Please discuss the role of women - in the church and out

Status
Not open for further replies.

jules5solas

Puritan Board Freshman
Heidi, I got your pm

You are so sweet! I think that perhaps my question was really not very clear so I came across as putting down those ministries. I am more grieved about the restrictions they had on what women should and shouldn't be reading, discussing, studying, learning, teaching. They really didn't think that we needed to get into it, that we needed to leave it to the men. Of course, not really saying it in those terms but very obviously not encouraging it.

I appreciated everyone's comments because I mostly agree. However, I think they're coming from a different angle - most people who ask questions like this are wanting someone to give a more egalitarian answer. I'm not looking for that in the least bit! :)
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
* I've gotten the comment, "Should a woman be reading so much doctrine? Enough of your Calvin-worship and your puritan-worship!' when I talk about what I'm reading, or quote something I've recently been edified with.

You'd be praised for that kind of talking if there were any real male leaders in your congregation.

* I've been told to stick with what makes me a better wife and mother -devoting myself solely to those things. By this they mean that to be through reading books on decorating, cookbooks, devotionals, Bible studies - like Beth Moore (yes, I used to do a bunch of them before I became reformed).

If what you say is true, I'm sorry for you, since there is no male leadership in your congregation.

I wholeheartedly agree but I believe that we need to take the whole counsel of God, that the Word was not meant only for men but also women, that the passages pertaining to women were specifically for our edification and exhortation but doesn't exclude other portions of Scripture that applies to ALL believers, men or women. What makes me a better wife and mother than to know more and more the God who alone can make me the wife and mother He created me to be?

Never did like Hegel. In Trinitarian thought we don't need weird dialectics.

* What do you think of these situations? I'm not as clear in these areas:

- Women reading Scripture out loud during worship

If you stay here long enough, you'll learn to read whatever Pastor Buchanan writes at least twice. I'd do it on this thread, if I were you.


- Women joining in theological discussions where both men and women are present in an informal setting.

It could be formal!!! Why not? Our OPC pastor is as conservative as they come, and he encourages participation during Bible studies.

- Women standing in front during worship, not leading, but standing with 3 or so others to aid in the singing especially if there's a new song.

Debatable, but there are female singers mentioned in the OT.
 

a mere housewife

Not your cup of tea
Julie I was thinking earlier that your former church seemed to have taken something that applies to gifting for a public role and applied it across the board, so that it winds up seeming as if a woman needs a mediator to have a relationship with Christ -- in that she is not allowed women to discuss truth without male headship, and is discouraged from taking much interest in it.

Yes you are right that we need to learn of Christ just as any other member of the body, and that it is our relationship with Him that is our strength. I think there are balances in how that works out throughout our life, and that balances are different for different dispositions -- but no woman is so constituted that she can have joy in practical labor for Christ without the blessing of learning and enjoying the Truth that He is.

I am not knowledgeable enough to speak to all the questions you raised and others here are more qualified; but I did want to say (since I'm still out of my thanks button :) thanks for these useful posts.
 

Caroline

Puritan Board Sophomore
He just shared with me that one of their Deacons will be leaving their PCA Church because he's come to the conviction that women should be allowed to do anything a man can do.

I actually think that demeans the dignity of women -- it defines our usefulness and value in terms of 'what a man can do'.

Caroline, I think the Biblical teaching would be not that we shouldn't learn from each other and as you say that men can't learn from women; but as Rich points out that there are different roles and gifts for those roles in the church; and a woman's role in the church isn't that of publicly (formally, as regards 'having the floor' or being elected to leadership etc) teaching or ruling men?

That's an interesting point ... defining usefulness in terms of someone else. I suppose that applies to a lot of things, now that I think of it. For example, I get annoyed when people try to say brightly that they think that with a little sorting out of details, I can do anything that a non-disabled person can do, because (1) no, I can't and (2) it tends to suggest that my life is not worthwhile if I can't. Not that this has much to do with the topic at hand except that I'm considering the overall meaning of what you said.

And yes, I can see how it would be different teaching as in learning from someone vs. having someone in leadership. I suppose I can learn something from my daughter once in a while, but that doesn't put her in charge of the house. To be clear, I'm not arguing in favor of female pastors, etc. In fact, although I don't know that I could really defend this biblically at this point, churches with female pastors give me the heebie-jeebies, and I would never attend one.

