Men's and Women's Small Groups

[Cornelius Van Halen]

I'm wondering if anyone has done research on, or knows the history regarding, the origin of Men's and Women's study groups. I see in Paul's letters a need for certain gender specific ministries, as in older women instructing younger women. However, this training is not described as a ministry of the word proper, but rather having its focus on practical issues (which ought to utilize a wisdom that is inherently biblical, so I'm not minimizing the Biblical nature of such groups).

I struggle because I know some women rarely have opportunities to interact with their pastor as a teacher or shepherd, because they are only taught in the context of a women's group. I am curious about the origin, but also what others see as the pros and cons of dividing men and women into small groups. Is there a hidden danger? Do the pros outweigh the cons?

As a personal note, I have benefited greatly from men's groups, and my wife has benefited from women's groups as well. I'm not opposed, but just hoping others have put thought into the topic.

Blessings!

 

[No Other Name]

I'm wondering if anyone has done research on, or knows the history regarding, the origin of Men's and Women's study groups. I see in Paul's letters a need for certain gender specific ministries, as in older women instructing younger women. However, this training is not described as a ministry of the word proper, but rather having its focus on practical issues (which ought to utilize a wisdom that is inherently biblical, so I'm not minimizing the Biblical nature of such groups).

I struggle because I know some women rarely have opportunities to interact with their pastor as a teacher or shepherd, because they are only taught in the context of a women's group. I am curious about the origin, but also what others see as the pros and cons of dividing men and women into small groups. Is there a hidden danger? Do the pros outweigh the cons?

As a personal note, I have benefited greatly from men's groups, and my wife has benefited from women's groups as well. I'm not opposed, but just hoping others have put thought into the topic.

Blessings!

What a great question! Watching this thread with high interest.

 

[Cornelius Van Halen]

A little bump before the question disappears into the vast unknown of the internet!

 

[Alan D. Strange]

@Cornelius Van Halen

Dear Joel,

This was something that my dear late wife and I often talked about. We've had and been a part of these in churches in the deep past, and then those of which I've been the lead pastor or one of the pastors. They can be a real blessing in so many ways, but for women, especially, they can present problems.

My wife used to say, "Why is it that the men's group is taught by a pastor or elder and the women's only by other women? Why do we get recycled 'how to train your children' or 'relate to your husband' talks (for the umpteenth time), and the men get the pastor or elders teaching doctrine from the Standards or doing interesting biblical or book studies?"

My wife was certainly interested in child-rearing, rightly relating to me, and the rest. She thought, though, that the women could benefit from having a pastor, at least occasionally, teach them doctrine in a small-group setting and make life applications; she wanted, in other words, to study the Bible and the Standards seriously in such a setting as the men did. I think that she had fair concerns there.

Peace,
Alan

 

[jwright82]

First off, amen to Alan's response. The only experience I can speak to (and this may be off the mark) is Celebrate Recovery as a strictly segregated ministry.
There was never a women's group for some reason but we had a men's group. The advantage is (for p0rnography addictions it's obvious) men feel more comfortable talking to other men about these things and I imagine the same would be true for women.
The upside is genders know how genders think and so it's easy to spot someone who is not serious about it. We know the excuses that we make, placing blame on other people. That would be difficult for a man or a woman to open up about our gender specific problems and temptations.
We were also there for each other outside of church and that could be problematic for mixed gender groups. If a brother was struggling then he had everyone's phone number and anything other than loving correction was strictly forbidden. Also with everyone's phone number then you had no excuse for not reaching out for help. Never judgment, that was the Church's responsibility.
I know you intended this for different kinds of studies but from a wisdom perspective CR does things this way even though there's no explicit command to start one and how to do it. And the only other rule is you never reveal who's in it or their reason for being there. We never talked about what was talked about in the study.

 

[rebalspirit]

I am curious about the origin, but also what others see as the pros and cons of dividing men and women into small groups. Is there a hidden danger? Do the pros outweigh the cons?

Having been raised Roman Catholic, I cannot speak to the history of small groups for men and women in the evangelical church. However, in terms of what is known about the differences between men and women, and the influences of feminism on the church, I can see why the push arose to separate men and women. But I can see the difficiencies as well. You won't make women safer, discipled or bathed in God's word by teaching them in women's groups. If the men aren't safe, then there's a leadership and discipline issue in the body. Discipleship isn't about talking about women's issues; its about talking about our savior and his righteousness as found in scripture. Teaching is always a mixed bag because each human being comes with their own set of skills, strengths, gifts and talents. We only encourage laziness or boredom when we try to teach to one style of learning, one IQ range, one level of interest, one method of teaching, one segregated group. We learn and grow by being challenged, by striving beyond our own abilities, and by being humble and asking questions or seeking help when we find ourselves wanting.

