I hope I am not opening Pandora's box.

I am going to weigh in on the subject of a woman's biblical role and specifically discuss whether Christian young ladies should go to college. I do not intend to provoke a heated discussion. I welcome comments, but I will not address them on my website as I am too busy at home fulfilling my calling to take dominion of this world by raising a godly seed.

This is a very controversial subject. As a mother of both sons and daughters, I have often pondered the futures of my children, and my husband and I have discussed how best to prepare them to fulfill their God-given roles. I have dear friends who have different opinions than I on this topic, and I do not shun them (or vice versa) because they dare to disagree with me. My opinions, however, are very strongly held, and I would be dissembling if I said I didn't think they were correct. That is why I hold them!

Two wonderful Christian young ladies, both of whom I know and greatly admire, have written articles expressing their opposing views on the topic of college for Christian women, with the role of women as an ancillary discussion. Sally expresses her view that a young woman's focus should be to prepare for the calling of a wife and mother and that college is incompatible with this as its focus is to prepare one for a career. Becky disagrees, saying that college can be an important part of preparing a woman to participate in taking cultural dominion and that there are many roles a Chrisitian woman may be called to fulfill. I would like to offer my perspective as an "older woman." (Titus 2: 4) I see the discussion of the role of women as foundational, not ancillary, to this topic.

I think Becky understands that the fundamental issue is a proper understanding of the biblical view of women's roles. She assumes, however, that because Sally expresses the importance of a woman's focus being home-centered, that Sally is limiting that woman's ability to impact the culture. I agree with Becky that the call to cultural dominion is to both men and women, and that Sally may have incorrectly stated that it was only the man's calling, but I think Sally has a better understanding of the biblical means for women to fulfull this calling primarily through being a helpmeet to their husbands and through raising covenant children.

When God gave the curse to Adam and Eve, he not only pronounced judgment but also gave merciful promises, and He defined their roles as men and women. In speaking to Adam, God cursed him for his disobedience and warned him that he would have to work by the sweat of his brow. In this curse we know that Adam's role is to work, to do the weed-pulling. Eve, however, was cursed with pain in childbearing; in her curse we learn that her role is to bear children. We had already been told that she was created to be a helpmeet for her husband. This has traditionally been understood to mean that the Christian husband is to take the lead in determining the direction of the family, and the wife is to work alongside him to pursue the goals he has ordained. In a Christian family, the goal is to take dominion of the earth by fighting in the battle of the seed of the woman against the seed of the serpent.

Eve was not created single, to take dominion apart from Adam. They were created for each other, with distinct purposes, but the ideal was that they function together to fulfill their God-ordained roles. Becky, however, says that because the ideal does not work out in all situations, assuming that women should focus their life preparation on the home is a dangerous idea. I think that Becky makes some false assumptions about what it means to be "home-centered."

Becky does not think that Sally sufficiently supports her argument that a woman's role is fulfilled in her home: "According to Miss Walker, women ought to be in the home, period. She makes the assumption that Scripture is in support of this idea, but she fails to give Scriptural support." Yet Sally ends her article with the favorite quote of Christian homemakers in Titus 2:4-5: "...That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed." Paul here is giving Titus godly advice about how to set straight the messy situation in the church at Crete, with concrete examples of how different groups of people within the church are to behave. As he defines for Titus the proper biblical roles of men and women, Paul says that these things are "proper for sound doctrine." The older women are to set a good example with their behavior, and one of the things they are to admonish the younger women to do is to be keepers at home. The fact that younger women need to be admonished to do this may be an indication that the younger women tend to chafe at their role. Saying that women ought to be homekeepers is not "extrabiblical" as Becky asserts.

She also mistakenly assumes that being a keeper at home means being kept at home. Becky states that she believes it is important for women to stay home with young children, implying that there is a time when the children no longer need the mother to be at home. Where is the scriptural support for this? She then states that staying home while the children are little does not mean that a woman must be "bound" to her house the rest of her life. I have heard of women complaining about being chained to the stove, but this conjures up an interesting picture! Does this mean that the poor Christian woman must suffer through the pain of being imprisoned by the drudgery and burden of children and home, until her children are at that magical age where she mercifully can be released to perform true Christian service in the outside world? I speak tongue-in-cheek; I don't think Becky meant to say this. But she does mock Sally's home-centered views by implying that Sally expects the godly woman never to step foot outside the front door.

