question about women called to Christian work

a mere housewife · #1 (**permalink**) 12-23-2007, 07:11 PM

I have heard various things about women in Christian service- single or married- from people I greatly respect: first that women should not be in Christian work at all or supported by the church to do Christian work; or that only elderly Christian widows should have that kind of support and role (the problem with this is that often elderly widows are in need of care themselves and the young single women who have energy and zeal to do the work must work secular jobs to support themselves, not having husbands to do so- thus entangling themselves even more than many married women in the concerns of this world). Second, there is the more prevalent view that a woman, single or married, can be called as well as a man, just not to be a pastor. Third, I have been told that a minister or missionary's wife not only can but should be so called; and from one such dear lady that she considered herself equally a missionary as her husband, and equally sent and responsible to the supporting churches. (In this case, her time was very divided between church and home concerns and in neither realm did there seem to be much efficiency or peace: but she had an endearingly hyper personality). Indeed on this view if a woman is not called into Christian service- a call that goes above and beyond the character an elders' wife is supposed to possess- and equipped to head ladies meetings, childrens' Sunday School classes, musical service, organizing events, counseling, etc., she is not really a help meet for a minister or missionary: her husband shouldn't be in the ministry.

Also I have heard that if a married woman can work outside the home in the secular world she can work outside the home in the church. This I take to be a somewhat separate issue: certainly there are things for women to do in the church such as helping one another, works of mercy, counseling younger women, etc., and if a married woman can do them along with her duties at home she is eminently admirable: "let her own works praise her in the gates". The issue is more whether a married woman is 'called' to such a work distinctly from her calling to be a keeper of her household, and whether a minister's wife must necessarily be so called? Would this differ from woman to woman?

Also I was wondering if the teaching of Paul that single people can be more devoted to the things of the Lord is simply speaking to meditation or also to good works? If the latter, then how can one reconcile the first view with having single women support themselves in secular jobs -in which case they have almost no time for good works- simply because if the church supports them to do good works and spread the gospel in a way appropriate to their sex and labors in needy places they will have some kind of role or at least practical status as being 'sent' by the church and part of her ministry? (ideally of course, any such woman would be under the care of local elders.) Indeed in my experience single women who work exhausting 40 hr. a week jobs have less time for even meditation than many married women. Also, in my experience, a great deal of the worthy Christian work that is being done among orphans and with poor children, womens' prisons etc would have almost no 'hands' if it were not for single women supported to do such things under church oversight.

I'd be grateful for any information about church authority and precedent on the issue. I'm sorry for such a confused question but hope some here can give a much less confused answer.

Pergamum · #2 (**permalink**) 12-23-2007, 08:20 PM

First, in missions today just over 60% of those who work overseas are women. Whether this is a good or bad thing, opinions vary. Many single women have gone.

From the early church on until now women played a large role in acts of mercy and charity. If we define missions marrowly by a definition of "preaching the Gospel only", which many mistakenly do, then some will say that there can be no women missionaries. If missions encompasses everything we do to take the Gospel to a people then missions is broader than merely preaching.

But it appears the evangelism and missions and preaching the Gospel are related but not the same. Missions and evangelism are broader than merely doing what ordained men do. It need not be in a pulput, it need not be done by elders or pastors. In the NT and the early church and ever since, women have gone abroad, engaged in works of mercy and charity, told people about Christ and have had people saved under their efforts, whether this would be called "ministry" or not.

How DO we classify the above? How DO we define misions?

Does not a large part of missions involve works of mercy and charity in which women often have a better heart to do than men?

Or is missions work and evangelism the same as preaching and thus to be relegated to men?

And if we define it thus, than we have narrowed the place for social efforts, helping the poor, tending to the sick and dying, etc, all vital ways in which Christ's love has been spread abroad. No more mission health clinics, literacy schools, aviation, translations unless done by elders...etc.

Historically there are many female missionary "heroes": Mary Slessor, Lottie Moon, Amy Carmicheal, Helen Rosevere, Joy Ridderhof....

Do we praise God for these women, or do we condemn them as being out of their place?

In the NT there were no women elders or pastors, but there were women laborers and workers.

