Egalitarianism, complementarianism, feminism and chauvinism

[TimV]

Tim, that's really an empty assertion. I've provided Scriptures that show principles and precedents that Sarah refutes. I can do no more because Scripture does not say, "Thou shalt not put women in combat." Contrary to your accusation against me earlier, I've been honest about this. But it is fair to point out that she has no biblical grounds for desiring women to be in combat. The biblical examples, principles and precedents are clearly against her assertion.

Joe, it may be something I'm missing, (and I never meant that you were being dishonest intentionally, although I guess that's implied and I'm sorry) but I'm having a hard time following what you are saying. You said

What about women leaders? Corporate? Military? Political? And, if we step further into the secular arena, is there a point where headship is no longer an issue? A major issue here is also whether or not there is biblical justification to separate secular and religious.[/QUOTE]

and I showed that God forbade Priestesses but allowed Queens. I thought that settled the matter of whether the religious principles of headship are the same as secular principles. We could go to the dozens of examples like women with male servants for further proof. And you answered

Furthermore, the king in Israel was to be both a religious and political leader. They were decidedly inseparable. As the king went, so did the nation. Furthermore, every king was to write down the law. I see no separation of secular and religious here.

And we're just going to realize neither one of us understands the other one or disagrees with the other one on this issue. You disagree with what I've tried to support with Scripture, and I look at the above statement ask myself if you really know where you idea of secular headship being the same as religious headship will lead you.

Another problem may be simply one of writing style.

Tim, that's really an empty assertion. I've provided Scriptures that show principles and precedents that Sarah refutes.

Means to me that Sarah successfully showed your argument flawed, although I doubt you really meant that.

But it is fair to point out that she has no biblical grounds for desiring women to be in combat. The biblical examples, principles and precedents are clearly against her assertion.

Her assertion was that she does believe women should be allowed in combat along with me under normal circumstances, (and I disagree as I said) but is willing to be shown differently by the Bible. But I don't think you've proven your case. Rather, that in insisting on the principle of headship being the same in both religious and secular matters you torpedo yourself.


I personally think that everyone participating on this thread would come to a 99% agreement level over a prolonged dinner with good wine (except for Moderator "R" because due to his domestic situation he's hoping for a blanket ban on all forms of female violence).

 

[Wannabee]

Perhaps you missed this post Tim.

That still won't work, since none of the Prophets would have allowed a woman Priest.

I'm sorry Tim. I'm missing your point.

As you propose, there must be a serious communication issue here. From where I sit you crossed my assertions as though they supported one another in a way that is foreign to me. In fact, during our whole discussion I've perceived that you have been accusing me of something that I've not be able to discern clearly. I'm just not following your thought process at all. But, I know where I can get some good wine, so let me know when you're coming over.

 

[a mere housewife]

(except for Moderator "R" because due to his domestic situation he's hoping for a blanket ban on all forms of female violence).

Actually canine violence. Zack terrorizes both of us with the skillet.

 

[BG]

Knoxienne said:

our society has so programmed us to think unbiblically about all sorts of things that it's hard to wrap our minds around many, many biblical applications.

 

[BG]

Are women really safe in the work place or the Army?

 

[Ex Nihilo]

Are women really safe in the work place or the Army?

Depends on the workplace, doesn't it?

 

[OPC'n]

I don't think I'm safe! Someone, please get me out of this hospital from all these crazy violent psychotic people!

 

[calgal]

Are women really safe in the work place or the Army?

Why is the workplace unsafe for women? Are men not practicing self control?
Using your logic, are we "delicate flowers of womanhood" safe going to the grocery store alone? After all we might provoke a man to lust. And certainly we delicate womens should not drive by ourselves. And we should not be walking by ourselves without being fully covered.

Think about this before you call me "aggressive or feminist:" God calls some women to work in medicine or law or commerce. He calls others to stay home. Would you refuse medical attention from a female MD?

 

[satz]

Speaking of getting our definitions right, here is something that came to me;

Would you consider a woman who worked full time at an outside job with the approval/blessing of her husband/father to be under her father/husband's headship (if single, assume she remains in her parents home)?

(For what its worth, I would say yes)

 

[TimV]

Did you all notice the Chaplaincy issue in post 2 and 5 in this thread?

http://www.puritanboard.com/f116/definition-local-church-44006/

 

[a mere housewife]

Sarah, just wanted to say that I think what you do in nursing is splendid. God grant you every grace in your field which is very worthy and in which all your womanly tenderness and compassion and strength are called upon.

As Gail points out the grocery store can also be a very scary place So can the laundry facility in the basement. Nevertheless we must boldly go where thousands of our kind have gone before. God bless those women and grant them the 'strength' that we are to be clothed with, who have to work outside the home for their families. My mother did it for years; though she would much rather have been home with us, though it stressed her to the point of having hives for months together etc. We women do engage in 'active combat' in a very real war, and there is very real courage and heroism involved: but we fight in a different sphere.

