From: maier@romulus (Chuck Maier)
Subject: Re: The Woman Liberated
Reply-To: cmaier@uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 14:57:58 GMT

In <1992Jul28.124750.29318@medtron.medtronic.com> ds0007@buhao (Dale Skiba) writes:

>maier@romulus (Chuck Maier) writes:
>: In <1992Jul20.104506.18345@hemlock.cray.com> robd@cray.com (Robert Derrick) writes:
>: 
>: many deletions...
>: 
>: >Under no interpretation that calls itself literal can this be
>: >shown to mean that under some circumstances should women teach.
>: >It clearly and unequivocally says No!
>: 
>: Again, I refer you to Titus for a broader pastoral perspective
>: on women/teaching/authority.
>: 

>Ok Chuck, looking at Titus seems to be a good idea.  Let's see 
>what it says:

>Titus 2: 1-5  (Authorized King James)

>But speak thou the things which come sound doctrine:
>That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound 
>in faith, in charity, in patience.  The aged women
>likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh
>holiness, not false accusers, not given to too much
>wine, teachers of good things;  That they may teach
>the young women to be sober, to love their husbands,
>to love their children, To be discrete, chaste, keepers
>at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the
>word of God be not blasphemed.

>Now that we have looked at the "broader pastoral perspective",
>we can clearly see that the Bible says it is OK for women to
>teach.  However when we look more closely, it says thay women
^^^^^^^. 
Correct.  So your silly remarks about women not teaching and not 
speaking in church are wrong.

>may only teach other women.  It clearly states this.  It does
>NOT say that women can teach men. 

That's right, God's chain of authority is Father - Son - man -
woman - kids.  We shouldn't have women running churches and being
the primary channels for bringing forth instruction and making 
decisions.  Kids instructional classes or 'sunday schools' are not
the authoritative and primary corporate gatherings for imparting
truth to people.

However,
You will note that Priscilla was involved in instructing Apollos in the
baptism of the HOly Spirit in Acts 19.  There is nothing wrong
with a mature women of God instructing a less mature man in the
body under the authority of another man. 

The principle of male authority has meaning because that's the
way the rules were set up in the beginning.  Same way with
monogamous , lifetime marriage.  Obviously in our sinsick
world, there are not always easy answers to implementing God's
cosmic rules regarding human relationships.

Face it.  You're just using some fifth grade tactics to try to 
justify your faith in evolution, for which there is not a single
verse anywhere in the Bible.  If Jesus Christ , Paul and all
the rest were that stupid and ignorant to write that life was
created by divine fiat from dirt, when evolution was and is a
sure fact of science that everyone has to believe, then what
use is there for their views on marriage and male authority etc. .


>To summarize:

>I have now provided three explicit verses showing that women
>should not teach Sunday School.  How can you still say that

There is nothing comparable to 'Sunday School' in the Bible.

Women should not be deserted by men to try to instruct two 
dozen sinful 10 year-olds in some Sunday School.  This is 
a problem.  As for women leading an adult Sunday School, I 
probably wouldn't be here nor there depending upon the whole
spirit of order and rule in the fellowship.  

As I see it, what needs to change in most circumstances in 
religious circles is not for women to be chased out, but for men
to do what they are supposed to do .    

>your belief is consistent with the Bible? 

Because I'm making a correct application of a the spirit of a 
principle to human relationships.

>applying 20th century secular humanist reasoning that says it
>is OK to ignore selected verses of scripture.