Some think of missionaries as needing to be pastors. Certainly, if they must be elders to be missionaries then there can be no such thing as a woman missionary (or no men missionaries either that are not elder-qualified). But one need not preach the Gospel to spread news of Christ or labor in the mission field as part of a larger group effort.

Some agencies distinguish between church planting missionaries and "support workers" such as teachers, pilots, etc. How do we even define a "missionary" that is a HUGE question?

Very often church planting teams or translation teams are formed and different experts come together (translators, nurses, teachers, computer geeks, community development people, literacy experts, etc) and live near one another for the larger work of planting a church. Only one person out of that whole group needs to lead the church and the others all do vital roles that do not require being an elder-qualified man to do. Thus preaching by an elder is just one aspect of the larger effort.

Could it be that church-planters might need to be elder-qualified and thus men, but support workers such as teachers, nurses, etc need only to have a desire to take part in these efforts.

Bible translation is a huge need...and often women are better educated and more studious than men and they make the best translators.

A broader question related to the role of women in missions is the role of all unordained men in missions.

Should un-ordained men be missionaries or should missionaries only be elder-qualified men? The answer is pivotal as to how we treat women on the field. Or all of our support workers, pilots, teachers who are men, etc.

If a man must be an elder to serve overseas as a missioanry than about 80% of all missionaries need to come home, all the women who are not missionary wives and all non-elder-qualified men too.

Do you agree or diagree and assert that there is a place for others besides elders and pastors overseas?

a mere housewife · #3 (**permalink**) 12-23-2007, 08:40 PM

Pergamum, thanks for your reply. Personally I don't believe that in order to be supported by the church and under its oversight here or overseas a person has to be involved in the work of an elder. It seems almost impossible that the societal changes the gospel brings in works of mercy would ever get done as the minister's job is mainly to preach the word. In poverty stricken areas people who for instance provide education or medical care or orphan care or shelters for the homeless probably aren't going to be adequately paid by the society to do these things. I think it is legitimate for these people to be supported by, and under the oversight of the church. Indeed if they are not, they are merely 'lone rangers', supported by private individuals or organizations and that seems less than ideally biblical. We do sometimes support such organizations because there simply aren't any church-overseen efforts in some critical places, at least that we know of. But we'd much rather support such efforts through the church.

But I'm very hesitant about my own views as I've come to them largely from a practical point of view and though it's necessary to be practical (and so many views simply aren't), I don't think a theology can be made out of practicality.

Your answer reminds me that the minister's work is primarily to be a 'teaching elder', to preach the gospel; would you say then that a missionary's wife does not necessarily have to have any more special qualifications than those listed for an elder's wife in Scripture, and does not have to feel specially called into the ministry other than to keep her home wherever he is?

Pergamum · #4 (**permalink**) 12-23-2007, 09:58 PM

A wife of a missionary is called to be a wife of a missionary, and thus called to be engaged in the work of God wherever she is - which would be on the mission field.

Since the two are one flesh, to cut the wife out and speak of, "Here is a missionary....oh yes, and also his wife.." seems out of place. They both labor in their respective roles on the same place.

If missionary support roles can be considered mission work (which I believe they can be) then a wife is the most important missionary support role around - the care of the family while on the field!

Furthermore, the same applies to single missionary ladies. She can be called a missionary and ought to be supported in her work. We ought to praise her for her self sacrifice and hold her up in special prayer since a large percentage of single missionary ladies never ever get married for a variety of reasons (sometimes personality, sometimes lack of choice in mates, sometimes geographic isolation, etc). They sacrifice tremendously and several I know care dearly for orphaned children after their years of praying for a husband have gone unanswered. They have left behind their dreams of family for the work.

Also, in Muslim and also some tribal areas where the status of women is degraded substantially, the wife has even a larger realm of "ministry" than her husband by showing an example to the community, and by ministry out of her own home. Men would have little access or little suceess in preaching the Gospel to women or children and women would be the key. The Middle East, in particular needs more women missionaries. Arab Muslim women could be the largest unreached people group in the world!

As far as missionary attrition goes, those women who feel that the Lord is calling them to the field (which he obviously is through her husband) last longer, are more content and more effective. Even if she does not feel "zapped" she can rest assured that the Lord has willed her present family situation and this, too, constitutes a calling into a particular station of life.

