Thread by @CITC_org

The Great Commission is for all Christians and includes the command to “make disciples,” and “teaching them” all that Jesus commanded.

Aside from explicitly commanding “teaching,” discipleship presupposes teaching…🧵

from scripture, what it means to be a Christian, Christian truths/doctrine, and what follows: theology.

Most in the latest fad of women can’t teach “academic theology” [a debated category of theology, anachronistically injected into scripture for eisegesis], concede that…

1) Women are included in the Great Commission and 2) Women can share the Gospel.

Theologians have agreed that sharing the Gospel is only the beginning of discipleship, discipleship cannot be reduced to one’s conversion, but it is being taught the faith.

The faith in scripture is doctrine and the ethics that flow from said doctrine.

In either case: the Gospel is a theological message comprised of scriptural truths, and the impartation of the Gospel often involves teaching said truths (doctrine).

To say otherwise is to reduce oneself to something tantamount to “no creed but Christ.”

Women are included in the command to make disciples, and I have yet to see a Christian limit the great commission to men only.

But if women are not to exercise authority over men (particularly in overseer roles, to which I agree), who is left for them to fulfill this command with?

Irony abounds in the movement mentioned above.

They posit: what can a woman offer a woman that a man cannot? They state there is no good reason for women <fill in the blank.>

Yet, they are the ones most emphatic that women and men are distinct sometimes to extremes.

Yet, if women and men are distinct in the way posited, then the logical benefit of a woman disciplining or teaching another woman is obvious.

Some of this comes out in other teachings by these proponents where women are told to have women friends because a woman cannot offer the same friendship and connection as a man. It’s logically incoherent.

What is more perplexing is that the movement utilizes the proof text of Titus 2 wherein women are told to “teach” women and that teaching within the full context, as all Christian ethics are, is rooted, grounded, and presupposes Christian truths.

When pressed on whether or not one can teach Christian ethics apart from Christian truth (i.e., baseless behavior modification), they will say no but say that these women are teaching “biblical womanhood,” not scripture/doctrine/academic theology.

Of course, aside from this category being imposed onto the text to create arbitrary parameters, “biblical” womanhood presupposes biblical instruction on what it means to be a “woman.”

Further, consider the following:

Women are to “teach” women to “submit to their husbands.”

A woman attempts to do so, and the learner asks, “Why?”

How can the “teacher” proceed without appealing to scripture, creation, headship, anthropology, etc.?

The only way for the position to be defensible is for individuals to hold to parameters not found in scripture, “they can teach devotional theology, not academic theology.” [the former is not a formal or widely accepted category..

the latter a debated and less utilized category even by most pastors].

While theological categories are helpful, we cannot interject them into the text for our theological propositions.

Further, while theological categories are helpful, we cannot just disregard the categories established in numerous theological textbooks. On the most basic level, women are teaching (in Titus 2) “practical theology,” which is built upon other categories of theology.

Still, the question is: are women called (or permitted) to impart (I.e., teach) scriptural, doctrinal, ethics rooted in theology to other individuals in any capacity in scripture?

This leads to the following:

The most difficult burden for these adherents is producing any scripture that bars women from teaching in any capacity other than in ecclesiastical offices held by men.

She cannot exercise authority “over a man,” are women included in this or are they distinct?

However, if one is going to make a standard (a law/commandment/restriction/holiness code: as they imply women who go beyond “Titus 2” are sinning), they need to have clear scriptural testimony...

To not have such is quite literally to be a Pharisee in adding to the scriptures a tradition to bind the conscience. To do this is to fly directly in the face of the Reformation and what freed men and women from the shackles of extra-biblical commandments.

Lastly, the typical rhetoric of inappropriate settings, “small groups, coffee shops, etc,” is quite bizarre, and quite ironically, women likely discussed scripture and Jesus Christ with other women while in the “workforce” of the 1st century.

Surely the local community centers (synagogues) were places of typical discourse as well! A random limitation on the setting for these commandments, is simply ridiculous.”

A good and clear disclaimer about this thread is that this is not advocating for the overcorrection wherein the great commission qualifies women for the office of pastor/overseer/elder. As I mentioned, I’m in agreement with the traditional understanding of ecclesiastical offices