The Death of the Cloister

Steven Ozment on how the Reformers went about destroying the idea that a nun was superior to a housewife.

In challenging the celibate ideal, the Protestant critics were particularly concerned to expose the repressive nature of the nunnery, to free nuns from the cloisters, and allow them to rejoin society.

Unlike many modern takes on nunneries, the Reformers viewed them as detrimental to what women were called to do by God and by nature: be wives and mothers.

Also going to the convent did not help women escape male rule. Ozment describes how the monks would often descend upon the nunneries and require the women to do their laundry, cook them food, etc. He noted that most nunneries were run by monks on some level.

Not only did the nunnery offer no safe escape from male rule, it imposed sexual self-denial an created guilt among the unsuccessful, burdens no honorable wife was forced to bear.

One nun, “recalled having watched with horror as sisters in the cloister died uncertain of God’s mercy and in fear of his judgment, having failed to find consolation in their vows and religious works.”

No propaganda proved more effective in exposing the cloister than the testimony of former nuns, whom the reformers encouraged to write and publish accounts of their lives under vows.

By the end of the Reformation age, “both experience and belief had set Protestants unalterably against the celibate life. To them it contradicted both the Bible and human nature, and created more personal and social problems than it solved; as an alternative vocation to homemaking, the cloister was deemed inhumane and antisocial.”

Are Women Teachers Necessary in the Church?

Mrs. Jen Wilkin posted this article over at the TGC website.  It is now several months old, but I thought I would interact with it because it is a pressing issue in the American church and because TGC is large forum for conservative evangelicals. Just to be clear, in this post I am not saying women shouldn’t teach publicly.  I am not against women teaching women in Bible studies or women speaking to women at conferences, etc. But Mrs. Jen Wilkin’s reasoning is fuzzy at best and bad at worst and therefore she overreaches. 


The theme of the article is that women teachers are absolutely necessary to the well being of the church. Therefore pastors should encourage and promote women teachers. She is arguing that for women to be properly ministered to a public teaching ministry by women to women is “absolutely needful.” It is important to keep this in mind. She is not saying women teachers are helpful and can be beneficial in certain situations. She is arguing for the necessity of a full women’s ministry of some kind that supplements the ministry of the Word from the pulpit.

There are several problems with the article that I wanted to address.

First, she never defines what she means by “women teachers.” Does she mean women speaking at conferences? Does she mean women teaching other women one on one? Does she mean women Bible studies or Sunday school? Does she mean all of these? None of these? Her failure to define what she means by teacher leaves her readers in the dark. As she says, “There is little disagreement among Christians that women can and should teach women.” The debate is not about whether women should teach women, but in what context and with what level of authority? She means women opening up the Bible in a public (non-worship) setting in front of other women. But that is never clearly stated. It would have helped if she had defined her terms. 

Second, she moves from women teaching women to women having the “gift of teaching.” Here is the whole paragraph:

There is little disagreement among Christians that women can and should teach women. But if the gift of teaching has been given to women, how might a pastor properly value, cultivate, and employ the gifting of women teachers?

Notice the assumption that slipped in between the first sentence and the second sentence. Because women should teach women then women who teach also have the gift of teaching.  Again, we have the problem of definition. What does she mean by gift? Does she mean a spiritual gift along the lines of Romans 12 or I Corinthians 12? Or does she simply mean that some women are better at teaching than others? From this comment it appears that she has at least Ephesians 4:11 in the back of her mind, which means she has the spiritual gift of teaching in mind. Ephesians 4:11 is referring to distinct offices in the church. Is she saying that women should be ordained as teachers? I don’t think so. But she is unclear again.

Furthermore, the call by God to do a certain task does not automatically imply spiritual gifting in that area. All Christians teach in some way. Mothers teach children. Fathers teach children. Older men teach younger men. Older women teach younger women. Do all of those who teach automatically have the gift teaching? There are no examples in the NT of women being given the spiritual gift of teaching. We have one command for women to teach other women (Titus 2:4-5), but that does not assume the gift of teaching anymore than the call to show mercy assumes the gift of mercy.  

Women being gifted to teach lays the foundation for her next section. The “You Need Her” section begins with assuming that God has gifted certain women to teach in the church. Here is her quote:

You may be the best preacher on the planet, but God wouldn’t have gifted women to teach unless their teaching were absolutely necessary to the spiritual well-being of the women in your church. (emphasis mine)

So here is the logic:
Women are called by God to teach other women publicly.
Therefore women have the gift of teaching.

God would not have gifted women to teach if he did not want them teaching publicly.
Therefore pastors should actively promote women teaching other women in public.

