Biblical roles of women in the Church

Status
Not open for further replies.

Semper Fidelis

2 Timothy 2:24-25
Staff member
Originally posted by satz
What about when Paul sent Phebe to Rome?

Romans 16:
1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:
2 That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also.

He tells ( a polite command ) the romans to help her in whatever business she has need of them, but does not specify what they are to help her in but rather leaves it to her to inform them. Sounds to me like she had a bit of authority? Note also Paul does not tell them to assist her in what he sends her to do, he says ' in WHATSOEVER business she hath need of you'.

That passage alone is enough to satisfy my conscience regarding women's authority in the realms of employment, though prehaps not government. But it is only one example.

Now, Paul wouldn't contradict himself, so we know that her business did not extend to teaching or anything that would put her in authority in the church. But she did have authority for civil matters prehaps touching the church, whether it be movement of aid, logistics etc

Nor does it matter even if it is claimed that her authority was really from Paul. Since to say that would be to say women can have authority over men, as long as another man legitimizes that authority.

1. Such a principle of delegation is never thought in the bible when it comes to the roles of the sexes.

2. Even if one accepts this, it would still conflict with the hardline stance taken on 1 Tim 2 in this thread.
Precisely.

By the way, I've never heard a Pastor say "...there's no place for loose dress in the Church...." What kind of English is that?! You people in Australia talk funny. :)
 

pastorway

Puritan Board Senior
Is the word it Titus 2 properly translated to "work at home"? It seems we are running around with BAD definitions. Submission, keepers of the home, etc. Settle what the words mean and then we can explain what the Scriptures are saying.

The term to be "keepers of the home" means that the woman's primary responsibility is FOR the home. It does not ever mean that her only place is IN the home.

A simple examination of the Proverbs 31 woman proves this point. A godly wife is in and out of the home, conducting business, buying and selling fields and running a vineyard - fulfilling her responisbility FOR the home and not tying herself down to only be IN the home.

A woman can refuse to work outside the home and still not be a keeper of the home. That said, this verse does not mean that a woman cannot work outside the home.

As long as she is fulfilling her duty to care for the home (family, etc) then she can go wherever she wants and work wherever she wants.

Not that any of you are listening to my sermons where I have addressed these things, but you can listen to this is you so desire and have the time:

The Wife's Role at Church - Titus 2:3-5
The Portrait of a Godly Wife - Proverbs 31:10-31

Phillip
 

CDM

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by pastorway
Is the word it Titus 2 properly translated to "work at home"? It seems we are running around with BAD definitions. Submission, keepers of the home, etc. Settle what the words mean and then we can explain what the Scriptures are saying.

The term to be "keepers of the home" means that the woman's primary responsibility is FOR the home. It does not ever mean that her only place is IN the home.

I don't believe anyone here is arguing that the woman cannot, at anytime work or be away from the home.

A simple examination of the Proverbs 31 woman proves this point. A godly wife is in and out of the home, conducting business, buying and selling fields and running a vineyard - fulfilling her responsibility FOR the home and not tying herself down to only be IN the home.

Who here is saying that she must not EVER leave the house for ANY reason?

A woman can refuse to work outside the home and still not be a keeper of the home. That said, this verse does not mean that a woman cannot work outside the home.

Does she have kids? Why has she left them? (Let's not start talking about absolute necessity)

As long as she is fulfilling her duty to care for the home (family, etc) then she can go wherever she wants and work wherever she wants.

Tell me please, how is the mother with children "fulfilling her duty" at home when she is working at a job? And her children are farmed out for another woman to take care of? How is she keeping the home when she is away from it as often as the husband? I simply do dot understand this.

Work wherever she wants? You mean in accordance with her husband's and Christ's wishes right?

Do you agree with the liberated statement "I am a full-time Mom AND a full-time worker"?
 

Semper Fidelis

2 Timothy 2:24-25
Staff member
Originally posted by mangum
Originally posted by pastorway
Is the word it Titus 2 properly translated to "work at home"? It seems we are running around with BAD definitions. Submission, keepers of the home, etc. Settle what the words mean and then we can explain what the Scriptures are saying.

The term to be "keepers of the home" means that the woman's primary responsibility is FOR the home. It does not ever mean that her only place is IN the home.

I don't believe anyone here is arguing that the woman cannot, at anytime work or be away from the home.
Um, yes, some are.

The rest of your post is all fine and good if you pour into the discussion the idea that a woman is abandoning her children at home. Hypotheticals make fine straw men.

Follow the strain of the entire thread. Pastor Way, and others, are merely arguing against imperialism in the matter and to use prudence in the application of the Biblical text regarding women's roles in the home, in the Church, and in the market.
 

satz

Puritan Board Senior
By the way, I've never heard a Pastor say "...there's no place for loose dress in the Church...." What kind of English is that?! You people in Australia talk funny.

Hey!
:(
 

Semper Fidelis

2 Timothy 2:24-25
Staff member
Originally posted by satz
By the way, I've never heard a Pastor say "...there's no place for loose dress in the Church...." What kind of English is that?! You people in Australia talk funny.

Hey!
:(
I love Aussies! Of course my 3 year old son only thinks that Great White Sharks talk that way!
 

satz

Puritan Board Senior
i don't like debating this topic at all really. I don't enjoy looking like a liberal and feminist sympathizer. But still, let me offer a few more points to anyone who is interested.

Does she have kids? Why has she left them? (Let's not start talking about absolute necessity)

But Proverbs 31 shows us a woman who has children(v28) and works outside the home (v16,24). And please don't try to tell me that those activities of hers took half and hour away from home in the afternoon. Because investing in property like that is no different from gambling.

Obviously there is wisdom to be applied here. A woman with very young children does not have much time to work and the majority of her time will be devoted to their care. But somewhere along the line, children cease to need their mother home with them all the time and a mother has more time to work outside. As i said that is a wisdom call. Some might say its around 15-18 years old. Others might say only when the children are married and leave the house! But proverbs 31 does tell me a there is nothing inconsistent with a mother working.

Tell me please, how is the mother with children "fulfilling her duty" at home when she is working at a job? And her children are farmed out for another woman to take care of? How is she keeping the home when she is away from it as often as the husband? I simply do dot understand this.

I think Pastor Way's post 3 or 4 above this one sums up nicely what 'keeping the home' actually means. It means her first duty is too the home. Not that that at home is her only place. I myself tried to articulate the same thing ,arbeit less elegantly and in a longer post on the 'women theologians' thread.

