Female Pastors

[timmopussycat]

Frankly, given the fact that Fee has been invoked in this thread already, I am absolutely insensate to how such a textually sensitive expert as Fee can make the case he does for ruling out the Corinthian variant as unoriginal. If we are permitted such lattitude in dismissing verses we disagree with, I can think of a bunch of 'em that would make my life a lot easier to live if they were not in the New Testament!

Having studied under Fee on the point at issue, my guess is that Fee's background in Pre-charismatic Pentecostalism has overruled his exegetical judgment in this particular case. If you read his commentary on 1 Timothy, you find him presenting possibilities as certainties, a mistake he does not usually make.

Fee actually does have 2 good points to make in commenting on 1 Cor. 14 34,35, namely something odd does seem to have happened in the textual transmission of these verses; and that how the law is cited here, by indirect reference rather than explicit citation, is unparalleled in Paul.

His other claim that the law does not say what the Paul says it says is more problematic, Paul may be referring to an inference drawn from the law rather than a direct statement therof, and the inference that women should remain silent while teaching was going on could, in Jewish contexts, have been easily drawn from either the relevant creation or the fall texts.

But to say that these 3 points make it certain that the text is a non-Pauline interpretation is once again mistaking a possibility for a certainty.

 

[Notthemama1984]

"God apparently has blessed ministries led by women." What exactly is this supposed to mean? Is this argument that churches pastored by women have grown in numbers or seen people come to Christ so it must be biblical?
If that is the case, then what of the majority of the mega-churches and their pastors we so vehemently denounce?
Osteen, Warren, and several of the prosperity preachers have HUGE churches that are growing weekly. Surely no one would advocate because of this these are biblical examples of the right way to do ministry.

Mainstream Evangelicals define God's blessings quantitatively vs. qualitatively. Thus anyone whose ministry is growing financially, numerically, or by the "professions of faith" (which we all agree here has its own problems), must be on the right track and blessed by God.

 

[timmopussycat]

Thank you for your entertaining sarcasm. It was however uncalled for. I thought my comment "no apparent knowledge" was sufficient to show that I understood that some here had engaged the egalitarian case in more detail than they have shown in the thread.

Glad you found my sarcasm entertaining. However, as far as "uncalled for" I'm not so sure. When someone, particularly a younger person, sets himself (or herself, given the topic of the thread) up as judge and jury of everyone else in a discussion, it practically invites ridicule or at least sarcasm in response. Again, please do not "talk down" to the rest of us who did not receive our "Dip. C.S." under Packer and Fee. Colleagiality works so much better when we treat one another with respect as equals.

I'm not so sure being 52 in 10 days automatically qualifies me as "younger" by the average age of the PB. I responded as I did because I saw two things:
1) only 1 in 28 posts showed awareness of the heart of the egalitarian case, and
2) that much of what I was seeing in the thread was on the level of sarcastic dismissal, which if applied to egalitarians almost certainly will not be helpful as I know from personal experience having seen such arguments deployed elsewhere.

My apologies to those who took my concerns the wrong way.

[BTW, has Packer changed his view since his influential piece in Christianity Today back on February 11, 1991??? Having watched a number of my theological heroes change, waffle, equivocate, and temporize over the last five decades, it would not surprise me. However, as a former student of Packer, what is your take, Tim?

In 1991 he wrote an article titled “Let’s Stop Making Women Presbyters.” In it Packer asserted that Protestants are abandoning the position traditionally held by Roman Catholics, Orthodox and evangelicals with respect to the ordination of women. Packer's own explanation for the emerging trend was attributed to five factors:

1. Feminism has infiltrated the church.
2. The socialization of women since World War I has permitted them to enter spheres previously open only to men.
3. The New Testament passages on women speaking in church (1 Cor 14:34-35) and teaching men (1 Tim 2:11-14) have proved “problematic” both in their interpretation and application.
4. God apparently has blessed ministries led by women.
5. Ordination with its incumbent status and privileges has provided a certain degree of “job-satisfaction” to females in professional ministry roles.

Nevertheless, he offered a theologically based and exegetically sound argument against the practice (cf. "Let's Stop Making Women Presbyters"). Has he shifted again since then?

I don't believe Packer has shifted since that article, but I am not in close touch with him. But at the time that article was written, JIP was, and until forced out last year, he remained a member of a denomination which did ordain women presbyters and As far as I know the parish church he attended and still attends agreed with that stance. (BTW that church St. John's Shaugnessy, Vancouver, deserves our prayers as it is a leader the fight against gay marriage in the Anglican Church of Canada, and their minister David Short has just gone on stress leave.)