Third, she assumes throughout the “You Need Her” section that a woman opening up God’s Word publicly in front of other women is a necessary ingredient for women to learn and grow in the church. This position is hard to defend from the Bible, but the attitude it displays is common among American Christians in general. We assume that the no one can speak to us with true authority unless they have walked in our shoes. The Bible never indicates that public teaching by women is necessary to supplement the public ministry of the Word to women by men. I am not saying women teaching other women publicly is bad, but her pitch is that it is necessary and that pastors should make sure they actively promote women teaching. 

I want to walk through her “You Need Her” section point by point to illustrate the weakness of these arguments. 

First, she states that women need to see other women opening up the Bible so they will take seriously their own abilities to open up the Bible. This is an odd argument. Why would this be the case? Does an African American need to see another African American open up God’s Word so that they know they are capable of opening God’s Word? Does a thirteen year old boy need another thirteen year old boy to open up God’s Word so he can know that he is capable? Where is this taught in the Scriptures? 

Second, she states that women bring a perspective that men cannot bring. There is some truth to this. But that has no bearing on whether or not women teachers are necessary.  Of course, women see the world differently. A truth which men should grateful for. But that does not lead to the necessity of women teaching publicly. Again, where is it taught in the Scriptures that the public ministry of the Word must include everyone’s perspective? This is an odd argument, which leads to many of the same questions I have about her first point. Do we need a 70 year old man to preach to the elderly so the perspective of the elderly is heard? 

Third, she says that a woman can bring an authority to other women that a man cannot. This is the weakest of the four mentioned. The argument is that only women can properly speak to the sins of women and get away with it.  However, the Bible never indicates that women are somehow uniquely qualified to minister the word to women publicly. The public preaching of God’s Word is adequate to address all the sins in the congregation, including those of women. The reason is simple: there are not different kinds of sins. Sins, such as pride, lust, anger, bitterness, etc. bear different fruit in the lives of men and women, but they all come from the same root. The Scriptures say over and over again that these sins are addressed through the preached word. One could argue here that the need is not for women teachers, but for men who will preach to the sins of women with courage and grace. 

Fourth, she states that a woman teacher will see needs of women that a pastor will not. There is some truth here, but not any truth that would make women teachers necessary.  She immediately discounts the pastor’s wife as a valuable tool by stating that women will present their “best selves to ministry wives, but not to female ministry leaders.” Why would this be the case? But even if it is, that does not prove her point. Other people in the body of Christ will see the needs of others more clearly than the pastor. But this does not necessitate those other people being on staff and publicly ministering to the Word to people. Scripture does not teach that someone must have first hand account of all the personal needs in the body to be an effective teacher of the Word. 

Why did I write this blog post? Because Mrs. Wilkin’s reasoning is the same reasoning used by egalitarians. Reading through the comments you can see that egalitarians liked this line of reasoning and wished she had taken it further. There is almost no Scriptural proof for what she is recommending. There are no examples in the New Testament of women teaching publicly. There are no passages where Paul exhorts Timothy or Titus to make sure women teach women publicly or to implement a women’s ministry of any kind. Titus 2:4-5 could imply this, but certainly it is not clear. My point is not that women teaching women publicly is bad. But Mrs. Wilkin’s overstates the case with her article. 

So what would I say about women teaching other women? They should do it. They can do it one on one, through Bible studies or in a public setting.  But a women’s ministry with women teaching publicly is not an absolutely necessity for any church. Women have ministered to women for centuries without this and they can continue to do so in the coming centuries. Women have grown in Christ for centuries simply through through the preached word. So while women teachers might be beneficial in some scenarios they are not necessary. 

Feminism Kills Girls

Feminism 1
Here is an interesting little tidbit from that renowned source of all things liberal, The Huffington Post. A pro-life group in England tried to sue because doctors did sex-selective abortions. The parents chose to abort female babies because they wanted boys.  Many people were upset, including numerous “health” officials in England. One Andrew Lansley said, “Sex selection is illegal and  is morally wrong.”  We need to be clear what people are upset about. They are not upset about abortions in general. By at least one poll 70% of those in England support some type of abortion. The health agencies in England are pro-abortion. People are not upset about girls being aborted. There were 196,082 abortions in England in 2011. At least half of these were probably girls. The officials did not try to prosecute those doctors. No, they are upset about girls being aborted instead of boys. But unfortunately for them the Abortion Act of 1967 (this legalized abortion in England) does not prohibit sex selective abortions. A woman can have an abortion if two doctors agree that an abortion is necessary to prevent grave mental injury to a woman. The phrase is a catch all used to cover most abortions in England.  Sex selection is not illegal. So parents can kill all the girls they want so they can have the boys they want. 
Sex selection is the natural outcome of the attitude that promotes abortion to start with: personal freedom and choice, which have been hallmarks of the feminist agenda for decades.  If someone is pro-choice, but opposes sex selective abortions they are hypocrites. If I can kill my baby, why can I not kill the girl so I can have a boy? If I can be pro-choice with the baby, why I can I not be pro-choice with the sex of the baby. So why the outrage? When sex selective abortions are allowed it is the girls who get killed, not the boys. England meet China. China meet England. According to this article by 2020 China will have 35 million extra men. What did Chinese parents do when the could only have one child? They killed the girls and kept the boys.  No matter what feminists say, it would be the same way in England or anywhere else. 
What fruit feminism has wrought! The feminists and those who buy into the feminist agenda by insisting on abortion find themselves throwing their own sex into the grave. Feminism kills girls.  And so what was spoken by the wise man has been fulfilled, “All who hate me [God’s wisdom] love death.” (Proverbs 8:36)

