Women theologians?

[Semper Fidelis]

Perhaps it's possible for women to have vocations as long as they fulfill their Vocation. This is a general observation and should not be interpreted as maligning anybody's views.

The command to "Be fruitful and multiply" and "Subdue the Earth" was given to the couple. Eve's job was to help Adam in that calling and Adam had headship of the union but it was given to the two of them.

If we wish to define a man's Vocation (with a capital V) then we could state that he has only one Vocation as well. Part of that includes his responsibility in his rule over Creation in the job he has chosen but a great part of it certainly includes his work in the home loving and training his wife and children.

One might argue that a man's chosen profession is not his true Vocation as well. For my part, however, I consider my chosen profession to be a calling. Certainly a calling to work and to effort that is subordinate to my larger calling but it is a vocation nevertheless and not merely my job.

I'll let people draw their own convictions about the propriety of their wives or daughters in the workplace. For my part, however, while I agree that a woman's heart should be in the home there is a real sense in which, in a different direction, the man's cannot blithely forget the home either. That said, I believe women should be excellent in what they do and well-educated for the task in the home. They should have a heart for the home but never trained or taught that their interests or expectations have to end there.

I have dear friends that never intend to educate their daughter beyond high school because "Why does someone whose primary vocation is in the home need more education?" I think that's a wooden and immature view of what a woman's caling is. I'm not accusing anybody here of that view but that is where Godly wisdom is misinterpreted and immaturely skewed.

The fact is that there is little clear didactic teaching on what a woman must do in the home or workplace and what they must not do. It's a matter of wisdom and prudence. But in a place where wisdom ought to speak, some Christians like to create hard rules that not only stifle the intellectual development of young women but also robs others' liberty in the matter. While feminists have maligned the profoundly important role of the wife and mother, some proud Christians now malign and judge any effort of women to pursue a vocation outside of the home making their convictions the rule of Law.

My wife and I waited until she completed her Master's Degree prior to the beginning of our family. She is now able to focus full time on our two (soon to be three) children. She gladly puts aside her vocation for a long season for the Vocation of raising and caring for our children. For my part, I am very happy to have a well-educated wife with a very sharp and wise mind who will have the most profound impact on the spiritual and intellectual development of my children. It is not my intention to malign any wives with less education but I am very blessed to have a wife that knows the rigors of study and can instill discipline and help my son and daughters with more than a 12th grade education.

I intend to raise my daughters to be excellent in everything they do to the Glory of God. I will support their education as far as their hearts and talents will take them. They will learn to be lovely, nurturing, firm, and the prime role of motherhod by seeing it in their Mother and having the two of us teach them. But I wish to train them to be excellent in other qualities that will make them even more wonderful Mothers. I want my grandkids educated by well-educated women who aimed for more than the bare minimum.

Finally, it is not an ungodly concern to consider what happens if I die while my children are young (or my future wives' husbands die young). It is certainly nice to wax rhapsodic about the good old tribal days when my brother would take my wife in but I don't live in those days and lamenting does not make it so. I trust in Providence but I am also to "...consider the ant." It is imprudent to ill prepare a woman with no real job skills in a culture that I cannot presume upon. She will trust in God but keep her powder dry.

[Edited on 1-23-2006 by SemperFideles]

 

[Ex Nihilo]

Originally posted by SemperFideles

Perhaps it's possible for women to have vocations as long as they fulfill their Vocation. This is a general observation and should not be interpreted as maligning anybody's views...

Thank you so much for your entire post. I found it incredibly encouraging and edifying. Sometimes the views of much-respected brothers and sisters cause me to wonder if this path I seem to be on (heading to graduate school this fall) is really acceptable for me as a woman--and at the same time, I have a deeper confidence that this is really what I'm supposed to be doing right now and that it is right and proper for me to take my father's guidance as confirmation. It's difficult when I'm pushing traditional boundaries not to wonder if I'm attempting to justify something that isn't right, after all--but what you write helps me so much in seeing that my education is part of my role as a Christian woman, not something that is barely allowed.

