Four women are included as authors or co-authors of some of the best two commentaries on each book of the Bible at BestCommentaries.com, a site associated with Ligonier Ministries, I believe. There again is the slippery slope I think we begin to go down when we get too precise about what constitutes women not being able to teach. I have my own ideas about the helpfulness of quoting extra-biblical sources during a sermon (I think it’s distracting and can lead to undue adulation of those quoted – and please don’t mention Paul’s quotation of Epimenides at Mars Hill), but those aside, is it improper for a speaker to quote a female author?

Just wanted to get my oar in. I’ll catch up with the next RBMW discussion thread in due course.

Mark@DR

Wonder if before deciding this they’d carpooled a number of 12 year old boys to a LaserTag birthday party?

I’ve known churches that won’t use hymnals with any woman hymn writers in them, because that would be women teaching men when the men sang the hymns!

Mark, in case you do not know, not all who consider themselves complementarians forbid women from teaching men. When 1 Timothy 2 says I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man some take the teaching and authority as being coupled together.

In other words they take Paul’s instructions as “I do not permit a women to authoritatively teach a man.” What does that mean? Well, they take it to mean that Paul is not forbidding women from teaching in general, but from teaching as one with the unique authority of an Elder of the Church.

It’s funny that you bring up the woman you know who excelled in biblical languages, because Mark Driscoll was taught Hebrew by a woman. He is one of those complementarians who hold the above mentioned view and has no problem being taught by a woman per se.

I am not advocating that view one way or another now (the future chapters of this book will provide room for that!) I am simply noting that just as there are nuances within the egalitarian community, such nuances exist in the complementarian community as well.

I’d love to talk about the cultural view as well and you guys are free to, but I’ll restrain myself for future chapters where this will come particularly into play.

Have a great weekend folks!

Your story about the varying takes on age limit for women teaching boys/men displays just why evangelical comp began to unravel for me. The silliness of the age argument displays what happens when we confuse a first century Jewish-Greco/Roman context with our own. This is why I have come to reject biblical hermeneutics that ignores ancient contexts.

Another example of how absurd this can get. I know a woman who was nearly unanimously recognized as perhaps the best teacher ever in her subject area (biblical languages) at a conservative seminary. Even though there was no rule on the books that would prevent her or any woman from teaching any class in the seminary (because the seminary would lose its secular accreditation), no woman ever had, and everyone knew that no woman ever would. As it was, she was never called a professor, even though she did as much as any professor. She was given a made up title so conservative students wouldn’t get upset.

The assumption seemed to be that is was “safe” for a woman to teach languages because she wasn’t teaching doctrine or theology. The delicious irony is that because the advanced level of the class involved intensive translation and discussion of the text, she was teaching theology and doctrine all the time.

I’m not sure if you are asking my opinion or the opinion of those who allow teaching of HS boys and girls by a woman, and not adults. Let me answer it one way and then you can reask if I am not answering the right question.

The reason why a woman would be allowed to teach HS boys and girls and not adults would be because HS boys are still in their parents home, under their mother’s authority as a parent. Their mother is still teaching, guiding and offering years of Biblical wisdom to her son. Particularly in a home-schooling situation – you would see the mother helping with Biblical studies and often entering discussions of spiritual application in all areas of study.

At adulthood, a child has left home and is now responsible in many areas for leadership. In our society, he is no longer a child (he can join the army, drink (if 21), vote etc.). We consider this a passage into adulthood. No longer should he be under the spiritual authority of a woman.

At least that’s the argument as I understand it. In my church this argument is rejected and the prohibition of woman teaching boys and girls in Sunday School goes down to 5th grade.

I’ve not heard a formal discussion as to why 6th grade is the cut-off, but this view is not uncommon. This is one reason why I’m interested in your blog study.

The only restrictions on older women in the Titus 2 passage that I see are against irreverent behavior, slandering, addiction to wine and teaching what is bad.

They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women . . . I do take these words to be at least carrying an implication that their focus on who they will train will be younger wives. This seems obvious. Who best to offer instruction to younger wives then mature older wives? Same thing for young husbands or young pastors or for that matter young business folks who are looking for wisdom – Go to Godly folks who share your roles.

Those are some of my thoughts on that passage. I’m going to wait till the book comes to 1 Timothy 2 before saying anything on that. I’m thinking I obviously have a lot of studying to do. :)