I am going to go on a bit of rant now so please be merciful. I love ( or i try to) the idea of christian women as mothers. By all means stay at home and be a full time mother. That is a wonderful thing for a woman with young children to do. But i get a little leery whenever i hear well-meaning christians wax lyrical about 'keeping the home'. When you seperate that from her motherly duties what does that entail? Forgive me if i am misrepresenting anyone, but i just can't help but get the feeling that there is a sentiment going around reformed circles that it is somehow more godly for a woman to stay at home and sweep the floor and wash the dishes than it is for her to go out and work and add to the family estate. And i think that is a mistake. There is nothing inherently godly about doing those things yourself if you can afford to delegate the work to servants (pr 31:15) ,or those mechanical slaves we have nowadays like the dishwasher, dryer etc!

sidenote: please do not think i am getting down on those familes where the wife has to do these things because of financial circumstances. I am not in the least. But for those families who can afford it, i believe it is not only allowable, but biblical use of money, to delegate menial household chores to others ( hey... even to the kids... it'll teach them the value of work) so the wife is free to contribute to the family in other ways, even working outside.

Look, i specifically didn't mention cooking in my examples... everyone knows the value of a home-cooked meal. But i haven't yet meet anyone who was telling me how great the floor at home felt because it was his mother/wife who cleaned it.

In fact, since i have already dug myself into a liberal hole, i am willing to go one step further and say that Proverbs 31 not only permits women to work outside the home, it RECOMMENDS it. If you are a christian woman who wants to be a great wife and you go down proverbs 31 like a checklist, to make sure you are fulfilling all the aspects of a great wife, what must you do to give yourself a 'tick' for verses 16 and 24? I am being completely serious. This is not the modern myth of the career superwoman. This is right there in the bible. Even if you want to limit it to a home business of some kind ( which i don't think the passage says) proverbs 31 tells me one of the aspects of a great wife is she engages in activities to bring additional financial renumeration into the house.

Now, we don't interprete the proverbs with literal strictness, or our women could only wear purple clothes (v22). If a family choses to homeschool, a woman may never have the time to work, and that's perfectly fine. She is working, just that her employer is her own family. There are other circumstances that might mean a woman can never work. But i do think if she can manage her household and family, then she should. In an effort to combat feminism we should not go to far in the other way and end up in the other ditch.

Work wherever she wants? You mean in accordance with her husband's and Christ's wishes right?

Correct... her husband will have the final say as to if and how much a woman works. But it is not only his liberty, but is right, to desire ( subject to principles of love and consideration for her ) that she work outside the home to support the family, if the house and children are being cared for.
That's not being a tyrant or fleeing from your responsibility of providing for the family. God's word in proverbs 31 tells me that i am perfectly right to hope my wife will be able to supplement my income, if i desire she spend her time in that manner.
 

satz

Puritan Board Senior
I love Aussies! Of course my 3 year old son only thinks that Great White Sharks talk that way!

:bigsmile:

I assume those are your children in your avatar? They look wonderful.. hope they are doing well in Japan.

As for sharks and fish... i happen to be one who thinks the best use for them is sashimi-ed!

edit: subject to various humane and presevation laws on fishing off course.

[Edited on 2-3-2006 by satz]
 

Semper Fidelis

2 Timothy 2:24-25
Staff member
Originally posted by satz
I love Aussies! Of course my 3 year old son only thinks that Great White Sharks talk that way!

:bigsmile:

I assume those are your children in your avatar? They look wonderful.. hope they are doing well in Japan.

As for sharks and fish... i happen to be one who thinks the best use for them is sashimi-ed!

edit: subject to various humane and presevation laws on fishing off course.
It's too bad you live so far away even though we're practically in the same time zone. They have great sushi and shashimi here as you can imagine.

My children are doing very well. They're in daycare all day long because I insist my wife work to make all the money we can. :D

Seriously, we're expecting our 3rd child in about 6 weeks. My wife, who has a Master's Degree in Family and Child Development, stays at home with the kids at this point in their tiny lives.

It is not my intent to open up another :worms: but we are not sure how we're going to school them yet. Likely homeschooling initially but, at the end of a long thread in another forum I posted some excerpts from Alfred Edersheim's Sketches of Jewish Social Life which sketches customs and culture surrounding and prior to the time of Christ. He notes that, until about 6, the family took care of the children's education. After that, they went to elementary school (which would be attached to every Synagogue).

In other words, there would be time, during the day, for a woman with elementary age children, to attend to activities of the household including commerce.

I am certain others will attempt to completely tear apart the wisdom contained within your general observations and try to disect it so that the bits are critiqued in lieu of the entire thought behind it. I understand the strain of what you're arguing for and I agree with the Biblical sentiment.

The picture of the Proverbs 31 woman is not necessarily the idea that every woman has to, line by line, perform all of those things. She is commendatory, however, because she is shrewd, she is trustworthy, she is industrious, and, yes, she adds to the estate of the household.

I believe far too much energy goes into turning a few biblical principles into a license to create a laundry list of "Thou Shall Nots". I also believe that the net effect of most of the attitudes about women is to create such low expectations for them that they'll be ill-equipped to be that shrewd and industrious wife. Great around the home for sure, but in need of constant hand-holding outside of it because "...that's the man's world after all."

[Edited on 2-3-2006 by SemperFideles]
 

CDM

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by SemperFideles
The rest of your post is all fine and good if you pour into the discussion the idea that a woman is abandoning her children at home. Hypotheticals make fine straw men.

What straw man? You don't like hypotheticals, neither do I. Let us then, talk about real situations. Let's talk about common situations. A Christian mother, Sally, has 3 kids. 2, 6, and 13. She works a full-time job away from the home. At the end of the day as she returns home around 6:00pm she'll see her children until they go to sleep around 8:00.

I'm sorry if many cannot see this obvious fact. She has left her children at home and someone other than their mother is raising them. Maybe you didn't like my use of the word "abandon" so let's use "left" instead. Now, without getting into the wrong or right of it, we can say that she is not at home taking care of her children. SOMEONE else is. Correct?

Is it not true the overwhelming majority of Christian mothers (of infant to pre-teen children) work outside the home? Do they not "farm out" their children to day-care providers? Maybe you believe this only happens in my hometown? In no way is this hypothetical.

Follow the strain of the entire thread. Pastor Way, and others, are merely arguing against imperialism in the matter and to use prudence in the application of the Biblical text regarding women's roles in the home, in the Church, and in the market.

Ok. For clarity sake, and in the hopes of removing personal offence, let me describe my home. My wife and I have 4 children. 8, 3, 1.5, and 1 week old. If my wife were to, without absolute necessity, leave the home to work a job, putting the children somewhere else (i.e., daycare, grandma's, the state) this could rightly be described as abandoning her children. Is it not easy to see that this wife prefers, and would rather do her own desires than to raise her own children? If one cannot see this, please tell me, what is this called?