I wonder (and this is not necessarily responding to Heidi's post as much as a few other posts here regarding women and their natural inclinations) if any of the women here sometimes feel rather like their natural inclinations are not quite the expected norm, though?

For example, I do not cook. I hate cooking, and I'm terrible at it, and the last time I tried, I accidentally set the cookbook on fire (really). My husband is a very good cook and quite enjoys it, so he has always been the family chef, and good thing or we would have all died of starvation by now. And, while I have nothing against people who are 'huggers', per se, I have never been one, and I'm a little uncomfortable with it. I'm quite fond of my own children, but I do not particularly enjoy caring for the children of others, although I do from time to time when necessity calls for it.

When I am put in a role that is generally viewed as 'women's work', I find that I am generally without anything to do, or at least nothing that I can do well, so it is discouraging. In fact, this is one of the biggest difficulties that I have in 'fitting in' with other Christians. At least with non-Christians, I generally feel like I have something to talk about. But at church, things generally split up into groups of men and groups of women, and the women all get together and talk about homeschooling and gardening and cooking, and I just sit there smiling like an idiot because I don't even know what they are talking about most of the time. And sometimes I try to help in the kitchen or something, but it's always a disaster. One time, a woman asked me to section a grapefruit, and I asked her what that meant, and she said that you are supposed to take a knife and cut around the grapefruit pieces to make them easier to pick up with a spoon. I thought she was joking and I laughed and said, "Haha! Can you imagine if people really did that?"

Oops. Turns out people really DO that. Who would have guessed? I dunno .... I always peel my grapefruit ... I thought we were being fancy by cutting it in half. I'd never even heard of cutting around the pieces.

I run the website for my church (and a couple of other churches that saw ours and liked it), but that's not a lot of conversation. My husband says I should probably look for friends at places other than church, like at work, where there aren't quite the same traditional type roles. But he feels kinda left out at church too. They have hospitality meetings and invite all the women, but nobody invites him, even though he goes to quite a lot of work hosting fellowship dinners, and when I asked him, he totally knew about sectioning grapefruits. My husband is a big bearded construction worker that looks like he could crush me with one hand (and he probably could, although we won't test that theory), so I suppose it didn't occur to anyone that he might want to help with the cooking and such.

I'm not sure exactly where I'm going with this, actually. Venting a little frustration, maybe. It's not that I'm looking for a reason to not be involved at the church. In fact, I suppose fitting in at church is rather more important to me than it should be, and I keep thinking if I could change myself somehow ...

I guess my question would be whether God requires women to be interested in cooking and cleaning, and if so, where does that leave me? The idea of trying to be that kind of person ... well, I LIKE those people (don't get me wrong), but, for me to try ... it's like a tone-deaf person trying to sing.
 
Last edited:

Grillsy

Puritan Board Junior
Jules, I think is this discussion it would be important to understand what women are specifically forbidden to do in Scripture in the context of the Church. The big things would be prohibition form having authority over a man and leading worship. Likewise a woman cannot hold the office of Elder or Deacon.
This would disqualify a woman from the public reading of Scripture during the worship service.
 

a mere housewife

Not your cup of tea
Caroline I love it that you set your cookbook on fire :) I just today had to put down yet another cookbook I was trying to read through in bottomless despair because I will never understand food.

I certainly don't think we have to be Stepford Wives -- God gave us to individual men, and it sounds like you and your husband work very well together. The role you are supposed to fill is not necessarily 'cook' but 'helpmeet'. It's a great blessing that it is our own husbands we're supposed to be suitable to, and not anybody else's -- they love us more than anybody else for exactly the person we are.

And yes having an illness, being disabled etc., can make it very difficult to relate to the normal sphere of others. I know that real love and understanding for one another exists in the church beyond such dissimilarities, and it is part of mutual growth in grace to learn to enter into that fellowship more completely. I wish my head were less foggy -- I do understand what you are saying.
 