 

[OPC'n]

Did you all notice the Chaplaincy issue in post 2 and 5 in this thread?

http://www.puritanboard.com/f116/definition-local-church-44006/

Tim, what does the definition of a church have to do with women in combat?...just curious of your line of thinking.

 

[Marrow Man]

I don't think I'm safe! Someone, please get me out of this hospital from all these crazy violent psychotic people!

Sometimes I think along these lines, except it's more like this:

"I don't think I'm safe! Someone, please get me off of this board away from all these crazy Reformed Calvinistic people!"

 

[TimV]

Sarah, it was something Marrow Man brought up in post 18 of the thread we're on now.

 

[Marrow Man]

Sarah, it was something Marrow Man brought up in post 18 of the thread we're on now.

For reference sake, here are the two posts I made on chaplaincy:

# 18: I by no means want to hijack this thread, but if I could piggy-back on the whole nursing example and give a hypothetical: how many of you would be in favor of a hospital/hospice chaplaincy-type situation for a woman if it did not involve spiritual authority matters (e.g., proclamation of the word and sacraments). I don't know of whole lot about the various requirements and duties in this situations, so I may be way off here. I'm also not sure where to draw the line with counseling in such situations. But if it is truly a ministry of mercy sort of situation, is there a place for this sort of thing as a non-ordained position.


# 27: The thought occurred to me when I ran into a female chaplain at a hospital. While I am completely opposed to that because of the ordination/authority issues, it seemed that a ministry of mercy position (and I am including an adequately paid staff position in a hospital) might be a via media here. There may be women who go into such a position because they genuinely want to minister sick and dying people. I completely agree that this should not be done outside of the authority of the local church. Perhaps I am way off as it might create more problems than it solves.

 

[satz]

I think there are important concerns about women working outside the home, and these need to be addressed in individual situations. And it's clearly implied in the Bible that a woman's work is to be in service to her family, not to herself, and under her husband's headship. At the same time, a huge problem mentioned in the Bible that is often ignored in these kinds of discussions is idleness. The Bible frequently admonishes women not to be idle; the Proverbs 31 woman is praised for not eating the bread of idleness. Titus 2:5 is sometimes cited to prove that women should work at home and not outside, but in light of Paul's concerns in 1 Timothy 5:13 ("Besides that, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not"), I wonder if the emphasis is on working at home rather than working at home -- though all the words in the phrase are important.

I would agree about idleness being the primary focus of that phrase in Titus 2:5. The point is, I think even more obvious if you take 1 Tim 5:13-14 together.

1 Tim 5:13 Besides that, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not. 14So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, manage their households, and give the adversary no occasion for slander.

Paul first notes that young women have a tendency toward idleness and being busybodies (his words, not mine!). He then carries on in v14: “SO I would have…”. As a response to women tending toward idleness, Paul wants them instead to marry and focus on domestic duties.

Nowadays when we use the words “homemaker” or “stay at home wife” we tend to assume that the opposite of that is a career or working woman. But these verses tell me that in Paul’s, and hence the Holy Spirit’s thought, the opposite of being a good homemaker is being an idler and wondering busybody. That is the primary sin being condemned in Titus 2:5 when younger women are told to be homemakers or keepers at home. There is no indication at all from the context that outside work was what Paul had in mind when writing to Titus.

-----Added 2/19/2009 at 10:41:11 EST-----

By way of general comment on the topic of outside work for women, as I indicated, as long as the family does not suffer, I believe there is a fairly wide area of liberty for each couple to decide (with the man having the final say, off course). Of course, I am dealing only with what I think the bible would present as allowable. The exact application for an individual family will vary a lot and as Paul would say, not everything lawful is always edifying in all circumstances.

I believe proverbs 31:16 and 24 teach by precept that it is acceptable, and sometimes even commendable for women to have outside pursuits. I do not believe there is much profit in getting caught up on the exact activities she was engaging in, whether it was a home business or working from home or the equivalent of what we would consider a job today. She was engaged in activities that took her time and energy away from strictly domestic concerns. And this was something God considered praiseworthy. Of course, as Tim mentioned, this will not apply to all women at all times, for some wives will just be too busy to have significant outside pursuits.

If we ask is it lawful for a woman to enter into an employment relationship and hence under another authority, again, I believe the bible allows it. Sometimes this will not be wise, but that is a matter of prudence and discretion. I already noted how in the OT many women were under the authority of other men as their maidservants. Under God’s own civil law such a maidservant getting married did not break her relationship with her master (Ex 21:4). And as long as the decision has the blessing of the husband, there is no usurpation of headship. Numbers 30 allows a husband to annul his wife’s vows, but it also allows him to hold his peace and let her vow stand. He can choose that his household can take the wife being away for a certain amount of time or occupied with such and such.

I think it really comes down to each individual family circumstances, and to a certain degree, preferences.

 

[Wannabee]

Other than Mark's comment above, I think it's interesting that the clearest and most solid answers given in this thread have been by a handful of women. They've shown that they understand and embrace God's order in creation, and are in no way threatened by it. This is true submission to God and the essence of feminine beauty.