The mother should, and must be with her children to nurture and raise them. If you believe a mother can do that at the end of the night while she was away at work, then my part of this conversation ends with this post

I notice no one here wanted to deal directly with what I asked earlier.

"œTell me please, how is the mother with children "fulfilling her duty" at home when she is working at a job? And her children are farmed out for another woman to take care of? How is she keeping the home when she is away from it as often as the husband? I simply do dot understand this."

Anyone? I asked this before, do you agree with the liberated statement "I am a full-time Mom AND a full-time worker"

Just in case I haven´t been clear. A wife at home, raising her children is better for the children than if she were to be working a full day every day away from them. Likewise with a father. If the father were to come home everyday and are with the children as opposed to if he were a salesman that was gone 42 weeks out of the year. Is this not Christian common sense?
 

LadyFlynt

Puritan Board Doctor
I have heard also that Proverbs 31 could be refering to activities over the period of a woman's life.

Another on the children note...why couldn't she have taken them with her? And if she had servants in her own home, then she had assistance also. My sil and I (and many other large families I know) haul our children EVERYWHERE with us, including using a sling for the babe.
 

satz

Puritan Board Senior
I re-read the thread and my posts, and i downloaded and listened to the 2 sermons pastorway listen on titus 2 and proverbs 31.

Upon some reflection i realize that whilst i warned about going too far and faliing into a ditch in one of my posts, it may indeed have been me who has fallen into the ditch on the other side.

I realize the general tone of my posts may have been too dismissive of the role of a woman to keep her home, and focused too strongly on her liberty to work outside it.

At the moment, i see no need to amend anything i have written, i believe the content is still basically correct. But my posts must be read ( well, i mean, if anyone has so much free time that they would want to reread them ) in light of the fact that they are meant to refute the ideal that women cannot work outside the home unless absolutely necessary. They are not meant to address straight up the question of 'what is a woman's role', and if used in that manner, could be unbalanced.
 

satz

Puritan Board Senior
Nevertheless, because i like to up my post count...

I notice no one here wanted to deal directly with what I asked earlier.

"œTell me please, how is the mother with children "fulfilling her duty" at home when she is working at a job? And her children are farmed out for another woman to take care of?

As i mentioned in my post above, the woman in proverbs 31 had children and worked at either jobs/businesses. As far as the lawfulness of a mother working is concerned, that settles the issue. We are shown a woman in the bible who not only has children but works outside the home. And she is shown as a role model for christian wives.

As for how...

The bible does not say a woman must be with her children every moment of the day. A woman with children 8, 3, 1.5, and 1 week old or 2, 6, and 13 years old should indeed remain at home caring for the children. A woman whose children are 16, 18, 24 and 30, does not have to spend the same amount of time and effort and home, and she has more time for outside work. That is what i was arguing for above.

How is she keeping the home when she is away from it as often as the husband? I simply do dot understand this."

Keeping the home, i believe, is to ensure that the home is taken care off. That is to say, everything that is needed to be done for the proper functioning of the home is done. If a woman is keeping on top of those tasks, after that she is free to work outside the home. And the woman can either do those tasks herself, or delegate them to servants or older children. Her efficient and wise delegation of those tasks is keeping the home!

And i firmly believe that the head of the household (be it husband or father) has the right to determine what constitutes 'keeping the home'. A husband can chose if he wants a big home cooked meal everyday, or if he is willing to eat out on weekdays so that the wife can work and add to the family income, etc etc.
 

LadyFlynt

Puritan Board Doctor
I think it is important to notice that her "business outside the home" is possibly being looked at out of context. The context is not "outside the home", but rather as an "extension of the home". Do not I go and buy our food, will I not try to go and sell parts of our garden vegetables this summer, do I not barter and trade with others, and make arrangements for services for our home? This would be applied in the same manner as the woman in Proverbs 31, rather than the woman who goes and has a dual life (career and home) that she has to keep up with the needs of both. The only compensation for this last lady is money...and even much of that is eaten up in taxes and childcare. A woman actually at home saves on both, handles household business and thus releasing those burdens from her husband...and thus her loyalties are not divided. She is wholely able to look to her household. (Again, we are working with ideals, not extremes. Also, many that have had little have found this to be more productive than for both partners to be absent from the home).
 

Semper Fidelis

2 Timothy 2:24-25
Staff member
Originally posted by mangum
Originally posted by SemperFideles
The rest of your post is all fine and good if you pour into the discussion the idea that a woman is abandoning her children at home. Hypotheticals make fine straw men.

What straw man? You don't like hypotheticals, neither do I. Let us then, talk about real situations. Let's talk about common situations. A Christian mother, Sally, has 3 kids. 2, 6, and 13. She works a full-time job away from the home. At the end of the day as she returns home around 6:00pm she'll see her children until they go to sleep around 8:00.

I'm sorry if many cannot see this obvious fact. She has left her children at home and someone other than their mother is raising them. Maybe you didn't like my use of the word "abandon" so let's use "left" instead. Now, without getting into the wrong or right of it, we can say that she is not at home taking care of her children. SOMEONE else is. Correct?

Is it not true the overwhelming majority of Christian mothers (of infant to pre-teen children) work outside the home? Do they not "farm out" their children to day-care providers? Maybe you believe this only happens in my hometown? In no way is this hypothetical.

Follow the strain of the entire thread. Pastor Way, and others, are merely arguing against imperialism in the matter and to use prudence in the application of the Biblical text regarding women's roles in the home, in the Church, and in the market.

Ok. For clarity sake, and in the hopes of removing personal offence, let me describe my home. My wife and I have 4 children. 8, 3, 1.5, and 1 week old. If my wife were to, without absolute necessity, leave the home to work a job, putting the children somewhere else (i.e., daycare, grandma's, the state) this could rightly be described as abandoning her children. Is it not easy to see that this wife prefers, and would rather do her own desires than to raise her own children? If one cannot see this, please tell me, what is this called?

The mother should, and must be with her children to nurture and raise them. If you believe a mother can do that at the end of the night while she was away at work, then my part of this conversation ends with this post

I notice no one here wanted to deal directly with what I asked earlier.

"œTell me please, how is the mother with children "fulfilling her duty" at home when she is working at a job? And her children are farmed out for another woman to take care of? How is she keeping the home when she is away from it as often as the husband? I simply do dot understand this."