Caroline

Puritan Board Sophomore
Thanks, Heidi. It's late and my head is more than a little foggy too. lol. But 'helpmeet', not necessarily 'cook' .... that make sense. Certainly, I don't think my husband would consider it helpful for me to cook. Especially not after the cookbook incident. :eek: (I left the cookbook on a burner that I believed to be off and then turned on the wrong burner. I know, I know ... several mistakes there. It's the sort of thing I do when I try to cook, though.)

Well, I'll head to bed and maybe this will all be more clear when I read over it again tomorrow. :)
 

jules5solas

Puritan Board Freshman
Jules, I think is this discussion it would be important to understand what women are specifically forbidden to do in Scripture in the context of the Church. The big things would be prohibition form having authority over a man and leading worship. Likewise a woman cannot hold the office of Elder or Deacon.
This would disqualify a woman from the public reading of Scripture during the worship service.

Grills,
Can you give me Scripture where the public reading of Scripture is only for men? Not disagreeing, just wanting more because your statement linked the office of Elder or Deacon with disqualifying a woman from public reading of Scripture. I see it as a therefore. So, can you back that up a bit more please? Thank you!
 

Grillsy

Puritan Board Junior
Well, I mean the reading of Scripture in the context of worship and teaching men. Certainly women would not read the Scripture aloud as part of public worship as this would be instructing and teaching over a man.
 

jules5solas

Puritan Board Freshman
Well, I mean the reading of Scripture in the context of worship and teaching men. Certainly women would not read the Scripture aloud as part of public worship as this would be instructing and teaching over a man.

I'm just giving you a hard time, Willie. You're one of the smartest guys I know. :gpl:

But I do have to say, is it automatic that women reading aloud scripture as part of public worship be instructing and teaching? Is the reading of Scripture out loud instructing? Or just reading? Or both? getting nit-picky I know.
 

OPC'n

Puritan Board Doctor
Well, I mean the reading of Scripture in the context of worship and teaching men. Certainly women would not read the Scripture aloud as part of public worship as this would be instructing and teaching over a man.

I'm just giving you a hard time, Willie. You're one of the smartest guys I know. :gpl:

But I do have to say, is it automatic that women reading aloud scripture as part of public worship be instructing and teaching? Is the reading of Scripture out loud instructing? Or just reading? Or both? getting nit-picky I know.

It would be an authoritative position bc you would be leading a part of the worship service. So even though it's not teaching as you wouldn't be instructing others on it's meaning you would be placing yourself in an authoritative position.
 

kvanlaan

Puritan Board Doctor
I actually think that demeans the dignity of women -- it defines our usefulness and value in terms of 'what a man can do'.

Amen. Amen. Amen. I am not created to birth a child; my wife is fearfully and wonderfully made to do so. She has a role, laid out by God, as do I.

The only context for those roles is scripture, the rest is just the white noise of the world.

One other thought: I think that the abdication by men of their rightful place in and out of church has both lead women to reject their own roles (if we are meandering blindly, as their heads, who is providing them leadership in the temporal world?) as well as take on ours out of desperation.

I know far too many families (two-parent families, mind you) lead by women both in and out of the church. Those in chuch are taking spiritual headship in their families, because the men simply won't. The gravity of this tragedy is completely unrecognized, but it is a cultural undercurrent of incredible proportions.
 

jules5solas

Puritan Board Freshman
* I've been told to stick with what makes me a better wife and mother -devoting myself solely to those things. By this they mean that to be through reading books on decorating, cookbooks, devotionals, Bible studies - like Beth Moore (yes, I used to do a bunch of them before I became reformed).

If what you say is true, I'm sorry for you, since there is no male leadership in your congregation.

Oh, not in the congregation I'm in right now! The male leadership is strong, scriptural and wholly supportive of biblical womanhood! They have a much clearer understanding of women's role and place in the church, home and community. I am so thankful to have found this church and left the other!
 