Becky mentions examples of women in Scripture who are servants of God in various capacities, but she makes a great leap in assuming that most of these women were pursuing vocations apart from their homes. Deborah, of course, is the favorite career woman to cite in discussing whether women ought to be in positions of authority in society. She is a unique example, however, on which it is dangerous to build a theology of women. John Knox, one of my favorite reformers, thought long and hard on this subject as he observed and suffered under the various women rulers in Scotland and England. Here is what he says about Deborah: "For of examples, as is before declared, we may establish no law; but we are always bound to the written law, and to the commandment expressed in the same...For God being free, may, for such causes as are approved by His inscrutable wisdom, dispense with the rigor of His law, and may use His creatures at His pleasure. But the same power is not permitted to man, whom He has made subject to His law, and not to the examples of fathers." (The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women, pp. 64-64) In other words, Deborah was a special case and we can't use her as an example of the propriety of women pursuing a "vocation." In fact, her leadership was a curse on the men of Israel for doing what was right in their own eyes and for being such wimps. Isaiah 3:12 also affirms that it is a curse to have women rulers.

Sally never says that a godly woman cannot leave her home at all in order to contribute to her family's provision. Rather, she correctly states that the sphere of the woman's activity will center on her home and family. As for the Proverbs 31 woman working outside of her home buying and selling a field, the entire chapter actually asserts how home-centered this virtuous woman was. Her woman's purpose was to care for her husband and children by centering her activities around her home. Buying a field and investing her profits is not an argument for working away from home under the authority of a man other than her husband. She brings glory to God and blessing to herself by sacrificing her life for her family, not by running for political office, teaching other people's children or writing articles (like this one) on the internet.

Stating that the Bible is replete with examples of strong women who glorify God without being the stereotypical homemaker, Becky neglects to mention the many godly women in the Bible who are praised mainly for their willingness to accept the important role of wife and mother. What about Sarah, who was praised in Hebrews 11 for her faith in bearing a child in her old age and in I Peter 2 is held up as an example for wives to follow in submitting to their husband's authority because she called her husband lord? What about Rebekah who waited patiently in her father's house for a husband, and through her willing service it was made clear that she was a suitable wife for Isaac and destined to be an important part of the lineage of Christ? What about Elizabeth who became the mother of John the Baptist, the most godly man who ever lived, according to our Lord? How she must have been encouraged by Sarah's life and example! What about Mary, Jesus's mother, whose whole life was defined by the privilege of carrying the son of God in her womb? How was she up to the task of raising and teaching Him without a master's degree in childhood development with a minor in theology?

Arguing that not all mothers are able to give their children a quality education, Becky states that God created the vocation of teacher "for a reason." Again, I would like to see the scriptural support for this. What about the constant admonition to all parents to teach their own children God's law, the fundamental purpose of education? I find no biblical examples of sending children to schools but many injunctions to both parents and children about teaching and learning taking place in the context of their special relationship in the home. I will not say that schools are never warranted or beneficial, but parents are given the primary responsibility to educate their children, and our faithful God will give obedient parents the ability to do this as they submit to Him.

It seemed that Becky was saying in her article that "higher education" is necessary to equip women to gain the intellectual stature and knowledge necessary to be prepared for the task of working alongside those men who are society's intellectuals and leaders. I'm afraid that too often my experience has been that those who pursue higher education are ill-equipped to fight battles in the real world. Spending so many hours in the artificial environment of the classroom, people can sometimes become too dependent on a teacher to impart knowledge, and they understand more about fitting into a bureaucratic structure than about taking the initiative and forging new paths. My husband, a brilliant man who happens to be a college drop-out, many times has interviewed people for jobs who had degrees from Ivy-league universities, but he often hired those who had less-impressive educational credentials who were obviously more creative and able to work independently. College does not necessarily impart more knowledge than education gained through other means.

