos) in Christ Jesus. 4 They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them. 5 Greet also the church that meets at their house.>> 

Priscilla and Aquila, whom we already know from Acts 18 are commended as "co-workers" with the Apostle Paul "in Christ Jesus." What they did specifically is unknown, but it was approved of Paul and Christ, it was dangerous and of benefit to Paul and "all the Gentile churches." We know at least that they are able to host a congregation in their home. It seems likely that their dangerous service entailed more than that, however. 

<<RO 16:6 Greet Mary, who worked very hard for you"¦ 12 Greet Tryphena and Tryphosa, who work hard in the Lord. Greet my dear friend Persis, another woman who has worked very hard in the Lord.>>

Mary, Tryphena and Tryphosa are all commended for her "hard labor" on behalf of the Roman congregation. This is the same verb which Luke uses to describe the disciples' work as fishermen (Luke 5.5) and Paul's work as a tentmaker (Acts 20.35) and which Paul used of his own (tentmaking?) labor in 1 Cor 4.12 and in Eph 4.28 of manual labor in contradistinction to theft. Paul also used it of his apostolic ministry (1 Cor 15.10; Phil 2.16; Col 1.29) of the Christian service of household of Stephanas and other men (1 Cor 16.16), of the elders and pastors of the Thessalonian congregation (1 Thess 5.12), of ministers general (1 Tim 5.7).

From this 

<< PHP 4:2 I plead with Euodia and I plead with Syntyche to agree with each other in the Lord. 3 Yes, and I ask you, loyal yokefellow , help this term often carries the sense in the NT of "arrest" or "seize." Here it means "take things in hand firmly") these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life. >>

I conclude that Paul employed women in important and useful ways in his ministry.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 30, 2005)

Dr., 
I am in no way advocating excluding woman from the ministerial scope. There are plenty of things that woman bless the church with their gifts. You ask about Math and english; I speak in terms of spiritual education; wives should learn from their husbands and children from their parents.

[Edited on 8-30-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Aug 30, 2005)

> I also do not support the idea that the Bible condones deaconesses.



I understand that mine is a minority view. I'm quite familiar with the various views. I changed my mind after a careful study of Rom 16 and observing the way Paul talks about Phoebe and others in that class of female co-workers (see the reply to Scott). 

I understand why folks oppose mhy position and I think we can agree to disagree. For my part I realized that my earlier interpretation of Rom 16 was not driven primarily by exegesis but by fear of the slippery slope. If I concede that Phoebe was a deacon/ess what else might happen? The CRC controversy over female deacons was raging when I first considered this question in seminary. 



> ...remedied by a return to the Scriptures. Paul's teaching on the role of women does not in my view lend support to co-ed seminary education (the primary goal of which -- as an extension of the church -- is supposed to be training _men_ for the ministry).



There's no argument here (as you have probably noticed) about the normativity of Scripture. The issue is what they say and how they should be read.

As to co-ed seminaries, well, we'll have to disagree. Seminary is not church. We don't hold stated services but devotions. I do discharge my office as minister there, by calling of my consistory, but my call is to function as a teacher in a school. We don't administer the sacraments and discipline. I do that on Sundays.



> As I view seminaries falling under the jurisdiction of what the Westminster Form of Presbyterian Church Government refers to as the "office of teacher or doctor,"



Your conclusion doesn't follow. The office of "doctor" is an ecclesiastical office. I don't think standards or the Directory speak to this. As it is, virtually all the divines earned their degrees at Oxford or Cambridge! There were no seminaries. They actually learned there theology not in the church but in the University. They *examined* candidates for ministry in the assembly, but they didn't hold theology classes there.



> so likewise I view the example of Gamaliel's school as instructive for seminaries today and I am not aware that women were taught at Gamaliel's school.



Are you sure you want to make this argument? Gamaliel also recited the 18 benedictions. Are you a "Gentile dog?" It's pretty clear to me that Paul rejected the rabbinic view of females. No rabbi could have said "I thank the that thou hast not made me a woman or a gentile dog." 

Paul says, 

<<There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.>> (Gal 3:28)

I know that we're all familiar with this passage and I know how tiresome the feminist abuse of it is. My point is that there's no squaring Paul's view of females with the rabbinic view. Therefore it's illegitimate to appeal to the rabbis to norm our views. The rabbis provide interesting historical background.

For what it's worth, at WSC about %70 of our students are MDiv (male only). The remaining %30 are MA. Of those about 1/3 are female. 

We're one of the few seminaries remaining that restrict the MDiv to males only. this is a matter of conviction for us. We could have "sold out" like many other schools and we would have more students and perhaps more "influence" in evangelicalism. We didn't because it was a matter of principle.

Indeed, a female prospective student came to my office the other day and I had to tell her that she was not eligible for our MDiv program. 

rsc


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> 
> > As I view seminaries falling under the jurisdiction of what the Westminster Form of Presbyterian Church Government refers to as the "office of teacher or doctor,"
> ...



I realize that the Puritan divines were not educated in seminaries like we have today but rather in universities like Cambridge. But I think that Cambridge back then qualified as a theological school for the training of ministers (and other occupations), although back then under Erastian government the state exercised primary control over the institutions of theological training rather the church, which is another issue. Nevertheless, I do believe the WFCG has in view the office of doctor maintaining jurisdiction over the training of men for the ministry. Hence, I believe the theological training under consideration here whether in seminaries or theological schools need to be under the government of the church and abide by the rules that govern the church, although there are distinctions between public worship and seminary training as I noted earlier.



> Are you sure you want to make this argument? Gamaliel also recited the 18 benedictions. Are you a "Gentile dog?" It's pretty clear to me that Paul rejected the rabbinic view of females. No rabbi could have said "I thank the that thou hast not made me a woman or a gentile dog."
> 
> My point is that there's no squaring Paul's view of females with the rabbinic view. Therefore it's illegitimate to appeal to the rabbis to norm our views. The rabbis provide interesting historical background.



I'm not arguing here that every rabbinical tradition of Gamaliel is authoritative for us today. But I would argue that as to theological education for the sexes, there is nothing in the writing of Paul that repudiates Gamaliel on this issue or that would lead me to validate co-ed seminary education as the ideal or norm of theological training, and the WFCG does hold forth the example of Gamaliel's school as instructive for us today.



> We're one of the few seminaries remaining that restrict the MDiv to males only. this is a matter of conviction for us. We could have "sold out" like many other schools and we would have more students and perhaps more "influence" in evangelicalism. We didn't because it was a matter of principle.



Very commendable! 


[Edited on 8-30-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Aug 30, 2005)

> I realize that the Puritan divines were not educated in seminaries like we have today but rather in universities like Cambridge. But I think that Cambridge back then qualified as a theological school for the training of ministers (and other occupations), although back then under Erastian government the state exercised primary control over the institutions of theological training rather the church, which is another issue.



Even after the Assembly, pastors continued to receive their training in Universities. Cambridge and Oxford -- a fair number were trained there too; see R. Scott Clark and Joel Beeke, "œUrsinus, Oxford and the Westminster Divines," The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century: Essays in Remembrance of the 350th Anniversary of the Publication of the Westminster Confession of Faith, 3 vol. ed. Ligon Duncan (Ross-Shire, Scotland: Mentor, 2003"“), 2.1"“32.

The FOG says:



> THE scripture doth hold out the name and title of teacher, as well as of the pastor.[22]
> 
> Who is also a minister of the word, as well as the pastor, and hath power of administration of the sacraments.
> 
> ...



The point of the appeal to Gamaliel is not to establish his school as the paradigm for ministerial education, but to establish that there was a precedent for ministerial education. This, of course, remains an important point in a time when folk seem to be willing to settle for ignorant and illiterate pastors.

The Universities of the 16th and 17th centuries were closed to females. Oxford did not become co-educational until well into the 20th century. So it is a non-starter to argue that the original seminaries were not co-ed.

That churches should control ministerial education is an old and honorable position. It is the old school view. As a devout old school/old sider (!) I have sympathy with this view, but Machen, an old schooler himself, (as I've noted before) made a compelling argument. 

Is it properly the work of the church to oversee who is saying what about Pannenberg? Could a man be ecclesiastically censured for misunderstanding P on this or that? Who would determine that? Is there an ecclesiastically sanctioned position on the aorist in Greek? Is there an ecclesiastically sanctioned view of the nature and development of doctrine? Is there an ecclesiastically sanctioned view of the proper way to outline a sermon?

This history of ecclesiastically controlled seminaries in the USA is not promising. Princeton was ecclesiastically controlled in 1929 when it overthrew the confessionalist regime. The list could be expanded easily.



> ....there is nothing in the writing of Paul that repudiates Gamaliel on this issue or that would lead me to validate co-ed seminary education as the ideal or norm of theological training, and the WFCG does hold forth the example of Gamaliel's school as instructive for us today.



Gamaliel's views are normative unless specifically repudiated? Really? So, if I find some view of G's not repudiated, we're bound to it? This could be fun!

