Women should keep silent - and all these ladies on the PB

[Pergamum]

There is not "no male supervision at all", the leader is just in another city - they are sent by a team headed up by males and with the approval of a local church. They are in a private home and are merely answering questions from uninvited men who come in.


I notice you said "comparing it to me asking the women at my church for advice with raising my 14 year old."
How about advice how to be saved? Suppose you needed to know that? Or if you engaged in Scriptural dialogue?

 

[Galatians220]

Notice no women have posted in this thread .... (looks both way) ... (goes back into hiding) ...

Not so, Mr. Murphy: look at No. 10... Janis is there. You are not escaping notice by the feminine contingent here, not by a long shot.

We're waiting in the weeds, and when we strike, it's going to be with ecclesiastical-grade plutonium, for starters.

Just joking! ​

Those of us who are wives are supposed to be submissive to our own husbands (Ephesians 5:22; Colossians 3:18) and most of us make a game, unsnarky effort to do so... Even though it can be really, really hard!

To address the substantive issue: this is informal. Most of us are sitting hundreds, if not thousands of miles away from each other, typing away. Where do we go if we want to discuss "things theological" with someone other than our husbands or our pastors? I like to bandy about ideas.

That said, yes, I agree, I shouldn't be instructing men, or trying to and failing as can be expected. I would have no problem with being banned from certain forums on that Scriptural basis. We ladies have the tea room, after all. I only ask that the "thanks" button not be taken away, either that or my second-favorite feature here, the "delete post" one!

"Galatians220" will rethink the idea of posting things that may be construed as an attempt to instruct men. (I'm grateful for this thread, too.)

Fair enough?

Margaret

 

[TimV]

"Galatians220" will rethink the idea of posting things that may be construed as an attempt to instruct men. (I'm grateful for this thread, too.)

Fair enough?

I wouldn't be happy with that, and even strict confessional churches have Bible studies where women can't teach, but can offer their input. It doesn't have to be all or none!

 

[Grace Alone]

I will also attempt to continue witholding my vast storehouse of theological knowledge to be certain that I do not accidentally teach any men on here.

 

[Galatians220]

I will also attempt to continue witholding my vast storehouse of theological knowledge to be certain that I do not accidentally teach any men on here.

That's the spirit I was hoping for!!!!

(I find that I am often deemed most culpable for wrongdoing when I've embarked upon a particular enterprise "with only the best of intentions..." C'est la vie. )

Margaret

 

[staythecourse]

This is a useful post. I am currently, even today, wanting to walk out from work as I work under women and feel the strain. Younger women and older. It's a pharmaceutical company. This is very apropos for my situation. How do you men handle working under women, those of you that do? Does it affect your masculinity and does it affect their femininity? Which I think is Paul's point in his going back to creation. What about working with unsaved women?

Too broad a question for the thread?

 

[TimV]

Bryan, you just can't go there with the principles involved. Religious teaching and authority are under discussion, and that's about it. Down through the years there have been a couple blasts of the trumpet about women in positions of civil leadership, and I haven't seen anything written by confessional Reformed folk here in favor of women evangelists, even when grace would seeminly abound, but the Proverbs 31 lady did real estate, and started a vineyard. And anyone who knows the first thing about the agricultural aspect of that endeavor knows for a fact that the Proverbs 31 gal had guys doing at least some of the work under her authority.

In those situations you pretty much have to do what she says or look for different work.

 

[Grymir]

Can I tell the owner of my business that I'm in authority over her because she's a woman? I wish.

I should add that she pays me to act like I own the place, so I'm lucky!

Galatians 220 quote - "We're waiting in the weeds, and when we strike, it's going to be with ecclesiastical-grade plutonium, for starters."

I love the ecclesiastical-grade plutonium statement, but if I use it, would that constitute me learning from a woman??? I really like it, but the moral dilemma that surrounds this concept is to much for a mere mortal man to bear.

Just kidding on all, just in case anybody wonders otherwise, except the stuff about the owner of my business.

 

[N. Eshelman]

Can I tell the owner of my business that I'm in authority over her because she's a woman? I wish.

I should add that she pays me to act like I own the place, so I'm lucky!

Just kidding on all, just in case anybody wonders otherwise, except the stuff about the owner of my business.

Does your wife own the business?

 

[DMcFadden]

Under the restrictive view of some, the command that women should keep silent in the church means a blanket command that a woman should never teach a man (even if not in ecclesiastical authority or in a church setting). If some hold to this view, why are there woman posters on the PB?

You know, they might teach a man something on here?