 

[Puritanhead]

** sits idle in amusement**

 

[kceaster]

Mark,

I am not offended, nor is my wife. I was using debate in the good light, not as argumentative.

Rich,

I appreciate that distinction between big v and small v. I understand where you're coming from.

Evie,

I think that women should be afforded as much education as they want. And it is clear that you are under the headship of your father in the matter. So I don't see any problem with what you're doing. I would be concerned if you chose a career over a husband, or if married, a career over motherhood. But from what you've said, I don't think you want that. Calling isn't a tightrope, it is a framework. I was simply saying that in the framework of a woman, their calling is to be daughter, wife, and mother. The article seemed to suggest that a woman could have a vocation for which she would have a career within the confines of either church or parachurch organizations. It seemed to me something bigger than what I'm comfortable with. I hope I have not offended you. As I said before, I don't wish to be dogmatic about it.

In Christ,

KC

 

[Ex Nihilo]

Originally posted by kceaster
I hope I have not offended you. As I said before, I don't wish to be dogmatic about it.

Certainly not! I appreciate your thoughts.

 

[puritangirl]

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon

Women should be afforded every opportunity to know as much as a man does about God and His Redeemer. But all that knowledge is tempered within her calling as wife and mother.

Titus 2:4-5 that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed.

oivkouro,j {oy-koo-ros'}
"Caring for the house, working at home; the (watch or) keeper of the house; keeping at home and taking care of household affairs 1c) a domestic

 

[Mike]

Originally posted by tcalbrecht

Originally posted by trevorjohnson
What do we call folks who have not these degrees? Spurgeon, Bunyan and others? Were they not theologians?

I certainly would not consider Spurgeon a theologian. Godly, insightful pastor, yes, but not a theologian. I think skill (more than the requirements for your typical M.Div. program) in the original languages is an essential to be considered a theologian. Perhaps also a working knowledge of Latin in order to understand the church fathers.

Calvin, Luther, Hodge, Machen would all qualify, but not Spurgeon or Bunyan.

Originally posted by Mike
Perhaps take the example of Gill, then?

 

[TimeRedeemer]

If you're a Christian you'd better be a theologian.

And not necessarily an original or speculative one.

If you don't exercise your own God-given discernment, and self-motivated zeal, in the process of getting understanding of biblical doctrine you're just simply not serious about doctrine and the faith in general.

We all learn from the best teachers, whether we are doing it in institutions of higher learning or in our private studies.

(Anyway, ponder what prophet, priest, and king mean and require.)

And unless we're going to say the Word of God doesn't communicate in translation (Jesus might have a different impression considering His use of the LXX) let's give proper respect and gratitude to those who know the original languages (Tyndale and predecessors, and the awesome scholars who trans. the AV1611, for instance), but let's not get Romish about such things. And let's not also overestimate what modern scholars really know in terms of being fluent in the original languages. In many cases, compared to the Elizabethans mention alone, they are delinquents and frauds.

 

[Mike]

Originally posted by TimeRedeemer
If you're a Christian you'd better be a theologian.

And not necessarily an original or speculative one.

If you don't exercise your own God-given discernment, and self-motivated zeal, in the process of getting understanding of biblical doctrine you're just simply not serious about doctrine and the faith in general.

We all learn from the best teachers, whether we are doing it in institutions of higher learning or in our private studies.

(Anyway, ponder what prophet, priest, and king mean and require.)

And unless we're going to say the Word of God doesn't communicate in translation (Jesus might have a different impression considering His use of the LXX) let's give proper respect and gratitude to those who know the original languages (Tyndale and predecessors, and the awesome scholars who trans. the AV1611, for instance), but let's not get Romish about such things. And let's not also overestimate what modern scholars really know in terms of being fluent in the original languages. In many cases, compared to the Elizabethans mention alone, they are delinquents and frauds.

I think the problem here is how we are using terms, not that anyone here is denying what you say. You are talking about a theologan as someone who studies matters of God, which we obviously do. People like tcalbrecht are using the term as one of esteem.

Someone who cooks is not necesarily a chef. Someone who conducts is not necessarily a maestro. They are using the term theologan like the latter terms. I don't tend to do that myself, but it certainly makes the issue a different one than the one I think you want to make it about.

 

[BrianBowman]

Originally posted by TimeRedeemer
. . . And let's not also overestimate what modern scholars really know in terms of being fluent in the original languages. In many cases, compared to the Elizabethans mention alone, they are delinquents and frauds.

... and that's exactly why until my original language skills, expository acumen, and knowledge of historical theology approximate those of the "old dead guys", I'll remain a disciple, but yet not a theologian.

 

[tcalbrecht]

Originally posted by Mike

Perhaps take the example of Gill, then?

While Gill was largely self-educated, there is no doubt regarding his skills in the original languages, esp. his knowledge of Hebrew. For this reason I would consider him a theologian. One can be both pastor and theologian (Calvin and Gill, for example), but being a pastor does not automatically make one a theologian.

 

[TimeRedeemer]

Yes we are using the term theologian differently. I wrote what I wrote intentionally walking over that fact. Because it's just very important to realize that not every Christian has to be a doctor or a plumber, but every Christian does have to be a theologian.

Lawfully ordained or degreed means nothing. Does that sound like an overstatement? It's not. It means literally NOTHING. Take all the lawfully ordained and officially degreed theologians and put them in a large stadium and them parachute into the midst of them, and your chances of landing on top of an on-the-mark orthodox one will be about 1 in 5,000.

God elect are such that if there is a need they will fill it. If there was a need today for an accurate translation of Scripture into English, for instance, God's people would rise to the challenge, guided and aided by the Spirit, and get it done.

This is a servant ethic, though. When the lawfully ordained and officially degreed see themselves as a class apart and 'more' of a theologian in any way than the lowliest of God's elect they get off-the-mark and worse.

[Edited on 1-25-2006 by TimeRedeemer]

 

[Dieter Schneider]

If you are right then the apostles were no theologians - and where does it leave the Son of God?

 

[Gryphonette]

In y'all hadn't come across it yet, the Bayly brothers (Tim and David) have a blog and have addressed this rather extensively.

Here's a post from Dec. of 2005 which talks about this particular article. If one wishes to read the other posts regarding Carolyn Custis James, just click on the tag.

(BTW, in the spirit of full disclosure, the "Anne" who comments is moi.)

 

[Archlute]

I realize that this is an old thread, but I'll post my 2 cents anyways.

Developing scenarios, such as what we read in the article, are exactly why I have held that women should not be allowed to attend seminary in the first place. Seminary should be a training ground for the church's ministers and ordained theologians, period. Any lay training should take place through those men, and in the church. Otherwise what happens is that you have a bunch of women who attend seminary, who then become frustrated that they have no outlet for their education, who then want to step outside the bounds of their proper position within the church/home, who then put pressure on the minsters of their churches and administrators of the churches' seminaries to expand the boundaries of appropriate interaction, and follow up articles are written by feminists like Custis (who is obviously trying to abuse her wrongly acquired seminary training), and denominations slide into liberalism.

I do not believe that seminary should be an equal opportunity enroller -too bad for all the egalitarians that I just offended. I don't believe that I should be studying with women in my pastoral theology courses, such as the Senior Seminar capstone. I don't find it amusing that the prof appointed the only women in one of the class groupings to be their "suzerain head" and appointed spokesman, even in jest. I like the fact that although GPTS allows women to study the M.A., they have made explicit that those said women are to sit humbly in class, and not assert themselves in debate with other male students or "lecture" those men or the profs in discussion.

I also think that it is a perversion of the creation order that our country employs women as police officers, security guards, armed forces, executive heads, etc. I've been called a bigot before, but I don't mind. Usually the same individuals who accuse me of that, also harbor sympathy for the gay agenda, and various other perversions of the said creation order. And yes, these folk can be found in the church (which is where I've caught the vast majority of flak on this issue).

 

[etexas]

I realize that this is an old thread, but I'll post my 2 cents anyways.

Developing scenarios, such as what we read in the article, are exactly why I have held that women should not be allowed to attend seminary in the first place. Seminary should be a training ground for the church's ministers and ordained theologians, period. Any lay training should take place through those men, and in the church. Otherwise what happens is that you have a bunch of women who attend seminary, who then become frustrated that they have no outlet for their education, who then want to step outside the bounds of their proper position within the church/home, who then put pressure on the minsters of their churches and administrators of the churches' seminaries to expand the boundaries of appropriate interaction, and follow up articles are written by feminists like Custis (who is obviously trying to abuse her wrongly acquired seminary training), and denominations slide into liberalism.

I do not believe that seminary should be an equal opportunity enroller -too bad for all the egalitarians that I just offended. I don't believe that I should be studying with women in my pastoral theology courses, such as the Senior Seminar capstone. I don't find it amusing that the prof appointed the only women in one of the class groupings to be their "suzerain head" and appointed spokesman, even in jest. I like the fact that although GPTS allows women to study the M.A., they have made explicit that those said women are to sit humbly in class, and not assert themselves in debate with other male students or "lecture" those men or the profs in discussion.

I also think that it is a perversion of the creation order that our country employs women as police officers, security guards, armed forces, executive heads, etc. I've been called a bigot before, but I don't mind. Usually the same individuals who accuse me of that, also harbor sympathy for the gay agenda, and various other perversions of the said creation order. And yes, these folk can be found in the church (which is where I've caught the vast majority of flak on this issue).

Amen.

 

[calgal]

I realize that this is an old thread, but I'll post my 2 cents anyways.

Developing scenarios, such as what we read in the article, are exactly why I have held that women should not be allowed to attend seminary in the first place. Seminary should be a training ground for the church's ministers and ordained theologians, period. Any lay training should take place through those men, and in the church. Otherwise what happens is that you have a bunch of women who attend seminary, who then become frustrated that they have no outlet for their education, who then want to step outside the bounds of their proper position within the church/home, who then put pressure on the minsters of their churches and administrators of the churches' seminaries to expand the boundaries of appropriate interaction, and follow up articles are written by feminists like Custis (who is obviously trying to abuse her wrongly acquired seminary training), and denominations slide into liberalism.

I do not believe that seminary should be an equal opportunity enroller -too bad for all the egalitarians that I just offended. I don't believe that I should be studying with women in my pastoral theology courses, such as the Senior Seminar capstone. I don't find it amusing that the prof appointed the only women in one of the class groupings to be their "suzerain head" and appointed spokesman, even in jest. I like the fact that although GPTS allows women to study the M.A., they have made explicit that those said women are to sit humbly in class, and not assert themselves in debate with other male students or "lecture" those men or the profs in discussion.

I also think that it is a perversion of the creation order that our country employs women as police officers, security guards, armed forces, executive heads, etc. I've been called a bigot before, but I don't mind. Usually the same individuals who accuse me of that, also harbor sympathy for the gay agenda, and various other perversions of the said creation order. And yes, these folk can be found in the church (which is where I've caught the vast majority of flak on this issue).

What is the proper position of women in church or at home? What happens when the husband is unable to work? What about when husband is laid off from their job? And if the husband works 2 or 3 jobs to support the family is he really head of the household?

 

[Archlute]

What is the proper position of women in church or at home? What happens when the husband is unable to work? What about when husband is laid off from their job? And if the husband works 2 or 3 jobs to support the family is he really head of the household?

The husband is head of the household by God's appointment. This is true whether or not he happens to be disabled, unemployed, or working multiple jobs to support his family (as an aside, why would a man's working two or three jobs make him any less of a head in your opinion?). The idea that the one who "brings home the bacon" is therefore the head of the house is not a biblical idea.

Sure, the man needs to support his family, but in our modern egalitarian age, where you may have a wife bringing home more money as a pediatrician (when she should be raising a family) than her husband who happens to be an electrician, should the wife be seen as the head just because she makes more money? Sadly, this thinking often does affect the marriage relationship, as I have a friend in a position similar to this. Part of his problem is black culture (where male leadership is often abdicated), and part of it is that his wife brings home much more money than he does. She basically runs the show, even to the point of deciding where they will go to church. Who is the head of the home here in God's eyes? The answer is that it is still the man, even though his wife doesn't recognize it, and he needs to step up to the plate.

If you'd like to know the proper role of women in the church and in the home, study these passages: Acts 18:24-26; Romans 16:1-15; 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, 14:34-35; Ephesians 5:22-24; Colossians 3:18; 1 Timothy 2:9-15; Titus 2:3-5; Hebrews 11:31; 1 Peter 3:1-6; there are others, but these are primary passages.

What we gather from these passages is that a woman should display a modest, humble, and submissive attitude within the church and home; that she should be given to hospitality, the younger women raising children at home, the older women instructing the younger in the ways of Christian home management and life; that she should be desirous to learn, to teach her children, even to instruct other Christians on a one-on-one basis with her spouse (see Acts 18), but never to teach the church in a formal capacity in theological or biblical areas, nor to teach the men who will become future ministers by way of seminary classroom.

If there is discontent among the women in our churches regarding these things, it shows that we have failed them by giving them formal study that they should not have, that we have not sufficiently instructed our young women regarding the glorious role that they have been appointed to fill in both home and church, and that we have been cowed by the pressures of the world, allowing those patterns to shape the thought and life of the church, rather than having the church be formed by the Scriptures.

 

[Davidius]

I do not believe that seminary should be an equal opportunity enroller -too bad for all the egalitarians that I just offended. I don't believe that I should be studying with women in my pastoral theology courses, such as the Senior Seminar capstone. I don't find it amusing that the prof appointed the only women in one of the class groupings to be their "suzerain head" and appointed spokesman, even in jest.

This is at WSC?

 

[Archlute]

Yeah, I have been less than impressed with things like this that have happened on several occasions.

In fact, during my first semester I got into a slight tangle during class with a prof who said he was going to mark up our papers whenever we failed to use gender neutral language. I told him I had just finished going through that garbage at a liberal state university, and that I wasn't about to let him push it on me at an institution that was supposed to be the flagship Reformed seminary in the U.S. We haven't been on very good terms since. I, however, do not much care for how popular a prof may be in broader reformed circles, if he's compromising on an issue like that, I'm going to call him on it.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Excellent comments, Adam. I've debated this very issue with a WSC professor on the PB before, and I thought at the time that I was the only PB'er to hold such views.

 

[calgal]

The husband is head of the household by God's appointment. This is true whether or not he happens to be disabled, unemployed, or working multiple jobs to support his family (as an aside, why would a man's working two or three jobs make him any less of a head in your opinion?). The idea that the one who "brings home the bacon" is therefore the head of the house is not a biblical idea.

Sure, the man needs to support his family, but in our modern egalitarian age, where you may have a wife bringing home more money as a pediatrician (when she should be raising a family) than her husband who happens to be an electrician, should the wife be seen as the head just because she makes more money? Sadly, this thinking often does affect the marriage relationship, as I have a friend in a position similar to this. Part of his problem is black culture (where male leadership is often abdicated), and part of it is that his wife brings home much more money than he does. She basically runs the show, even to the point of deciding where they will go to church. Who is the head of the home here in God's eyes? The answer is that it is still the man, even though his wife doesn't recognize it, and he needs to step up to the plate.

If you'd like to know the proper role of women in the church and in the home, study these passages: Acts 18:24-26; Romans 16:1-15; 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, 14:34-35; Ephesians 5:22-24; Colossians 3:18; 1 Timothy 2:9-15; Titus 2:3-5; Hebrews 11:31; 1 Peter 3:1-6; there are others, but these are primary passages.

What we gather from these passages is that a woman should display a modest, humble, and submissive attitude within the church and home; that she should be given to hospitality, the younger women raising children at home, the older women instructing the younger in the ways of Christian home management and life; that she should be desirous to learn, to teach her children, even to instruct other Christians on a one-on-one basis with her spouse (see Acts 18), but never to teach the church in a formal capacity in theological or biblical areas, nor to teach the men who will become future ministers by way of seminary classroom.

If there is discontent among the women in our churches regarding these things, it shows that we have failed them by giving them formal study that they should not have, that we have not sufficiently instructed our young women regarding the glorious role that they have been appointed to fill in both home and church, and that we have been cowed by the pressures of the world, allowing those patterns to shape the thought and life of the church, rather than having the church be formed by the Scriptures.

I agree the man is head of the household. I brought the question of the husband working 2 and 3 jobs so the wife could stay home up to a pastor friend after hearing MacArthur discussing the issue of women staying home. His reply was that the man is in sin: he is not with the family enough to be an effective head of the household. He would counsel that family to share the workload. I have relatives who worked 2 or 3 jobs to allow mom to stay home. Daddy was either at work or asleep and is NOT to be disturbed. Dad working 80+ hours a week means he is not as involved in the daily life of the family. How is headship lived out in that scenario?

When the man is disabled or sick as in end stage renal failure, ALS, MS, MD, stage 3 and above cancer where the wife working means they get decent medical care, wouldn't having the wife work be advisable? The church can and should assist the family but the church cannot pay for medical expenses (and the expenses are insanely high). Same thing goes for a husband being laid off and needing the second income while husband is looking for full time employment. And the woman needs enough of an education to be able to do more than flip burgers. When mom is working to afford the BMW's and Lake Havasu trips, there is a problem. Lastly, if God gives a woman a gift in medicine or teaching, why would He give her that gift if He did not want her using it? And women can teach other women in a formal capacity. We are not discussing Elderettes: that IS unbiblical. A female speaker for a WIC (Women in the Church) meeting should teach in biblical areas. Should she not?

 

[Gryphonette]

Wow! Most excellent, to be sure.

In fact, during my first semester I got into a slight tangle during class with a prof who said he was going to mark up our papers whenever we failed to use gender neutral language. I told him I had just finished going through that garbage at a liberal state university, and that I wasn't about to let him push it on me at an institution that was supposed to be the flagship Reformed seminary in the U.S. We haven't been on very good terms since. I, however, do not much care for how popular a prof may be in broader reformed circles, if he's compromising on an issue like that, I'm going to call him on it.

 

[CDM]

I realize that this is an old thread, but I'll post my 2 cents anyways.

Developing scenarios, such as what we read in the article, are exactly why I have held that women should not be allowed to attend seminary in the first place. Seminary should be a training ground for the church's ministers and ordained theologians, period. Any lay training should take place through those men, and in the church. Otherwise what happens is that you have a bunch of women who attend seminary, who then become frustrated that they have no outlet for their education, who then want to step outside the bounds of their proper position within the church/home, who then put pressure on the minsters of their churches and administrators of the churches' seminaries to expand the boundaries of appropriate interaction, and follow up articles are written by feminists like Custis (who is obviously trying to abuse her wrongly acquired seminary training), and denominations slide into liberalism.

I do not believe that seminary should be an equal opportunity enroller -too bad for all the egalitarians that I just offended. I don't believe that I should be studying with women in my pastoral theology courses, such as the Senior Seminar capstone. I don't find it amusing that the prof appointed the only women in one of the class groupings to be their "suzerain head" and appointed spokesman, even in jest. I like the fact that although GPTS allows women to study the M.A., they have made explicit that those said women are to sit humbly in class, and not assert themselves in debate with other male students or "lecture" those men or the profs in discussion.

I also think that it is a perversion of the creation order that our country employs women as police officers, security guards, armed forces, executive heads, etc. I've been called a bigot before, but I don't mind. Usually the same individuals who accuse me of that, also harbor sympathy for the gay agenda, and various other perversions of the said creation order. And yes, these folk can be found in the church (which is where I've caught the vast majority of flak on this issue).