Anyone? I asked this before, do you agree with the liberated statement "I am a full-time Mom AND a full-time worker"

Just in case I haven´t been clear. A wife at home, raising her children is better for the children than if she were to be working a full day every day away from them. Likewise with a father. If the father were to come home everyday and are with the children as opposed to if he were a salesman that was gone 42 weeks out of the year. Is this not Christian common sense?
Chris,

I don't know who you are arguing with. I'm not trying to be pugilistic but if you read what the proponents of "women in the marketplace" are saying they are merely arguing against a law that in all cases, in all circumstances, a woman must be in the home or she is violating God's command.

When you move from the general case to the specific you are not dealing with the tenor of our argument. In other words, the argument does not proceed like this:

1. Sally has 3 small children.
2. Sally works outside the home, abandoning her kids.
3. Sally ought not abandon their kids.
4. Sally is a woman.
5. All women that work outside the home abandon their kids.
Ergo, women should not work outside the home.

We are merely arguing for prudence. Of course Sally should stay home with the kids and raise them in almost every circumstance. I'm not going to turn it into a rule because I might imagine some hypothetical where she might need to. When the most obvious cases of selfishness are presented they are easy to determine. Nevertheless, it is up to a husband and the elders to determine the propriety of each case.

The point is that this is an area of wisdom and there are some precepts but you cannot stretch the precepts too far and make conclusions that in all circumstances, women are never to have authority over a man in any sphere or work outside the home. I know you have not specifically stated that. Others have. That's what we've been dealing with primarily and not with Sally.

Wisdom and liberty are our goals here. People can draw their own secondary convictions based on the text but don't use them as a pretext to create a talmudic maxim that judges every other Christian family for their compliance with one's own conviction. This is rather like those who homeschool out of personal conviction and create a rule of faith that binds the conscience of other Christian families who have the authority and liberty to determine how they will most wisely carry out the command.

Or, as my former Commanding Officer used to say when he would overturn a previous Commander's order: "It's not better or worse, per se, but I'm just a different coach and use a different playbook."

[Edited on 2-4-2006 by SemperFideles]
 

Semper Fidelis

2 Timothy 2:24-25
Staff member
Chris,

Also, so you don't believe I'm ignoring the tenor of your concern - I DO understand it. If I was arguing with a liberal over woman's roles I would be making different arguments based on the error they had fallen into.

I also do not agree with the statement: "I am a full time worker and a full time Mom." My wife remains at home with our children because they require 168 hours of attention a week (especially our third due in 6 weeks) and 40 hours away would be impossible.

[Edited on 2-4-2006 by SemperFideles]
 

Peter

Puritan Board Junior
Note: I'm not necessarily against women working outside the home in every single circumstance. My view is that it is an abomination against nature for a woman to exert preeminence over a man.

The reasons scripture gives for woman's submission in the home and the church are equally as valid in every other circumstance.

1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Adam was not deceived. He was too wise for the serpent's subtlety, he sinned with knowledge. Eve was deceived and this reason proves women are unsuitable for authority.

1Co 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Paul applies the law (gen 3:16) into the sphere of the Church. Women are not to have authority in the Church. Why? Because man has been vested with power and authority.
 

Peter

Puritan Board Junior
John Knox
The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women


Hereby may such as altogether be not blinded plainly see, that God by his sentence has dejected all women from empire and dominion above man. For two punishments are laid upon her: to wit, a dolour, anguish, and pain, as oft as ever she shall be mother; and a subjection of her self, her appetites, and will, to her husband, and to his will. From the former part of this malediction can neither art, nobility, policy, nor law made by man deliver womankind; but whosoever attains to that honour to be mother, proves in experience the effect and strength of God's word.

Against God can nothing be more manifest than that a woman shall be exalted to reign above man; for the contrary sentence he has pronounced in these words: "Thy will shall be subject to thy husband, and he shall bear dominion over thee" (Gen. 3:16).

I am not ignorant, that the most part of men do understand this malediction of the subjection of the wife to her husband, and of the dominion which he bears above her. But the Holy Ghost gives to us another interpretation of this place, taking from all women all kinds of superiority, authority, and power over man, speaking as follows, by the mouth of St. Paul: "I suffer not a woman to teach, neither yet to usurp authority above man" (1 Tim. 2:12). Here he names women in general, excepting none; affirming that she may usurp authority above no man. And that he speaks more plainly in another place in these words: "Let women keep silence in the congregation, for it is not permitted to them to speak, but to be subject, as the law sayeth" (1 Cor. 14:34). These two testimonies of the Holy Ghost are sufficient to prove whatsoever we have affirmed before, and to repress the inordinate pride of women, as also to correct the foolishness of those that have studied to exalt women in authority above men, against God and against his sentence pronounced.

Whereupon the Holy Ghost concludes, that she may never rule nor bear empire above man; for she that is made subject to one, may never be preferred to many. And that the Holy Ghost does manifestly express, saying: "I suffer not that woman usurp authority above man" (1 Tim. 2:12). He says not, "I will not that woman usurp authority above her husband;" but he names man in general, taking from her all power and authority to speak, to reason, to interpret, or to teach; but principally to rule or to judge in the assembly of men. So that woman by the law of God, and by the interpretation of the Holy Ghost, is utterly forbidden to occupy the place of God in the offices aforesaid, which he has assigned to man, whom he has appointed and ordained his lieutenant in earth, excluding from that honour and dignity all women

And therefore yet again I repeat, that which before I have affirmed: to wit, that a woman promoted to sit in the seat of God (that is, to teach, to judge, or to reign above man) is a monster in nature, contumely to God, and a thing most repugnant to his will and ordinance. For he has deprived them, as before is proved, of speaking in the congregation, and has expressly forbidden them to usurp any kind of authority above man. How then will he suffer them to reign and have empire above realms and nations? He will never, I say, approve it, because it is a thing most repugnant to his perfect ordinance, as after shall be declared, and as the former scriptures have plainly given testimony.
 

Peter

Puritan Board Junior
John Gill's Commentary on the Bible

1Co 14:34 - Let your women keep silence in the churches,.... This is a restriction of, and an exception to one of the above rules, that all might prophesy; in which he would be understood of men only, and not of women; and is directed against a practice which seems to have prevailed in this church at Corinth, allowing women to preach and teach in it; and this being a disorderly practice, and what was not used in other churches, the apostle forbids and condemns, and not without reason:

for it is not permitted unto them to speak; that is, in public assemblies, in the church of God, they might not speak with tongues, nor prophesy, or preach, or teach the word. All speaking is not prohibited; they might speak their experiences to the church, or give an account of the work of God upon their souls; they might speak to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs; or speak as an evidence in any case at a church meeting; but not in such sort, as carried in it direction, instruction, government, and authority. It was not allowed by God that they should speak in any authoritative manner in the church; nor was it suffered in the churches of Christ; nor was it admitted of in the Jewish synagogue; there, we are told (b), the men came to teach, and the women לשמוע, "to hear": and one of their canons runs thus (c);

"a woman may not read (that is, in the law), בצבור, "in the congregation", or church, because of the honour of the congregation;''

for they thought it a dishonourable thing to a public assembly for a woman to read, though they even allowed a child to do it that was capable of it.