First, there is very little remaining of what Gamaliel I himself actually actually said. What we have are late reports from the Mishnah. Ironically, according to the entry s.v. "Gamaliel I" in Neusner/Green, Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period, GI is believed to have written a number of ordinances intended to improve the status of women! (M. Gittin 4:2-3; M. Yebamot 16:7). 

As I check the Mishnah, there are just a few sayings attributed directly to Rabbi GI. The first has to do with planting wheat. The second gives a rule about leavening dough and so forth.

These are the sorts of "traditions" against which Jesus inveighed in Matt 15 and against which Paul complained (Col 2:8). 

According to G. F. Moore (Judaism, 1.220), Gamaliel's views were not even universally accepted by rabbis who were his contemporaries. Why on earth should we consider ourselves bound to his views simply because the NT might not have specifically repudiated one of them? This is an odd hermeneutic and not necessary if the words of the FOG are read in their context, according to their original intent.

rsc


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> The point of the appeal to Gamaliel is not to establish his school as the paradigm for ministerial education, but to establish that there was a precedent for ministerial education. This, of course, remains an important point in a time when folk seem to be willing to settle for ignorant and illiterate pastors.



Yes, ministerial education pertains to the office of doctor, which is the point of my citing the WFCG.



> The Universities of the 16th and 17th centuries were closed to females. Oxford did not become co-educational until well into the 20th century. So it is a non-starter to argue that the original seminaries were not co-ed.



I disagree that the historical pattern and practice of non-coed theological training is a "non-starter." I think the history on this point is extremely significant. Puritan precedents mean a great deal to me personally.



> That churches should control ministerial education is an old and honorable position. It is the old school view. As a devout old school/old sider (!) I have sympathy with this view, but Machen, an old schooler himself, (as I've noted before) made a compelling argument.



Good ol' Machen. I'd like to read what he said on this subject.



> Is it properly the work of the church to oversee who is saying what about Pannenberg? Could a man be ecclesiastically censured for misunderstanding P on this or that? Who would determine that? Is there an ecclesiastically sanctioned position on the aorist in Greek? Is there an ecclesiastically sanctioned view of the nature and development of doctrine? Is there an ecclesiastically sanctioned view of the proper way to outline a sermon?



I don't think these questions get at the heart of why the church ought or ought not to have oversight of the theological training of its ministers. The heart of the matter, as I see it, is that ministerial training is not independent of the church but rightly pertains to the education that should come from the ecclesiastical office of doctor. Those who are trained for the service of the kingdom should be taught by those who are officers in the kingdom and accountable to the government of Christ's Church. 



> This history of ecclesiastically controlled seminaries in the USA is not promising. Princeton was ecclesiastically controlled in 1929 when it overthrew the confessionalist regime. The list could be expanded easily.



The same point could be made about any other issue in which the Reformed church has departed from orthodoxy. I don't think taking theological training away from the church is the answer.



> Gamaliel's views are normative unless specifically repudiated? Really? So, if I find some view of G's not repudiated, we're bound to it? This could be fun!
> 
> First, there is very little remaining of what Gamaliel I himself actually actually said. What we have are late reports from the Mishnah. Ironically, according to the entry s.v. "Gamaliel I" in Neusner/Green, Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period, GI is believed to have written a number of ordinances intended to improve the status of women! (M. Gittin 4:2-3; M. Yebamot 16:7).
> 
> ...



With due respect, you are reading way more into the reference to Gamaliel than was ever intended. I am only speaking to the issue of the role of women in theological training and to the propriety of the office of doctor, which Gamaliel represents, not to his rabbinical precepts in general. Paul speaks to the need for women to ask their husbands at home if they have questions about theological teaching in the church. He also says that they are to be taught by the older women. Paul was trained under Gamaliel in the context of a male-only theological school (as far as I know). If there was a basis for changing that paradigm of education, I think he would have opened the doors for co-ed theological training in a clear manner. I'm sure you feel that he did so, but I respectfully disagree. What Paul did say, however, to me, in Corinthians, Timothy and Titus, clearly indicates that he did not envision in any kind of normative sense women engaged in theological training at seminaries alongside men, but rather a different paradigm whereby women are educated in public worship, catechism, at home and by elder women. 

I don't think we're going to change each other's minds in this discussion. But I appreciate the dialogue. God bless! 

[Edited on 8-30-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## no1special18 (Aug 30, 2005)

I doubt very many people will read this since it has grown old since last I posted, but I figured I should try to clarify a few things.

There are only two reasons why I would have potentially not wanted her to go to seminary:
1.) The finances (whether we could both afford to go). Also, whether it was the best use of money.
2.) I am somewhat new to reformed thought, and was not clear what the traditional reformed view held in regard to such matters. Clearly, scripture is my only authority, but I would do well to consider heavily how the reformed people before me have interpreted what the Bible had to say on this matter.

Just so everyone knows, I did not tell her that she could not go if we got married, only that I was not sure of the issue, and that is why I brought it before the board.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Aug 31, 2005)

Just as encouragement...all new posts get read. There's a link in the top menu that reads "Today's Posts" and it brings up all threads that have recent postings in it. This thread is definately not old. I've seen ppl dredge up 9-12 month old threads and revive them!

I think it's good that you are searching this out now.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Aug 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Dr.,
> I am in no way advocating excluding woman from the ministerial scope. There are plenty of things that woman bless the church with their gifts. You ask about Math and english; I speak in terms of spiritual education; wives should learn from their husbands and children from their parents.
> 
> [Edited on 8-30-2005 by Scott Bushey]



Scott,

What about Mary? (Luke 10; ESV)



> 38 Now as they went on their way, Jesus entered a village. And a woman named Martha welcomed him into her house. 39 And she had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord's feet and listened to his teaching. ...Mary has chosen the good portion, which will not be taken away from her."



This is not a stated worship service, they are not in Mary's home, and she is learning from Jesus. How does this example meet your tests?

I'm not pressing this issue because to cause trouble but because it doesn't seem fully thought out. 

rsc


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Aug 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by no1special18_
> I doubt very many people will read this since it has grown old since last I posted, but I figured I should try to clarify a few things.
> 
> There are only two reasons why I would have potentially not wanted her to go to seminary:
> ...



James,

I'm glad you raised this question. I'm not sure that this was ever an issue until the Modern period. Its a little like asking about views of the state. In the 16th and 17th century, most everyone, except Anabaptists, believed in Christendom (the church-state complex). Since the 18th century, most confessional Protestants have re-thought that issue. As much as I heartily reject Modernist philosophy and theology, it is a fact that Christendom collapsed of its own weight, felled by the 30 years war. In its wake, we had an opportunity to re-think church-state relations and, in my view, to be more consisten with the Protestant theory of two kingdoms (as opposed to the Roman view of the two swords). 

The question of the role of women in the church and male/female relations generally received not a great deal of attention until rather late in the modern period. The truth is that just as some of our folk defended some noxious forms of slavery (manstealing, really) so too we tended to be chauvinistic in our view of females. 

In a culture largely dominated by feminism, however, we have two choices: to react and re-assert the old chauvinistic view (women are incapable of x; women ought *only* to stay/learn at home etc) or we can respond biblically and carefully to the feminists by explaining the biblical doctrines of creation (there is a divinely instituted order) and redemption (it renews but does not obliterate creation). 

I think CBMW (Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood - not a particularly felicitous name) has done a good job of articulating the complimentarian view (grace renews nature) in response to the feminist/egalitarian view (grace obliterates nature). CBMW is led by some of the better evangelical NT scholars and has published some careful research that avoids the pitfalls of reactionary fundamentalism.

Please give my warmest greetings to Dr Dave Reiter. We were seminary classmates and we're fellow Cornhuskers. 

We've had a couple of students from GCC recently and they're doing well here.

As to finances, I can't speak for other schools, but I think we have a program for wives of students. If a wife is not taking a degree, she can audit courses for a nominal fee and we offer night courses that are particularly well-suited for this. For example, Dr Horton is teaching an introductory course in Reformed theology this fall.

Blessings,

rsc


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by no1special18_
> My girl friend and I were discussing our future (specifically us being married). Some how we got into spiritual submission and whether or not she should go to seminary. I have two questions: 1.) if we were married would it be within my duties as spiritual leader to make the final call on whether she goes into seminary? 2.) should I be opposed to her going to seminary (which I am).
> 
> Here is a little background that might be applicable to the situation:
> ...



Yeah, be a man and tell her No-ooooooooooohhh and cite the appropriate Scripture, and gently ask her to submit to the man... Tell her to read the Bible or study your books, perhaps find some Bible video instruction course for a certificate for her to pursue. It's good that the weaker vessel wants to grow and study the Word. Perhaps, your seminary might have activities for pastor's wives.
:bigsmile:


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Aug 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by no1special18_
> ...



Why would video instruction be any more appropriate than classroom instruction? What about books, for that matter? If a woman reads books on her own, is she not being instructed (albeit indirectly) by an outsider? Is this bad?

I'm not attempting to make an argument here, but I'm wondering about where you think the lines should be drawn and why.


----------



## Augusta (Aug 31, 2005)

I read tons and audit classes and listen to hundreds of sermons etc. I really can't see how this would be wrong. I do think it is completely unnecessary for a woman to earn a degree in theology. I don't need a title. I just want to learn as much as I can about God.  It is expensive and hard enough to put one person through college. I think the womans role is in the home therefore why the expense for her to have degree?


