What is less clear to me is why complementarians like Keller insist that that 1 Timothy 2:12 is a part of biblical womanhood, but Acts 2 is not; why the presence of twelve male disciples implies restrictions on female leadership, but the presence of the apostle Junia is inconsequential; why the Greco - Roman household codes represent God's ideal familial structure for
husbands and wives, but not for slaves and masters; why the apostle Paul's instructions to Timothy about Ephesian women
teaching in the church are universally applicable, but his instructions to Corinthian women regarding head coverings are culturally conditioned (even though Paul uses the same line of argumentation — appealing the creation narrative — to support both); why the poetry of Proverbs 31 is often applied prescriptively and other poetry is not; why Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob represent the supremecy of male leadership while Deborah and Huldah and Miriam are mere exceptions to the rule; why «wives submit to your
husbands» carries more weight than «submit one to another»; why the laws of the Old Testament are treated as irrelevant
in one moment, but important enough to display
in public courthouses and
schools the next; why a feminist reading of the text represents a capitulation to culture but a reading that turns an ancient Near Eastern text into an apologetic for the post-Industrial Revolution nuclear family is not; why the curse of Genesis 3 has the final word on gender relationships rather than the new creation that began at the resurrection.
Teachers are not, and I know this because my
husband is an academic administrator here
in North Carolina he was also an academic administrator
in Chicago
public school and that was something that I was working
in Chicago
public schools is because
in health education we
teach about sex, we
teach about STI's we
teach about all these other
public health issues.