I agree with much of what you’ve said here. What I find often missing in a lot of these conversations is the way that biology together with beliefs about the family form a coherent vision of “not always but usually.” For example, is it in principle wrong for a woman to be higher up than a man in the chain of command at a business? No, no problem there in principle. However, does the biblical picture given to us of 1.) getting married, 2.) having children, and 3.) shepherding/raising them faithfully make it such that “not always but usually” a woman who is in such a position is sinning? Not because this is, in principle, wrong. Instead because a position would require abdication of the other primary roles that she has. Of course, some women remain single even when they don’t want to be or are called to be as such. I know that we could nuance that to no end. But to put a lot of flesh on it (as someone from MI), I find it hard to believe that Gretchen Whitmer has been a faithful mother in her home even in a natural sense of time that she has spent with her children raising them. What do you think? These are very shorthand thoughts, but this is, for me, how we also arrive to statements found in Isaiah (for instance) that mock Israel for having women and children as their leaders.
I would swy there are some things a woman can't teach by the natural consequences of 1 Tim. Specifically: Preaching and pastoral ministry. One cannot teach what they cannot do. Anymore than a man could lead daycare. But could a woman teach Biblical Languages? 100%
Think you’re right on.
I agree with much of what you’ve said here. What I find often missing in a lot of these conversations is the way that biology together with beliefs about the family form a coherent vision of “not always but usually.” For example, is it in principle wrong for a woman to be higher up than a man in the chain of command at a business? No, no problem there in principle. However, does the biblical picture given to us of 1.) getting married, 2.) having children, and 3.) shepherding/raising them faithfully make it such that “not always but usually” a woman who is in such a position is sinning? Not because this is, in principle, wrong. Instead because a position would require abdication of the other primary roles that she has. Of course, some women remain single even when they don’t want to be or are called to be as such. I know that we could nuance that to no end. But to put a lot of flesh on it (as someone from MI), I find it hard to believe that Gretchen Whitmer has been a faithful mother in her home even in a natural sense of time that she has spent with her children raising them.
What do you think? These are very shorthand thoughts, but this is, for me, how we also arrive to statements found in Isaiah (for instance) that mock Israel for having women and children as their leaders.
I would swy there are some things a woman can't teach by the natural consequences of 1 Tim. Specifically: Preaching and pastoral ministry. One cannot teach what they cannot do. Anymore than a man could lead daycare. But could a woman teach Biblical Languages? 100%