But they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. In Gen_3:16, "thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee". By this the apostle would signify, that the reason why women are not to speak in the church, or to preach and teach publicly, or be concerned in the ministerial function, is, because this is an act of power, and authority; of rule and government, and so contrary to that subjection which God in his law requires of women unto men. The extraordinary instances of Deborah, Huldah, and Anna, must not be drawn into a rule or example in such cases.

v35 for it is a shame for women to speak in the church; it is a shame to themselves, as being contrary to the natural modesty and bashfulness of the sex, and a shame to the church, to the non-members of it, and especially to the elders, and more experienced part of it, to be taught and directed by a woman; it is a disgrace to herself and sex, as betraying uncommon pride and vanity, and an unnatural boldness and confidence; and a disgrace to the church to be under such a ministry and conduct.

1Ti 2:12 - But I suffer not a woman to teach, They may teach in private, in their own houses and families; they are to be teachers of good things, Tit_2:3. They are to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; nor is the law or doctrine of a mother to be forsaken, any more than the instruction of a father; see Pro_1:8. Timothy, no doubt, received much advantage, from the private teachings and instructions of his mother Eunice, and grandmother Lois; but then women are not to teach in the church; for that is an act of power and authority, and supposes the persons that teach to be of a superior degree, and in a superior office, and to have superior abilities to those who are taught by them:

nor to usurp authority over the man; as not in civil and political things, or in things relating to civil government; and in things domestic, or the affairs of the family; so not in things ecclesiastical, or what relate to the church and government of it; for one part of rule is to feed the church with knowledge and understanding; and for a woman to take upon her to do this, is to usurp an authority over the man: this therefore she ought not to do,

but to be in silence; to sit and hear quietly and silently, and learn, and not teach, as in 1Ti_2:11.

v 13 then Eve. She was formed out of him, was made out of one of his ribs; and was formed for him, for his use, service, help and comfort; and here lies the strength of the apostle's reason, why the woman should be in subjection to the man; not so much because he was made before her; for so were the beasts of the field before Adam; and yet this gave them no superiority to him; but because she was made out of him, and made for him, see 1Co_11:8. So that the woman's subjection to the man is according to the laws of nature and creation; and was antecedent to the fall; and would have been, if that had never been; though that brought her into a lower, and meaner, and more depressed estate; which the apostle next mentions. The words may be rendered, "the first Adam", or "Adam the first was formed, and then Eve". See 1Co_15:45.

1Ti 2:14 - And Adam was not deceived,.... There is no need to say with interpreters, that he was not deceived first; and that he was not deceived immediately by the serpent, but by Eve; and that he is never said in Scripture to be deceived, as Melchizedek is never said to have a father or mother. The apostle's positive assertion is to be taken without any such limitations or qualifications; Adam never was deceived at all; neither by the serpent, with whom he never conversed; nor by his wife, he knew what he did, when he took the fruit of her, and ate; he ate it not under any deception, or vain imagination, that they should not die, but should be as gods, knowing good and evil. He took and ate out of love to his wife, from a fond affection to her, to bear her company, and that she might not die alone; he knew what he did, and he knew what would be the consequence of it, the death of them both; and inasmuch as he sinned wilfully, and against light and knowledge, without any deception, his sin was the greater: and hereby death came in, and passed on all men, who sinned in him:

but the woman being deceived was in the transgression: and the serpent really beguiled her; she owned it herself, Gen_3:13. And this is elsewhere said of her, 2Co_11:3 which never is of Adam. She really thought the serpent spoke truth, that she and her husband should not die, if they ate of the fruit; but that it was good to make them wise; and that, upon eating it, they should be as gods, knowing good and evil; and under this deception she fell into the transgression, and was the cause and means, by her persuasions and example, of bringing her husband into the same sin; which involved him and all his posterity in ruin and destruction. And therefore she is called by the Jews (p) ×× ×”×¢×•×Ÿ, "the mother of iniquity and sin"; to which they refer, Psa_51:5. And they say, (q) she was the cause of death to Adam, and to all the world: See Gill on Rom_5:12. And they observe (r) the order of the punishment of the serpent, Eve, and Adam, as of their sin; the serpent was first accursed, then Eve, and last of all Adam. They say

"(s) Samael (the devil) could not subvert Adam, till the serpent came and turned the heart of Eve, and Eve turned his heart, and they both sinned; wherefore it is said, "the woman which thou gavest me"; Samael had no power to turn him, till Eve came, and she was the cause of his eating.''

Now inasmuch as the serpent did not attack Adam, he being the stronger and more knowing person, and less capable of being managed and seduced; but made his attempt on Eve, in which he succeeded; and since not Adam, but Eve, was deceived, it appears that the man is the more proper person to bear rule and authority, as in civil and domestic, so in ecclesiastic affairs; and it is right for the woman to learn, and the man to teach: and seeing that Eve was the cause of transgression to Adam, and of punishment to him and his posterity, the subjection of the woman to the man was confirmed afresh: and she was brought into a more depressed state of dependence on him, and subjection to him; see Gen_3:16. The Ethiopic version renders the text, "Adam hath not deceived, the woman hath deceived and prevaricated".


1 Peter 3:7 As unto the weaker vessel; so in 1Th_4:4 the wife is called a vessel; see Gill on 1Th_4:4, and here "the weaker"; being so for the most part, both as to strength of body, and endowments of mind; and therefore to be used gently and tenderly, and not be treated with neglect and contempt, or with inhumanity and severity; but as, in every state and condition, the strong are to bear the infirmities of the weak; so a man should bear with, and accommodate himself to the infirmities of his wife, and hide them as much as he can, and not expose them, nor despise her on account of them. It is a saying of the Jews (s),

"if thy wife be short of stature, bow thyself, and whisper to her.

The meaning of the proverb is, that he ought to suit himself to her capacity and weakness:
 

Semper Fidelis

2 Timothy 2:24-25
Staff member
Originally posted by Peter
Note: I'm not necessarily against women working outside the home in every single circumstance. My view is that it is an abomination against nature for a woman to exert preeminence over a man.
Interesting use of terms. God only calls a few things abominable. Would you like to provide some clear exegesis that would support that God would view such a thing with the same kind of utter sinfulness as he would the other things He names abominable.