Most Blessed Among Women is Jael

Several thoughts occurred to me as I read the story of Deborah, Barak, and Jael this morning in Judges 4-5.
First, did Jael go against her husband by killing Sisera? It is hard to tell, but in 4:11 Heber has separated himself from the rest of his family. 4:17 says there was peace between Jabin King of Hazor and Heber the Kenite. From this information it appears that Jael killed the man her husband was in league with.
Second, the assassination of Sisera is well planned by Jael. She coaxes Sisera into her tent (4:18) by telling him that he has nothing to fear. He asks for water and she gives him milk (4:19). The song (5:25) tells us that she gave him milk in a lordly bowl (NKJV) or noble’s bowl (ESV). She was appealing to his vanity. She knew exactly what she was doing.
Third, the courage of Jael is easy to overlook. If Sisera awakes she is a dead woman. Was her hand shaking as she picked up the hammer? When her husband returns she might face his wrath.
Fourth, I love the phrase at the end of verse 21, “So he died.” Typical understatement. The man has a tent peg sticking out of his head.  Do you need to check the pulse of man with a tent peg driven through his skull?
Fifth, Jael’s killing of Sisera echoes the promise that the seed of the woman will crush the head of the serpent in Genesis 3:15. There is another man killed by a head wound in Judges as well. In Judges 9:53 a woman throws down a millstone and crushes Abimilech’s head. 
Sixth, the song in chapter 5 is more explicit about Jael’s deed than the story. It says she pounded Sisera, pierced his head, split and struck his through his temple (NKJV). My mind wanders to how big the tent peg was. Could it actually have split his head in two? I think our sanitized PG minds miss how violent an act this would have been. 
Finally, is there anything less politically correct than the end of Deborah’s song? Here we have Sisera’s mother sitting at home on the porch rocking in her chair.  She is surrounded by her friends. She is wondering why her son is so long coming home. Her friends say that it is because the victory has been so great that they are still dividing the spoil. But we all know the truth. Her son was killed by a woman, in a tent by a tent peg. His head was split while he slept. His death was not noble. He was a disgrace. He is now buried or burned in a foreign land and will be forever remembered only in these two chapters of Scripture. Aren’t we supposed to feel bad for Sisera’s mom? She has lost a son. Aren’t we supposed to grieve for her? Apparently not. So may all the enemies of God perish (5:31).

Women Converts in Acts 16 & 17

Women play an important role in Acts 16 and 17. First you have Timothy’s mother in 16:1. Then Paul preaches to women in 16:13 and Lydia converts in 16:14. In 17:4 many (or not a few) leading women are converted. Later in 17:12 several “prominent/high standing” women believe. Finally, in 17:34 Damaris converts after Paul’s sermon on Mars Hill. 

What is really fascinating is that all of these women appear to be prominent. Timothy’s mother is married to a Gentile who did not believe. Lydia is the head of her household and appears to be a woman of some standing. Purple fabric was in high demand and expensive. So she was probably well known and wealthy. Paul uses the word “protos” meaning “first or chief” in 17:4 to describe the women converted there. This word is used in 13:50 of the chief men in Antioch. In 17:12 he uses a different word for the women meaning “elegant/beautiful,” “honorable,” “influential,” or “wealthy.” This same word is used in 13:50 to describe the women who drove Paul out of the Antioch of Pisidia.  So these women had enough influence to be a part of the “city council” that decided Paul had to go. Now here in 17:12 women like these being converted to Christ at Berea. And it appears that Damaris was sitting at Mars Hill with the philosophers. I am not sure what this all means, but it is interesting how the Christian faith was brought to these women and what their conversions meant for the early church. It also makes me wonder do our churches focus on evangelizing women enough?