As I said Packer's position is nuanced. He doesn't buy the practice of ordaining women but he won't leave a church or denomination over it. I can understand why he has reached that conclusion, but what we do about Christian fellowship with those who disagree on women presbyters is another topic.

-----Added 12/11/2009 at 01:01:26 EST-----

So when only one person in 28 posts shows a partial understaning of the egalitarian case as I have usually heard it presented, I was left to wonder, what exactly was going on: particularly when many posts degenerated to the level of the sarcasm I had quoted.

Okay, you've said this a couple of times, but many of the arguments presented in those posts were ones that I myself used as an egalitarian, and that I have heard and read many other egalitarians making. The reason for the sarcasm in some of them is simply because this is the PB and the egalitarian arguments are not held in high esteem here!

Sure those arguments were used in years past, but they are not the heart of the egalitarian case which will be arguments attempting to refute the traditional understanding of 1 Tim. 2:11-14. The egalitarian interpretation of the Gal. text is so easily refuted that better advised egalitarians are no longer using it, at least up here in Canada. And my point is simply that if we are going to help egalitarians we must carefully choose our ground when we do so.

 

[au5t1n]

So when only one person in 28 posts shows a partial understaning of the egalitarian case as I have usually heard it presented, I was left to wonder, what exactly was going on: particularly when many posts degenerated to the level of the sarcasm I had quoted.

Okay, you've said this a couple of times, but many of the arguments presented in those posts were ones that I myself used as an egalitarian, and that I have heard and read many other egalitarians making. The reason for the sarcasm in some of them is simply because this is the PB and the egalitarian arguments are not held in high esteem here!

Sure those arguments were used in years past, but they are not the heart of the egalitarian case which will be arguments attempting to refute the traditional understanding of 1 Tim. 2:11-14. The egalitarian interpretation of the Gal. text is so easily refuted that better advised egalitarians are no longer using it, at least up here in Canada. And my point is simply that if we are going to help egalitarians we must carefully choose our ground when we do so.

Fair enough. I can attest that the majority of time spent in debates between egalitarians and complementarians is focused on whether the 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy passages were only for specific cultural situations or not. Usually Gal. 3:28 is mentioned, but less as an argument than as a "closing quip" of sorts for the egalitarian.

 

[DMcFadden]

I'm not so sure being 51 automatically qualifies me as younger by the average age of the PB.

You are correct, it does not. I was taking advantage of the larger issue that we face here often and expanding my comment to include a related factor, younger folks lecturing the board. Your age is not relevant to that tendency by some younger ones.

I responded as I did because I saw two things:
1) only 1 in 28 posts showed awareness of the heart of the egalitarian case, and
2) that much of what I was seeing in the thread was on the level of sarcastic dismissal, which if applied to egalitarians almost certainly will not be helpful as I know from personal experience having seen such arguments deployed elsewhere.
My apologies to those who took my concerns the wrong way.

Thanks. I DO understand your frustration with those who dismiss out of hand the positions of their opponents without carefully considering the bases for them. Straw men are soooo much easier to attack and on that point, I agree with your corrective.

Tim, I still struggle with the peculairly bloodless medium of e-mail and computer discussion boards. It is very easy for us to miscommunicate unintentionally because nuance, body language, and tone of voice are missed. That is why I "harp" on the need for civility and mutual respect rather than letting it all fly as in some other venues on the Internet.

If my scold was offensive to you, I should apologize and do so. That was unnecessary. However, it will continue to be my plea that we do not talk down to one another or set ourselves up as THE expert. On this board there are some VERY accomplished scholars in a variety of fields (e.g., theology, biblical studies, medicine, science, law, education, homemaking, etc.). We will get along much better if we simply disagree with one another without impugning the cognitive skills of our brethren.

I don't believe Packer has shifted since that article, but I am not in close touch with him. But at the time that article was written, JIP was, and until forced out last year, he remained a member of a denomination which did ordain women presbyters and As far as I know the parish church he attended and still attends agreed with that stance. (BTW that church St. John's Shaugnessy, Vancouver, deserves our prayers as it is a leader the fight against gay marriage in the Anglican Church of Canada, and their minister David Short has just gone on stress leave.)

As I said Packer's position is nuanced. He doesn't buy the practice of ordaining women but he won't leave a church or denomination over it.

If not leaving over his disagreement qualifies as nuance then I will not be left thinking that he changed his mind fundamentally on the topic and that he still remains opposed to the ordaination of women.