----------



## puritangirl (Aug 31, 2005)

I think that women, like men, are commanded to know God and study His revealed Word. I don't think it's wrong for a woman to listen to sermons, audit classes and read books (although I think that if she has any questions, she should still ask her father or husband in order to show them respect as her head). A woman's primary job is to help her head, and I think that knowledge of God's Word is neccesary in order for her to be an adequate help-meet! I have also considered going to seminary, however, I hesitate because I know that it is never my place to teach a man. Because of this, I question why I would spend the money and put the work into acheiving a "degree" that I cannot really use. Why not just study for free? I have found from experience that the time and money that goes into a degree makes me feel guilty if I'm not using it. A woman who earns her seminary "degree" might be tempted to think herself a stronger vessel than the Bible describes. I think it's important for us to find joy and contentment in our "place." This takes active work because it does not come naturally for us. That said, I have good female friends who attend seminary and I understand and applaud their reasons. I think the desire to study theology is a good desire for any woman to have. But we are weak and it is easy to forget our place. A woman who attends seminary should make every effort to be extremely conscientious of this. Virginia Huguenot makes an interesting argument for non co-ed seminaries - I would like to study that more!


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Sep 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritangirl_...(although I think that if she has any questions, she should still ask her father or husband in order to show them respect as her head).
> 
> ...I know that it is never my place to teach a man.
> 
> ...But we are weak and it is easy to forget our place.



Did Priscilla err in Acts 18:26 (Scripture says that "they took him and expalined..." regarding Apollos) or does that narrative reflect a distinction between authoritative teaching and non-authoritative teaching? I think the latter is true.

Any teaching by any laity is non-authoritative. Only teaching by those who have been examined by the church and who have been ordained to special office can be said to be official and authoritative. 

Laity hold the general office of believer, but not special office. Paul is not issuing general instructions on whether females can ask questions in a school classroom. He is issuing apostolic commands regarding the conduct of public worship. 

Given that context of corporate, public, worship. We should be careful about how we apply those passages. 

We should also be careful to not to import either postmodern egalitarian (all views are equally valid) assumptions or Victorian (there is an scale of value among humans with males possessing more value than females) assumptions about sex roles into our reading and application of Scripture.

rsc


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> Any teaching by any laity is non-authoritative. Only teaching by those who have been examined by the church and who have been ordained to special office can be said to be official and authoritative.



Dr, Clark,

While I agree with your comments above, I think we need to be careful with formulating arguments like this one quoted here. It is too easy to say (in a similar vein, and I am NOT saying you are proposing this), "well, even though we saw a woman give the sole exposition of Scripture during a worship service, since a woman by definition cannot preach or teach authoritatively, it must not have been preaching or teaching."

It is clear that women are prohibited by 1 Timothy 2 from not only authoritative teaching, but from _presumptive_ authoritative teaching.

Again, I am sure that you are not saying that, but the quote above makes me a bit uneasy.


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 2, 2005)

Nevermind... Just break out the tranquilizer gun, put her down, and tag and release her back into the wild... get another girlfriend... she sounds too charismatic...

2 Tim 2:12 + 1 Cor 14:34
:bigsmile:


----------



## LadyFlynt (Sep 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> Nevermind... Just break out the tranquilizer gun, put her down, and tag and release her back into the wild... get another girlfriend... she sounds too charismatic...
> 
> 2 Tim 2:12 + 1 Cor 14:34
> :bigsmile:



Fortunately, you are just being ornary.


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> ...



If you wade past the tongue-in-cheek bit... you would see that jist of what I am saying is that women shouldn't pursue seminary because it is usually for preparation for pastoral ministry... I think it's good that women have interest in spiritual things... they should read books, listen to theological tapes, study the Bible, and be attentive to growing in the Word... I think you're presumping too much, but my humor usually clouds everything. I disdain the bubble-gum spirtuality amongst young Christian ladies, and applaud young ladies that are attentive to spiritual things.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Sep 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> ...



Fred, 

I should have made clear my assumption behind the comment, i.e., that there are three special offices (minister, elder, and deacon) and that only the minister, a teaching elder in the PCA, is authorized to conduct services. As I've made clear, females are not authorized to hold ministerial (or ruling) office (thus they cannot serve as elders). In the three-office view as I understand it, deacons are not a ruling office. In extraordinary cases, an elder (a ruling elder in the PCA) might conduct services. See Derke Bergmsa's essay on the three offices in the J. Armstrong, ed. The Compromised Church.

Conducting services or preaching is necessarily authoritative. In no case do I envision a female conducting services or preaching. 

I'm aware that some in the PCA (and formerly in the PCA) have used the dodge, "well, it wasn't authoritative, so it's okay to have a female lead a service or expound scripture in chapel." That was not my intent. 

My intent is to combat the pressing tide of democratric egalitarianism that flattens out distinctions between "official" and "unofficial" and "special" and "general" office. 

Some fellow or woman giving his or her private opinion about a passage does not constitute "teaching" in the Biblical or Reformed/Presbyterian sense. Hence, when a female takes a course in engineering or theology or if Priscilla helps Apollos to understand the history of redemption, that is not "teaching" or the exercise of authority forbidden by apostolic decree.

Hence, we should worry less about females taking an MA and teaching in a Christian school or college and more about the assumption that "my private opinion is just as valid as the pastor's." Teaching in a high school or college or taking courses in a seminary is not the same thing as the exercise of authority. On such a definition, the phrase "exercise of authority" has been so broadened as to lose meaning.

rsc


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



Scott,

Thanks for the clarification. I agree completely with your intent written above. I assumed that it was the case, but I wanted it to be crystal clear. We have many who read the Board that are not familiar with all the "in's and out's" of this issue.

I did not want others to twist your words into saying something that I presumed they did not.

Blessings,


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Sep 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> ...



Of course. Thank you for clarifying.

The main points I'm wondering about:

1. Is there a Biblical reason why seminary _should_ only be for pastoral preparation? Why is it sinful for a lay person to pursue academic knowledge of theological subjects? And if it is not (and I'm sure you're not claiming it is), why is going to seminary solely for the education wrong? (The main issue is that most people do not have the time or money to go to seminary just for the sake of knowledge.)

2. The only difference I see between reading books/listening to tapes and actually attending classes is that in the latter case, the woman receives an in-person explanation of the material. In either case, I would agree that a woman should look to her father/husband for guidance in interpreting the book/tape/lecture, but provided this is all within the approval and general direction of the woman's head, I don't see why there is a distinction between in-person instruction and written or recorded instruction.


----------



## turmeric (Sep 3, 2005)

$$$$$ that's why!


----------



## bond-servant (Sep 4, 2005)

Honestly, I don't see what's wrong with me going to seminary for a masters

It's distance learning, at the pace that does not tax my family or my duties;

it is with the blessing of my husband

There are no classes on preaching, nor am I , or will I be ordained.

The degree is only a general Christian Studies degree, and the majority of classes emphasized are :hermeneutics, systematic Theology and church history.

I am a home-schooling mom who gave up her programming career when my 1st son was borm to stay home. Whitefield has provided me far more intellectual stimulation (and sanity!) than listening to sermons and studying on my own, leading womens Bible studies, etc. which I have done for 8 years

This provides me in-depth, correct Bible teaching, and I can pass this on to my children as well as the ladies ministries I am involved in, as well as what I previously mentioned: intellectual God-centered stimulation and thought which keeps me sain!

Why not just take classes, and why go on a masters track? If I am going to invest my time and money, 1) I would like to have something concrete to "show" for it, 2) the degree may or may not help with future lay womens or childrens ministries I am involved in.

I 100% agree that a women should not be ordained, nor preach, nor in any way be over a man. But I don't see how going to seminary in these conditions qualifies as any of that... 
I think many women attend seminary for one or many similar reasons to that which I've mentioned.

Parts of this thread are quite perplexing to me?

I am totally open to correction here if I am mistaken....


----------



## BrianBowman (Sep 4, 2005)

Beth,

I've been very impressed with the humility and content of your posts on this and other threads. I believe it can be observed that Whitefield is a very conservative Reformed Seminary with formidable scholars (like our own Matt McMahon) who are known for their comprehensive understanding of God's Word. As such, if the intelligentsia at Whitefield, whom you are presently more accoutable to (besides your husband of course) than anyone on this board, allow you to take courses toward a degree, then I would simply rest in that.

Your motives are very pure, as a disciple and servant of our Lord Jesus Christ you desire to know Him in greater depth and gain a better understanding of his Church through the ages. This should be the goal of more men and women.

My wife has an undergrad in Biblical Studies (gained entirely while she was a single missionary serving faithfully *under* a Pastor) and it has made her an incredible helpmate and friend in my quest to Know Jesus and make Him known.

Peace to you and yours!


Brian

[Edited on 9-4-2005 by BrianBowman]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by bond-servant_
> Honestly, I don't see what's wrong with me going to seminary for a masters
> 
> It's distance learning, at the pace that does not tax my family or my duties;
> ...



Beth,
Would it not be more prudent to invest your time in other ways as a woman of God, a wife and mother?


----------



## bond-servant (Sep 4, 2005)

Scott,

While I appreciate your question, 99% of my day is directed that way. And has been for years and years. 

I now take a few hours for "myself" to formally study God's Word.
My day goes something like this:

After my quiet time with God that begins before 6am. 
Most of my time is spent with the kids homeschooling, preparing three homecooked meals a day, making our own bread (including grinding it from the wheat kernals), grocery shopping, cleaning house, doing laundry, driving the kids to extra-curricular activities, womens prayer group, church activities and a plethera of other things. My husband and I catch up with each others days events and then my day ends with quiet time with God again. 

I had spent so much time in service of others, for years and years I went without any time for *me*.

What is the problem with wanting formal training of God's Word? Would it be better for me to take the little extra time a day I have and maybe go bowling, watch tv, play cards.......?


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by bond-servant_
> Scott,
> 
> While I appreciate your question, 99% of my day is directed that way. And has been for years and years.
> ...



It seems that investing time in your education will also help you to be an even better homeschool mom.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Sep 4, 2005)

I have to throw in a ditto here. Women like Beth ARE making their role just that...their role. And as a busy SAHM hsing mother, we do get bogged down and rarely get much time to stop and focus solely on God. And so many of the "women's books" out there are pure emotionalism or pop spirituality. Some of us are ready for meat!


----------



## bond-servant (Sep 4, 2005)

Evie, yes, I do believe it makes me a better homeschool mom 
Colleen, exactly - I DO crave meat... theologically sound meat! 

And, one thing I was neglect to interject: by the end of the day, and by the time Steve and I have uninterupted 1-1 time to catch up and chat etc, he is way to tired to have a 'deep' conversation with me. Work takes so much out of him, those conversations are usually saved for, {and treasured by me } on the weekends.


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> Of course. Thank you for clarifying.
> 
> The main points I'm wondering about:
> ...



Well, I'll be serious a lay-off the tongue-in-cheek "_misogynist_" remarks.

No, I don't guess it is inherently sinful for women to pursue theological knowledge in a classroom. But, one can get a Bachelor's Degree in Biblical Studies... And I concede seminaries offer an array of specialty degrees besides M.Divs-- catering to missions, choir music, and evangelism for example. Nonetheless, graduate studies seem to be indicative of a _professional_ commitment... I know the disciples and apostles all had professions-- Luke was a doctor, Matthew a tax collector, Paul a tentmaker, etc. and they had no seminaries in their time, but it seems like the pursuit of graduate seminary studies reflect a serious commitment for preparing for a ministry calling. So, why does a woman need to pursue graduate seminary studies? Can't a woman find other outlets (perhaps less costly as well) for growing in knowledge? Hence, my pointing to videos and books.

I know Knox doesn't accept women as per the WCF but RTS accepts women. I'm orthodox in my view on women on the church, and I'm sorry I could not resist the temptation to joke about women in ministry and render the waters murky.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> ...



Oh, you didn't offend me at all.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Sep 4, 2005)

I think we are turning this subject away from the context it was intended.

The fiance is wanting to take "courses", not pursue a degree.

The male fiance is pursuing ministry.

Seminaries don't just permit, they ENCOURAGE the wives of these men to take certain courses alongside their husband and I believe they have good reason for doing so. From having been on a Pastor's Wives forum, quite a few of them women see their husband's vocation as having NOTHING to do with them, but merely a job they go to. Blocking the wives out of learning alongside only instigates this view.


----------



## Laura (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> I know Knox doesn't accept women as per the WCF but RTS accepts women. I'm orthodox in my view on women on the church, and I'm sorry I could not resist the temptation to joke about women in ministry and render the waters murky.



Ehm...Knox Seminary doesn't accept women? My friend and her sister have been auditing classes for a couple of years now and have encouraged me to get my MA in Christianity and Culture there. ?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> I have to throw in a ditto here. Women like Beth ARE making their role just that...their role. And as a busy SAHM hsing mother, we do get bogged down and rarely get much time to stop and focus solely on God. And so many of the "women's books" out there are pure emotionalism or pop spirituality. Some of us are ready for meat!



Get it from your husbands and pastors...........


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by bond-servant_
> Evie, yes, I do believe it makes me a better homeschool mom
> Colleen, exactly - I DO crave meat... theologically sound meat!
> 
> And, one thing I was neglect to interject: by the end of the day, and by the time Steve and I have uninterupted 1-1 time to catch up and chat etc, he is way to tired to have a 'deep' conversation with me. Work takes so much out of him, those conversations are usually saved for, {and treasured by me } on the weekends.



Beth,
Does your husband have a degree in theology?


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Laura_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> ...



Okay... I stand corrected... but they don't accept women for their M.Div. program... I know that for sure.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> ...



okay....do I need to go into my mennonite story file box and all the ignorant women out there. They aren't permitted to have bible studies and are looked down on for reading. They are supposed to "get it from their husbands". My husband likes that I can intelligiently communicate on the subjects he's studying. (However, I'm not out for my MDiv as I don't believe I have any business doing so)


----------



## bond-servant (Sep 4, 2005)

No, Computer Science. He is mature in the Lord though.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by bond-servant_
> No, Computer Science. He is mature in the Lord though.



Beth,
So, think about this; you will have _formal_ training in theology. Your husband is just _mature_ in the Lord. Do you see a problem with this?


----------



## BrianBowman (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by bond-servant_
> ...



Scott,

Would you clarify the intent of your question? 

In our househould, I don't have a degree in Theology, but my wife does. Granted it is from a "fundamentalist/dispensational" (F/D) school, but none the less it had challenging academic requirements (I know because I took over 30 hours in the same college going part-time over a period of years). None the less, my wife has *never once* held "her degree" over me. During the time I was studying for Ordination under our former ministrie's "Extraordinary Clause", Anne provided research assistance and transcription work for me (I'm visually handicapped). In fact, Anne transcribed a very long, detailed writing on the historical ecclessiology of our former F/D sect (authored by its leader) and rendered it into native format in my Bible Sofware (Accordance for the MAC). Because of her work, I was able to actually read this material (with BIG FONTS) on top of my more-than-full time job as a Software Engineer. The Scripture linking and Hebrew/Greek resources in Accordance made the study process much more efficient as well.

Because Anne had transcribed the material (and was already knowlegeable about it having spent so much time in this F/D sect's college) she became an outstanding "sounding board" for my concerns. All of this was a major catylst in my beginning to seriously question not only the "doctrinal distinctives" of this sect, but the whole of F/D-Arminianism as well. In turn, though our "journey" of the past 2-3 years, I've been able to teach Anne much about historical Calvinism and Monergistic salvation.

Many wives complement their husband's calling in various kinds of lay and ordained Ministry. This morning our "Missions Moment" at Peace PCA was presented by a Husband/Wife Bible Translation team working with an indigenous people group in Mexico with their own (non-Spanish) language. The wife did not speak from our pulpit, but her Translation responsibilities were recognized.

I contend that these stories (and 1000's more) are only possible because women have the discipline and love for the Scriptures to engage in formal study.


Brian


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Laura_
> ...



And RTS does not accept women in their M.Div. program either. Women are not allowed to attend preaching classes or to use their M.A. for a pastorate.


----------



## bond-servant (Sep 4, 2005)

"So, think about this; you will have formal training in theology. Your husband is just mature in the Lord. Do you see a problem with this?"

-----

Ah, good question. I see your point. 

But, to answer it, No, not at all. He is my husband. I totally respect him as a person as well as his position as the spiritual leader and mine as help-mate.

Once upon a time, 15 years ago when we were 1st married, I had a four year CS degree when he did not. I also made more money. Granted, this opens a whole can of worms about women and working... but consider, I was 21 and not as spiritually mature as now....
(as one would hope to grow in more than a decade! LOL!)

Anyway, it wasn't a problem for either of us. I always followed his leadership, and never "wore the pants" in the family, nor "pulled rank" in any form, because my "rank" was/is that of a helper and supporter....

I may have more 'formal' training in this stage of life. He always has the option of pursuing formal training himself, if at anytime, he is interested. Right now, he is not.

I think a good point was made earlier... the disciples had no 'formal' credentials either. ....


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by bond-servant_
> ...



No. The issue is not knowledge, but authority. That is why office is not about knowledge, but authority.


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> And RTS does not accept women in their M.Div. program either. Women are not allowed to attend preaching classes or to use their M.A. for a pastorate.





That's the kind of correction I like to hear... Yippie! I didn't read their literature well enough!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 4, 2005)

Brian,
I am not against woman studying. What I am against is woman whom want to formally study after they are married. Their concerns should be for their family, their husbands and children.

I as well believe that a woman should not usurp her husbands headship spiritually. By persuing a degree in theology where the husband has none is in my view overstepping Gods biblical parameters which call men to the spiritual leadership role. 

Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 
Eph 5:26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 


1 Cor. 14.35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Fred,
Correct; and in that authority, the man is called to be the learned one; to teach his wife and family. If the wife needs 'more meat', the husband should provide it!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 4, 2005)

> He always has the option of pursuing formal training himself, if at anytime, he is interested. Right now, he is not.



Beth,
If you are hungry, it is his job to provide the food!

As far as the apostles are concerned, their training was more than _formal_. Much like the wine that Jesus produced at Cana (never has a better wine been made), the education the apostles had was much more than formal, it was miraculous!!!


----------



## LadyFlynt (Sep 4, 2005)

Scott, in your HO, am I wrong for pursuing an AAS where my husband merely has a highschool diploma?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Scott, in your HO, am I wrong for pursuing an AAS where my husband merely has a highschool diploma?



Why are you pursuing it?


----------



## bond-servant (Sep 4, 2005)

> _
> _


_


As far as the apostles are concerned, their training was more than formal. Much like the wine that Jesus produced at Cana (never has a better wine been made), the education the apostles had was much more than formal, it was miraculous!!! [/quote]

This is true!!! :bigsmile:

As for meat provided by my husband, is he not providing it for me by allowing me to take correspondence courses which teach the theology and doctrines which he perceives as true and correct?

Should he instead throw up his hands and say, "I am too tired to provide more spiritual training for my wife, so I would prefer her growth to stagnate or slow"

He, as a mature Christian, after prayer, felt this was the best for him, me , and our children...

I would never want to overstep my bounds, or circumvent his authority._


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



One of the ways that a wife is *commanded by Scripture* to take care of her children is to instruct them in the faith. If education serves that purpose, it is a good thing. The critical point is submission.

Else what makes Sunday school ok, and seminary not? Sitting under preaching? Is it the degree? The Bible knows nothing of "degrees."


----------



## LadyFlynt (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> ...



Does it matter? I'll be intentionally pursuing a higher formal education than he has.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 4, 2005)

Beth,
Take this for what it's worth; I must provide more for my wife than a place to shop for meat. I must get it and bring it home. 

I do not intend for this to be a rebuke for you or your spouse. I have many an issue, believe you me! I have no formal training. I solely study on my own and have Matt as a tutor of sorts. The men of this board are much more sound than I; take all of this and compile it into a decision making process; pray!

[Edited on 9-4-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



If it was a spiritual education, I would not agree to it. Other than that, like Fred noted above, if it will help you in fulfilling your role as helpmeet, go for it!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> ...



Fred,
The spiritual education should come from the husband..........


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 4, 2005)

Well, I guess in final appeal, if a women isn't neglecting her family and submission to her husband, than her pursuit of any of one the vast multitude of theological degrees (outside of the M.Div. or pastoral training programs that is offered by seminaries) could enhance her knowledge and be useful... but I generally don't see the need for women getting multiple degrees, or pursuing costly graduate studies. I guess it's circumstantial and depends on the person... I already know my future wife doesn't even need those things!
:bigsmile:


----------



## LadyFlynt (Sep 4, 2005)

Okay, I'm all for the barefoot and pregnant bit!!! (I HATE shoes!)

Scott, sorry for being ornary. I'm trying to see whether you extend your view to other things on this or if you are determining on subjective or objective reasonings.

I'm going to school so that my husband can quit his job in three years to go to school. We can't make it much longer like this.


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 4, 2005)

Gee, I deleted that tongue-in-cheek post right before Fred responded to it-- figuring it was bound to offend, so I better do some damage control.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> Well, I guess in final appeal, if a women isn't neglecting her family and submission to her husband, than her pursuit of any of one the vast multitude of theological degrees (outside of the M.Div. or pastoral training programs that is offered by seminaries) could enhance her knowledge and be useful... but I generally don't see the need for women getting multiple degrees, or pursuing costly graduate studies. I guess it's circumstantial and depends on the person... I already know my future wife doesn't even need those things!
> :bigsmile:



in my opinion, the time and money could be spent elsewhere in the helps department, i.e. at church, needy families etc.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Okay, I'm all for the barefoot and pregnant bit!!! (I HATE shoes!)
> 
> Scott, sorry for being ornary. I'm trying to see whether you extend your view to other things on this or if you are determining on subjective or objective reasonings.
> ...




Coleen,
I am just calling on the men to step up to the plate! No offense taken. I know this is a touchy subject.


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Okay, I'm all for the barefoot and pregnant bit!!! (I HATE shoes!)




Yeah, a woman that knows her place! 






I'm I being ornary or humorous?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Sep 4, 2005)

Eh, I'm not really taking it personally. I really just am trying to see everyone's view. As you know, I see both sides and do agree to a woman keeping to her role. But I also know that sometimes there is the IDEAL and then there is the REALITY. And many times husbands are tired and some women are without a husband (sometimes spiritually, sometimes physically). And yes, men and the church DO need to step up to the plate.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> ...



I'm also sure that I'm older than you and a parent, so watch it or I'll stick you in a corner!


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> I'm also sure that I'm older than you and a parent, so watch it or I'll stick you in a corner!



Yes, ma'am...


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> ...



I don't think anyone can disagree that domestic service is an important and essential duty for women, but how do you reconcile the idea that a woman should spend all her time in these duties _instead of_ in learning with Christ's statement to Martha that Mary, in choosing to sit and listen to teaching, has chosen the good portion? I know this has been addressed earlier in the thread, but I still don't understand how your argument about which is the better use of time fits with it.


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 4, 2005)

Evie, life is about balance... not neglecting some requisite responsibility to fulfill another. I don't think me or Scott are contending for that. 

A woman's work is never done though!


----------



## BrianBowman (Sep 4, 2005)

deleting subtle attempt at some "inside humor"

[Edited on 9-4-2005 by BrianBowman]


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> Evie, life is about balance... not neglecting some requisite responsibility to fulfill another. I don't think me or Scott are contending for that.
> 
> A woman's work is never done though!



Of course life is about balance, and a woman has duties to fulfill. But my impression of what Christ was saying is that her spiritual education is _at least_ as important as her domestic service. 

The impression that I am getting from you and Scott, and I may be wrong, is that education is not necessarily a bad thing for women, but domestic duties _always_ take precedence, so essentially, there is always something she would be better off doing. I see that as in conflict with my interpretation of Luke 10:38-42 that service is important, but learning is even more important (and gives meaning and direction to the service). Therefore, I am wondering how you interpret Luke 10:38-42 and whether my ideas about this passage are incorrect.


----------



## BrianBowman (Sep 4, 2005)

To this discussion, I would add that there are multitudes of unregenerate, unchurched women who need to be reached with the message of the Gospel. In many cases these women are highly educated avowed feminists and some are viurtually unapproachable by men (and some even have M.Div's from liberal seminaries). Using the whole counsel of Scripture, can we demonstrate that it is wrong for Christian women (both single and married) to "arm themselves" with Theology, Original Languages, Hermeneutics, etc. so as to defend their faith to non-Christian women who might never be challenged by the Gospel any other way? Does the providence of God allow for this?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BrianBowman_
> To this discussion, I would add that there are multitudes of unregenerate, unchurched women who need to be reached with the message of the Gospel. In many cases these women are highly educated avowed feminists and some are viurtually unapproachable by men (and some even have M.Div's from liberal seminaries). Using the whole counsel of Scripture, can we demonstrate that it is wrong for Christian women (both single and married) to "arm themselves" with Theology, Original Languages, Hermeneutics, etc. so as to defend their faith to non-Christian women who might never be challenged by the Gospel any other way? Does the providence of God allow for this?



Brian,
The call for the gospel is to go out by lawfully ordained _men_.

Q158: By whom is the word of God to be preached? 
A158: The word of God is to be preached only by such as are sufficiently gifted,[1] and also duly approved and called to that office.[2] 

1. I Tim. 3:2, 6; Eph. 4:8-11; Hosea 4:6; Mal. 2:7; II Cor. 3:6
2. Jer. 14:15; Rom. 10:15; Heb. 5:4; I Cor. 12:28-29; I Tim. 3:10; 4:14; 5:22

Q159: How is the word of God to be preached by those that are called thereunto? 
A159: They that are called to labor in the ministry of the word, are to preach sound doctrine,[1] diligently,[2] in season and out of season;[3] plainly,[4] not in the enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit, and of power;[5] faithfully,[6] making known the whole counsel of God;[7] wisely,[8] applying themselves to the necessities and capacities of the hearers;[9] zealously,[10] with fervent love to God [11] and the souls of his people;[12] sincerely,[13] aiming at his glory,[14] and their conversion,[15] edification,[16] and salvation.[17] 

1. Titus 2:1, 8
2. Acts 18:25
3. II Tim. 4:2
4. I Cor. 14:19
5. I Cor. 2:4
6. Jer. 23:28; I Cor. 4:1-2
7. Acts 20:27
8. Col. 1:28; II Tim. 2:15
9. I Cor. 3:2; Heb. 5:12-14; Luke 12:42
10. Acts 18:25
11. II Cor. 5:13-14; Phil. 1:15-17
12. Col. 4:12; II Cor. 12:15
13. II Cor. 2:17; 4:2
14. I Thess. 2:4-6; John 7:18
15. I Cor. 9:19-22
16. II Cor. 12:19; Eph. 4:12
17. I Tim. 4:16; Acts 26:16-18


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BrianBowman_
> To this discussion, I would add that there are multitudes of unregenerate, unchurched women who need to be reached with the message of the Gospel. In many cases these women are highly educated avowed feminists and some are viurtually unapproachable by men (and some even have M.Div's from liberal seminaries). Using the whole counsel of Scripture, can we demonstrate that it is wrong for Christian women (both single and married) to "arm themselves" with Theology, Original Languages, Hermeneutics, etc. so as to defend their faith to non-Christian women who might never be challenged by the Gospel any other way? Does the providence of God allow for this?





I'm facing this situation myself, since it appears that I will probably be going to a secular graduate school to study English next year. I don't yet feel _theologically_ prepared to interpret literature from a Christian worldview _nor_ to defend my Christiain worldview in that environment. It seems that at the very least, seminary-_level_ resources would be helpful in preparing me.

A man would have to be extraordinarily educated to be able to instruct his wife or daughter on _all_ of these subjects up to the level that a seminary education can provide. It seems to me that a person is generally capable of teaching only up to a level somewhat below their own level of education. In an ideal situation, the husband/father is more educated and able to guide his wife/daughter in selecting and interpreting resources, but no single person is equipped to provide a complete education for another individual. This is why young men go to seminary to learn to be pastors and do not simply train with their own pastors (who already know enough). All this should be done under the guidance and direction of the individual's spiritual leaders (husband, father, or pastor), but realistically, no one person can provide everything, and some women's leaders are not equipped to provide much of anything. 

I would absolutely agree that a husband who helps his wife select books and helps her understand the contents is doing enough, but I don't see why there is necessarily a line between a husband's helping his wife select books and a huband helping his wife select seminary courses if her degree of interest in and need for such education is that intense.

Many on this thread have argued that seminary is primarily for the education of ministers, but I'd like to see an examination of why this _should_ be so. I think there is a need for intellectually rigorous theological and philosophical training for _many_ lay people, particularly for those men and women who are going to receive any kind of intellectually rigorous training elsewhere. (And this is precisely why many seminaries have programs like RTS's Master of Arts in Christian Thought--to help lay people integrate their knowledge with their faith. The Knox MA that Laura referred to seems to be similar.)


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by BrianBowman_
> ...



I agree that a woman should not _preach_ the gospel in an official capacity, but this is not the same thing as her being equipped to defend her own faith with those she encounters. The call in 1 Peter 3:15 to be prepared to make a defense for our hope is not gender-specific.


----------



## BrianBowman (Sep 4, 2005)

Scott,

... do you don't believe that much "incidental" sharing/defending of the Christian faith occurs at the Grocery Store, the corner Deli, or Starbucks? I don't disagree with the historic Confession and Creeds (to the degree that I know them). Maybe I'm still "stuck" in my old Fundamental/Dispensational/Arminian mindset about evangelism, but even EE (penned by no less a Reformed man than D. James Kennedy) admits women and encourages "community evangelism" where women participate. 

From where I presently sit, and I'm open to change my viewpoint, if the only Gospel outreach that Reformed Churches depend upon is the preaching that goes on inside the Church by _ordained_ men or occassionally in some outside forum by same, then it's no small wonder why we are so criticized by the "Fundies" for being "cold" toward evangelism. Of course this is getting off-topic and begging other questions concerning what is Biblical orthopraxy in evangelism.

I'll summarize by saying, that in our modern, affluent contemporary American culture, women have opportunities to share and defend the Gospel with other women that I doubt the Divines ever could have imagined. Is their ability to do so denied by Scriptpure? Was 1 Peter 3:14-16 written only to men? Again, if am odds with Scripture by suggesting that women can never share and defend the faith with other women (in their neighborhoods, etc.) , and would be in open rebellion with God by so doing, then I'm open to correction.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BrianBowman_
> Scott,
> 
> ... do you don't believe that much "incidental" sharing/defending of the Christian faith occurs at the Grocery Store, the corner Deli, or Starbucks? I don't disagree with the historic Confession and Creeds (to the degree that I know them). Maybe I'm still "stuck" in my old Fundamental/Dispensational/Arminian mindset about evangelism, but even EE (penned by no less a Reformed man than D. James Kennedy) admits women and encourages "community evangelism" where women participate.



I used to teach EE; Kennedy is wrong. Please sign here:_________




> From where I presently sit, and I'm open to change my viewpoint, if the only Gospel outreach that Reformed Churches depend upon is the preaching that goes on inside the Church by _ordained_ men or occassionally in some outside forum by same, then it's no small wonder why we are so criticized by the "Fundies" for being "cold" toward evangelism. Of course this is getting off-topic and begging other questions concerning what is Biblical orthopraxy in evangelism.
> 
> I'll summarize by saying, that in our modern, affluent contemporary American culture, women have opportunities to share and defend the Gospel with other women that I doubt the Divines ever could have imagined. Is their ability to do so denied by Scriptpure? Was 1 Peter 3:14-16 written only to men? Again, if am odds with Scripture by suggesting that women can never share and defend the faith with other women (in their neighborhoods, etc.) , and would be in open rebellion with God by so doing, then I'm open to correction.



The distinction needs to be made between 'witnessing' and 'preaching'. They are not the same thing.......


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> The distinction needs to be made between 'witnessing' and 'preaching'. They are not the same thing.......



And if they are not the same thing, then does the catechism prevent women from witnessing when it states that preaching is to be done by ordained men?

I completely agree that there is a distinction, and it seems that one is permissible for women and the other is not. To take this back to Bryan's original point, advanced theological education can help women in witnessing to other women they come in contact with or even in simply defending their own faith, which we are all commanded to do.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...


----------



## BrianBowman (Sep 4, 2005)

Evie,

I spell my name 'Brian'.  What you are summarizing is my point exactly. Many women are in the position to witness and to defend their faith. An advanced theological education is a great way to get the necessary tools to do this effectively.

Scott,

Yes, I'm referring to witnessings in the above context. No, I don't really "go for EE" either - it seems lot like the decisional stuff I used to do in the F/D sect. Personally, I'd rather see more believers enroll in "distance" (or local if possible) seminary programs along with mentoring from TE's in their local churches. This seems to fit right in with:

Ephesians 4:11-13 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ ....

OK, I'll concede here that "mature manhood" does refer to males in the Greek. But "saints" are also mentioned here and the context "we all attain" must surely take women into account as well.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> ...



But would you then deny that there could possibly be any value in formal training for any women?



> Evie,
> In answer to your question about the Luke passage: This was not a seminary setting. The principle that the 'better part' done by Mary, sitting at the feet of Jesus is to be understood alongside the other principles for woman, sitting under sound teaching from your husbands and pastors.



Sure, but the point I was making was in answer to your question about whether a woman doesn't have better things to do, such as serving as a wife and mother, instead of pursuing theological training. I was attempting to point out that there is an intrinsic godliness in women seeking learning about spiritual matters, and it should not be looked upon as a distraction from other matters that are more important. Where she should seek this learning is the main point of the debate, but I was simply trying to show that your particular argument about what is and is not a more prudent use of time is not really an applicable point.

[Edited on 9-5-2005 by Ex Nihilo]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 4, 2005)

Evie,
The intrinsic need should be fulfilled by her husband and pastors. Rearing one's children in the way they should go is one of the most important thing a mother can be involved in? It is a full time job; without any disrespect to you, you would not know this yet. You will see that when you have kids, if you are being obedient to God and fulfilling this command, you will not have time for things such as seminary. Obviously Christ was not implying the disregard for these things in light of attending seminary. My wife sits at the feet of Jesus. Daily we discuss the things of God; she is being educated. She is getting fed, possibly better than in seminary.


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> ...



Well i just think a woman can get theological education from husband's instruction and from the church. They didn't have "degrees" in Biblical times... and it seems that the overarching purpose of seminaries is for some ministerial preparation for a specific role in the church. With Presbyterians, they even have specialty degrees for elders in the church. I don't undervalue education or disavow the multitude of offerings from seminaries, but I think there are better instructional alternatives for a sister in Christ than paying for a $600-800 class. For example, I have a pastor offering to sell me Spurgeon's Pulpit Volumes for $800-- which is half price, but it goes to show how far financial resources for a class can go... and the value of stewardship... During undergrad, I really felt like I threw money away on classes for college-- because you can get so much more understanding and materials on your own when spending an amount comparable to class tuition on books and study materials.

Looking back at undergrad, I wish had spent the money that I wasted on some classes instead on books. I took some extra things in excess of what was needed... 

[Edited on 9-5-2005 by Puritanhead]


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Evie,
> The intrinsic need should be fulfilled by her husband and pastors.



I haven't seen evidence of this yet, but that's not the point I was arguing.



> Rearing one's children in the way they should go is one of the most important thing a mother can be involved in? It is a full time job; without any disrespect to you, you would not know this yet. You will see that when you have kids, if you are being obedient to God and fulfilling this command, you will not have time for things such as seminary. Obviously Christ was not implying the disregard for these things in light of attending seminary. My wife sits at the feet of Jesus. Daily we discuss the things of God; she is being educated. She is getting fed, possibly better than in seminary.



You're absolutely right; I wouldn't know, and there is no guarantee that I will ever know. I don't doubt that motherhood takes a great deal of time, but it also seems clear that a mother can best instruct her children on the way to go when she is herself well-instructed on this point (by her husband or whomever). I was not attempting to address your entire thesis with this minor point. The _only_ point I was making with this argument was that women like Beth cannot be criticized for taking some time out of their day to study theological matters _solely on the basis that it supposedly takes away from other duties_. If a woman and her husband both believe that she is fulfilling her duties, the matter should be settled. 

As you yourself have said, the real issue here is the appropriate _means_ of her learning, not the mere fact that learning takes time. We all agree that a woman's spiritual development takes some time, whether this is time talking with her husband or time studying a book. Certainly everyone agrees that if seminary is going to take _too much_ time, a woman shouldn't pursue it, but that becomes a subjective consideration that only a woman and her husband can properly assess. It's hard to draw a clear biblical line here on exactly how much time a mother may spend on activities other than directly working with her children, but one cannot biblically assert that she may not spend any time on anything else. Also, your argument here does not explain why it would be wrong for a single or childless woman to pursue such things. 

So again, just on the basis of what I'm discussing here, the issue of the appropriate _means_ of her study is still wide open. I have not yet attempted to prove a proposition that it is acceptable for women to attend seminary (and I doubt that my making such an attempt would really be fruitful). I'm merely rebutting a single point in your argument and concluding that, as long as a balance is maintained, we can't automatically disapprove of study just because it takes some time. In most situations, a mother probably doesn't have time for seminary, but I don't think this can be stated as an absolute rule for all women at all times. And if it's not an absolute rule, it should possibly be left to the judgment of the woman and her husband.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> ...



These are excellent reasons why seminary is probably not going to be the best means of education for most women. I just don't see that it can be set down as an absolute rule, though, in the sense that a woman is sinning if she goes to seminary classes.

As for the purpose of seminaries, I discussed that some earlier. If the overarching purpose of seminaries really _is_ to train ministers, then:

1. _Should_ that be the case?

2. If so, _why_?

3. Do you disapprove of the programs that many seminaries have that are specifically for the training of laity, such as RTS's M.A.C.T. and the Knox MA?

BTW, Brian, I'm sorry for misspelling your name.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Evie,
> The intrinsic need should be fulfilled by her husband and pastors.





> I haven't seen evidence of this yet,



1Co 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 
1Co 14:35 *And if they will learn any thing,* let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. 




> but that's not the point I was arguing.



My concession is, why can't she learn from her husband. Better question, why does she need to be fed elsewhere?

[Edited on 9-5-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



What if she is not married? What if--hypothetically--God has called her to a life of singleness?


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



However, you also concede that a women should learn from other women (about Christian living) and from their pastors, so this passage cannot mean what you are asserting that it means. It does mean that women shouldn't ask questions in a church service, but surely it isn't actually stating that women may not learn from anyone _except_ their husbands at home. Presumably the women who were having problems with asking questions in the assembly were already learning things in the assembly; was this wrong?



> My concession is, why can't she learn from her husband. Better question, why does she need to be fed elsewhere?
> 
> [Edited on 9-5-2005 by Scott Bushey]



There are a number of reasons why some women couldn't learn from their husbands:

1. The husband may not be a Christian.
2. The husband may not have time to teach her.
3. The husband may have a handicap that prevents his teaching her.
4. The husband may understand a topic, but not well enough to explain it.

You may say these are exceptional circumstances, but if they exist, we can't make absolutes while pretending they _don't_. As Colleen said, there is the ideal and there is reality.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



The jury is not out on that one yet...........thinking about that.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Ok. I'm speaking ideally.

You mention:

1. The husband may not be a Christian. *Good point!*
2. The husband may not have time to teach her. *This is neglect; he needs to make the time! *
3. The husband may have a handicap that prevents his teaching her. *??? *
4. The husband may understand a topic, but not well enough to explain it. * He needs to study more. *

[Edited on 9-5-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## BrianBowman (Sep 4, 2005)

Scott,

Although I do believe that the husband should be the primary source for doctrinal instruction in the home, I'm not sure that your application of 1 Cor 14:34-35 texts is considering all of the necessary historical/cultural issues involved with properly expositing this text, or even the complete context (i.e. the misuse of "Tongues" by women). No, I'm not a liberal. As a matter of fact, I just got "stung" pretty good tonight defending the Reformed view of marriage against feminism. In fact, I believe that in 1 Cor 14, Paul may have been addressing "an early form" of "feminism" in the context of Oracles of Delphi and women who had participated in such coming into the Corinthian Church. Because I'm far from an expert on this, It would be great if Matt, Fred, or Bruce could chime in on the extent to which antecedent cultural/cultic influnences in the Greek culture at Corinth are being addressed in 1 Cor 14.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Sep 4, 2005)

Scott, 

I am going to hop off my automatically-debating-the-negative-side soapbox for a second just to tell you that I think you bring up an important point--that a wife's spiritual education is to be supervised by her husband--and while I'm not ready to put down hard and fast rules about the issue, I don't think we're so far apart in our analysis of most situations. You have helped me see a lot of aspects of this issue that (because of my obvious lack of experience at marriage and motherhood) I don't perceive automatically.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> You mention:
> 
> 1. The husband may not be a Christian. *Good point!*



Thank you. And I think we would agree that here a woman needs to look to her pastor and elders for the supervision he would normally provide.



> 2. The husband may not have time to teach her. *This is neglect; he needs to make the time! *



True, but if the husband neglects his wife's education here, should she remain uneducated or should she take the initiative herself? (Within the grounds of his approval, that is?)



> 3. The husband may have a handicap that prevents his teaching her. *??? *



I'm referring to something like a stroke or an accident that affects his mental capability. Of course the two people are still married, but he is then unable to do many of the things a husband normally does.



> 4. The husband may understand a topic, but not well enough to explain it. * He needs to study more. *



Yes, this is a good point. 

Some random questions:

What about this situation... The husbands reads a weighty book, mostly understands it, and then tells his wife to read it so they can discuss it together. Is this acceptable, learning together?

What about a wife who is really intrigued by a particular topic (let's say, for example, Hebrew poetry) that is less interesting to her husband. Is it okay, with his approval, to pursue her interests in this area? (I guess I used that example deliberately--it's more of an area of academic interest that stems from the Bible than a pure spiritual matter... do you see a bit of distinction here? It seems that way to me on the face of it.)

[Edited on 9-5-2005 by Ex Nihilo]


----------



## BrianBowman (Sep 5, 2005)

> What about a wife who is really intrigued by a particular topic (let's say, for example, Hebrew poetry) that is less interesting to her husband. Is it okay, with his approval, to pursue her interests in this area? (I guess I used that example deliberately--it's more of an area of academic interest that stems from the Bible than a pure spiritual matter... do you see a bit of distinction here? It seems that way to me on the face of it.)



This is an excellent example Evie. I'm currently learning Hebrew (something my wife Anne, although much more skilled at languages then me, has not shown much interest in) for a variety of reasons, including to better understand AND be able to read the Poetical Books in the original. I could see how a woman, out of sincere desire to more deeply commune with her Lord would want to learn Hebrew, while her husband might not be so interested in this. While learning Hebrew it is not a necessary condtion for her faith, or her responsibilities in the home, doing so gives her great joy.


----------



## BrianBowman (Sep 5, 2005)

For what it's worth, JohnnyMac addresses 1 Cor 14:34-35 at this link: http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg54-16.htm. He gives a summary explanation of how the oracle of Delphi relates to these verses.


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 5, 2005)

Darn, first we let women vote, than they become lawyers and get liberated more-- than the postal service goes beyond mailmen to add _femailmen_-- than women want to become police officers and firefighters, despite being frail and feminine-- than they want to join the military and get shot at, and soon thereafter they seek to become Marines, and now they are talking about serving in the silent service on USN submarines. Today, some of them want to goto seminaries and get pastoral training. It's a slippery slope. What do women want next-- the title of patriarch?



[Edited on 9-5-2005 by Puritanhead]


----------



## Robin (Sep 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BrianBowman_
> Scott,
> 
> ... do you don't believe that much "incidental" sharing/defending of the Christian faith occurs at the Grocery Store, the corner Deli, or Starbucks? I don't disagree with the historic Confession and Creeds (to the degree that I know them). Maybe I'm still "stuck" in my old Fundamental/Dispensational/Arminian mindset about evangelism, but even EE (penned by no less a Reformed man than D. James Kennedy) admits women and encourages "community evangelism" where women participate.
> ...



 Brian. I could write a book.

Not only the obvious role of women teaching women...but there are those moments when our faith is under attack. The arena of my vocation, affords me opportunity to even evangelize pastors. (!) One pastor I had to rebuke;(!) teaching him what the book of Romans means. (!) I've met Mormons, New Agers, Lutherans; PCUSA; confused Wesleyans; arrogant Jews; sinful Evangellyfish pastors --- all men - where circumstances were right that I put to them God's truth; in humility, gentleness, but proclaim the truth. All initiated the challenges to me, btw. (Uncomfortable situations indeed.)

