In internet lingo, to “say the quiet part out loud” means to reveal one’s true intentions or motives that were supposed to remain publicly unsaid. Recently, a couple of prominent organizations that deal with children have “said the quiet part out loud” when talking about parental rights. 
The first was the National Education Association, which has a long history of advocating extreme, sexually progressive ideology in schools, such as, for instance, advising teachers to hide transgender students’ name and pronoun changes from parents. In November, the NEA tweeted: “Educators love their students and know better than anyone what they need to learn and thrive.” 
Hmm. Could they be overlooking anyone? Such as, I don’t know, students’ parents? It’s as if any right that parents have to be involved and aware of their children’s education ends at the ability of progressive teachers to shepherd their students into alternative lifestyles, sexual practices, and abortions. 
Speaking of abortion, another group that deals with vulnerable children and teens also recently said the quiet part out loud. Parental rights advocate Megan Brock tweeted a clip from a video conference by the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Policy Lab. In it, Dr. Sarah Wood explained the group’s strategy for circumventing Pennsylvania’s parental notification law for minors seeking abortions. 
Read More

Accepting what the Bible teaches on slavery does not mean condoning slavery as it was once practiced in America. Some, such as William Lloyd Garrison, assumed that it did and rejected the Bible altogether. Others didn’t go that far but did begin to regard their conscience as a more reliable guide to morality than the Bible. In other words, they adopted the cafeteria approach to the Bible. The misunderstandings of that era were a significant factor in America’s transition to a more secular society.

Decades ago, I got into a discussion with a lady who believed that women should be ordained as ministers. I told her that the Bible clearly prohibits women from being ordained as ministers. To my surprise, she conceded that this was indeed what the Bible says, but then she confidently asserted that the Bible was wrong about women ministers. She mentioned some other things that she claimed the Bible to be mistaken about, and one of these was slavery. She argued that if the Bible was wrong on these things, then the Bible could also be wrong on women in the ministry. She must have thought that the Bible’s message had been distorted by an outdated patriarchy, and that she as a modern woman was more enlightened than the Bible about the place of women in society.
This lady was advocating what some call a cafeteria approach to the Bible. When you eat in a cafeteria with a buffet, you take what you want and you leave the rest. That is the way that this lady was approaching the Bible. She accepted what she already agreed with, and she rejected what she disagreed with. A problem with that approach is that if one accepts only the statements in the Bible that he already agrees with, then he can’t go to the Bible to find out where he is mistaken. If one accepts only the statements in that Bible that he already agrees with, then the Bible is no longer profitable to him for reproof and correction. According to the cafeteria approach to the Bible, wherever the Bible contradicts a person’s sophisticated beliefs and modern practices, then the Bible must be in error and not the person. The Bible is no longer that person’s final authority. That person has become his own final authority.
Back when I had this conversation with this lady, the liberal’s cutting edge issue was ordaining women ministers. That was a long time ago. The liberal’s cutting edge issue today is ordaining practicing homosexuals. The liberal’s cutting edge issue has become significantly more radical, but the argument is the same. If the Bible is wrong on slavery, then it can be wrong on homosexuality as well. If our society continues its rebellion against God, we can only guess what the liberal’s next cutting edge issue will be. Yet the argument will be the same. If the Bible is wrong on slavery, then it can be wrong on the next issue down the road of rebellion as well, regardless of how extreme that next issue might appear to many today. Many Christians today have difficulty responding to this argument because they do not know what the Bible does and does not teach on slavery.
In the New Testament, the Apostles Peter and Paul gave some guidance to Christian slaves (1 Corinthians 7:21-23; Ephesians 6:5-8; Colossians 3:22-25; 1 Timothy 6:1-3; Titus 2:9-10; 1 Peter 2:18-21). The Apostle Peter’s guidance was for Christian slaves who were enduring hardships under pagan masters. The Apostle Paul also gave some guidance to Christian masters in three of his later prison epistles (Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1; Philemon). These texts gave guidance to Christians without condoning everything associated with slavery in the pagan Greek and Roman cultures of that day.
The Apostles Peter and Paul also supported the concept of the family. That doesn’t mean that the Apostles Peter and Paul condoned everything associated with the family in the pagan Greek and Roman cultures of that day. In the pagan Roman culture of that day, the father had the power of life and death over his children. When a child was born, the father could recognize the child and allow it to live. Or the father could decree that the newborn child must die by exposure. In the pagan Roman culture of that day, the standard for marital fidelity was much looser for the husband than for the wife. The husband could take significantly sinful liberties that were forbidden to the wife. When the New Testament gave guidance on family life, the New Testament wasn’t condoning every pagan Roman family custom of that time. There was much about the pagan Roman concept of the family which the Apostles Peter and Paul and other early Christians rejected as morally wrong.
We should similarly interpret the New Testament’s statements about Christian slaves and masters. There was much about the pagan Greek and Roman concepts of slavery which the Apostles Peter and Paul and other early Christians rejected as morally wrong. The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle taught the concept of the natural slave. Some later Greek and Roman writers developed this concept into a more complete theory. In this theory, “[t]he natural slave is a deficient ‘anthropos,’ a human subspecies assimilated to irrational beasts requiring taming and domestication.” A common Greek word for the slave was simply the Greek word for “body.” The ancient pagan Greeks regarded the slave as simply a physical body under his master’s control, as simply an animated tool much like a domesticated animal. Some ancient Romans did have a higher view of the slave’s mental ability than the ancient Greeks. The ideal Roman slave was expected to anticipate his master’s desires and to perform his master’s will without needing to be micro-managed (location 304ff, Slaves in the New Testament, J. Albert Harrill). In both ancient Greek and ancient Roman society, slaves were routinely exploited and abused sexually (location 514, From Shame to Sin, Kyle Harper). The ancient pagan Greeks and Romans had a low view of the slave’s humanity.
This low view of the slave’s humanity was at the heart of pagan Greek and Roman slavery.
Read More
Related Posts:

The woman has an incredible responsibility for the future blessings of her home. She gets the right and the privilege of finding the kind of man who will love her like Jesus loves the church. And once she has found that man, she gets to help, encourage, and spur him on so that everyone and everything her marriage touches will be blessed. Far from being a trophy wife, she is central and critical to the blessings of her home. 

3 The older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things— 4 that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed. – Titus 2:3-5 NKJV

Where We Have Been
As you will remember from last time, the apostle Paul used the word blasphemy when it comes to denying God’s view of womanhood. He was saying that if there were any older women, or anyone else for that matter, who was teaching a view of femininity that is contrary to God’s vision, then they have blasphemed God’s Word (a crime punishable by death in the Old Testament). Yeah, God takes womanhood that seriously. 
Instead of blaspheming God’s Word, Paul instructs older women how to come alongside the younger married women in the community. He calls on them to teach the younger women how to love their husbands and their children. Instead of loving them in a purely sacrificial way, which is so common for women, Paul admonishes the young women to become joyful “husband lovers.” Paul’s goal was not for women to slave away in the kitchen and dutifully serve their families as embittered slaves. On the contrary, he was calling women to be the lifeblood of the home. To fill the atmosphere and the aroma of her castle with abundant mirth, overflowing joy, and infectious delight for all who know her. 
These were the first two of seven essential concepts about womanhood that Paul was teaching, and again, we looked at these things in part 1. This week, in part 2, we look at the final five concepts that the older women are to teach to the younger women so that the Word of God will not be blasphemed. 
Supposing you are still here because you would not like the Word to be blasphemed, I say onward. 
#3 Teach Them to be “Moderate”
In addition to husband-loving and child-loving, Paul calls younger married women with children in the community to adopt a moderate lifestyle. The word he uses for sensible in the NKJV above (σώφρων – Soph-ron) really means embracing a life of moderation by living in the middle. He is encouraging women not to find themselves on the polls of things or to live in the extremes but to find her place somewhere in the balanced middle. Paul says if life were like a seesaw, then stand on the pivot point. This contributes to healthy womanhood. 
Now, before anyone can accuse Paul of being a world-class sexist, remember that he just commanded the men to be moderate as well (Titus 2:2). And, when we remember that Paul also gives this character qualification for anyone aspiring to the office of eldership (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:8), we should not view this as being peculiar to women, but simply an excellent quality to cultivate for any human. Paul is not saying that men are more moderate and women have some work to do. He says we are all prone to excess, and both genders need work here. 
For instance, Men are disproportionately prone to the kinds of immoderation that lead to risk-taking, aggressiveness, adventure and merry-making, overworking, accumulating shotguns and rare bottles of whiskey (on the gluttony side of immoderation), and neglecting emotional aptitude, communication, relationship-building, and physical health (on the anorexic side of immoderation). While women can certainly be immoderate in these ways, it is far more likely that a woman will struggle with moderation in spending, emotional overexpression, communication, comparison, dieting, perfectionism (On the high side), and isolation, bitterness, and jealousy (On the low side). 
These are generalizations, but Paul’s point in this passage, in particular, is for women to live moderate lives. To be content with that, she has. To avoid excess. To avoid asceticism. To live in the middle. And by doing that, she will live richly and conform to the pattern God has for her. 
#4 Teach Them to be Pure
Along with moderation, Paul encourages younger women to remain pure and chaste in their behavior and life. Like a young virgin who is keeping herself pure for her future marriage (1 Corinthians 11:2), and the man who sets His mind on the pure truths of God (Philippians 4:8), the godly woman will also keep herself pure in mind, heart, and body within her marriage. She will prioritize holy purity with her God. She will weed out sin, give no occasion for the enemy, and offer to her husband the continual gift of tender, loyal, and loving fidelity for a lifetime. This, of course, will bless and build up womanhood. 
#5 Teach Them to be Workers at Home
Some of the strongest language in the Bible has to do with when, where, and how men and women will spend their time. For the man, He must leave the home to gather resources. If he lazily loiters around the house all day, twiddling his thumbs and refusing to go to work and provide for His family, Paul says that man is “worse than an unbeliever” and that he has “denied the faith” (1 Timothy 5:8). Ouch! On the other hand, a wife is called to stay home. And this is not unclear in this text. Paul says if a wife and mother leave their home to join in the rat race, neglecting her house duties, her husband-loving, and all the needs of her children, then she has blasphemed the Word of God. 
The reason Paul speaks this way is because men and women are not the same. We are equal in personhood yet distinct in our roles. As male and female, we have a divinely appointed complementarity in the roles God has given us. 
Read More
Related Posts: