Mothers Saved in Childbearing? Part 2

[Susan R] I don’t think so, not by default. I am taught by testimony, example, and sometimes just casual conversation. The Holy Spirit often uses what a person says in passing to spark something in my own mind and heart- so there is the position of ‘teacher’ and then there is the kind of teaching that takes place in a more organic manner.

I think that the type of teaching to which the context refers is very evident in 1 Timothy 2. The women are to keep silent in this context, which supports the idea of formal teaching. 1 Tim 3 rolls right into the qualifications of an overseer, including qualifications regarding teaching (which carries the idea of mastery of information) as well. The related (parallel?) passage in 1 Cor 14:34-35 is even more clarifying, indicating that it is formal teaching in view, rather than teaching by example. The prohibition is for teaching in a formal sense. In the verses just preceding these prohibitions, Paul instructed women on how their dress and conduct should be as godly women (1 Tim 2:9-10). They ARE to be displaying godly character. Godly example is not a violation of this prohibition, but in perfect company with it.

I agree with you that there are settings in which we all learn, including example, or even silence (1 Peter 3:1). We are to be teaching and admonishing one another, but that hardly conjures up a classroom setting. I address that more fully in the link I provided earlier on a broader study of “[URL=http://www.northridgebaptist.com/Teaching/OT/GenesisFoundations/gen01/0…] Who Teaches the Believer[/URL].” For lack of better terms, I identify 2 types of teaching in the Bible: formal (positional, root-level, “rightly dividing the Word” teaching done by pastors) and informal (repetitious, sharing what we have learned with others as we interact with them). Part of the problem is that people combine the two and thus confuse the two. The former (formal) has specific requirements and is an identified position appointed by God (of which I believe James 3:1 relates), and the latter has NO requirements or qualifications per se (of which I would include Titus 2:3-5 and Col 3:16). There is a distinct difference in Scripture between the two, even in the pattern of training those to teach (2 Tim 2:2).

[Susan R] I also don’t see how the lack of a mandate becomes a prohibition, or we must needs dispense with Sunday School, youth groups, church buildings, and modern comforts and technology. I mean, when’s the last time someone in the congregation fell out of a window because the preacher went on all night?

That is a dangerous argument. The lack of a mandate would remove marriage between a man and a woman. Marriage is based upon God’s pattern, not any command. Jesus refers to the pattern when discussing divorce, but issues no command - the pattern was clear enough. The Law reinforced the concept with many prohibitions, but never, to my knowledge, commands marriage. You find no hint for women’s Bible studies in Scripture. You do find the use of buildings, as well as the technology and comforts available in their day. You find no particular method of teaching required or illustrated, but SS is theoretically teaching, so that in and of itself is right. Youth groups, if taught by the “few teachers” (James 3:1), presumably those identified in Eph 4:11-12, would seem Biblical. I won’t start an argument about whether there should be a distinct “youth” group (I lean away from that myself).

There is a very clear imperative in 1 Timothy regarding women. “Let the women learn in silence with all submission” (1 Tim 2:11). There are some implicit commands regarding clothing and conduct (1 Tim 2:9-10), and two direct prohibitions by the Apostle regarding teaching and leading men (along with his support for them).

These clear instructions in 1 Timothy 2 should have most churches changing the way they do handle many ministries (even IF this were just for the church setting). Most churches ignore these mandates that ARE given in 1 Timothy 2, wouldn’t you say? The mandates in that chapter are extensions of patterns (like marriage) from Genesis. God did things the way He did on purpose, for specific reasons. He created Adam first on purpose (as Paul indicates). He commands Adam regarding the trees prior to creating Eve on purpose. He comes to Adam (not Adam and Eve) directly after the fall on purpose. If we ignore creation patterns and mandates (like the 5 clear commands in Genesis 1:28, which, being mandates, are still greatly ignored, or not taken seriously, wouldn’t you say?). Mandates seem to make little difference in our modern churches.

[Susan R] Older women are commanded to teach young women certain things- we agree on that, and I agree with you more than I disagree- but I’ve seen no Biblical restrictions on this being accomplished in a group setting ‘on purpose’.

You also see no Biblical mandate, evidence, illustration, or hint of such a group setting in the Bible. You do find the clear provision of pastor-teachers (Eph 4:11-12; 1 Tim 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9) and the clear prohibition not to have many teachers (James 3:1). The pastor-teachers given to equip the saints seemed adequate then. I would say that those that want to do such things should first prove their existence in any such way. A lack of written prohibition would not eliminate (or circumvent) what God did set in place.

It does seem, too, that the idea of groups (which require teachers) not only sets aside the pastors, but also under-estimates the intensity required to study (1 Tim 5:17) and the difficulty in getting it right (2 Tim 2:15 - written not to the congregation or AWANA, but specifically to a pastor, even after 20 years of pastoring in some fashion or another!) Wanting to teach does not qualify one to teach (man or woman). I believe that this is the danger implied in James 3:1, and which is illustrated in 1 Timothy 1:7, where men who do not really know what they are talking about are teaching: “desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm.” Bible studies can be dangerous, and I believe often are, because people are teaching some book contents that they really didn’t study themselves (from Scripture), do not have the ability to authenticate or deny what is in the book. (In fact, many have no idea what the author’s background or theology is when doing so.) It takes much more work to study the Bible and get it right than what most Bible study leaders are able or willing to invest (and that is not a slam on those that try - it is just the point of 2 Tim 2:15 - it takes lots of time with proper skill to “cut it right.”)

If you do have older women teaching younger women in groups, what qualifies them to do so? What is the basis for selecting them? You have clear qualifications for pastors. You have no qualifications for any other position. How do these responsibilities differ from pastoring?

Why would 1 Tim 5 not hint at teaching as a sign of a godly woman? (1 Tim 5:9-10) Why would 1 Tim not direct younger widows to such a worthy calling? (1 Tim 5:11-14, and remember, young = under 60!).

[Susan R] However, I do believe that there is a lack of mentoring in favor of study groups and fellowships, which IMO accounts for the shallow nature of our relationships and the lack of daily admonishing and encouraging that probably should be taking place.

Agreed. In fact, I think such activities actually displace the informal one-on-one mentoring that is to take place. It eases our minds, maybe? It is not what is instructed, even IF it is not prohibited. If we are not doing what we ARE clearly commanded to do, why replace it with something not clearly indicated?

[Susan R] And if an older woman is teaching a younger woman Biblical principles of marriage, child rearing, and overall good character, how does she do so without teaching what Scripture has to say about those things, and how do you separate those things from their foundation in solid theology?

I agree in principle. However, I don’t think Titus 3-5 is primarily looking at theological type studies. That passage seems to relate to living out good theology (applied theology), based upon what they have been taught, what God’s pattern is, and what is revealed in Scripture (“be obedient to their own husbands, that the Word of God be not blasphemed” is applied theology, right?) The “topics” seem to relate to heart attitudes and perspectives that a woman is to have, and their resultant out-workings in day to day life in their callings as women:

to love their husbands (“husband-enjoyers”)

to love their children, (“children-enjoyers”)

to be discreet (“sensible” - much like O.T. “discerning”)

chaste (“holy,” “pure” - relates to women as women, like 1 Tim 2:9-10)

homemakers (“houseworkers” or “houseguards” - a position of homemaker, which begins in the heart - not a wanderer or busybody, but home-centered)

good (“good” in action - hard to improve on that - must know what “good” means),

“obedient to their own husbands” - all the way back to Genesis “that the word of God may not be blasphemed.” (because of God’s patterns and commands)

[Susan R] But to come back to the appropriate focus of women on family and nurturing- even if they aren’t married or have children themselves. I know a young woman who is a missionary to Chile, and will be teaching ESL in the public schools, as well as classes on purity and modesty with the Bible as a textbook. She’s living out Scriptural singlehood by focusing on serving God without distraction, but her role is still a nurturing one, and she will be working under the leadership of a pastor and a local missionary family.

She sounds like a wonderful example of Biblical womanhood in action. Not everyone will get married, but those who do not are free to focus more fully on the Lord.

[Susan R] There’s nothing in Scripture that contradicts what she’s doing and how she’s doing it. We do have examples of women ministering in a variety of ways, but the problem is that we have few specifics from which to create a list of dogmatic do’s and don’t’s. (Mary and Martha, Dorcas, Phoebe, Priscilla, Lydia…)

But those examples are our examples, and should at least give us cause to think deeply before jumping into endeavors which they did not wander into. They present patterns of service, much like what you find in the list in 1 Tim 5:9-10 and Proverbs 31. No Bible studies, which to say but one more time, was (and is) the job of the few teachers (James 3:1) which God appoints (Eph 4:11-12) to do the difficult study of the Word (2 Tim 2:15; 1 Tim 5:17-18).

Keep chewing on this. My mind changed over many years of study, not from an SI interchange ;>D.

Keep chewing on this. My mind changed over many years of study, not from an SI interchange ;>D.

True, but places like SI often give me questions to ask myself that I didn’t even know needed asking. Thanks for taking the time to address my posts.

[Susan R] True, but places like SI often give me questions to ask myself that I didn’t even know needed asking. Thanks for taking the time to address my posts.

Agree! My comment was with no disdain for SI or such formats (though I can spend little time on them). I was just indicating that my responses are not with the expectation of persuading anyone, but with the hope of provoking some to at least consider and think about differing viewpoints. Sharper Iron has helped me (even in this series of interactions) to be, well, sharpened. :)

I understand what you are saying, Aaron. However, I do not believe that the arguments from creation can be pigeon-holed to a church setting in any way. That is the setting, but the text or Paul’s support does not restrict this in such a way.

Just from a logical standpoint, I’m not sure it works to say that a writer who is making a church-order point uses non-church-order evidence and therefore makes a non-church-order point, even though that was not his aim.

On the other hand, because he is inspired, what Paul says about creation and fall there is itself authoritative. He is either affirming or revealing a principle. But what exactly is the principle? He does not spell it out in the form of a broader point. He does not say:

“Man was made first, woman was deceived, therefore, in all things leadership should be male.”

There is no “therefore” at all except the therefore that church should be ordered with male leadership.

An analogy might help. Suppose I tell my kids, “Matches start fires, therefore I don’t want you using them in the house.” Are they on solid ground to reason “Matches start fires so we should not use them anywhere”?

Need a better analogy, but it’ll have to do for the moment.

My point is that we do not know that the creation order and the role of deception in the Fall has anything to do with the authority of women at all except that Paul has used these to regulate church life. So on what basis can we say that his observation is intended to regulate life elsewhere?

OK, something clicked. We could reason that because Paul connects creation order and fall deception to the appropriateness of women in authority in the church, he is revealing that creation-order and fall-deception do relate to women’s authority in some way. That broader idea is a necessary, though unstated, premise to get to Paul’s conclusion.

So, Kevin, would it be fair to say that in your view Paul’s reasoning is:

a) the creation order and role of deception in the Fall have implications for fitness for authority (unstated)

b) man was made first and woman was deceived

c) therefore woman should not have authority over man at all (unstated)

d) therefore woman should not have authority over man in the church

This involves two unstated premises. The first I think is necessary. The second, “c”, I think is plausible but not necessitated by the passage because you can get to “d” without it, especially given that Paul does not explain the nature of the implications of creation-order and fall-deception.

So my argument is that, given what we see women doing occasionally (apparently with God’s blessing) elsewhere in Scripture, the unstated premise “c” is not intended.

I’ve been thinking and studying quite a bit about Biblical patterns interpreted as commands, and what I keep hitting up against is that there are patterns that are clearly designed and approved of by God (such as marriage between a man and a woman), and then there are patterns whose origins and parameters are ambiguous, and there is little in the way of evidence to show whether or not God ‘ordained’ the pattern, so to speak… ie women working outside the home, home education/public schooling, choosing spouses for one’s child, casting lots, etc… I mean, I’ve known men who took a vow and didn’t shave or cut their hair for a certain number of days or didn’t allow their daughters to have any input into choosing a mate because of OT patterns. I think patterns are there for our learning, and we may make inferences about what God seems to prefer or bless, but I’m often perplexed about how we decide that this pattern should be followed while another pattern is ignored or designated as not applicable.

An example that just jumped into my pointy little head- I remember a couple of messages I’ve heard on Exodus 18, where Moses’ father-in-law offers a sacrifice and then gives Moses advice about delegating some of the judging/teaching tasks to others. One preacher’s premise was that Moses didn’t pray and ask God about what he should do, and that he shouldn’t have allowed Jethro to make a sacrifice or followed his advice, while another preacher (different time and place) pointed out how we should listen to the wise counsel of others, know when we are taking on too much and delegate. So who’s right? Or should we be drawing such conclusions or making application from this passage at all?

Anyway, I agree that the proper roles of women are way out of whack (excuse the really technical jargon there) in society and the church, and that we should endeavor to figure out where the boundaries are and be content to stay within them. The older I get the more I understand why I am placed in a home as a wife and mother, given the vocation of loving my husband and children and ministering to others when I have the opportunity.

[Aaron Blumer] OK, something clicked. We could reason that because Paul connects creation order and fall deception to the appropriateness of women in authority in the church, he is revealing that creation-order and fall-deception do relate to women’s authority in some way. That broader idea is a necessary, though unstated, premise to get to Paul’s conclusion.

So, Kevin, would it be fair to say that in your view Paul’s reasoning is:

a) the creation order and role of deception in the Fall have implications for fitness for authority (unstated)

b) man was made first and woman was deceived

c) therefore woman should not have authority over man at all (unstated)

d) therefore woman should not have authority over man in the church

This involves two unstated premises. The first I think is necessary. The second, “c”, I think is plausible but not necessitated by the passage because you can get to “d” without it, especially given that Paul does not explain the nature of the implications of creation-order and fall-deception.

So my argument is that, given what we see women doing occasionally (apparently with God’s blessing) elsewhere in Scripture, the unstated premise “c” is not intended.

What do you see women doing occasionally, with God’s blessing, that would alter the normal pattern, function, focus of women throughout Scripture?

Does prophesying somehow indicate leadership (or role reversal)? (remember, Balaam’s donkey prophesied, by which I mean only that God can use anyone to speak for Him)?

Is (c) unstated? (OK, this isn’t all a question) By virtue of Paul’s referring to the creation order and failure without qualification, it actually is a general principle applied, as I would see it. The fact “that Paul does not explain the nature of the implications of creation-order and fall-deception” actually speak the opposite. A trans-cultural, trans-generational principle needs no further explanation.

Is something missing? If (d) is true because of (b) without qualification or explanation, would not (c) also be true, because of (b)? (We are geeks indeed, to be able to communicate this way…) If (d) is true, why would (c) not also necessarily be true, because (b) is true for both? The creation order doesn’t change because of time, place, culture, etc. Nor does the fact of the “fall-deception” as you concisely put it.

Is “apparent blessing” proof of anything? How would that be defined and determined today? There are female “preachers” on TV with apparently great blessing, but I am not sure you would say they are of God, or at least doing things according to God’s Word.

I think that your dropping of (c) is unwarranted, and articifical, based upon Paul’s premise. It is true in marriage (as illustrated in the garden), and it seems everyone agrees that it somehow is true in the church (though most do not practice any literal application of 1 Tim 2:9-14, in my observation), so on what basis would we exclude other places in culture, time, etc. Gender does not change. That is one of our huge blunders in our day - gender blending and confusion in conservative circles.

Good interaction. You are seeing the pieces!

[Susan R] I’ve been thinking and studying quite a bit about Biblical patterns interpreted as commands, and what I keep hitting up against is that there are patterns that are clearly designed and approved of by God (such as marriage between a man and a woman), and then there are patterns whose origins and parameters are ambiguous, and there is little in the way of evidence to show whether or not God ‘ordained’ the pattern, so to speak… ie women working outside the home, home education/public schooling, choosing spouses for one’s child, casting lots, etc… I mean, I’ve known men who took a vow and didn’t shave or cut their hair for a certain number of days or didn’t allow their daughters to have any input into choosing a mate because of OT patterns. I think patterns are there for our learning, and we may make inferences about what God seems to prefer or bless, but I’m often perplexed about how we decide that this pattern should be followed while another pattern is ignored or designated as not applicable.

When you offer this viewpoint, then on what basis do you select patterns? Why marriage, and not the entire marriage context in Genesis? I do not think you can have a 1-man, 1-woman marriage based on Genesis and then discard the leadership of the man, the role of the woman as helper (she didn’t get her own garden), the emphasis (and commands) regarding bearing children (and the implications for a woman’s motherly life-focus), etc. How do you choose which piece of the overall pattern to jettison, and which piece to keep?

I have suggested that this is not just a pattern in Genesis, but it is a pattern seen throughout the entire Bible, even up and through 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy, Titus, and 1 Peter. There is no deviation of this overall pattern by Jesus, the Apostles, or the church of the Epistles. On what basis do we stray from the pattern? Is the Bible as vague or ambiguous as you imply?

I would also differentiate something clearly stated by God (more than once) in addition to the patterns established by God in creation from a practice of people in Scripture without either. For example, you mentioned women working outside the home. The creation pattern finds the woman helping the man as her purpose, not in her own garden or pursuing her own dream. In the fall, she is weighted (cursed?) in the arenas of her relationship with her husband and her bearing of children (not the sweat of the brow, etc.). That is profound in and of itself. You can also tie this in with the commands “be fruitful and multiply,” which, from my experience, results in a full-time focus all on its own (in accompaniment with helping one’s husband). You continue with women doing just that, from Eve onward.

You find the Psalm 127 and 128 women (“happy is the man that has his quiver full of them” requires a wife who is focused on her children!), and the Proverbs 31 woman who is home-centered (with endeavors that allow her to minister to the poor, and create items in the home that she takes to the vendors). The very Son of God is brought into humanity by this means, and Mary and Joseph were the traditional family (think of the speaking circuit she could have had! ;>D). 1 Tim 2:15 (the cause of our interaction) does not deviate from this pattern. 1 Tim 5:9-10 reiterates what a godly woman looks like (no working outside the home mentioned - amazing - ministering to the afflicted, etc. is mentioned though - we don’t have people beating down the church doors to do that which is explicitly mentioned). The younger widows are instructed to marry, bear children and manage the home. Titus is told to have the older women teach the younger women to be “homemakers” (and the word means that). What is ambiguous about that?

Truth can be known, or what is the point of the Bible (or most of it)? It may not address the color of my socks, but it does address “all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Pet 1:3-4). I don’t think many things are as vague or ambiguous as we might want. We have clouded what was clear to those in the past. I believe we have done so because we do not read or study our Bible (as in, read it through repeatedly, and study the Word, not just read the latest fad-driven books), and we create a God (and a plan of God) in our own image. I will not land where the legalists land, and say (for example) that if you wear slacks as a woman (Bauder referred to it in his article today) you are sinning. I will say that the Bible does go out of its way to instruct and direct women (as women) how to dress (in principle, not in style) as godly women. The conservative church casts such clear teaching completely off, not because it is not addressed, but because someone, somewhere excused it completely as cultural. Who has really studied the Bible on such things to the point of drawing Biblical conclusions before landing on the “too ambiguous to do anything with” side of the fence. Most cannot say that they have.

[Susan R] An example that just jumped into my pointy little head- I remember a couple of messages I’ve heard on Exodus 18, where Moses’ father-in-law offers a sacrifice and then gives Moses advice about delegating some of the judging/teaching tasks to others. One preacher’s premise was that Moses didn’t pray and ask God about what he should do, and that he shouldn’t have allowed Jethro to make a sacrifice or followed his advice, while another preacher (different time and place) pointed out how we should listen to the wise counsel of others, know when we are taking on too much and delegate. So who’s right? Or should we be drawing such conclusions or making application from this passage at all?

I believe that this is a good example of an event (not really a pattern) in Moses’ life. He ran away for 40 years too. (I would land on the side that it was a good idea, wherever it came from - the latter preacher). Either way, though, it is not a pattern given directly by God in creation, and not directly commanded or instructed clearly in multiple places in the NT.

[Susan R] Anyway, I agree that the proper roles of women are way out of whack (excuse the really technical jargon there) in society and the church, and that we should endeavor to figure out where the boundaries are and be content to stay within them. The older I get the more I understand why I am placed in a home as a wife and mother, given the vocation of loving my husband and children and ministering to others when I have the opportunity.

May your tribe GREATLY increase (and may you encourage others to do the same)!

Bro. Subra,

I think you are reading too much into my posts. I’m asking questions more than I am drawing conclusions. When it comes to selecting patterns, there are patterns that are obviously ordained by God- marriage is one example- and when I say ‘marriage’ I mean the whole kit-n-kaboodle of the God designed roles and functions of each person in the family. Those to me are very clear. They are not just a pattern, they are commands that were verbalized by God, seen in many Biblical examples, and then repeated in the NT by Paul.

But where my understanding hits a roadblock when we determine that the marriage order prohibits a woman from being considered a ‘teacher’ of women… I suppose you could say in the ‘formal’ sense. I mean, some women have so many years of experience and such a tremendous testimony that it seems eminently practical and not at all a violation of Scripture for her to share her insights with more than one woman at a time… which may mean a bunch of women sitting a room… which would appear to be an organized, ‘formal’ setting. Again, I realize and am grieved that mentoring has been forsaken in favor of the ‘efficiency’ of the classroom, books and workbooks, and now with the internet… We may not have Biblical examples of women teaching in a formal setting, but we do have a command for older women who’ve met certain criteria to teach younger women. I don’t see the lack of pattern as a restriction against any sort of formal teaching.

Personally, I’ve begun to see a pattern in Scripture of gender segregation instead of age segregation, but find one church in America that doesn’t separate their congregation by age and marital status instead of gender. I’d like to see some congregations stick that in their blender and hit Frappe. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-think005.gif

I agree that there is a clear pattern directing women to focus on their home, and I’m glad to see that you mentioned the Prov. 31 woman is obviously ‘making money’ in town by exchanging goods and services. Most people seem to take this too far, and assume that it’s fine for a woman to work any job she chooses in nearly any situation, but I happen to agree with you that it is what it is- she works at home and is not prohibited from contributing to the household- however, it is clear that her family is her #1 priority.

But let’s take a poke at some sacred cows- what about pastor’s wives acting as the church secretary? After all, it would appear that she is working to support her husband’s endeavors. Do you see a prohibition against women lending their abilities to the church in the areas of accounting, cleaning, child care, etc.? If these are paid ‘staff’ positions, should they be done by men instead? Many Christian schools are staffed mostly by women, but since the schools seldom pay a ‘living wage’, few men will take a position as a teacher. On a side note- do you think the pastor’s wife is an ‘honored’ position (where she’s referred to as ‘the First Lady’ and is by default considered to be the leader of the ladies in the church) , or should she be treated like every other woman in the church and earn her stripes based on her personal testimony and conduct? I hope those questions don’t result in bodily injury… http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-whacky082.gif

[KSubra] If (d) is true because of (b) without qualification or explanation, would not (c) also be true, because of (b)?

No. Paul does not explain how ‘d’ follows from ‘b’ I have to think that the relationship was obvious to the original audience. But, alas, not obvious to us. Given that we do not know what the relationship is, we can’t really say that it supports any conclusions other than the ones Paul drew.

Susan, about Jethro… it’s a good example of at least one principle for handling narrative. The view that says Moses didn’t seek the Lord and should not have listened to Jethro has some problems in relation to text. The text does not say Moses didn’t seek the Lord. (We know from other passages that Moses was in the Tent of Meeting with God on a daily basis during that time, so it’s also unlikely). Secondly, the text does say that Jethro’s advice worked. There is nothing critical of the idea in the text. (And other passages also indicate there were already “elders” among the people before that time. Jethro was just telling Moses he should make use of them in a more organized way.)

As for women in leadership with God’s approval (outside the church setting), it’s true that “prophet” was not always a position of leadership, but usually. If we reason that because of Balaam’s donkey anyone can be a prophet, we might also reason that anyone can be a pastor-teacher along similar lines. The donkey case doesn’t prove much because barring a miracle, donkeys are not usually capable of speaking at all. Of course, Deborah comes to mind. I’m familiar with the view that asserts that the judges were not leaders (an agenda driven interpretation if there ever was one), but it’s not persuasive, IMO. Deborah was the ‘go-to gal’ to decide disputes and led the nation in battle, just like the other judges. The one difference is that she had Barak cowering next her some of the time.

Then you have Huldah who clearly occupied the same sort of role male prophets did in advising kings (Josiah… 2 Kings 22:14-16)

(Susan, FWIW, I don’t think a pastor’s wife is an “office” in the NT sense and so she is a member of the church like everyone else. But getting congregations to think that way is quite a challenge.)

[Susan R] Again, I realize and am grieved that mentoring has been forsaken in favor of the ‘efficiency’ of the classroom, books and workbooks, and now with the internet… We may not have Biblical examples of women teaching in a formal setting, but we do have a command for older women who’ve met certain criteria to teach younger women. I don’t see the lack of pattern as a restriction against any sort of formal teaching.

I would say that it is not just a lack of any pattern or hint of such. It would also lack any overt provision for such, or qualifications for, or reference to in the woman’s ministry passages (Prov 31, 1 Tim 5, Titus 2).

[Susan R] Personally, I’ve begun to see a pattern in Scripture of gender segregation instead of age segregation, but find one church in America that doesn’t separate their congregation by age and marital status instead of gender. I’d like to see some congregations stick that in their blender and hit Frappe.

I’ve not seen any evidence of gender segregation in the church. If the epistles were to be read in the churches, it seems that men, women, and entire families were being addressed directly and were expected to be present (for example Eph 5:22 - 6:4) As far as cooking analogies of any kind, I offer nothing but a blank stare :~

[Susan R] I agree that there is a clear pattern directing women to focus on their home, and I’m glad to see that you mentioned the Prov. 31 woman is obviously ‘making money’ in town by exchanging goods and services. Most people seem to take this too far, and assume that it’s fine for a woman to work any job she chooses in nearly any situation, but I happen to agree with you that it is what it is- she works at home and is not prohibited from contributing to the household- however, it is clear that her family is her #1 priority.

Yes, I’m in the tiny minority now as well, but I believe the burden of proof Biblically and historically is on those that have abandoned such a view.

[Susan R] But let’s take a poke at some sacred cows- what about pastor’s wives acting as the church secretary? After all, it would appear that she is working to support her husband’s endeavors. Do you see a prohibition against women lending their abilities to the church in the areas of accounting, cleaning, child care, etc.? If these are paid ‘staff’ positions, should they be done by men instead? Many Christian schools are staffed mostly by women, but since the schools seldom pay a ‘living wage’, few men will take a position as a teacher. On a side note- do you think the pastor’s wife is an ‘honored’ position (where she’s referred to as ‘the First Lady’ and is by default considered to be the leader of the ladies in the church) , or should she be treated like every other woman in the church and earn her stripes based on her personal testimony and conduct? I hope those questions don’t result in bodily injury…

Pastors have cows for secretaries??? :bigsmile: I am one that believes that much of what you suggest is either unnecessary or unbiblical (at least I’m consistent). I do not see a problem with a woman assisting her own husband in a church office (or in a field, or garage) as needed, providing it does not eliminate her from doing her primary roles. I do not believe that it should be a primary focus. Much could be done by people as ministry from home (especially now, with the ease of technology). I am not too experienced with paid staff cleaning, etc. as I’ve only been in smaller churches, but I would count that as areas of service that the church at large should be involved with. The more we pay people to do things, the more we miss out on ministry.

I would not see a biblical argument for a Christian school (or probably a public school), though I attended both growing up. Most churches struggle running a Christian school (or are run by one). Lots to say on that which I will refrain from right now. I can offer more, but I don’t believe Christian schools (or Bible colleges for that matter) have done the Church benefit in the long run.

I do not believe that there is a “first lady” mentality in Scripture. The men led then, and should now. They are assisted by their wives, but the wives are not the pastors of the congregation or the women in the congregation. A pastor’s wife is a woman responsible to her husband and for her family, and is responsible as any other believer to minister and server as a godly woman would do as her family duties permit (1 Tim 5:9-10; Prov 31:10-31).

No ‘maters coming from this direction.

[Aaron Blumer]

[KSubra] If (d) is true because of (b) without qualification or explanation, would not (c) also be true, because of (b)?

No. Paul does not explain how ‘d’ follows from ‘b’ I have to think that the relationship was obvious to the original audience. But, alas, not obvious to us. Given that we do not know what the relationship is, we can’t really say that it supports any conclusions other than the ones Paul drew.

I think it is undeniably obvious, when taken in context with the entirety of Scripture, and Paul’s absence of an explanation. It is consistent throughout Scripture. Paul does not have to explain, because it is a principle from the beginning of time. I read through the Bible as a routine (every 1 to 2 years) and I do not find this extraordinary or odd. It is in accordance with Scripture, and to me it makes perfect sense why Paul needs no explanation, or additional qualifiers.

[Aaron Blumer] As for women in leadership with God’s approval (outside the church setting), it’s true that “prophet” was not always a position of leadership, but usually. If we reason that because of Balaam’s donkey anyone can be a prophet, we might also reason that anyone can be a pastor-teacher along similar lines. The donkey case doesn’t prove much because barring a miracle, donkeys are not usually capable of speaking at all. Of course, Deborah comes to mind. I’m familiar with the view that asserts that the judges were not leaders (an agenda driven interpretation if there ever was one), but it’s not persuasive, IMO. Deborah was the ‘go-to gal’ to decide disputes and led the nation in battle, just like the other judges. The one difference is that she had Barak cowering next her some of the time.

My only point is that being a mouthpiece for God is just that. It isn’t leadership per se. Pastoring is not prophesying, it is leading. I do not see any evidence of women leading in the church whatsoever. I do see clear prohibitions against it. Everything else seems to me to be an argument of the exceptional, at best. An OT exception (even two of them in 4000 years) would not be sufficient justification to open the gates to what the Bible seems to clearly command against, with creation-based reasons.

[Aaron Blumer] Then you have Huldah who clearly occupied the same sort of role male prophets did in advising kings (Josiah… 2 Kings 22:14-16)

I’m not sure if this has any bearing, but what Huldah “prophesied” did not come true. Josiah did not die in peace - he was killed in battle. If indeed Huldah was a true mouthpiece of God, her existence (as Deborah’s) only stands out in all of the history of the OT because of the exception. That does not smack of the normalized nature of the modern church roles of women, does it?

Thanks again for interacting, Aaron.

I think it is undeniably obvious, when taken in context with the entirety of Scripture, and Paul’s absence of an explanation. It is consistent throughout Scripture. Paul does not have to explain, because it is a principle from the beginning of time. I read through the Bible as a routine (every 1 to 2 years) and I do not find this extraordinary or odd. It is in accordance with Scripture, and to me it makes perfect sense why Paul needs no explanation, or additional qualifiers.

Well, OK, if you say so.

I’ve actually never read the Bible, myself. ;)

(Waiting for the movie)

[Kevin Subra] I’ve not seen any evidence of gender segregation in the church. If the epistles were to be read in the churches, it seems that men, women, and entire families were being addressed directly and were expected to be present (for example Eph 5:22 - 6:4)

Clarification- I’m not saying the church was segregated by default- I agree that ‘congregations’ in both old and new were generally not segregated at all, (which is a pattern that is completely ignored) but that when groups of people are divided in the Bible (which, again, isn’t very often), it is by gender, not by age or marital status. IOW, there is no pattern on which to base the singles class, the young married class, the college and career class, Sunday Schools and youth groups, the senior citizen class…. and yet when we separate for classes etc… this is the pattern we follow… so whose pattern is it? Ergo, if we are going to say that Biblical patterns set the standard of faith and practice, and that when the Bible gives us no examples of one thing but some examples of another, then we are constrained to follow that pattern, even if it is a lack of pattern.

That sentence was really fun to write.

[Aaron Blumer] Susan, FWIW, I don’t think a pastor’s wife is an “office” in the NT sense and so she is a member of the church like everyone else. But getting congregations to think that way is quite a challenge.

True- some congregations have strange expectations of the pastor’s wife, while at other times the congregation would actually prefer the pastor’s wife simply be the wife of the pastor, instead of the church’s Cruise Director and Assistant Pastorette of Women’s Ministries. I’ve also seen a pastor’s wife that was completely disengaged from the church. There is every dynamic imaginable out there, and it seems to me that the clear Scriptural criteria for the pastor and his family is too often treated like inconsequential twaddle.

Back to the topic of patterns- I’m not opposed to applying Biblical patterns at all- when my dh and I have a question about what is acceptable behavior or activity, we look first to any examples or principles that could be applied to answer that question. It’s why we homeschool our kids instead of sending them to public or Christian school. But what I can’t do in good conscience is declare our interpretation of those principles as a mandate for everyone. What we usually say when asked is that in our opinion, the Scriptures suggest such-n-such. In spite of what I believe, I have no desire to attend the First Home Education Family Integrated Baptist Church. It crosses a line into the sanctity of the family. Which is another bunny trail, as if there aren’t enough of them in this thread.

So if a woman writes a book or teaches a class- whether it’s about cooking or marriage, I can’t say that I believe it’s a violation of some clear cut principle, but rather, since there are no examples or directives that define the parameters of such, a woman should be extremely careful when she engages in these kinds of activities, and that she does so under the direction/supervision of her husband and/or pastor. IMO, the ‘best case scenario’ is that of a personal mentoring relationship between mature, experienced, and Godly women, and younger women who need teaching or reinforcement (because the first thing that comes to mind quite frankly is “Where was that girl’s mama, and why doesn’t the child know how to fry an egg for cryin’ out loud?”). But do to the fact that there are SO many girls out there with parents who checked out about 5 minutes after she was born, there is a HUGE gap that needs to be filled. Ditto with young men who are fatherless, whether because of the physical or mental/emotional and spiritual absence of the father.

and what happens? this thing fills up with posts.

dont’ have anything very deep or detailed, but i would like to say (if i am allowed) that I graciously disagre with the way kevin has posted some of his thoughts. Althought i don’t want to just point at a person, i think there is a relatively large number of comps who would think this way, and i am not at all able to change anyone’s mind.

i think women are given the ability to teach and I think they can do so in many settings in agreement with their pastoral/husband’s authority and with God’s blessing. and, for example, a man reading a woman’s blog in no way means she has or is exercising any type of authority over him.

I don’t really read into the creation account the gender divisions that Kevin’s view puts into it. Men and women are created quite differently, but they were created to work together to accomplish the tasks of subduing the earth and multitplying … and making disciples and teaching them …

ok, it’s not that i want to get into a long discussion, but since so much of the other side was out there already, just wanted to stick my neck out under the ax for another perspective.