a woman teaching

[Marcia]

Helen, based on what you said, I agree with Humblesmith. It sounds like you were presenting information based on your husband's research and you were not there to authoritatively teach the word of God, plus you were working with your husband and with his material (from what I gather).

The only thing I did not understand in your first post was your reference to Mary Baker Eddy. I don't see how using her bolsters your case since she was heretical and founded the cult of Christian Science. Many cults are founded by women - cults don't use the Bible correctly and the issue of women teaching is usually not an issue for them. So using her didn't make sense to me since no Christian, man or woman, in their right mind would teach her material.

 

[Helen]

Helen, based on what you said, I agree with Humblesmith. It sounds like you were presenting information based on your husband's research and you were not there to authoritatively teach the word of God, plus you were working with your husband and with his material (from what I gather).

The only thing I did not understand in your first post was your reference to Mary Baker Eddy. I don't see how using her bolsters your case since she was heretical and founded the cult of Christian Science. Many cults are founded by women - cults don't use the Bible correctly and the issue of women teaching is usually not an issue for them. So using her didn't make sense to me since no Christian, man or woman, in their right mind would teach her material.

My reference to her was that even the men who teach her material are considered to be teaching HER material, and therefore that is a woman's teaching if not a woman herself, teaching, right?

OK, when I present my husband's material, I am presenting a man's teaching even though the man himself is not doing the teaching.

It was just by way of contrast and how people look at things. With a woman-founded cult, it is always considered to be her teachings, no matter what man presents them.

Why is it then not my husband's teachings, no matter who presents them?

That was my point. I didn't mean to cause confusion.

 

[Jerome]

Are these scriptures relevant?

Acts 21:8-9
And the next day we that were of Paul's company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him.
And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.

Acts 18:26
And [Apollos] began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

 

[Helen]

Are these scriptures relevant?

Acts 21:8-9
And the next day we that were of Paul's company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him.
And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.

Acts 18:26
And [Apollos] began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

We thought they did, but, being married, I am not a virgin, and since Aquila's name was listed first, we were told Priscilla was probably not speaking, simply being there.

Interesting...

 

[Pastor Larry]

Here are a couple of thoughts:

1. I would be uncomfortable with what you were doing, though I graetly appreciate your position on the issues. I would have made it clear ahead of time so that there would be no confusion.

2. As to authority, teaching is in and of itself authority. You are telling someone what to believe about the word. You cannot separate teaching from authority. Nor does it make a distinction about whose material is being presented. With no offense intended to anyone, I wonder if these are not excuses of convenience, an attempt to avoid the plain teaching of the biblical text, in a Pharisaical move. What I mean by that is that the Pharisees were well known for adding restrictions or qualifications on certain laws either to narrow them, or expand them. This might be one of those times by some (not by all). I do not mean to question Helen's intent in any way whatsoever.

3. The Bible makes no distinction about a woman teaching under the authority of a man. That is a modern assumption read into the text.

4. The Bible's prescription is that the teaching in view is theology in the church over men. Therefore, it does not apply to things like women teaching English to men in college, or to ladies teaching ladies (they should in fact be doing this). It does not even technically apply to a one on one discipleship, although the principles apply. It does refer to the church, whether gathered as a small group, corporate worship large group, retreat, etc.

5. Where "men" begin is an issue for some. I draw the line at Jr. Hi. I think when a young man gets in Jr Hi, he is on teh road to becoming a man and needs to be under the teaching of a man. Others may draw the line at different places.

One last comment, Amy questions whether the prohibition by Paul was because women were untaught. The answer is no. The prohibition given by Paul was based on creation (man was created first) and the fall (woman was deceived). So long as those two things are true, the prohibition on women teaching theology to men in the church will remain in place.

 

[Marcia]

My reference to her was that even the men who teach her material are considered to be teaching HER material, and therefore that is a woman's teaching if not a woman herself, teaching, right?

OK, when I present my husband's material, I am presenting a man's teaching even though the man himself is not doing the teaching.

It was just by way of contrast and how people look at things. With a woman-founded cult, it is always considered to be her teachings, no matter what man presents them.

Why is it then not my husband's teachings, no matter who presents them?

That was my point. I didn't mean to cause confusion.

Okay, Helen,thanks for clarifying! (wavy icon, which I forgot to put in and which cannot be added when editing)

In light of Pastor Larry's post, would you say you are teaching theology in the presentation, i.e., are you exegeting scripture? Or are you presenting the scientific stuff regarding creation, backing it up with scripture?

 

[Gayla]

The Pastor knew ahead of time that you work as a team and had asked for your Interpretation for Dummies. That seems like prior approval, implied if not specified, of presenting the lecture as usual.

(now I shall go back and read the other replies.):wavey:

 

[El_Guero]

3. Consider the many men who preach Mary Baker Eddy's material. Because they consider her an authority, it is therefore a woman's 'teaching.' Does this not hold if I present my husband's material that it is therefore a man's 'teaching'?

Helen,

I have read many of your posts . . . and I was quite surprised to read this post. I do pray that I completely misunderstood this post. I pray that others have already addressed it and silenced this mistake.

However, having read that woman's name on a Christian board - I will not go forward until I have addressed it clearly.

Consider what? Consider evil? For what purpose would you ask any Christian to consider such evil? That woman was evil from the beginning of her conjuring up satan and his lies. Let any man that teaches her material be as accursed as she and her lord.

I sincerely pray that you are not part of that evil religion. I pray that you are not under the spell of those evil delusions they called 'science'.

And I pray that you do not call the 'scientists', Christians . . .

Lord God bring such a revival to our land that every (and each) person would kill themselves rather than submit to the evils of our day.

 

[Helen]

In light of Pastor Larry's post, would you say you are teaching theology in the presentation, i.e., are you exegeting scripture? Or are you presenting the scientific stuff regarding creation, backing it up with scripture?

The entire point of Barry's presentation is in the title "Why you can believe Genesis 1-11." It is where science and Bible mesh. So it's not so much 'exegesis' as saying, "Here is some evidence which seems to back up exactly what this passage is saying." That sort of thing. There are some explanations in terms of both vocabulary used in the Bible itself and the meaning of names. There are explanation of how we are just now starting to catch up to some of what the Bible has known/presented all along, such as the fact that Orion is breaking apart and the Pleiades are gravitationally bound (mentioned in Job), and that we need to be careful about thinking we truly understand everything the Bible is referring to in terms of creation. This is a lead in to the plasma model of creation, which explains rather easily 'how' God did it in six days, if He chose to work through the materials and processes He Himself created ex nihilo the first day. I present information on the biology of 'kind' vs. 'species' and what Noah took on the Ark.

It's that kind of thing. It has nothing to do with the doctrines of salvation or that kind of thing. It is a place where scientific data meets the Bible and confirms it. So yes, we do a lot with Bible, but not in terms of doctrine; rather in terms of the fact that it is scientific interpretations which war against it, not science itself. I tend to present the material on linguistics and biology and then when people don't understand Barry's work, I 'dummy' it down for them. There is a lot of geology, a reasonable amount of physics, some astronomy -- and it all fits in with Genesis just the way that it reads.

We do discuss the Tablet Hypothesis at the beginning, which is the theory that Genesis is a series of eyewitness accounts. We think the Tablet Hypothesis has a lot of evidence going for it, both biblically and extra-biblically. We discuss the fact that the Alexandrian LXX adds about 2000 years to the age of the earth as it appears that the Masoretic interpreters dropped the cipher for 100 from a number of the ages in Genesis 5 and 11.

None of this has to do with salvation, only with the accuracy of Genesis as confirmed by scientific data and historical and linguistic research.

That's what we do.

When Barry does the sermon, he OF COURSE does it alone! He's very good, too!

So there it is. Why Larry or anyone else would feel uncomfortable with Barry and me presenting this information as a team is beyond me, but I do wish we had known more ahead of time. Barry says that if he had known they took that stand even on our type of presentation, we would not have gone. "It feels like they want me to cut off my right hand" is the way he told me. I feel flattered, but we do work well together as a team.

 

[Helen]

Helen,

I have read many of your posts . . . and I was quite surprised to read this post. I do pray that I completely misunderstood this post. I pray that others have already addressed it and silenced this mistake.

However, having read that woman's name on a Christian board - I will not go forward until I have addressed it clearly.

Consider what? Consider evil? For what purpose would you ask any Christian to consider such evil? That woman was evil from the beginning of her conjuring up satan and his lies. Let any man that teaches her material be as accursed as she and her lord.

I sincerely pray that you are not part of that evil religion. I pray that you are not under the spell of those evil delusions they called 'science'.

And I pray that you do not call the 'scientists', Christians . . .

Lord God bring such a revival to our land that every (and each) person would kill themselves rather than submit to the evils of our day.

I really did mis-state what I was trying to say there! Scarlett asked me about that, too, and I responded on p. 2, I think. My point in that was that when men, who are allowed to teach, present Eddy's material, they are presenting a woman's teaching. It is cultic, wrong, but when men present it, that does not make it any less wrong, correct?

When I present my husband's material, I am a woman presenting the work of a man. The fact that I am a woman does not make my husband's work wrong, just as the fact that he is a man does not automatically mean what he says is right.

It's that kind of thing. The way they almost literally attacked us this past weekend it was as if anything a woman presented had to be suspect because she was a woman. Nevertheless, they will sing Fanny Crosby's beautiful hymns, husband and wife together, in front of the congregation.

I was just trying to express my total confusion with the reasoning going on. I must have done a fairly good job, because I evidently confused others as well....LOL:thumbsup:

 

[El_Guero]

double post

 

[El_Guero]

Helen,

Your logic sounds like it comes straight from Eddy, Smith, or any one of thousands of those that have distorted God and His Word.

For example, women priests and women practitioners of several ancient religions were prostitutes . . . Do you want Christians to follow pagan examples? Do you really want to use that kind of logic? I really did not think so.

Whenever man's ways go against God and His Word, it is evil. No matter how sweet it sounds. No matter how much I want to support my sinful flesh and its desire to 'be right'.

Wrong is wrong.

I pray that you and Barry have not fallen under the spell of satan and that woman.

In Christ

Wayne

I really did mis-state what I was trying to say there! Scarlett asked me about that, too, and I responded on p. 2, I think. My point in that was that when men, who are allowed to teach, present Eddy's material, they are presenting a woman's teaching. It is cultic, wrong, but when men present it, that does not make it any less wrong, correct?

When I present my husband's material, I am a woman presenting the work of a man. The fact that I am a woman does not make my husband's work wrong, just as the fact that he is a man does not automatically mean what he says is right.

It's that kind of thing. The way they almost literally attacked us this past weekend it was as if anything a woman presented had to be suspect because she was a woman. Nevertheless, they will sing Fanny Crosby's beautiful hymns, husband and wife together, in front of the congregation.

I was just trying to express my total confusion with the reasoning going on. I must have done a fairly good job, because I evidently confused others as well....LOL:thumbsup:

 

[Helen]

I have called her cultic, wrong, etc. I'm not sure what else I can do! My point was not about her, but about whether the sex of the person doing the talking makes a difference in whether or not the truth is being presented (which is why I chose someone who is obviously cultic!). She is wrong no matter who does the presenting! THAT was my point! On the other hand, I believe my husband is right about a tremendous amount of what he has figured out, whether it is him or me doing the presenting.

I don't know how much clearer I can be. I'm sorry you mistook what I was trying to use as an example. I hope no one else did!

 

[Jim1999]

I was taught biblical Hebrew by a woman professor in seminary. Was she wrong in teaching men, and especially future pastors?

She sure was a great teacher.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

Did Jesus draw any distinction between men and women? Not that I'm aware of. So what is this distinction based on? Not what Christ taught.

 

[Helen]

It's based primarily on Paul's words in 1 Timothy 2:12, where he states he does not allow a woman to teach or to take a man's authority (which is the actual meaning of the Greek; it is not to take authority 'over' a man...).

One of the things that has interested me is that there is no mention of what a woman is not to teach, even in the context. The clue is actually in the Greek, as I mentioned in an earlier post. The verb used which translates 'teach' indicates the authority of a formal instructor over a student even to the point of corporal punishment. It is the word from which we get 'didactic.'

If to 'teach' actually means simply the sharing of information, whether biblical or secular (and the distinction is not made in Paul's letter there), then Baptist Board is in violation of Scripture for allowing women in a forum on theology, for instance. Someone might actually 'learn' from something one of us says!