Scott1

Puritanboard Commissioner
It's difficult to say absolutely from Scripture because particular situations like those you mention are often not mentioned specifically in Scripture. Sometimes, best we can do is infer from biblical principles.



jules5solas
Women reading Scripture out loud during worship
No, reading Scripture formally during corporate worship is an authoritative act.
- Women leading a large group of women through expository teaching through a book of the Bible - but with solid biblical foundation
I think so, it's particularly appropriate for mature women to do this for younger women.
- Women meeting to discuss a Puritan classic or Grudem's systematic theology instead of a book specifically aimed at women.
Same as above.
- Women joining in theological discussions where both men and women are present in an informal setting.
Absolutely. These ought also happen at home- discussing the doctrines of grace, e.g. how Calvin explained them, etc.
- Women standing in front during worship, not leading, but standing with 3 or so others to aid in the singing especially if there's a new song.
This is more difficult. I think ordinarily, a man should ordinarily be out front "leading" this before the congregation and in this posture- and that's how I'm understanding your question.

A woman should not be reading Scripture or exhorting from it between songs because that is an authoritative active.

However, a woman who does not read or exhort Scripture could probably be the director, being careful.
 

SolaScriptura

Puritanboard Snowflake
I thought the purpose of women was to help their husband fulfill his duties in a supporting capacity.

I'm hoping that this is a little tongue in cheek, because you've completely left out single women and widows.

Furthermore, I would contend that the purpose of women is to "glorify God and enjoy him forever." How exactly we do that can be discussed at length, but to reduce the entire purpose of women to "help their husband" seems a bit simplistic.

If you read past posts of mine on the subject, hopefully you will see that I’m not a thuggish brute on the subject of how women should be treated.

That said, I really do think that the majority of modern women – even Christian women – have imbibed too much of our culture’s values to think that a supportive role is God’s primary plan for them.

To appease the modern woman books and treatises have been written trying to minimize the offense of what the Bible teaches about male leadership by trying to list two or three things a woman “can” do for every one thing she can’t.

You ask about singles and widows. Has it ever occurred to you that the modern notion that it is acceptable for women to be single is just that: modern? In Scripture the revealed normative plan for a woman is to serve her family. Even widows (young ones) are told to remarry. 1 Tim 2: 15, that bane of a passage for so many, seems to point to or indicate conformity to God’s revealed will instead of a life of rebellion from that will.

In all of life – whether it be in the church or in the home – I reiterate with Scripture that woman was created "for" man – specifically in the role of wife and mother. (1 Cor 11:8-9) Sure, the human race as a whole was created to glorify God and enjoy him forever... but for women the context in which they accomplish that task is to be within their role as helpmeet. Instead of focusing on what women supposedly “can” do outside of the home, or in addition to their responsibilities in the home, women should be discouraged from seeking “fulfillment” in these other ways and encouraged to find their joy, meaningfulness, and contentment in their role as helpmeet.
 

Montanablue

Puritan Board Doctor
If you read past posts of mine on the subject, hopefully you will see that I’m not a thuggish brute on the subject of how women should be treated.

Yes - this is why I thought perhaps that was a tongue-in-cheek comment.

You ask about singles and widows. Has it ever occurred to you that the modern notion that it is acceptable for women to be single is just that: modern? In Scripture the revealed normative plan for a woman is to serve her family. Even widows (young ones) are told to remarry. 1 Tim 2: 15, that bane of a passage for so many, seems to point to or indicate conformity to God’s revealed will instead of a life of rebellion from that will.

I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly here. Are you suggesting that for a woman to be single means that she is in rebellion? Or that a widow who does not remarry is in rebellion? I don't want to leap to a wrong conclusion and then respond.

Sure, the human race was created to glorify God and enjoy him forever... but for women the context in which they accomplish that task is to be within their role as helpmeet. Instead of focusing on what women supposedly “can” do outside of the home, or in addition to their responsibilities in the home, women should be discouraged from seeking “fulfillment” in these other ways and encouraged to find their joy, meaningfulness, and contentment in their role as helpmeet.

I certainly agree that women are to be a "helpmeet" to their husband and active in caring for the home - Proverbs 31 seems quite explicit on this point. For unmarried women, I'm not sure the Bible is as explicit, although I do think that Proverbs 31 applies to us as well. That said, I think its a good thing for women to be active in caring for their churches and communities as well as their homes - as long as the home comes first.
 

py3ak

They're stalling and plotting against me
Staff member
You ask about singles and widows. Has it ever occurred to you that the modern notion that it is acceptable for women to be single is just that: modern? In Scripture the revealed normative plan for a woman is to serve her family. Even widows (young ones) are told to remarry. 1 Tim 2: 15, that bane of a passage for so many, seems to point to or indicate conformity to God’s revealed will instead of a life of rebellion from that will.

