I have spent the past few weeks examining Biblical womanhood after my wife and I just had our first child. We were sitting in a Bible/Book study with some friends of ours, when we heard comments that women who were not "homeworkers" were trying to get around or basically be disobedient to scripture. Since that time I have listened to a coupe of Carolyn Mahaney sermons and I am glad that I did because it helped my wife and I to make the decision not to continue attending Sovereign Grace Ministries in NC. Carolyn makes the statement in her sermon/speech that, "it is God's command that women be homeworkers". I am pretty sure that she is dishonoring the Word of God by making something a command that is clearly not a command. People who put more commands on others need more law put on themselves, so here you go. First of all she surely does not heed Paul's charge for women to keep silent or not to teach. I question if she should even be teaching the things that she is teaching because Paul instructed the older women to train the women. The older women in scripture were those 60 years or older. In this sermon, "Being Busy at Home" I believe Carolyn is younger than 60 years old, so she is disobeying scripture here. In addition, the scope of her teaching is not just in her local church but reaches out to the general public with her sermons and books. This means that men fall under this teaching as well. Which if one is going to wrangle with words in scripture, this would make her teaching unbiblical also. What about head coverings? She needs to be wearing a head covering when she prays or she is going to be disobeying scripture. Plus the Bible instructs us to pray without ceasing, so she needs to wear a head covering all the time or she will be unbiblical. What about jewelry? Paul instructs the women not to wear gold or pearls. I am not anti-law, but this kind of teaching destroys people. It bogs people down and never ends. When Paul addresses these issues, it does not discredit or make the Word of God err. One just has to ask questions like, Who is Paul addressing in this text?, Why is he addressing these folks or this issue?, Does this apply to us today?, and Is this a command? If you don't ask these questions, then you are going to have to have women wearing head coverings and no jewelry.
I find that her teaching is shallow, legalistic, and divisive. She misses the whole point of the book of Titus in that there were people in the Church at Crete who were spreading false doctrine, and some of the women were going from house to house gossiping and quite possibly spreading false doctrine. The whole book is about addressing false doctrine. Cooking, cleaning house, sewing, and making homemade jams, was not Paul's concern when he instructed the women to be at home. These women were neglecting their husbands and children to fulfill their own lust by spreading false doctrine. These women had some serious issues and there were some serious problems going on in the church that Timothy and Titus were in charge of. What woman do you have to train to love their husband and children? These women were rebellious and not submissive at all. I Timothy 5:13 states of young widows, "And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house, and not only idle, but tattlers and also busybodies, speaking things which they ought not." The word of God was dishonored because of the conduct of these women. We find some serious problems with young women in the church because Paul writes that some had already turned aside to Satan in 1 Timothy 5:15. If being a homemaker is a command then getting married and bearing children would be a command also. (See 1 Tim 5:14) What if a woman did not marry or could not bear children? Would she be sinning?
At one point during the sermon, after Carolyn Mahaney states that a woman's job and only employment is working at home, she proceeds to castrate any Christian men who wives work by basically stating that the man's job is to be the sole provider and if a wife has to work then he is a poor provider for his wife and family. After this she takes a moment to have pity and condolences on the poor single women/mothers who have to both work outside of the home and manage home life as well, she tells these poor single women that, "Jesus will be your husband." What? This is the most cooky, ridiculous thing that I have ever heard. Frankly, I think it is somewhat blasphemous to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I found what the Bible states in Isaiah 54:5 about the Maker being Israel's husband, but this is a little different. Mahaney is saying with her statement, "We have great husband providers for us so that we can stay home and I am so sorry for you, but just know that Jesus will be your husband." Will Jesus take my place and be my wife's husband, since I am such a poor provider being that she has to work? Maybe he will send her a check in the mail. Ridiculous! The Apostle Paul does not tell young women/young widows that Jesus will be their husband, but for them to marry, widows to remarry, and bear children (1 Tim 5:14).
Let's see what Jesus really thinks about homemaking:
Luke 10: 38 Now as they were traveling along, He entered a village; and a woman named Martha welcomed Him into her home.39She had a sister called Mary, who was seated at the Lord's feet, listening to His word.40But Martha was distracted with all her preparations; and she came up to Him and said, "Lord, do You not care that my sister has left me to do all the serving alone? Then tell her to help me."41But the Lord answered and said to her, "Martha, Martha, you are worried and bothered about so many things; 42but only one thing is necessary, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her.
So I will say, " Carolyn, Carolyn, you are worried and bothered about so many things; but only one thing is necessary.