I've been Reformed for six years and I've led women's bible studies and attended one as a learner. My observation of the former has been that women were more submissive in women's bible studies (your mileage may vary) and they were less likely to ask questions about the scriptures in that women only setting than I observed them behave in mixed men and women studies. However, if the study used a woman authored study guide that I found superficial or missing the real point of a passage (reformed materials, to be clear), the women were ready to chime in with their thoughts. My question is, why? Why the difference? When I was leading a bible study, while I found male authored materials more challenging and deeper in their focus, they still seemed wanting for me. I always added deeper personal commentary research, language studies for key phrases, words or concepts, and I found leaving out personal anecdotes preferable. Perhaps because I was raised in a house full of five males and three females, I'm more comfortable or proficient in styles more fitting to men, but I prefer mixed group studies because I am more challenged, there's less personal sharing, deeper questions and a need to adapt to both men's and women's real differences.

In other words, I've not found too many pros to segregating men and women in bible studies. The goal is the same for both men and women: to glorify god and enjoy Him forever. Being adaptable or flexible in mixed groups seems key to me to deeper and broader learning of and discipleship in scripture. Again, your mileage may vary. Out here in the sticks of Concho, Arizona, that's how life rolls.

 

[cthorn14]

Pro: gender specific issues can be addressed
Con: gender specific issues may become disproportionate and consume every meeting

Therefore, I think it depends on the context and goal of the meeting.

 

[rebalspirit]

@Cornelius Van Halen

Dear Joel,

This was something that my dear late wife and I often talked about. We've had and been a part of these in churches in the deep past, and then those of which I've been the lead pastor or one of the pastors. They can be a real blessing in so many ways, but for women, especially, they can present problems.

My wife used to say, "Why is it that the men's group is taught by a pastor or elder and the women's only by other women? Why do we get recycled 'how to train your children' or 'relate to your husband' talks (for the umpteenth time), and the men get the pastor or elders teaching doctrine from the Standards or doing interesting biblical or book studies?"

My wife was certainly interested in child-rearing, rightly relating to me, and the rest. She thought, though, that the women could benefit from having a pastor, at least occasionally, teach them doctrine in a small-group setting and make life applications; she wanted, in other words, to study the Bible and the Standards seriously in such a setting as the men did. I think that she had fair concerns there.

Peace,
Alan

Alan,

Your wife was very wise and I heartily agree with her. I appreciate your thoughts on this issue. You probably don't remember me, but we met on one of your visits to Concho, AZ where your student Elijah now pastors. Nice to see your familiar face on this board as I'm new to this venue.

God bless,
Robin

 

[LilyG]

I like to compare the usual focus in women's groups on wife/motherhood to men in groups primarily set to family leadership and provision. Those are good and proper law principles. But they are just that. It tends to create an imbalance of spiritual nourishment. Without the good structure around theological formation and Gospel-centered biblical interpretation, it can unintentionally foster discouragement and weariness after a while.

 

[Cornelius Van Halen]

Thanks for all the thoughts - I've been trying to dig into the history, and while not documented very satisfactorily, it looks like men's and women's studies have a connection to the Muscular Christianity movement. But the details are so sparse for me that I dare not make a judgment on its validity or accuracy.

@Alan D. Strange - Thanks for your words and for sharing your wife's wisdom. What a treasure! What she said is the exact feeling I have regarding this subject. I'm very appreciative.

@jwright82 - I think this is a good point. The context of the meeting really dictates the appropriate audience.

@rebalspirit - Arizona is a little different than Hungary! But I've sensed many of the same things you described in a variety of settings.

Thanks, all!

If I uncover some rich document outlining the origin of gender specific bible studies, I'll be sure to share it!

 

[Theoretical]

Pro: gender specific issues can be addressed
Con: gender specific issues may become disproportionate and consume every meeting

Therefore, I think it depends on the context and goal of the meeting.

That’s a good summary.

@Cornelius Van Halen

Dear Joel,

This was something that my dear late wife and I often talked about. We've had and been a part of these in churches in the deep past, and then those of which I've been the lead pastor or one of the pastors. They can be a real blessing in so many ways, but for women, especially, they can present problems.