Should we move to restrict women posters to only hitting the Thanks key or posting Amen?




Or....

Are men and women able to mutually bless each other by theological conversation? If they disagree, should a woman ever then argue for her point?

Pergy,

Has anyone ever pointed out to you that you have the spirit of a mischief-making little demon? You must have a LOT of spare time today to get this dustup started.

Oops. I better get back to differentiating whether I want "my lessons" to "come . . . smooth or lumpy." Afterall, I have more degrees than my wife . . . however, with only three of them being theological degrees, I am still one behind her.

Despite being true, the complementarian interpretation of 1 Tim 2 is not without its intrinsic anomalies and problems. However, taking the implications beyond the original intention of the divine author in the context of a rampantly egalitarian culture is a suicide mission!

If I read Gen 3 correctly, a woman NEEDS to submit to her husband (Eph 5) precisely BECAUSE she is cursed with "desire" (תְּשׁוּקָה téshuqah, “desire”) for her husband's position. Similarly, a man NEEDS to love his wife "as Christ loved the Church" precisely BECAUSE he is cursed with a sinful proneness to "rule over" (יִמְשָׁל־בָּֽךְ) her.

 

[Webservant]

Are men and women able to mutually bless each other by theological conversation? If they disagree, should a woman ever then argue for her point?

My wife has taught me, tamed me, and <need another "t">... and... well, anyway, God blessed me with a better half who is both smarter and more patient and mature than I am. Surely God gave us these lovely creatures for reasons other than procreation?

 

[Pergamum]

McFaddenator:

All true. Wives submit to husbands. Yep. Male ecclesiastical headship in the church. True.

However, in the realm of personal life, in one's home, and even in personal evangelism, a woman is allowed to answer a theological question is asked by a man. And they are allowed to engage in biblical discourse, even if (gasp) the man might learn something...or else the PB could not allow the fairer sex on here for fear that we learn sumthin'.

 

[Pergamum]

Under the restrictive view of some, the command that women should keep silent in the church means a blanket command that a woman should never teach a man (even if not in ecclesiastical authority or in a church setting). If some hold to this view, why are there woman posters on the PB?

You know, they might teach a man something on here?

Should we move to restrict women posters to only hitting the Thanks key or posting Amen?




Or....

Are men and women able to mutually bless each other by theological conversation? If they disagree, should a woman ever then argue for her point?

Pergy,

Has anyone ever pointed out to you that you have the spirit of a mischief-making little demon? You must have a LOT of spare time today to get this dustup started.

Oops. I better get back to differentiating whether I want "my lessons" to "come . . . smooth or lumpy." Afterall, I have more degrees than my wife . . . however, with only three of them being theological degrees, I am still one behind her.

Despite being true, the complementarian interpretation of 1 Tim 2 is not without its intrinsic anomalies and problems. However, taking the implications beyond the original intention of the divine author in the context of a rampantly egalitarian culture is a suicide mission!

If I read Gen 3 correctly, a woman NEEDS to submit to her husband (Eph 5) precisely BECAUSE she is cursed with "desire" (תְּשׁוּקָה téshuqah, “desire”) for her husband's position. Similarly, a man NEEDS to love his wife "as Christ loved the Church" precisely BECAUSE he is cursed with a sinful proneness to "rule over" (יִמְשָׁל־בָּֽךְ) her.

As far as the mischief making: The airstrips are flooded and are closed, the river is up and my wife is sick - so I haven't spent more than a day away from our coastal home for 4 weeks now (at the same time that I have arranged to get a better internet connection).......

So..... its been a month of writing, correspondance, reports, and coastally based meetings/preaching, and too many sicknesses and death....And maybe a PB overdose.....Next week I should be more gainfully employed at a more distant location...


...but COME ONE....the question was begging to be asked, wasn't it!

 

[satz]

This is a useful post. I am currently, even today, wanting to walk out from work as I work under women and feel the strain. Younger women and older. It's a pharmaceutical company. This is very apropos for my situation. How do you men handle working under women, those of you that do? Does it affect your masculinity and does it affect their femininity? Which I think is Paul's point in his going back to creation. What about working with unsaved women?

Too broad a question for the thread?

I think we submit to a female boss at work in exactly the same manner as a male boss. I don't think that it affects my masculinity or vice versa anymore than obeying my mother does.

As TimV pointed out, male servants in OT Israel were under the authority of female family members.

Which I think is Paul's point in his going back to creation.

As I tried to explain in my earlier post, I believe Paul's point in going back to creation was male/female relationships in the church (1 Tim 3:15). We know that because that is what he says. To attempt to push the practical implications beyond that without referring to additional bible verses is just speculation.

 

[satz]

Are men and women able to mutually bless each other by theological conversation? If they disagree, should a woman ever then argue for her point?

1 Samuel 25:32-33 And David said to Abigail, Blessed be the LORD God of Israel, which sent thee this day to meet me: And blessed be thy advice, and blessed be thou, which hast kept me this day from coming to shed blood, and from avenging myself with mine own hand.

David wasn't ashamed to learn things from a woman.

 

[Grymir]

Can I tell the owner of my business that I'm in authority over her because she's a woman? I wish.

I should add that she pays me to act like I own the place, so I'm lucky!

Just kidding on all, just in case anybody wonders otherwise, except the stuff about the owner of my business.

Does your wife own the business?

Nope, my wife runs the business of home. I'm blessed. I'm lucky to have a wife that wanted to have a biblical marriage like I did. I don't like jokes that I hear (even in church) about "who wears the pants" in the family. These statements let me know that there is a power struggle going on in the home. When I hear these jokes, even at work by married couples, I like to respond that I'm the King, and my wife is the Queen, and we both rule gloriously. Since we are following what the bible says, we don't waste our precious time together with power struggles. We are both learning how to live up to our division of labor roles that we are expected to do. It allows us to spend lots of time together, enjoying each other for what we bring to the marriage.

Now, concerning work, my boss is a Sikh from India that's as right-wing politically leaning as I am. Pretty strange. Most people of another religion, especially from another country are usually liberal.

 

[DMcFadden]

McFaddenator:

All true. Wives submit to husbands. Yep. Male ecclesiastical headship in the church. True.

However, in the realm of personal life, in one's home, and even in personal evangelism, a woman is allowed to answer a theological question is asked by a man. And they are allowed to engage in biblical discourse, even if (gasp) the man might learn something...or else the PB could not allow the fairer sex on here for fear that we learn sumthin'.

Pergy, sorry. I truncated my post in order to get away with my wife to see a movie. I meant to go on to say that yes, headship is true, BUT it is dangerous and wrong-headed to extend it restrictively into every nook and cranny of life. Not only does the Bible record numerous instances of women making an impact upon men, but I see NO biblical restrictions on women in their conversations with men (other than taking the official lead in the church). It is just as dangerous to build a Pharisee's hedge around the Word as to err on the side of latitudinarianism. BTW, while my wife and I had the same classes from Gundry and Moises Silva in Greek and NT in college, she did her seminary work in Christian education when I was doing my M.Div. Nothing wrong with an educated wife.

 

[ManleyBeasley]

One time a woman told me that the bible said a man should never let a woman teach him anything...so I refused to listen to her...and then figured out that I learned something from her...so...wait a minute.

 

[JOwen]

Why would we presume that when Priscilla and Aquila were teaching that she was the teacher in authority rather than her husband?

No need to assume that Priscilla was "the authority" but the mention of her name, so very often, points out her exemplary godliness and therefore her personal impact. Not many other women are mentioned in this light, and we must assume then, that her presence was important to the broader picture (who else's wife is mentioned like this in the Word?). She was not a pastor, elder, deacon, or any other kind of officer, granted. But she did have the unofficial place of an instructor of sorts. I have met many such women who, despite their lack of office do, in a submissive and acceptable way, instruct by word and life. I know of several such women dead and living. Mary Winslow, and Ruth Bryan come to mind. If we as men could not learn from them, why then are their works published and read by many men in the Church? Perhaps a strongly worded letter to Reformation Heritage Books is in order?
The Bible never intended to teach that a man could never learn from a woman in the wlak of faith. That is bad exegesis.

Blessings!

 

[greenbaggins]

Someone mentioned the phrase "in every place" in 1 Timothy 2. This probably refers to every place of worship. Paul is, after all, writing to a pastor, and the context of the first part of the chapter is prayer, and almost certainly prayer in worship. The argument that it is not limited to worship because of the mention of childbearing in verse 15 falls to the ground if one takes it as "the childbearing," a reference to the birth of Jesus Christ. See my article on this passage in the upcoming Confessional Presbyterian Journal.

 

[larryjf]

Why would we presume that when Priscilla and Aquila were teaching that she was the teacher in authority rather than her husband?

No need to assume that Priscilla was "the authority" but the mention of her name, so very often, points out her exemplary godliness and therefore her personal impact. Not many other women are mentioned in this light, and we must assume then, that her presence was important to the broader picture (who else's wife is mentioned like this in the Word?). She was not a pastor, elder, deacon, or any other kind of officer, granted. But she did have the unofficial place of an instructor of sorts. I have met many such women who, despite their lack of office do, in a submissive and acceptable way, instruct by word and life. I know of several such women dead and living. Mary Winslow, and Ruth Bryan come to mind. If we as men could not learn from them, why then are their works published and read by many men in the Church? Perhaps a strongly worded letter to Reformation Heritage Books is in order?
The Bible never intended to teach that a man could never learn from a woman in the wlak of faith. That is bad exegesis.

Blessings!

I don't think we're saying different things.
Women can and do teach, but to do so authoritatively (with men) is to go against God's order.
I would never say that the unauthoritative teaching of women is wrong.

 

[satz]

Larry,

What do you mean by 'authoritatively' ?

 

[larryjf]

Someone mentioned the phrase "in every place" in 1 Timothy 2. This probably refers to every place of worship. Paul is, after all, writing to a pastor, and the context of the first part of the chapter is prayer, and almost certainly prayer in worship. The argument that it is not limited to worship because of the mention of childbearing in verse 15 falls to the ground if one takes it as "the childbearing," a reference to the birth of Jesus Christ. See my article on this passage in the upcoming Confessional Presbyterian Journal.

Lane,
So you agree with Gill regarding the meaning of "childbearing"...interesting. Though i agree that may be part of the reference, i don't see it as the primary reference.
I like the way the Geneva note states it:

He adds a comfort by the way, that their subjection does not hinder women from being saved as well as men, if they behave themselves in those duties of marriage in a holy and modest manner, with faith and charity.

I do see my error in expanding this passage to all areas of life the more i consider it and pray over it.
I am sorry for twisting the Scriptures in a way that suited my presupposition instead of allowing Scripture to mold my understanding.

However, i still see that the reference to creation and man being created first with woman being the first to transgress does point to a more fundamental order of female submission than simply at church.

 

[larryjf]

Larry,

What do you mean by 'authoritatively' ?

Among other things it would include the ability to discipline those who are not submissive to godly teaching.

 

[JOwen]

I don't think we're saying different things.
Women can and do teach, but to do so authoritatively (with men) is to go against God's order.
I would never say that the unauthoritative teaching of women is wrong.

Then we agree

 

[charliejunfan]

I think we do need to change the rules on here a bit because if we do not I think we would be undermining the Bible's teaching. Living in the U.S. we are used to individuality and egalitarianism, as a result we feel guilty about limiting the opportunities for women. If I were to rebuke my friend for sinning, I myself would feel guilty since I sin regularly but the means are just as important as the ends in Christianity and we are taught that rebuke is one of the ways in which we love the brethren. If we undermine the proper biblical means for teaching here then how can we uphold them in our homes and churches, if we are to Reform the family we need to be very conscious of the means used to do this, we will always offend if we are properly teaching and living what the bible says.
I believe the way in which we as men learn from women is illustrated in this way, If I were to teach my younger sister something that is thought restrictive by our culture and yet she accepted it in humble submission this reaction to my teaching would teach me to be more Christlike. We learn from women in many ways by our observance rather than their direct teaching, the same is true when for instance, they teach children in a godly fashion, we can learn from that but they are not teaching us.
Can women teach women when it comes to doctrine/theology? or is it all supposed to come from the man or men in each household?

 

[Simply_Nikki]

Can women teach women? or is it all supposed to come from the man or men in each household?

Titus 2:2-5

Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness. Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.

Did I just teach something?

 

[charliejunfan]

thanks nikki, but shame on you!!!!! lol I meant in regards to doctrine though, not application

 

[Simply_Nikki]

thanks nikki, but shame on you!!!!! lol I meant in regards to doctrine though, not application

I would think some restatement or teaching of doctrine or theology would be necessary when training younger women in the application of that very doctrine we are taught to uphold.

For instance: an older woman is teaching younger women how to be submissive to their husbands, a younger women asks the question why? Should the older women say, sorry I can't teach you that, as that would be veering off into doctrinal areas? I think the older women would need to go into the the doctrine of the fall and the curse, and the doctrine and theology of marriage and what it represents (women submitting to their husbands as the church is submissive to Christ) to answer the young woman's question.

 

[Ex Nihilo]

I think we do need to change the rules on here a bit because if we do not I think we would be undermining the Bible's teaching.

I am just curious -- which rules would you propose? And would you impose the same rules on the conversations at a fellowship dinner?