Sure those arguments were used in years past, but they are not the heart of the egalitarian case which will be arguments attempting to refute the traditional understanding of 1 Tim. 2:11-14. The egalitarian interpretation of the Gal. text is so easily refuted that better advised egalitarians are no longer using it, at least up here in Canada. And my point is simply that if we are going to help egalitarians we must carefully choose our ground when we do so.

Frankly, perhaps cynicism leads me to despair of "helping egalitarians" anymore. Unless someone is atypically open to changing paradigms, it is simply too easy to go with the flow of broad evangelicalism and its embrace of "evangelical feminism" with its egalitarian intellectual architecture.

 

[DMcFadden]

At the heart of it, we ALL have to struggle with a tendency to use arguments to provide cover for our biases. If you grow up in an egalitarian culture and a PhD authority figure tells you that you can be a "biblical" Christian AND still go with the flow of culture, it takes a person of atypical intellectual honesty to poke holes in that logic or exegesis. The same holds true of the gay issue and [I would also contend, albeit somewhat more controversially in this venue] six day creation. It is soooo very much easier to accept the societal consensus on all three of these issues, particularly if a Dr. Oh So Smart at the local "evangelical" seminary says that it is OK.

[BTW, imagine the cognitive dissonance of conservative women, sometimes with multiple degrees in theology and biblical studies, who serve on church staffs and do NOT buy the egalitarian line!!! Now, that is courage.]

 

[timmopussycat]

Frankly, perhaps cynicism leads me to despair of "helping egalitarians" anymore. Unless someone is atypically open to changing paradigms, it is simply too easy to go with the flow of broad evangelicalism and its embrace of "evangelical feminism" with its egalitarian intellectual architecture.

Dear brother, dare I gently remind you that despair is a sin?

Since the Holy Spirit changed my mind on the topic after my being born again and raised to some measure of maturity in egalitarian circles, then we must conclude that unless he has "lost his touch" in the intervening 22 years (unthinkable!), he can equally change the minds of others.

-----Added 12/11/2009 at 02:00:44 EST-----

[BTW, imagine the cognitive dissonance of conservative women, sometimes with multiple degrees in theology and biblical studies, who serve on church staffs and do NOT buy the egalitarian line!!! Now, that is courage.]

I sympathize acutely. It was only after I finished my studies that Regent made its stance on women in ministry a doctrinal crux, and that means that I cannot support the school that meant so much to me despite the excellent work it is still doing in many areas.

 

[Scott1]

Scott1
Can you name some of the "solid Bible believing" theologians who have a "high view of Scriptural authority yet they differ on this issue" that you have in mind?

timmopussycat
Packer is the obvious example.

timmopussycat
As I said Packer's position is nuanced. He doesn't buy the practice of ordaining women but he won't leave a church or denomination over it.

After your assertion that "solid Bible believing" churches (and you included "Pentecostal" ones in that) believed in women's ordination you really have not named any. You mentioned ones that were apostatizing.

You then, went on to name Mr. Packer as an individual supporting an "egalitarian" view (which you have yet to define) and have now basically said he does not advocate that.

It was a mistake for you to assert both that "solid Bible believing" communions believe in women's ordination and for Mr. Packer as advocating that.

The truth here is that while individuals can certainly have blind spots to the clear teaching of Scripture, there is no clear biblical warrant for women being ordained.

The explicit commands of Scripture, the normative descriptions of Scripture, the witness of virtually all of church history, the outflow of women's ordination from communions in apostasy show that God calls, equips and appoints men for ecclesiastical office. It's even consistent with the priority in creation.

We do not know all the reasons God does what He does.

Rebellion against God manifests in men not wanting to do what God wants them to do, and women not wanting to do what God wants them to do. Scripturally, that should not surprise us.

What ought surprise us is that we can rationalize away the explicit and implicit commands of Scripture, the normative description of Scripture and the witness of church history to accommodate our imaginations. The effects of this falling away from truth and rebellion are all around us.

While there is usually some truth in the "other "argument, it is like so many, a combination of truth, half truth and error. It all leads to the same place.

But God calls us to a more excellent way.

 

[timmopussycat]

Scott1
Can you name some of the "solid Bible believing" theologians who have a "high view of Scriptural authority yet they differ on this issue" that you have in mind?

timmopussycat
Packer is the obvious example.

timmopussycat
As I said Packer's position is nuanced. He doesn't buy the practice of ordaining women but he won't leave a church or denomination over it.