My wife used to say, "Why is it that the men's group is taught by a pastor or elder and the women's only by other women? Why do we get recycled 'how to train your children' or 'relate to your husband' talks (for the umpteenth time), and the men get the pastor or elders teaching doctrine from the Standards or doing interesting biblical or book studies?"

My wife was certainly interested in child-rearing, rightly relating to me, and the rest. She thought, though, that the women could benefit from having a pastor, at least occasionally, teach them doctrine in a small-group setting and make life applications; she wanted, in other words, to study the Bible and the Standards seriously in such a setting as the men did. I think that she had fair concerns there.

Peace,
Alan

To paraphrase George W. Bush, I think there's a soft bigotry of low expectations placed on children, teenagers, women, and men not seeking to go to seminary, with men either getting a pretty good stick or essentially ignored without much in between. This applies to Christian books and book/bible studies alike.

 

[LilyG]

That’s a good summary.

To paraphrase George W. Bush, I think there's a soft bigotry of low expectations placed on children, teenagers, women, and men not seeking to go to seminary, with men either getting a pretty good stick or essentially ignored without much in between. This applies to Christian books and book/bible studies alike.

I think so too. Of course it is well-meaning and sensitive, but, I think, misguided.

 

[Clariz]

First of all, thank you for raising such an interesting question.
It made me do a little mini research online for a few days.
Glancing back at history, dating back to the ancient time of Second Temple Period (~516 BC - 70 AD) brought so many insights into what might be the reason of segregated bible studies.

The Historical Arc of Gender-Segregated Study
I. The Era of Exclusion (c. 516 BC – 1300 AD)
- The Architectural Divide (Second Temple): Segregation escalated from physical separation (The Court of Women) to a theological prohibition, with Rabbinic tradition eventually framing female Torah study as a precursor to "promiscuity."
- The Monastic Schism (Middle Ages): The early medieval practice of mixed "Double Monasteries" dissolved into strict enclosure. Men monopolized theological education in universities, while women were relegated to convents for mysticism, effectively severing intellectual partnership.

II. The Era of Subversion (c. 1380 AD – 1650 AD)
- Underground Catechism (Beguines & Lollards): Laywomen bypassed exclusion by forming independent "voluntary associations" and "conventicles." Without access to universities, they utilized memorization to create an invisible, portable library of scripture.
- The Domestic Loophole (Reformation): While Queen Elizabeth I suppressed men’s "Prophesyings" as political sedition, women repurposed the "Gossiping" (childbirth gathering) as a sanctioned, private sphere for spiritual discourse.
- The Legal Freeze (1637): The banishment of Anne Hutchinson for "teaching men" codified the prohibition of mixed-gender lay instruction, paralyzing female leadership for a century.

III. The Era of Systematization (c. 1720 AD – 1800 AD)
- The Surrogate Family (Moravians): Count Zinzendorf pioneered "life-stage ministries," replacing biological family structures with spiritual "Choirs" segregated by age and gender to foster intensive discipleship.
- The Two-Tier Method (Wesleyanism): John Wesley operationalized this into a dual structure:

• The Class (Mixed, ~12 Members): A macro-unit of neighbors organized for behavioral accountability and financial contribution.
• The Band (Segregated, ~4–5 Members): A micro-unit of peers. Segregation was deemed essential for "naked confession" of secret sin, which was considered volatile in mixed company.

- The "School" Defense (Sarah Osborn): To circumvent the prohibition on preaching, Osborn successfully rebranded her revival gatherings as a "school," exploiting a semantic loophole between authoritative "meeting" and charitable "reading."

IV. The Modern Recurrence (c. 1950 AD – Present)
- Therapeutic Separation: Organizations like Bible Study Fellowship (BSF) (1952) and Promise Keepers (1990s) institutionalized gender separation not for legal reasons, but for psychological focus by removing social distraction to facilitate vulnerability.

So, I have come to conclude that contemporary ecclesiology has unconsciously reconstructed Wesley’s two-tier model:

1. The "Front Door" (Sunday School / Discipleship): Mixed-gender gatherings focused on socialization and general literacy.
2. The "Inner Room" (Men / Women Bible Study): Segregated cohorts reserved for deep confession and rigorous accountability, acknowledging that mixed settings often lack the safety required for radical honesty.

---

Segregation vs. Integration
I. Segregation (The "Band" Model)
Men with Men / Women with Women

• The Benefits (Why it Works)

• Radical Honesty: Creates a psychological "shield" for confessing secret sins (lust, rage) without fear of the opposite sex (Methodist Bands).
• Female Voice: Acts as an incubator for female leadership. Women can teach freely in "schools" without triggering a patriarchal backlash (Sarah Osborn).
• Educational Rigor: Removes social distraction, allowing marginalized groups to create high-intensity "universities of their own" (Beguines).