That is obviously, I think, not what Paul is talking about. He is, instead, referring to a woman assuming a man's authority in any area, including teaching 'under her own authority' in ANY circumstance. For, as Paul explains, it was woman who was deceived, not man.

And I understand that and know that, as a woman, I truly can be easily deceived. My kids found that out quite early! Sincerity gets me just about every time! And so my teaching, even in school, was subject to both principal and parents. And when I am with my husband and we are presenting, I am totally accountable to him for what I say and present. I'm quite comfortable with that, and find it in no way to give me permission to give sermons or otherwise lead in a church -- simply to stand alongside him as his partner and present with him. This saves him some stress, actually, and he prefers it when I present in the areas I am more familiar with, such as biology and linguistics.

However, there are those, such as our friends from this weekend, who feel -- and quite strongly -- that a woman should never teach anything to do with the Bible to a mixed group, whether her husband is there or not. The more Barry and I have studied what Paul was saying and how the Bible interprets Bible, the more we feel they were definitely off on the wrong track.

Should something happen to Barry, I am the one most familiar with a lot of his work, and I can guarantee here and now that I would do my best to keep that work going so that people could learn from what my incredible husband has accomplished.

 

[Gina B]

El Guero

Ya misread her post...AGAIN!

See what happens when you read the politics forum too much? It addles the brain. :tongue3:

I hope you didn't learn anything from this... :tonofbricks:

Now I have to go figure out how Helen is gonna be a man's voice on a video and nobody will know. I've gotta be reading this sentence too literally. I've heard her talk, and her tone doesn't even reach low for a woman, let alone a man. I guess it would be interesting to hear her try though?

 

[El_Guero]

Ya' see what happens when a Christian thinks that they can use heresy instead of the Word of God?

And ya' wanna blame me for it . . .

:saint:

:laugh: Maybe next time she will pause before she alludes her speech with that of a heretic.

:1_grouphug:

El Guero

Ya misread her post...AGAIN!

See what happens when you read the politics forum too much? It addles the brain. :tongue3:

I hope you didn't learn anything from this... ::

Now I have to go figure out how Helen is gonna be a man's voice on a video and nobody will know. :: I've gotta be reading this sentence too literally. I've heard her talk, and her tone doesn't even reach low for a woman, let alone a man. I guess it would be interesting to hear her try though?

 

[El_Guero]

Helen,

As I pointed out above - the logic of using failed theology to support a Christian theology is failed, because it IS human theology and not God's Theology.

I apologize if I was too harsh.

But, I really did not expect someone of your stature and learning to use Eddy to support a theological position.

Had I supported a position that women should not be allowed to speak in church because Joseph Smith had a revelation that women should not speak in church. I pray that you would challenge my position, as well.

I am praying for you and Barry. I especially pray that the 'hangover effect' is short. Unlike most, I have an extremely short 'hangover effect'. I bounce back extremely (almost too) quickly. However, I do understand that most do not have that resilience - I did lead soldiers (privates and lieutenants required a lot of patience). And sometimes my high tolerance of pain is so much greater than those around me that I over step and expect others to tolerate as much as I do.

God bless you guys.

Wayne

I have called her cultic, wrong, etc. I'm not sure what else I can do! My point was not about her, but about whether the sex of the person doing the talking makes a difference in whether or not the truth is being presented (which is why I chose someone who is obviously cultic!). She is wrong no matter who does the presenting! THAT was my point! On the other hand, I believe my husband is right about a tremendous amount of what he has figured out, whether it is him or me doing the presenting.

I don't know how much clearer I can be. I'm sorry you mistook what I was trying to use as an example. I hope no one else did!

 

[bapmom]

Hey Helen,

from what I can tell, I think you did the right thing. You were gracious enough to comply with the pastor's wishes, even though they were not really the same as he had seemed to indicate at first. But perhaps he became uncomfortable with the extent, or perhaps he really was just responding to some concerns from his church members.

I think you acted as a gracious, discrete lady. I think probably the pastor was merely "erring on the side of caution."

It's hard when we have to be ones to change because of someone else in a situation like that.

We have an older couple in our church who provide a ministry to other couples having trouble in their marriages. Together they teach the couples, much the same as you described your presentations with Barry.