:APPLAUSE:

 

[CDM]

I realize that this is an old thread, but I'll post my 2 cents anyways.

Developing scenarios, such as what we read in the article, are exactly why I have held that women should not be allowed to attend seminary in the first place. Seminary should be a training ground for the church's ministers and ordained theologians, period. Any lay training should take place through those men, and in the church. Otherwise what happens is that you have a bunch of women who attend seminary, who then become frustrated that they have no outlet for their education, who then want to step outside the bounds of their proper position within the church/home, who then put pressure on the minsters of their churches and administrators of the churches' seminaries to expand the boundaries of appropriate interaction, and follow up articles are written by feminists like Custis (who is obviously trying to abuse her wrongly acquired seminary training), and denominations slide into liberalism.

I do not believe that seminary should be an equal opportunity enroller -too bad for all the egalitarians that I just offended. I don't believe that I should be studying with women in my pastoral theology courses, such as the Senior Seminar capstone. I don't find it amusing that the prof appointed the only women in one of the class groupings to be their "suzerain head" and appointed spokesman, even in jest. I like the fact that although GPTS allows women to study the M.A., they have made explicit that those said women are to sit humbly in class, and not assert themselves in debate with other male students or "lecture" those men or the profs in discussion.

I also think that it is a perversion of the creation order that our country employs women as police officers, security guards, armed forces, executive heads, etc. I've been called a bigot before, but I don't mind. Usually the same individuals who accuse me of that, also harbor sympathy for the gay agenda, and various other perversions of the said creation order. And yes, these folk can be found in the church (which is where I've caught the vast majority of flak on this issue).

This is a major part of my reasons for leaving RTS and joining with GPTS this semester.

 

[CDM]

See this new thread: The Place of Women in the Church

 

[satz]

I agree the man is head of the household. I brought the question of the husband working 2 and 3 jobs so the wife could stay home up to a pastor friend after hearing MacArthur discussing the issue of women staying home. His reply was that the man is in sin: he is not with the family enough to be an effective head of the household. He would counsel that family to share the workload. I have relatives who worked 2 or 3 jobs to allow mom to stay home. Daddy was either at work or asleep and is NOT to be disturbed. Dad working 80+ hours a week means he is not as involved in the daily life of the family. How is headship lived out in that scenario?

When the man is disabled or sick as in end stage renal failure, ALS, MS, MD, stage 3 and above cancer where the wife working means they get decent medical care, wouldn't having the wife work be advisable? The church can and should assist the family but the church cannot pay for medical expenses (and the expenses are insanely high). Same thing goes for a husband being laid off and needing the second income while husband is looking for full time employment. And the woman needs enough of an education to be able to do more than flip burgers. When mom is working to afford the BMW's and Lake Havasu trips, there is a problem. Lastly, if God gives a woman a gift in medicine or teaching, why would He give her that gift if He did not want her using it? And women can teach other women in a formal capacity. We are not discussing Elderettes: that IS unbiblical. A female speaker for a WIC (Women in the Church) meeting should teach in biblical areas. Should she not?

I am fairly sure that in the sorts of 'extreme' situations you describe, there is no sin in the wife going to out to work. If a wife is created be a help 'meet' or suited for her husband then surely she ought to help him in the particular areas of life he needs help, even financially. There is a lot of chaos regarding the roles of men and women today, but to take the position that a christian man is a wimp if he doesn't work multiple shifts and 20 hour days so that his wife can stay home is a conservative overreaction. If despite his most diligent efforts a man is pressed to make ends meet financially, he obviously needs help, and who else is charged primarily with helping him than his wife?

Regarding the general idea of the wife working, I do not believe it is inconsistent with godly womanhood per se. Even the fourth and tenth commandments imply the existence of a class of woman in OT Israel called maidservants. So it is not God's moral will that a woman is not to be anything else apart from a homemaker (though that is still an important part of who she is today). It is simply a matter of getting her priorities right. If she is taking care of her family and home, she can work beyond that. Whether it is even possible for her to do so will depend on the individual circumstance of each family, as well as her husband's preferences.