In general, I am in favor of de-mystifying all these things such as a supposed need to feel a clear and pressing missionary call. God speaks to us through His Word and our own desires and then the confirmation of our churches. We read in Scriptures Matthew 28, we desire to go, our churches second that and send us and then we go and serve. A Christian wife will obvisouly feel compassion for those around her...wherever in the world she ends up, and will do all she can to reach those around her. I see no great difference between a missionary wife and the field and any Christian wife in the US or the West.

The best thing to do I think is to praise these women and encourage them in their roles. We "Reformed" often get caught up in the theological battles of our times. In reality, most women on the field do not ever want to become pastors or "usurp" (the favorite word of some who try to emphasis what women cannot do rather than what they can do)the role of the man. They want to serve the Lord in servant roles and care for those who are sick, dying and without the Gospel. We should encourage and stress what all segments of our churches can do and not fall into the temptation to use every opportunity in speaking about women's roles to stress what they cannot do.

Summary: the wife of a "teaching elder type" of missionary need not have any higher qualifications than the wife of an elder in Scripture. Some cultural adaptibility is needed as far as practical needs go, but theologically I do not see extra requirements.

As far as the wife of a support worker (pilot, teacher, nurse, etc) I do not know. One need not be an elder to be a missionary I do not believe. But I would like to explore that more.

larryjf · #5 (**permalink**) 12-23-2007, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Bible translation is a huge need...and often women are better educated and more studious than men and they make the best translators.

I don't believe this statement is accurate...can you post something to back it up?

As far as women doing Christian work....as long as they don't exercise authority over men there should be no problems.

I think it is most appropriate for a woman to serve under the authority of a man. And since there are a great number of men in the mission field already who are in need of workers to help them, it may be best to work in such ministries to enable that ministry to bear more fruit unto God than starting a new ministry.

It seems to me that a woman who seeks to do Christ's work without the authority of a man over her is neglecting the order that Christ has established to do His work...

...the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man;... (1Co 11:3)

And we are also reminded that the woman in and of herself is more easily deceived. Because it was Eve that the serpent deceived, not Adam (1 Tim 2:14). The Devil, recognizing that Eve was the weaker vessel (1 Pet 3:7), sought to deceive Eve and not Adam. It was the woman who yielded to the temptation of Satan, while the man yielded to his love for his wife. And because of her yielding to deceit, woman is to be in subjection to man (Gen 3:16).

a mere housewife · #6 (**permalink**) 12-24-2007, 12:29 AM

Larry, thanks also for the response. I'd just qualify the last part of what you said a little in that I don't see headship/submission as primarily a *negative* thing: I believe that her place of submission was part of the creation order (for Adam was first formed, then Eve) and is not simply the curse of her sin. I think the elder oversight would primarily be for the protection and spiritual nourishment, encouragement and help of the single women just as it is for anyone else in the church -- a great advantage to them in their labors, and something to look to for comfort and help. I know this is primarily what my husband, father, pastors and elders have always done for me. Certainly what you say is true about the woman being deceived; but the place of submission is a joy and a great comfort and not just a punishment; I think it must be a great relief for a single woman faced with really difficult and wearing and sometimes very scary and stressful labors like Pergamum spoke of above (or indeed for any single woman trying to deal with all facets of life on her own) to have some degree of protection and compassion and practical as well as spiritual help in the male leadership of the church.

I'm interested to learn more about the women translators also: I read yesterday in a biography of Erasmus by R. H. Bainton a list of women translators of that period: I don't think they outnumbered or outdid the men of that time by any means, but they do appear to have a long and glorious history in the church.

larryjf · #7 (**permalink**) 12-24-2007, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a mere housewife

I don't see headship/submission as primarily a *negative* thing: I believe that her place of submission was part of the creation order (for Adam was first formed, then Eve) and is not simply the curse of her sin.

I think that is a great attitude to have, but the context of the Gen 3:16 passage regarding woman being in subjection to man is certainly a curse and not a blessing.