How far are you willing to take that, Ben? Let's say war has broken out, lots of young men are gone, so in Village X there are 3 women for every man. Is singleness still a problem?
 

SolaScriptura

Puritanboard Snowflake
You ask about singles and widows. Has it ever occurred to you that the modern notion that it is acceptable for women to be single is just that: modern? In Scripture the revealed normative plan for a woman is to serve her family. Even widows (young ones) are told to remarry. 1 Tim 2: 15, that bane of a passage for so many, seems to point to or indicate conformity to God’s revealed will instead of a life of rebellion from that will.

How far are you willing to take that, Ben? Let's say war has broken out, lots of young men are gone, so in Village X there are 3 women for every man. Is singleness still a problem?

Argue with Scripture.

Exceptional circumstances do not nullify a general reality.


God's normative plan - as indicated by the clear teaching of multiple passages of Scripture - is for women is to take care of their husband and kids.

At the risk of being insanely offensive: I can only think of a very small handful of reasons why a woman in our culture could legitimately remain single.
 

satz

Puritan Board Senior
You ask about singles and widows. Has it ever occurred to you that the modern notion that it is acceptable for women to be single is just that: modern? In Scripture the revealed normative plan for a woman is to serve her family. Even widows (young ones) are told to remarry. 1 Tim 2: 15, that bane of a passage for so many, seems to point to or indicate conformity to God’s revealed will instead of a life of rebellion from that will.

How far are you willing to take that, Ben? Let's say war has broken out, lots of young men are gone, so in Village X there are 3 women for every man. Is singleness still a problem?

Argue with Scripture.

Exceptional circumstances do not nullify a general reality.


God's normative plan - as indicated by the clear teaching of multiple passages of Scripture - is for women is to take care of their husband and kids.

At the risk of being insanely offensive: I can only think of a very small handful of reasons why a woman in our culture could legitimately remain single.

Ben,

What exactly are these clear scriptures that say a woman "must" be married?

Passages telling wives their duties cannot be used to compel single women to be married.

Just to understand you better, what are the reasons you believe a woman may legitimately remain single?
 
Last edited:

Peairtach

Puritan Board Doctor
Quotes from jules5solas

Here is where I'd like more scriptural clarity:

Your not always going to get total clarity, and knowing from Genesis 3:16 that part of our fallenness is that the women like to usurp their place (and the men can abuse their power) - I'm not talking about you specifically - there's a thin end of the wedge argument in the minds of some Christian men, that if they give women certain possibly legitimate functions, they'll soon be asking for those forbidden to them.

* I've gotten the comment, "Should a woman be reading so much doctrine? Enough of your Calvin-worship and your puritan-worship!' when I talk about what I'm reading, or quote something I've recently been edified with.

Well you have the example of Priscilla. As long as duties are attended to first.

*I've been told to stick with what makes me a better wife and mother -devoting myself solely to those things. By this they mean that to be through reading books on decorating, cookbooks, devotionals, Bible studies - like Beth Moore (yes, I used to do a bunch of them before I became reformed).

Priscilla. But other things can sometimes be neglected because reading and study are so enjoyable.

I wholeheartedly agree but I believe that we need to take the whole counsel of God, that the Word was not meant only for men but also women, that the passages pertaining to women were specifically for our edification and exhortation but doesn't exclude other portions of Scripture that applies to ALL believers, men or women. What makes me a better wife and mother than to know more and more the God who alone can make me the wife and mother He created me to be?

Fine.

* What do you think of these situations? I'm not as clear in these areas:

- Women reading Scripture out loud during worship

We do have Scriptural warrant for this as in the first century women had the gift of prophecy and gave out their revelations in the church. Reading Scripture is just reading inscripturated prophecy. But some men would think it the thin end of the wedge, and for some women/churches it may be. A woman should make no comments on the passage. Usually it's sufficient for the preacher to read the passage anyway.

Women leading a large group of women through expository teaching through a book of the Bible - but with solid biblical foundation

There would need to be some oversight by the elders - just even to keep an eye on things.