It is one thing to have a conviction. It is another to say God considers something abominable by weak inference.

[Edited on 2-4-2006 by SemperFideles]
 

Peter

Puritan Board Junior
It is an inference Knox, Gill, Calvin, Tertullian, Augustine, Ambrose, et al, did not think too weak sir.
 

VictorBravo

Administrator
Staff member
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
I have heard also that Proverbs 31 could be refering to activities over the period of a woman's life.

Another on the children note...why couldn't she have taken them with her? And if she had servants in her own home, then she had assistance also. My sil and I (and many other large families I know) haul our children EVERYWHERE with us, including using a sling for the babe.

LadyFlynt, you caused me to remember my own mom. She's not a Christian, and I am grieved by that, but she seems to have been a Pr. 31 woman in every other respect. She ran a ranch, was on the school board, kept us busy, kept us together as a family, and always knew exactly what I and my two sisters were up to. The key was keeping us busy with things that required us to be within range of her eyesight and hearing. I never got away with anything.

May the Lord bless and convert her. She did me well.

Vic
 

Peter

Puritan Board Junior
Knox expressly called it "a monster to nature", "repugnant" and "contumely". The others, not so harshly, taught it was contrary to nature and the ordinance of God.
 

Peter

Puritan Board Junior
John Knox continued

Tertullian, in his book of Women's Apparel, after he has shown many causes why gorgeous apparel is abominable and odious in a woman, adds these words, speaking as it were to every woman by name: "Do you not know," says he, "that you are Eve. The sentence of God lives and is effectual against this kind; and in this world, of necessity it is, that the punishment also live. You are the port and gate of the devil. You are the first transgressor of God's law. You did persuade and easily deceive him whom the devil durst not assault. For your merit (that is, for your death), it behooved the Son of God to suffer the death; and does it yet abide in your mind to deck you above your skin coats?"

By these and many other grave sentences and quick interrogations, did this godly writer labour to bring every woman in contemplation of herself, to the end that every one, deeply weighing what sentence God had pronounced against the whole race and daughters of Eve, might not only learn daily to humble and subject themselves in the presence of God, but also that they should avoid and abhor whatsoever thing might exalt them or puff them up in pride, or that might be occasion that they should forget the curse and malediction of God. And what, I pray you, is more able to cause a woman to forget her own condition, than if she is lifted up in authority above man? It is a very difficult thing to a man (be he never so constant) promoted to honours, not to be tickled somewhat with pride (for the wind of vain glory does easily carry up the dry dust of the earth). But as for woman, it is no more possible that she, being set aloft in authority above man, shall resist the motions of pride, than it is able to the weak reed, or to the turning weathercock, not to bow or turn at the vehemence of the inconstant wind. And therefore the same writer expressly forbids all women to intermeddle with the office of man. [51]For thus he writes in his book de Viginibus Velandis: "It is not permitted to a woman to speak in the congregation, neither to teach, neither to baptize, neither to vindicate to herself any office of man." [52]The same he speaks yet more plainly in the Preface of his sixth book written Against Marcion, where, recounting certain monstrous things which were to be seen at the Sea called Euxinum, amongst the rest, he recites this as a great monster in nature, "that women in those parts were not tamed nor abased by consideration of their own sex, but that, all shame laid apart, they made expenses upon weapons, and learned the feats of war, having more pleasure to fight than to marry and be subject to man." Thus far of Tertullian, whose words are so plain, that they need no explanation. For he that takes from her all office appertaining to man, [and] will not suffer her to reign above man ­ and he that judges it a monster in nature that a woman shall exercise weapons ­ must judge it to be a monster of monsters that a woman shall be exalted above a whole realm and nation. Of the same mind are Origen and diverse others (whose sentences I omit to avoid prolixity), yea, even till the days of Augustine.

[53]Augustine, in his twenty-second book written Against Faustus, proves that a woman ought to serve her husband as unto God, affirming that in nothing has woman equal power with man, saving that neither of both have power over their own bodies. By which he would plainly conclude, that woman ought never to pretend nor thirst for that power and authority which are due to man. [54]For so he does explain himself in another place, affirming that woman ought to be repressed and bridled betimes, if she aspires to any dominion; alleging that it is dangerous and perilous to suffer her to proceed, although it is in temporal and corporeal things. And thereto he adds these words: "God sees not for a time, neither is there any new thing in his sight and knowledge:" meaning thereby, that what God has seen in one woman (as concerning dominion and bearing of authority) the same he sees in all; and what he has forbidden to one, the same he also forbids to all. [55]And this most evidently yet in another place he writes, moving this question, "How can woman be the image of God, seeing (says he) she is subject to man, and has none authority, neither to teach, neither to be witness, neither to judge, much less to rule or bear empire?" [56]These are the very words of Augustine, of which it is evident that this godly writer does not only agree with Tertullian, before recited, but also with the former sentence of the Law, which takes from woman not only all authority amongst men, but also every office appertaining to man.

To the question how she can be the image of God, he answers as follows: "Woman," says he, "compared to other creatures, is the image of God, for she bears dominion over them. But compared unto man, she may not be called the image of God, for she bears not rule and lordship over man, but ought to obey him," etc.[57] And how that woman ought to obey man, he speaks yet more clearly in these words, "The woman shall be subject to man as unto Christ. For woman," says he, "has not her example from the body and from the flesh, that so she shall be subject to man, as the flesh is unto the Spirit, because that the flesh in the weakness and mortality of this life lusts and strives against the Spirit, and therefore would not the Holy Ghost give example of subjection to the woman of any such thing," etc. This sentence of Augustine ought to be noted of all women, for in it he plainly affirms, that woman ought to be subject to man, that she never ought more to desire preeminence [over] him, than that she ought to desire above Christ Jesus.

With Augustine, St. Jerome agrees in every point,[58] who thus writes in his Hexaemeron: "Adam was deceived by Eve, and not Eve by Adam, and therefore it is just, that woman receive and acknowledge him for governor whom she called to sin, lest that again she slide and fall by womanly facility." And writing upon the epistle to the Ephesians, he says, "Let women be subject to their own husbands as unto the Lord; for man is head to the woman, and Christ is head to the congregation, and he is Saviour to the body; but the congregation is subject to Christ, even so ought women to be to their husbands in all things" (Eph. 5:22-24). He proceeds further, saying, "Women are commanded to be subject to men by the law of nature, because man is the author or beginner of the woman: for as Christ is the head of the church, so is man of the woman. From Christ the church took beginning, and therefore it is subject unto him; even so did woman take beginning from man that she should be subject." Thus we hear the agreeing of these two writers to be such, that a man might judge the one to have stolen the words and sentences from the other. And yet it is plain, that during the time of their writing, the one was far distant from the other. But the Holy Ghost, who is the Spirit of concord and unity, did so illuminate their hearts, and direct their tongues and pens, that as they did conceive and understand one truth, so did they pronounce and utter the same, leaving a testimony of their knowledge and concord to us their posterity.