And when i speak of working for Christ and having a man in authority over a woman, i am speaking of direct oversight. I'm not sure that i made that clear. In other words, i wouldn't consider the woman who goes to Nigeria alone and has her oversight from her Session back in the USA to have direct male authority. I just wanted to clarify.

py3ak · #8 (**permalink**) 12-24-2007, 12:55 AM

Larry, maybe you could clarify an element in your view for me. I agree wholeheartedly that women should have direct, local oversight. But when you relate that to the curse I must admit I get a little confused. Let me see if I can explain why.
1. Oversight/submission is a part of the curse.
2. Women are commanded to be submissive to the appropriate oversight.
3. Does it not follow then, that what overseers are doing is making sure that the curse is carried out?
That seems like an unlikely thing for anyone to say. Maybe you could show me how your view doesn't involve that conclusion?

a mere housewife · #9 (**permalink**) 12-24-2007, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larryjf

I think that is a great attitude to have, but the context of the Gen 3:16 passage regarding woman being in subjection to man is certainly a curse and not a blessing.

Larry, I have heard that there is debate about how that passage should be translated. Albert Martin says that it is in the same language used later of Cain, that sin lying or crouching at the door desired him but he was to rule over it. The curse according to this translation is more that the woman is discontent in the subjection that was instituted at creation (which is indisputable) desiring rule over the man and unfulfilled in that desire than the man's rule itself.

Quote:

And when i speak of working for Christ and having a man in authority over a woman, i am speaking of direct oversight. I'm not sure that i made that clear. In other words, i wouldn't consider the woman who goes to Nigeria alone and has her oversight from her Session back in the USA to have direct male authority. I just wanted to clarify.

Wholly agreed. It's hard to receive spiritual nourishment, comfort and aid in need and be kept from error over your ham radio. I should have said 'local' male leadership for clarity, above.

Thanks again.

larryjf · #10 (**permalink**) 12-24-2007, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by py3ak

Larry, maybe you could clarify an element in your view for me. I agree wholeheartedly that women should have direct, local oversight. But when you relate that to the curse I must admit I get a little confused. Let me see if I can explain why.
1. Oversight/submission is a part of the curse.
2. Women are commanded to be submissive to the appropriate oversight.
3. Does it not follow then, that what overseers are doing is making sure that the curse is carried out?
That seems like an unlikely thing for anyone to say. Maybe you could show me how your view doesn't involve that conclusion?

Good question.
First, let me say that i have just been shooting off the hip (so to speak), so my views may need to be clarified.

The curse in Gen 3:16 relating to woman being subject to man is an overarching curse. It deals with men and women in general.

The oversight that the Elders of a church have over their flock is more specific, as it relates only to the Church....and it's over the whole of the particular church that they are shepherd's of, regardless of gender.

larryjf · #11 (**permalink**) 12-24-2007, 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a mere housewife

Larry, I have heard that there is debate about how that passage should be translated. Albert Martin says that it is in the same language used later of Cain, that sin lying or crouching at the door desired him but he was to rule over it. The curse according to this translation is more that the woman is discontent in the subjection that was instituted at creation (which is indisputable) desiring rule over the man and unfulfilled in that desire than the man's rule itself.

The Cain passage is a little different as it is not set up as a curse, but as a blessing/curse - If you do well thus and so....if you do not do well thus and so...

"If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it." (Gen 4:7)

Speaking of "sin crouching at the door" could actually be a reference to a "sin sacrifice" in that God may be saying...If you do well, all is good and a thank offering is acceptable, if you do not do well, a sin offering will make you acceptable. If that is the case, then the "desire" would probably be for the birthright of the firstborn, since Cain may have considered it lost after his grievous sin.

As far as pre-fall...i don't see much evidence that the woman was in "subjection" to the man...rather she was to be his "helper suitable" to him. This word "suitable" is important. It is the Hebrew word "neged"...and it means "a counterpart"

Pergamum · #12 (**permalink**) 12-24-2007, 06:24 AM

A VERY REAL SCENARIO:

Middle East. An arab segregated society. A Western missionary woman ministers to Muslim women...a woman's world where no man can have access. Through her witness, a number of women come to faith and begin to gather together to read the Scripture. This missionary uses this opportunity to teach and explain the passages during Sunday services. Every Friday during their husband's prayer time they gather and pray to the God-Man Jesus.

Though there are other men on this field and in this woman's organization (which goes by the cover of a business), the "field director" has never met any of these women and can only go by this woman's reports as to what is happening in this little prayer group.