Finally, I write this entire blog on this subject because as I was researching I found that Carolyn has spoken several times and written books on this subject, which to me she is making it an essential, instead of it being an non-essential, which is the truth. Also, this smells of the same legalistic mind set of when I was a boy and was told by family members that I was going to Hell for wearing shorts and that women should not wear make-up, jewelry, or pants because of what 1 Timothy 2:9 that states: Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I forgot to add another observation about Carolyn Mahaney's sermon entitled, "Busy Being at Home". At the end she ties homemaking with salvation by stating that homeworking women/wives will be told when they stand before God, "Well done thy good and faithful servant." So I guess women who have to work outside of the home will not be told this. This is very exclusive. I guess only homeworking women are going to be in heaven? This is very sad to me and it hurts the Body of Christ. I am very concerned for the state of the Church. How can someone who claims to believe in Justification by Faith return to living by Law and putting Law on others?
The word in the NASB is "encourage the young women" which is not as strong as a command. Also in the ESV the same word is translate "train". This word for train in the Greek is sophronizo, which means, "to cause to be of sound mind, to recall one's senses. This definition further explains that these women were not in their right state of mind and needed to come back to their sense by not spreading false doctrine, traveling house to house, and neglecting their family.
This is a comment that I found on this subject from the web.
Regarding a married woman’s vocation, consider Acts 18:2-3. Paul came and abode and wrought with Aquila and Priscilla, and that by THEIR occupation they were tentmakers. Both Aquila and Priscilla were tentmakers. It does not say Aquila was a tentmaker and Priscilla a housewife. Of course, if she was the godly woman the New Testament presents her as being, we know she also looked after Aquila’s house and any children they might have had, but tentmaking was an important enough part of her life that the Holy Spirit describes it as her occupation, and does not see any inherent conflict between that and her domestic duties.
Coming to Titus 2 and ‘keepers at home’, I know you (kind of) rejected this interpretation, but I have always understood that term to be defined by comparing to 1 Tim 5:13-14. She is to be a keeper at home as compared to someone who is idle and wondering around gossiping. That, as far as the bible is concerned is the primary sin that is the opposite of ‘keepers at home’ is being idle and a busybody, which is seen by the word ‘therefore’ in 1 Tim 5:14. Instead of letting the women be idle busybodies, he would have them ‘marry, bear children, guide the house…’. That is the primary contrast that Paul has in mind here. Those who say that a Christian woman or wife may have a calling outside the home are often accused of having taken on the spirit and thinking of this age. But aren’t we importing our current controversy of homemaker vs career women into this passage when we read it in that way? I do not see anything in these epistles or indeed in the rest of the bible that indicates that was the controversy Paul had in mind when he wrote those passages. Rather, it was idleness and gossip he was primarily condemning.
Very insightful and Word-centered post. Thank you so much for shedding light on this issue! Your thoughts are so desperately needed in conservative, Reformed churches these days.
In the name of preserving "essential doctrines," many have unfortunately given off the impression of being self-righteous, country clubs rather than a place for broken sinners of every sex and circumstance to seek redemption in Jesus Christ alone.
The *Gospel* is not Titus 2. The *Gospel* cannot be clear to people so long as the Cross of Jesus Christ is clouded by manmade, cultural and legalistic codes. Each of us are called to conform to the image of Jesus Christ through the individual gifts He has given us, not to look like a housewife on the cover of a catalogue.
Although I believe these homemakers mean well, the overall impression sermons like these promote is the idea that unless you're an upper middle class, American woman who bakes and cooks and likes the color pink, you cannot be a Christian. You cannot please God as a woman.
Think of the billions of women around the world who don't even HAVE houses to keep. Who have been raped, abused, or orphaned by disease or conflict. Think of the young girls who struggle not only to survive themselves, but are left to work jobs to raise their own siblings!
I believe a lot of the fervor on the complimentarian side stems from the backlash they feel they need to wage against feminism, divorce, and gay marriage. THe truth is, people need to realize feminism did not primarily stem from "women gone wild"--but from the fact that historically, men have failed to live up to God's standards of character and have miused their power to abuse and subjugate women.
Divorce I'm sure is just as common among couples where women are homemakers as those who aren't. Obviously the problem is rooted it in issues far deeper and more spiritual than how long a woman spends at home.
Homosexuals need to be reached out to with the cross of Christ and a call to repent and receive forgiveness--as homosexuality is no more or less forgivable a sin as any other. "Traditional marriage" is not the Gospel.
Post a Comment