• The Risks (Why it Fails)

• The "Conventicle" Danger: Without a Pastor/Elder present, segregated groups historically drift into heresy ("shared ignorance") or political rebellion. The State often banned them as "rebel cells" (Prophesyings/Lollards).
• Theological Prohibition: Physical separation often hardens into doctrine. "Women sit separately" eventually became "Women cannot learn" (Second Temple).
• Intellectual Fracture: Creates a "Two-Track" church where men own the Intellect (Theology) and women own the Emotions (Mysticism), severing the partnership.

---

​

II. Integration (The "Class" Model)
Mixed Gender (Family / Neighbors)

• The Benefits (Why it Works)

• Intellectual Wholeness: Forces the "Head" (Academic Theology) and "Heart" (Devotional Mysticism) to mature together, preventing a gendered split in the faith (Double Monasteries).
• Stability (Anti-Echo Chamber): Diverse viewpoints prevent the "fever" of radicalism that often takes over isolated groups. Mixed families act as a grounding force against heresy (Puritans).
• Political Safety: The "Family Unit" is legally durable because it reinforces the social order and keeps instruction private, preventing the State from viewing the group as a threat.
• Ecclesiological Reality: Mimics the true nature of the Church as a "Family" (brothers/sisters) rather than a squad of soldiers.

• The Risks (Why it Fails)

• The Griffith Risk (Scandal): Deep spiritual intimacy across gender lines is volatile and frequently collapses into romantic entanglement or rumor (Madam Griffith).
• The Hutchinson Risk (Silencing): When women teach men, it is often viewed as political usurpation, leading to the woman's banishment (Anne Hutchinson).
• The Social Risk (Dilution): Without strict boundaries, mixed groups inevitably drift from deep discipline into casual socializing (Wesleyan Class).

---

I personally believe there is a balance to be found in having both integrated and segregated Bible studies, as history shows.

My own experiences with Women's Bible Study have been amazing, especially when I was surrounded by PhD theology professors and teachers who were also a pastor's wife and elders' wives. I not only learned applicable truths from the Bible, but also gained deep theological knowledge and strengthened my understanding of Reformed doctrines.

Even within such rigorous biblical study, these humble ladies would often say, 'I'll ask my husband and discuss it with you next week.' They would consult their Teaching Elder husbands and bring the answer to us at the next meeting.

Now that I am without them in this northernmost land, I miss that group deeply, but I am thankful for the legacy they passed on to me.

 

[Edward]

My wife was certainly interested in child-rearing, rightly relating to me, and the rest. She thought, though, that the women could benefit from having a pastor, at least occasionally, teach them doctrine in a small-group setting and make life applications; she wanted, in other words, to study the Bible and the Standards seriously in such a setting as the men did.

Isn't that what Sunday School classes are for? Generally an elder (teaching or ruling) teaching men and women?

 

[Ed Walsh]

First off, amen to Alan's response

Amen to that. And because of of my respect for him, I always address him as Dr. Strange.

 

[EvanF]

• Intellectual Fracture: Creates a "Two-Track" church where men own the Intellect (Theology) and women own the Emotions (Mysticism), severing the partnership.

It seems like the attempt to segregate may risk recreating the same not-good situation that God recognized before he created Eve. We exist as men and women because we are better together than we are without eachother.

 

[Ed Walsh]

We exist as men and women because we are better together than we are without eachother.

Man that needs a big amen.

 

[TheInquirer]

I struggle because I know some women rarely have opportunities to interact with their pastor as a teacher or shepherd, because they are only taught in the context of a women's group.

I have become disillusioned with small groups due to how poorly I have seen them run, how ill-equipped the leaders are to teach, and how poor doctrine gets propagated within them at times. Prayer requests usually revolve around health concerns and it is very hard to get people to pray about applying the text unless strong, consistent leadership sets the agenda (in my experience).

Furthermore, at one church I was very involved in, the Senior Pastor refused to do any kind of application from the pulpit as he felt very strongly this needed to be done in small groups (his words, not mine). I felt (very strongly) this was in effect a shifting of shepherding responsibilities away from those they should fall upon to those who were not gifted or equipped to do so.

I am not saying small groups cannot be beneficial at all. I just haven't been in an environment when I have seen them done well. Most of the ones I am aware of in my circles simply talk about the previous Sunday’s sermon (positives and negatives with that).