What I get called to out there in the frontlines, my pastors know of and support me in. A true church is devoted to equipping the saints (including women) so as to have that answer to anyone who asks; so The Faith will not fail. Pastors are to equip the saints in their flocks, whoever they are. 

As for my calling, one goal is that, if possible, I refer the contacts to my pastor. He's always available via E mail; but the best thing is to invite them to attend church on the Lord's Day. This "system" can be complicated; it's organic - meaning it's about people-skills, relationships and teaching what the Gospel means. It's not a pat-tract-style formula. I'm grateful that my own pastors care enough to intercept those "colorful personalities" I meet! (Some can be very wierd. Want to hear about the Benny Hinn devotee claiming to be Reformed? ...not to hijack things....)

I stress that I am obedient under the care and authority of my pastors and consistory. 

Robin

PS. For what it's worth, my husband is not a believer. Which is quite interesting...when it comes to the wife defending beliefs the husband does not hold.

[Edited on 9-5-2005 by Robin]


----------



## Robin (Sep 5, 2005)

Evie and Scott....you have some very important points to consider!

Reality is nothing like the ideal (sigh) or not for the most part, anyway.

r.


----------



## bond-servant (Sep 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Evie,
> The intrinsic need should be fulfilled by her husband and pastors. Rearing one's children in the way they should go is one of the most important thing a mother can be involved in? It is a full time job; without any disrespect to you, you would not know this yet. You will see that when you have kids, if you are being obedient to God and fulfilling this command, you will not have time for things such as seminary.




Okay, I HAVE to jump in on this one here - 

I have homeschooled my kids since preschool. They are in 3rd and 4th grade now. We still homeschool. We plan on continuing to homeschool. We spend about every waking moment of the day together. My house and wifely duties are taken care of : from homecooked meals to a clean house to running errands etc. as I described earlier.

I waited until my youngest was 7yrs old to go back to school, or make any additional demands on my time outside of church ministries.

I don't know about you at the end of the day, but my husband needs "wind down time" - uninterrupted time to read or something to shake the days events. 

SO, kids are in bed, husband is unavailable, chores are done. Are you saying it is inappropriate to spend this time formally studying God's Word? In reality, I DO have time. Granted, I am on about an "8 year track" to get a two year degree,  ...but I am doing it.

My professors ARE pastors. So, though they are distance pastors, not in my state, they are *my* pastors. There are email and phone conversations between us. My husband has given my learning his blessing. It seems as if we are splitting hairs here?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 5, 2005)

> Okay, I HAVE to jump in on this one here -
> 
> I have homeschooled my kids since preschool. They are in 3rd and 4th grade now. We still homeschool. We plan on continuing to homeschool. We spend about every waking moment of the day together. My house and wifely duties are taken care of : from homecooked meals to a clean house to running errands etc. as I described earlier.




You are a gift to your family; a proverbs 31 gal!



> I waited until my youngest was 7yrs old to go back to school, or make any additional demands on my time outside of church ministries.
> 
> I don't know about you at the end of the day, but my husband needs "wind down time" - uninterrupted time to read or something to shake the days events.
> 
> SO, kids are in bed, husband is unavailable,



Beth,
I am always available for my wife. What do you mean he is _unavailable_? If it is of a spiritual need or concern, either academically or prayerfully, he should drop whatever he is doing, as that is what God commands.




> chores are done. Are you saying it is inappropriate to spend this time formally studying God's Word?



NO. I am not saying that. I am saying that you should be doing it with him. He should be guiding you, feeding you. It is he that should be the learned one, the hungry one spiritually in the relationship. Between you and I, it was not a good thing that _judge_ Deborah's husband, as well as Barak, did not step up to the plate! If men of faith do not have this desire, much like the deer that panteth after the water, they need to pray. God gives to them who ask.



> In reality, I DO have time. Granted, I am on about an "8 year track" to get a two year degree,  ...but I am doing it.



I hear you.



> My professors ARE pastors. So, though they are distance pastors, not in my state, they are *my* pastors.



They are NOT your pastors. One sure way to tell if someone is your pastor is if they have the lawfulright to excommunicate you for disciplinary infractions. These gentlemen do not have that responsibility, hence, they are not _your_ pastors.




> My husband has given my learning his blessing. It seems as if we are splitting hairs here?



It is not a bad thing beth in that you want to learn; that is to be commended. However, tell me, how many nights have you prayed that God would drive your husband with the samer fervor. Would it not be more of a blessing if it was he? If it was he who instructed you?

Not splitting hairs, just dialoging


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 5, 2005)

Evie, Jacob,
Both of you have inquired of the scenario "single woman". The single woman has a federal head. Is there ever a moment when the female does not have a federal head? That federal head is responsible (primarily) ideally to train her, along w/ the pastors. Should she go to bible college; I don't have any problem with that really. Seminary? No! I don't see the point. As Ryan mentioned, seminaries are to train men of God.


----------



## bond-servant (Sep 5, 2005)

Scott,

Good points. 

Just to clarify, my husband is a wonderfully godly man, whom I love dearly, but he is exhausted at night after a long day working so I can stay home and teach our children. 

That said, yes, I have been consistantly been praying for him to spend more time tutoring me in the Word of God since we have been married, which is almost 15 years.

However, if he is in the wrong, that does not justify me doing something wrong. 

And, because this decision to school was not hastily made, prayed about and does not interfere with my duties, and is not for any kind of ordination, I have been under the impression it was "okay". 

Yes, it would certainly be one of the biggest blessings in my life if he instructed me. 

He actually spends time every day instructing our children in God's Word. Right now, because of thier ages, they are on topics I understood long ago, but someday, I may be able to sit in on it too. Though, between us and the PB, ; I would rather not be lumped in with the kids on this one.

That's great you are always available to your wife. I think this is rare. The husbands of most women I know need '"don't bother me time" at the end of the day. You asked what this means. 

It means, I can talk to him if I need to, and we are usually in the same room, but the more I talk to him (or the kids talk to him) during this time, the less he can let the day go.

I don't think its as bad as it sounds. Many people have undisturbed wind-down time in the form of a jog, or going to the gym, a long bath, or something of that sort. 

As for dropping everything to talk about spiritual matters, 
Spiritual matters are the majority of what I want to talk about and it has a tendency to frustrate him after a while.. 

So, the correct thing to do for me as a wife, in those times is to submit, and change the subject?

Back to original topic: you consider what I am doing overstepping my role?
But, to a woman who is taking seminary classes 'not for credit', or for a degree, as in the case of the original question on this thread, then it is okay?


BTW: everyone has made some really wonderful points on this thread!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 5, 2005)

I guess so Beth. Each case must be dealt with singularly. In your case, I guess it is ok. But hey, who am I?

As I have said, gather all the nuggets from the discussion and go from there. I would trust Fred before I would trust me, if I were you......


----------



## Robin (Sep 5, 2005)

A tip to Beth...(and ladies like her)...

First, you are to be heartily commended for the work and devotion to children and family! (Not being a mom, I can't relate to the stressors and responsibilities therein.) 

Let's also remember that the BODY of Christ is a truly connected organism, especially referring to the local church. We are to benefit from the gifts of each other - including teaching, discipling - within the CONTEXT of home and the local church. 

Though it is a very good thing for women disciples to learn from many distant (even dead) teachers/pastors....it is within Scriptures' meaning that we be truly accountable and theologically protected by our real, local pastors/consistory. This is a real relationship.

Too often I counsel (Titus 2) women who get hindered or misled by teachers outside the flock. One friend is unfortunately succumbing to a (Christian) marriage-therapist with very heterodox theology. She confides in me (not our pastor); my hope is to get her to seek right counsel with the pastor. (Tough-going)

For six years now, as I've been studying many sources to make sense of The Faith, my pastor has gently nudged me on whether an author or other teaching source was + or - . I know he doesn't want a sheep to fall into a pit - or worse! Pondering this, it really seems "motherly" to me how he watches over us all, theologically.

So heads-up out there....there is a legitimate, real accountability parishioners have to their own pastor/elders. It's Biblical. It is NOT Biblical to interpret (for example) the teachings of Greg Bahnsen as being equal to one's real pastor; Calvin is not my pastor, Riddlebarger and Mattlack are. Why the distinction? Because pastoral authority is real. Calvin can't reprove me if I whig-out. On the other hand, Riddlebarger is famous for actually using his shepherds staff...he doesn't tolerate wolves, either.

I feel a burden for all good pastors -- they have so much to do! It is a rich blessing to receive the care and consideration of a truly involved pastor who takes protecting the flock seriously. So ladies, never hesitate to share your thoughts or concerns about studies with your pastors/elders. They should be able to affirm; protect and equip you in the Faith.

Robin


----------



## bond-servant (Sep 5, 2005)

Robin, excellent advice!

Whitefield has wonderful teachers/mentors/pastors, as many on this board can attest to, but I agree a relationship with *ones own* pastor is of utmost importance!

Our pastor does not hesitate to straighten out any one of his flock if they go astray. You make an excellent point.

Your mood is "blue with flu"? Is it flu season already?? I hope you feel better soon!


----------