- Women meeting to discuss a Puritan classic or Grudem's systematic theology instead of a book specifically aimed at women.

Fine.

- Women joining in theological discussions where both men and women are present in an informal setting.

Like a Bible study. Even better if there's always a man there:)

- Women standing in front during worship, not leading, but standing with 3 or so others to aid in the singing especially if there's a new song.

We have two female precentors in our church. Very good too. Some might think it the thin end of the wedge, but all they do is provide the tune.

There's nothing in those scenarios, just thinking of several situations where I'm not one convinced one way or the other. Any thoughts?

It's sometimes just the motive behind some of these things. As long as it's not about power. We should learn to be happy in our roles. The Holy Trinity shows us the way in all areas of life. The Son is eternally equal in power and glory to the Father, but He didn't complain or chafe about taking a subordinate role for the purposes of redemption. Neither does the Spirit feel robbed of equality power and glory in His role.

This is where feminism has gone wrong - apart from all the other places. In order to be equal to men feminists believe they have to have the same roles, functions, clothes, bodies, etc, etc as men. The Bible teaches that all humans are equally the image of God and yet different and have different roles. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equal but different and do not complain about being subordinate and complimentary to one another. Men, women and children are equal but different and have different roles.

The same considerations apply to employer/employee relations as to man/woman, husband/wife relations, and the doctrine of the Holy Trinity has practical implications for all human relations. God is an example to us all, because we are all made in His Image.
 
Last edited:

py3ak

They're stalling and plotting against me
Staff member
You ask about singles and widows. Has it ever occurred to you that the modern notion that it is acceptable for women to be single is just that: modern? In Scripture the revealed normative plan for a woman is to serve her family. Even widows (young ones) are told to remarry. 1 Tim 2: 15, that bane of a passage for so many, seems to point to or indicate conformity to God’s revealed will instead of a life of rebellion from that will.

How far are you willing to take that, Ben? Let's say war has broken out, lots of young men are gone, so in Village X there are 3 women for every man. Is singleness still a problem?

Argue with Scripture.

Exceptional circumstances do not nullify a general reality.


God's normative plan - as indicated by the clear teaching of multiple passages of Scripture - is for women is to take care of their husband and kids.

At the risk of being insanely offensive: I can only think of a very small handful of reasons why a woman in our culture could legitimately remain single.

It's good we have heroes willing to take such risks.

When you suggested I argue with Scripture, did you have in mind [KJV]1 Corinthians 7:8[/KJV]? Or were you thinking more in terms of [KJV]1 Corinthians 7:34[/KJV]? Perhaps you figured that fathers should take to heart the words of [KJV]1 Corinthians 7:38[/KJV]? Or maybe it was the Dominical saying in [KJV]Matthew 19:12[/KJV] that had most particularly caught your attention.
 
Last edited:

Montanablue

Puritan Board Doctor
I can only think of a very small handful of reasons why a woman in our culture could legitimately remain single.

Such as if no one proposes? To be quite honest, whether or not a woman is single is very often not really her choice. If there are no interested males, than that's usually the end of the story, unless you are suggesting that we single women start proposing to men. However, even if a woman stays single of her own volition, I do not believe that that is necessarily rebellion and I don't think that it can be shown scripturally.

I would also be interested in your responses to the passages in 1 Corinthians 7 that Ruben has pointed out.
 
Last edited:

Peairtach

Puritan Board Doctor
Quote from Ben
At the risk of being insanely offensive: I can only think of a very small handful of reasons why a woman in our culture could legitimately remain single.

Dear Ben,

It's not offensive, just an unusual point of view, that would have to be backed up.

What if a woman believed it was God's will or calling for her to be single? What if there were no suitable prospective husbands? What if no man was interested in getting married to her?

-----Added 7/29/2009 at 07:22:14 EST-----

Quote from Kathleen
I do not believe that that is necessarily rebellion and I don't think that it can be shown scripturally.

It might be a form of rebellion against God's better will for her, if she had no good reason for avoiding marriage. Some women - and no doubt some Christian women - realise with regret too late, that they have been putting off marriage and children for sometimes quite superficial reasons.
 