The above is a real scenario, as is this one below of which I am even more familiar:

In another country there is a resistant area where men who come into the village are held in suspicion. The group I know has sent 2 single women into this area because no one suspects them of being Chrisitan -- and there have been many converts just in this past year. These women report their progress and ask for prayer, but those they work with are not involved in the intimate details of their day to day lives due to lack of access. We pray for them but cannot do much else.

How does a man have DIRECT oversight in these cases?

Pergamum · #13 (**permalink**) 12-24-2007, 06:43 AM

About women linguists:

COSWL keeps some of the statistics on women linguists (committee on the status of women in linguistics...google the Cornell Lectures related to this topic too).

In 1990 researchers by the names of Davison, Chicocki, and Silva reported that in 1986-7 56.7% of PhDs in linguistics were awarded to women and there were more women in part-time and non-tenure-track positions than men. Also, the more prestigious schools of linguistics had greater proportions of women in part-time positions (70% vs. 50%), but lower proportions of women at assistant and associate prof levels (around
33% vs. 43%).

So, the above is evidence of the high rate of women linguistics. If you check the personnel breakdown by genders for orgs like SIL, etc, you will also see a very large percentage of women making worthwhile contributions to linguistics and translating the Bible.

As far as women linguists in Erasmus' day, you will admit that those were mmm... different times to say the least.

Finally, though my evidence for this last point is only anecdotal at this point, I am sure that I can uncover real evidence for this assertion too: It appears that women usually learn languages faster than men if immersed in the same Academic environment (i.e. not washing the dishes while hubby is in language school). This is a particular source of marriage tension for new missionaries at language school and some orgs even address this to young couples before they start presciely because it is such a regular occurrence and effects the men's egos dramatically.

Pergamum · #14 (**permalink**) 12-24-2007, 06:50 AM

Full reference for my stats: davison, alice, walter chicocki, and david silva. 1990. the
representation of women in linguistics 1989. in alice davison and
penny eckert (eds.), the cornell lectures: women in the linguistics
profession. washington, dc: committee on the status of women,
linguistic society of america.

Semper Fidelis · #15 (**permalink**) 12-24-2007, 07:44 AM

Heidi,

Perhaps another perspective would be to continue to recover the Biblical (and Reformed) perspective on vocation. The White Horse Inn has had several recent episodes devoted to this idea.

Many Christians suffer the illusion that all of our Christian activity has to be a "ministry" where the Scriptures recognize the role of the ministry of Word and Sacrament to equip Christians that they might excel in their vocation and in the witness of their quiet and reverernt lives.

Because so many Christians believe they are not doing the Lord's work unless they are doing it as part of a sanctioned Christian event, programs are created so people can get involved and fill their weeks with all sorts of Christian "ministries".

Regrettably, then, men don't view their vocations as inherently glorifying to God whereas the 4th Commandment commands 6 days of labor as well as the Day of rest. Many Christians are so shiftless at work and focused on putting up "Christian" screensavers or starting Bible studies that they undermine the excellency of Christ by their shoddy work. Worse yet, Christians are a bunch of whiners insisting on the "right" to conduct Evangelism at work or the like.

Wives have their similar vocations that they glorify God - in the home or where they trade in the marketplace. God is not glorified when either a man or a woman spends all their time away from home and neglects the home itself. Of course, just like the man who doesn't think he's doing "the Lord's work" unless it has a Jesus bumpersticker on it, many women depreciate the incredibly important role they serve in the home.

Those that cannot serve in the home, however, are not necessarily doing "ministry" simply by serving in a vocation. Men and women need to start thinking about just doing a really good job at the things they do. They ought to be honest with their scales and their work and their integrity and craftsmanship will speak volumes. The vocation need not precisely be "baptized" with the moniker of "mission work" to give glory to God and spread His kingdom.

I'm convinced that when Paul was making tents he didn't do shoddy work and I am certain that he didn't depreciate the value of that vocation as something secular and something he could cut corners on. Nowadays, however, somebody would call their tentmaking a "ministry" or even try to raise money from the Church so they could go make tents somewhere.

If the Church could focus on Word and Sacrament and equipping the Saints then it would free men and women up from feeling the obligation that everything they do has to have a Church's name all over it. Yeah, the Church might actually be empty most days and nights of the week but that would mean that Christians are actually out in their communities being good neighbors and in their homes being good parents.

