Women Speaking at a Conference

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

So wouldn't counseling be considered one function of a pastor rather than an exclusive office in an of itself that can be held by anyone?
 
Yes, Heidi, in response to the question in your first paragraph. Just to be clear, I have no problem with a woman teaching the academic disciplines in a college or university.

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

Peace,
Alan

Dr. Strange,

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

CT
 
Hermonta,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace,
Alan

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

CT
 
Originally Posted by Alan D. Strange

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace,
Alan
 
Originally Posted by Alan D. Strange

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace,
Alan

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

CT
 
Last edited:
Hermonta:

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

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

Peace,
Alan
 
If this conference isnt a place where corporate worship is taking place then "you go girl"!
 
The world treats the Church's distinction between men and women as arbitrary, with nothing but tradition backing it up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace,
Alan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lydia had a business of her own. Priscilla also seems to be in trade along with her husband as a tentmaker. Teaching literature may be a more educated trade, but it is still a trade. If it's fine for women to be involved in uneducated trades, but not in educated ones -- why is that?
 
I can't even imagine what the host of reasons would be that I should prefer that a man teach literature. Men have deeper voices and can read more dramatically? Men are taller and can reach books on the top shelf? You've really got me there.

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

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

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

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

My freshman honors English prof was a very masculine lesbian. Is that close enough?
 
I doubt anyone here is actually arguing that it's against scripture for women to hold a job or own a business.

Right?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think that Caroline is doing a wonderful job of responding to questions that have been posed and/or implied throughout this thread.
 
Women teaching grown men in Sunday school is a no no as Sunday school is part of the church worship service.
 
I agree that women teaching men in Sunday School is not a good idea (or as you say a "no no")...
HOWEVER, Sunday School (Sabbath School, Catechism Class, Adult Education etc.) is NOT part of the church "worship service."

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

Now, if several of the member of a congregation go to someone's house after they leave the Kirk on the Lord's Day or they gather some other day of the week and discuss Scripture together ... I think the rules change.
 
At the end of the day, I do not dogmatically hold that women should not be able to hold authority over a man outside of the domestic or eccleisiastical spheres but I have yet to see any good counters to the argument that I put forward earlier.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace,
Alan

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

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

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

NANC (and I am assuming CCEF as well) is very big on women counseling other women, so this may be the reason for inclusion of women at the CCEF national conference.
 
Thanks, Hermonta. That's very helpful to see you position more fully.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The median man in America today will make less over his career, in real terms, than his grandfather did. That messes with the building blocks of our society.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top