Montanablue

Puritan Board Doctor
It might be a form of rebellion against God's better will for her, if she had no good reason for avoiding marriage. Some women - and no doubt some Christian women - realise with regret too late, that they have been putting off marriage and children for sometimes quite superficial reasons.

This is why I said that its not necessarily rebellion. It could be rebellion, but its certainly not automatically so.
 

SolaScriptura

Puritanboard Snowflake
What if no man was interested in getting married to her?

You're right... I should be more sensitive. See, being a male with no physical or personality defects, I never experienced a shortage of interested female companions... so I have a hard time relating to the concept. It just doesn't compute. :p




To the rest: I'll respond later, though I'm really surprised that the normalcy of God's plan for people to be married would have to be defended here. But I will.

For right now I'm taking my wife on a date. Later folks!
 

Montanablue

Puritan Board Doctor
'll respond later, though I'm really surprised that the normalcy of God's plan for people to be married would have to be defended here.

Ben -just to clarify - I'm certainly not saying that the "normal" plan for most people is marriage. My point was that single women and unmarried widows are not automatically or necessarily in rebellion. I just wanted to make that clear before you responded to an argument that I (and I don't think anyone else) is making.
 

satz

Puritan Board Senior
To the rest: I'll respond later, though I'm really surprised that the normalcy of God's plan for people to be married would have to be defended here. But I will.

To be fair I fully accept marriage is normal, but what is presented as normal cannot be made into a command (and there is no bible support for making it so).

For right now I'm taking my wife on a date. Later folks!

Enjoy! :)
 

Idelette

Puritan Board Graduate
Hi Julie,

I haven't read through the entire thread yet, but I wanted to suggest a website in case you haven't heard of it! I struggled with this issue for quite sometime, and this website has been instrumental in learning more about biblical roles for women and what God created women specifically for! I may write more after I finish reading this thread, but, I truly hope that you will be able to glean much from this resource! It has been incredibly useful to me!

CBMW

And this link specifically will answer many of your questions thoroughly: http://www.cbmw.org/Resources/Evang...Vision-of-Manhood-and-Womanhood-in-the-Church
 

Contra_Mundum

Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger
Staff member
Should a "talented" woman teacher be teaching a mixed group?

As far as a church-function goes, inside our church or by its sponsorship, there will be no religious instruction taught to a mixed group of believing men and women by a woman. This would be the case whether Sunday worship, or Sunday School, or a midweek Bible study. I can see a presentation being made with church sponsorship, mid week and not as a teaching ministry, by JoniET, but that's where I'd draw the line.

A "Deborah" situation is hardly a proper appeal, since it is evident in the story itself that Israel was painfully lacking in male leadership. If the church needs a godly woman leader like that, they better hope they get someone like Deborah, who rebukes Barak for not showing enough faith-character, and calling her out to war with him.

The principle of exercising an authority-function--in this case teaching--doesn't start and stop between the hours of eleven and twelve o'clock (for instance) on Sunday. Discipline is a 24/7 governmental process. Talent for teaching, leading, governance--none of that is relevant, if the regular order of things is to be followed. Unless there are no men who WILL lead, in which case her main job is to be like Deborah, and goad one to lead.

If it isn't a church-function, then the church doesn't have direct jurisdiction over that arena in our culture.

Sometimes there are radio-shows that are oriented to women. If a man listens and gets insight, OK. But the show wasn't billed as "for him." He's sort-of eavesdropping, in a non-invasive way.

But I wouldn't recommend a man cultivating a taste for a woman-teacher. With the availability of male teachers on recorded media, why should a grown man pursue sitting under a lady's "ministry"? And I mean "pursuit" and not "opportunity." I'm talking about a man who says, "I want her to rule me, biblically."

If he says, "Because her style suits me," of something similar, that's not a good reason, if in fact he shouldn't be so suited morally. That's akin to someone saying that he prefers to swipe lunch, because he's "good at it, and God wants me to use my light-fingered talents."

The "God-made-me-this-way" defense is terrible, whether it is the woman or the man. It is subjective, and not objective, in moral-methodology.
 

Scott1

Puritanboard Commissioner
Thanks, Reverend Buchanan

You have articulated this well and clearly... and with much foresight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top