Thus, I see translation and other kinds of activities and vocations and not, precisely, ministries. I see no problem with women doing this.

Finally, on this note, Dorcas is an interesting case in the Scriptures where it is very apparent that she used her talents to make clothes for widows. There's no evidence that this was her "ministry" but she used her talents to do something that her love of fellow men impelled her to do. When she lay dead, it is a beautiful picture when you read of the widows who brought gifts of clothes. Her love of others had shown through. She didn't need a ministry director to tell her what to do in order to express her love. She simply made it part of her daily work.

Pergamum · #16 (**permalink**) 12-24-2007, 08:18 AM

Rich, thanks I agree - even though I have no problem with the word "ministry."

I do see that "demystifying" missions seems to help people get a grasp on who missionaries are and what they do. They do tasks overseas for Christ, often the same tasks that they could be doing at home. Much of it is very mundane and the thing that makes them "missionaries" is that (1) they do it full time and for Christ (which all people should do in all their labors) and (2) they often do it in poor countries and need a little extra help from supporting churches to finance their efforts.

They do translation, nursing, teaching, computer work, even grounds-keeping and properties management.

Perhaps a lot of this "vocation" work is called "ministry" because it is done in communities where "missions work" is occurring and also (I suspect the main reason) is because they need funds to sustain that work (the local economy won't help them) and so they ask for funds from US churches and US churches will only support "ministries" and not vocations.

I am curious about feedback on this particular point.

Also, a big question, should we therefore restrict the term "missionaries" only to elder-qualified church planting men?

And, what should we call all the others? "Vocationers?".... and how would this affect funding for all the support workers needed on the "mission field"? Would we then call people who work with Wycliffe Bible Translators missionaries, or only Christians who have a vocation? And since these folks need home-country support to help them pay bills while translating the Bible into oompa-Loompa or whatnot, do we present their efforts to the church as Ministries or as jobs that do not give wages (thus requiring church support)?

There does seem to be a difference in managing a hotel chain in the US and trying to do it for the glory of God and calling this a vocation and giving up that job in the States to go and manage an orphanage or missionary kid hostel overseas (relocating to a Third World country, relying on donations and denying one's self of some USA pleasures to do much of the same job for a different target population). While I agree that both can be done for the glory of God, the one who travels overseas may need some added church support and so I suspect that the proliferation of items that count as "ministry" is partly due to this need to fund a "missions infrastructure" overseas. Therefore, I still have no problems with people speaking of their "ministries of helps".

Regarding oversight:
It does not seem that a man would need to be elder-qualified to move overseas and work in a "missions community" and fix toilets.

And if a single women was good at unclogging toilets (or sewing clothes for widows) and moved overseas to work in a "missions community" as a "missions janitor" than I would not demand direct and local male oversight over her "ministry."

Whether you call it vocation or ministry (unclogging poopers for Christ) is of little import to me. I do favor the moniker ministry over vocation because it is more translatable to our modern masses, but if you all can help teach the general public about Biblical vocation than all the better.
Perhaps you are right that vocation is a better term, and if we began to think in terms of "vocation" than we would see that females could do a great deal more without the dreadful charge of "usurping" occurring.

I do believe, however, that church planters who will plant churches and baptize and administer the Lord's Supper and chose and train local leaders ought to be elder-qualified.

Some churches I know only regard this type of missionary as a "missionary" and they label all others as "missionary support". While I admire their desire for doctrinal exactness, no missionary pilot who cannot get insurance due to dangers and risks his life daily wants people to remind him that he is not REALLY a missionary, only a support worker.

QUESTIONS: Did Dorcas make her clothes under "direct and local oversight" of a man?

Did she need a "call to ministry" to do so?

Would a computer guy who works on a missions base in Ukurumpa New Guinea, etc, need a "missionary call" even though he is not a church planter but is basically doing computer tech work in the Third World..and would his wife need to be "called as a missionary" to be the wife of a computer geek who works on a missions base in the Third World?

Many single women do go overseas and are supported by churches to do their "vocation" or "ministry". And many of these are single so that there is no "home" for her to work out of, having no husband or children. Therefore, should we merely badger than about "why aren't you married yet...what's wrong with you.." or place them in the work somewhere where they can be useful? Much has been said about wives, but very little about single women - a large percentage of the foreign missionary force.