As for the hectic schedule which is part of the college experience preparing a young woman for motherhood and marriage, let me just say (and I know this will be vehemently denied by some) that the college years are primarily about promoting oneself by getting good grades and enjoying social experiences. There is little about this lifestyle to prepare a girl for the self-sacrifice required to be a wife and mother. I'm afraid that instead it too often fosters intellectual arrogance and creates what R.C. Sproul, Jr. jokingly refers to as "Thunder Puppies." I Cor. 8:1 warns that knowledge "puffs up." Knowledge can be good when properly used, but apart from godly wisdom it leads to pride.

Becky is correct that not all women are called to be wives and mothers. There are some who are single, childless or widows, but these conditions are not the norm. In fact, being single or childless is quite unusual; being a widow is more common, but there are very specific guidelines given to the church about caring for widows, and their sphere of influence is still to be home-centered (I Tim. 5:3-16). Most women will marry and have families. Marriage is God's picture of how he relates to the Church. Being properly prepared for marriage and motherhood is sufficient preparation for singleness, because the goal for all Christian women ought to be the goal for all Christians: to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. We do this by dying to self, daily taking up our cross and following Him.

How does the modern trend of sending both our Christian daughters and sons to college fit in with the goal of fostering this godly character? Although I am mainly addressing the issue of young ladies going to college, I do question whether college is always necessary or beneficial for our sons, as well. Gary North recently wrote about the futility of spending many thousands of dollars per year to obtain a substandard education with an unhealthy dose of moral relativism thrown in (he also presents some very practical suggestions for obtaining a college degree without spending so much money and while staying home). It is a big leap of faith today to assert that a college education automatically expands the intellect, prepares one for life and empowers one to tackle the cultural corruption of the day. Sadly, many institutions of higher learning only offer an education equal to the high school diploma of the last generation, but for a much higher cost, both monetarily and spiritually.

There have been stories in the news recently about young women attaining their dream of enrolling in the Air Force Academy, only to be crushed by the sexual immorality forced upon them once they arrived. It is horrible that these women were subjected to such treatment, but it is ironic that people are so surprised by it. Our culture is full of perversion, and it is so pervasive that even the churches are not immune to it. Rather than being able to tackle new arenas, as feminists would have us believe, young women today are even more vulnerable to being preyed upon because many of their protections have been removed in the name of political correctness. In the traditional wedding ceremony, a father "gives away" his daughter to the man she marries. This is because Christianity, based on God's law, has taught that fathers are responsible for protecting their daughters, just as husbands are responsible to protect their wives. The oversight of a father for his daughter is different than the oversight he gives his son. Young men are to be released to be the weed-pullers and heads of their own covenant households. I acknowledge that in rare instances women will remain single, but the Christian ideal is that they would marry and fulfill their equally important role of helpmeet and mother. Just because a young woman has a time after the age of 18 when she is waiting on God for a husband, does not mean her father is no longer responsible for her protection and oversight. Fathers will interpret this responsibility in different ways, but the common assumption that a well-rounded young woman needs to go away to college for something to "fall back on" can show a lack of trust in God's provision and a lack of responsibility on the father's part to properly consider his daughter's future.

Brian Abshire argues in his booklet The Church as God's Armory that the primary means God has ordained for taking dominion of this world, for both men and women, is raising a large family of children trained in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, a godly seed. Remember that the roles of both men and women were defined right after the Fall: they were to fight in the battle between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. Taking dominion means that Christian men and women are to fulfill their roles in this great battle, fighting in their respective spheres. For me, the honor of taking dominion and fighting this spiritual battle means having lots of beautiful babies, rocking them to sleep, changing their diapers, feeding them three well-balanced meals a day, teaching them God's law through Bible reading, catechisms, hymn singing and church involvement, reading them lots of stories, kissing their owies, disciplining them when they disobey, teaching them to read good books, instilling an awe in them for God's creation, teaching both my daughters and sons to cook, reminding them constantly to prefer one another above themselves, talking with them all day long about every imaginable subject, modeling obedience and love before them in my marriage to my wonderful husband and daily sacrificing my desires while serving my family. Did college teach me how to do any of these things? Nope.

How will I know if I did a good job? When I see my children someday serving God by doing the same things.