If any think that all these former sentences be spoken only of the subjection of the married woman to her husband: as before I have proved the contrary by the plain words and reasoning of St. Paul, so shall I shortly do the same by other testimonies of the foresaid writers. [59]The same Ambrose, writing upon the second chapter of the first epistle to Timothy, after he has spoken much of the simple arrayment of women, he adds these words: "Woman ought not only to have simple arrayment, but all authority is to be denied unto her. For she must be in subjection to man (of whom she has taken her origin), as well in habit as in service." And after a few words, he says, "Because that death did enter into the world by her, there is no boldness that ought to be permitted unto her, but she ought to be in humility." Hereof it is plain, that from all [every] woman, be she married or unmarried, is all authority taken to execute any office that appertains to man. Yea, it is plain, that all [every] woman is commanded to serve, to be in humility and subjection. Which thing yet speaks the same writer more plainly in these words:[60] "It is not permitted to women to speak, but to be in silence, as the law says (1 Cor. 14:34). What says the law? 'Unto thy husband shall thy conversion be, and he shall bear dominion over thee' (Gen. 3:16). This is a special law," says Ambrose, "whose sentence, lest it should be violated, infirmed, or made weak, women are commanded to be in silence." Here he includes all women; and yet he proceeds further in the same place, saying, "It is shame for them to presume to speak of the law, in the house of the Lord,[61] who has commanded them to be subject to their men."

But most plainly speaks he, writing upon the 16th chapter (vs. 13) of the epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, upon these words: "Salute Rufus and his mother."[62] "For this cause," says Ambrose, "did the apostle place Rufus before his mother, for the election of the administration of the grace of God, in the which a woman has no place. For he was chosen and promoted by the Lord to take care over his business, that is, over the church, to which office his mother could not be appointed, albeit she was a woman so holy that the apostle called her his mother." Hereof it is plain, that the administration of the grace of God is denied to all [every] woman. By the administration of God's grace, is understood not only the preaching of the word and administration of the sacraments, by the which the grace of God is presented and ordinarily distributed unto man, but also the administration of civil justice, by the which virtue ought to be maintained, and vices punished. The execution whereof is no less denied to woman, than is the preaching of the evangel, or administration of the sacraments, as hereafter shall most plainly appear.

Chrysostom, amongst the Greek writers of no small credit, speaking in rebuke of men, who in his days were become inferior to some women in wit and in godliness, says, [63]"For this cause was woman put under your power (he speaks to man in general), and you were pronounced lord over her, that she should obey you, and that the head should not follow the feet. But often it is, that we see the contrary, that he who in his order ought to be the head, does not keep the order of the feet (that is, does not rule the feet), [64]and that she that is in place of the foot is constituted to be the head." He speaks these words, as it were, in admiration [astonishment] that man was become so brutish, that he did not consider it to be a thing most monstrous that woman should be preferred to man in anything, whom God had subjected to man in all things.

He proceeds, saying, "Nevertheless, it is the part of man, with diligent care, to repel the woman that gives him wicked counsel; and woman, which gave that pestilent counsel to man, ought at all times to have the punishment which was given to Eve sounding in her ears." And in another place,[65] he induces [brings in] God speaking to the woman in this sort: "Because you left him, of whose nature you were participant, and for whom you were formed, and have had pleasure to have familiarity with that wicked beast, and would take his counsel; [66]therefore I subject you to man, and I appoint and affirm him to be your lord, that you may acknowledge his dominion; and because you could not bear rule, learn well to be ruled." Why they should not bear rule, he declares in other places, saying, "Womankind is imprudent and soft (or flexible): imprudent, because she cannot consider with wisdom and reason the things which she hears and sees; and soft she is, because she is easily bowed."[67] I know that Chrysostom brings in these words, to declare the cause why false prophets do commonly deceive women, because they are easily persuaded to any opinion, especially if it be against God; and because they lack prudence and right reason to judge the things that are spoken. But hereof may their nature be espied, and the vices of the same, which in no wise ought to be in those that are appointed to govern others. [68]For they ought to be constant, stable, prudent, and doing everything with discretion and reason, which virtues women cannot have in equality with men. For that he does witness in another place, saying, "Women have in themselves a tickling and study of vain glory; and that they may have in common with men. They are suddenly moved to anger; and that they have also common with some men. [69]But virtues in which they excel, they have not common with man; and therefore has the apostle removed them from the office of teaching, which is an evident proof that in virtue they far differ from man."

Let the reasons of this writer be marked, for further he yet proceeds, after that he has in many words lamented the effeminate manners of men, who were so far degenerated to the weakness of woman, that some might have demanded, "Why may not women teach amongst such a sort of men, who in wisdom and godliness are become inferior unto women?" He finally concludes, "That not withstanding that men be degenerate, yet may not women usurp any authority above them." [70]And in the end he adds these words, "These things I do not speak to extol them (that is women), but to the confusion and shame of ourselves, and to admonish us to take again the dominion that is meet and convenient for us; not only that power which is according to the excellency of dignity, but that which is according to providence, and according to help and virtue; for then is the body in best proportion when is has the best governor."

O that both man and woman should consider the profound counsel and admonition of this father! He would not that man for appetite of any vain glory should desire preeminence above woman. For God has not made man to be head for any such cause, but having respect to that weakness and imperfection which always lets [hinders] woman to govern. He has ordained man to be superior; and that Chrysostom means, saying, "Then is the body in best proportion when it has the best governor. But woman can never be the best governor, by reason that she, being spoiled [deprived] of the spirit of regiment, can never attain to that degree to be called or judged a good governor; because in the nature of all [every] woman lurks such vices as in good governors are not tolerable."[71] Which the same writer expresses in these words, "Womankind," says he, "is rash and fool-hardy; and their covetousness is like the gulf of hell, that is insatiable."[72] And therefore in another place, he wills that woman shall have nothing to do in judgment, in common affairs, or in the regiment of the commonwealth (because she is impatient of troubles), but that she shall live in tranquility and quietness. And if she has occasion to go from the house, that yet she shall have no matter of trouble, neither to follow her, neither to be offered unto her, as commonly there must be to such as bear authority.

And with Chrysostom fully agrees Basilius Magnus, in a sermon which he makes upon some places of scripture,[73] wherein he reproves diverse vices; and amongst the rest, he affirms woman to be a tender creature, flexible, soft, and pitiful; which nature God has given unto her, that she may be apt to nourish children. The which facility of the woman did Satan abuse, and thereby brought her from the obedience of God. And, therefore, in diverse other places does he conclude that she is not apt to bear rule, and that she is forbidden to teach.

Innumerable more testimonies of all sorts of writers may be adduced for the same purpose, but with these I stand content; judging it sufficient, to stop the mouth of such as accuse and condemn all doctrine as heretical which displeases them in any point, that I have proved by the determinations and laws of men illuminated only by the light of nature, by the order of God's creation, by the curse and malediction pronounced against woman by the mouth of St. Paul, who is the interpreter of God's sentence and law, and finally, by the minds of those writers who, in the church of God, have been always held in greatest reverence: that it is a thing most repugnant to nature, to God's will and appointed ordinance (yea, that it cannot be without contumely [insult] committed against God), that a woman should be promoted to dominion or empire, to reign over man, be it in realm, nation, province, or city. Now rests it in a few words to be shown that the same empire of women is the subversion of good order, equity and justice.
 

satz

Puritan Board Senior
Peter, obviously you and i are pretty much in disagreement on this topic, but this is an honest question and not a challenge.

How did Knox and others explain the fact that grown sons were still under the authority of their mothers?
 

CDM

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by SemperFideles
Originally posted by mangum
Originally posted by SemperFideles
The rest of your post is all fine and good if you pour into the discussion the idea that a woman is abandoning her children at home. Hypotheticals make fine straw men.

What straw man? You don't like hypotheticals, neither do I. Let us then, talk about real situations. Let's talk about common situations. A Christian mother, Sally, has 3 kids. 2, 6, and 13. She works a full-time job away from the home. At the end of the day as she returns home around 6:00pm she'll see her children until they go to sleep around 8:00.

I'm sorry if many cannot see this obvious fact. She has left her children at home and someone other than their mother is raising them. Maybe you didn't like my use of the word "abandon" so let's use "left" instead. Now, without getting into the wrong or right of it, we can say that she is not at home taking care of her children. SOMEONE else is. Correct?

Is it not true the overwhelming majority of Christian mothers (of infant to pre-teen children) work outside the home? Do they not "farm out" their children to day-care providers? Maybe you believe this only happens in my hometown? In no way is this hypothetical.

Follow the strain of the entire thread. Pastor Way, and others, are merely arguing against imperialism in the matter and to use prudence in the application of the Biblical text regarding women's roles in the home, in the Church, and in the market.

Ok. For clarity sake, and in the hopes of removing personal offence, let me describe my home. My wife and I have 4 children. 8, 3, 1.5, and 1 week old. If my wife were to, without absolute necessity, leave the home to work a job, putting the children somewhere else (i.e., daycare, grandma's, the state) this could rightly be described as abandoning her children. Is it not easy to see that this wife prefers, and would rather do her own desires than to raise her own children? If one cannot see this, please tell me, what is this called?

The mother should, and must be with her children to nurture and raise them. If you believe a mother can do that at the end of the night while she was away at work, then my part of this conversation ends with this post

I notice no one here wanted to deal directly with what I asked earlier.

"œTell me please, how is the mother with children "fulfilling her duty" at home when she is working at a job? And her children are farmed out for another woman to take care of? How is she keeping the home when she is away from it as often as the husband? I simply do dot understand this."

Anyone? I asked this before, do you agree with the liberated statement "I am a full-time Mom AND a full-time worker"

Just in case I haven´t been clear. A wife at home, raising her children is better for the children than if she were to be working a full day every day away from them. Likewise with a father. If the father were to come home everyday and are with the children as opposed to if he were a salesman that was gone 42 weeks out of the year. Is this not Christian common sense?
Chris,

I don't know who you are arguing with. I'm not trying to be pugilistic but if you read what the proponents of "women in the marketplace" are saying they are merely arguing against a law that in all cases, in all circumstances, a woman must be in the home or she is violating God's command.

When you move from the general case to the specific you are not dealing with the tenor of our argument. In other words, the argument does not proceed like this:

1. Sally has 3 small children.
2. Sally works outside the home, abandoning her kids.
3. Sally ought not abandon their kids.
4. Sally is a woman.
5. All women that work outside the home abandon their kids.
Ergo, women should not work outside the home.

We are merely arguing for prudence. Of course Sally should stay home with the kids and raise them in almost every circumstance. I'm not going to turn it into a rule because I might imagine some hypothetical where she might need to. When the most obvious cases of selfishness are presented they are easy to determine. Nevertheless, it is up to a husband and the elders to determine the propriety of each case.

The point is that this is an area of wisdom and there are some precepts but you cannot stretch the precepts too far and make conclusions that in all circumstances, women are never to have authority over a man in any sphere or work outside the home. I know you have not specifically stated that. Others have. That's what we've been dealing with primarily and not with Sally.

Wisdom and liberty are our goals here. People can draw their own secondary convictions based on the text but don't use them as a pretext to create a talmudic maxim that judges every other Christian family for their compliance with one's own conviction. This is rather like those who homeschool out of personal conviction and create a rule of faith that binds the conscience of other Christian families who have the authority and liberty to determine how they will most wisely carry out the command.

Or, as my former Commanding Officer used to say when he would overturn a previous Commander's order: "It's not better or worse, per se, but I'm just a different coach and use a different playbook."

[Edited on 2-4-2006 by SemperFideles]

I may have taken the thread off course a bit. Thanks for the heads up.

:handshake:

Chris,

Also, so you don't believe I'm ignoring the tenor of your concern - I DO understand it. If I was arguing with a liberal over woman's roles I would be making different arguments based on the error they had fallen into.

I also do not agree with the statement: "I am a full time worker and a full time Mom." My wife remains at home with our children because they require 168 hours of attention a week (especially our third due in 6 weeks) and 40 hours away would be impossible.

:lol: Indeed!

[Edited on 2-6-2006 by mangum]
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Here is a quick, honest question:

Must we think that authority and submission is the same in the sphere of voluntary employment and government? In other words, I guess it seems to me that we cannot equate the authority (and thus ANYONE's duty to submit, including women) to the CEO of a company with that of the duty to submit to a magistrate.

Am I off here? If not, is it not then fallacious to discuss women and employment as analogous to women and the civil magistrate?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top