After your assertion that "solid Bible believing" churches (and you included "Pentecostal" ones in that) believed in women's ordination you really have not named any. You mentioned ones that were apostatizing.

You then, went on to name Mr. Packer as an individual supporting an "egalitarian" view (which you have yet to define) and have now basically said he does not advocate that.
It was a mistake for you to assert both that "solid Bible believing" communions believe in women's ordination and for Mr. Packer as advocating that.

The truth here is that while individuals can certainly have blind spots to the clear teaching of Scripture, there is no clear biblical warrant for women being ordained.

Please go back and reread the original post. You will note that I said in that post that Packer does not support the egalitarian view, yet he does not depart from churches that do. I misunderstood what you are asking. Bruce Milne, a Baptist is one who does support women in unrestricted teaching roles yet holds to biblical inerrancy (see his Know the Truth).

The explicit commands of Scripture, the normative descriptions of Scripture, the witness of virtually all of church history, the outflow of women's ordination from communions in apostasy show that God calls, equips and appoints men for ecclesiastical office. It's even consistent with the priority in creation.

We do not know all the reasons God does what He does.

Rebellion against God manifests in men not wanting to do what God wants them to do, and women not wanting to do what God wants them to do. Scripturally, that should not surprise us.

What ought surprise us is that we can rationalize away the explicit and implicit commands of Scripture, the normative description of Scripture and the witness of church history to accommodate our imaginations. The effects of this falling away from truth and rebellion are all around us.

While there is usually some truth in the "other "argument, it is like so many, a combination of truth, half truth and error. It all leads to the same place.

But God calls us to a more excellent way.

Scott, I don't buy egalitarianism and I will not be provoked into defending a position I do not agree with. My single point in this thread is to advocate care in choosing the ground from which we counter the egalitarian propaganda.

Yet while I hold no brief for the egalitarian framework, I encourage you to realize that it is simplistic to label arguments that have arisen within the framework of Biblical inerrancy and infallibility as rationalizing away - there are some legitimate questions that need to be properly addressed addressed as to whether the explicit commands and normative teaching of Scripture are in fact what tradition says they are. And our Confessional forefathers have told us that "the supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture" (WCF I x) which would seem to rule out arguments from church history and the "bad effects" argument. The "bad effects" argument also can cut both ways. Should men not be teachers in Christ's churches because of heretics like Arius and Servetus?

 

[Scott1]

timmopussycat
Yet while I hold no brief for the egalitarian framework, I encourage you to realize that it is simplistic to label arguments that have arisen within the framework of Biblical inerrancy and infallibility as rationalizing away - there are some legitimate questions that need to be properly addressed addressed as to whether the explicit commands and normative teaching of Scripture are in fact what tradition says they are.
What do you mean by this?

And our Confessional forefathers have told us that "the supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture" (WCF I x) which would seem to rule out arguments from church history and the "bad effects" argument. The "bad effects" argument also can cut both ways. Should men not be teachers in Christ's churches because of heretics like Arius and Servetus?

The church is subject to the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture. Scripture is infallible, church authority is fallible.

At best, church authority is secondary. It can be helpful, especially as one believes God has superintended His Word and its witness in His Church through history, but it is always secondary to Scripture.

If that is what you are saying, I agree.

That's why when Scripture explicitly qualifies the offices elder/pastor/bishop/deacon for men, examined, with exemplary lives, we are not free by church decree, religious opinion, or any imagination of mankind to deny them and supplant something else (such as a pattern of women ecclesiastical authority over men).

On top of that, we have the virtually unanimous witness of church history (including among all the historic Baptists, Anglicans, and Presbyterians) on this point..

 

[TaylorWest]

Let's Try One More View

It certainly explains the apparent contradiction with chapter 11 better than any other view I know.

There are at least two things that we moderns must struggle with when we come across a text like this. First, we have to ascertain what the author is saying and second we have to ascertain the significance of what has been said in our day. In this case, we must first ask the question, “What did St. Paul really say?”

Paul wrote, “The women must keep silent in the congregation, for they are not permitted to speak, but are required to subject themselves just as the law says.” As you can see, I’m wrestling with the third person active imperatives behind the phrases ‘must keep silent’ and ‘are required to subject’. Here is one area I’m especially unhappy with the King James Version. ‘Let your women keep silence’ is far too weak to communicate the imperatival force here (and just about everywhere else the third person imperative is used). ‘Let’ has a permissive connotation in modern English. ‘Let them eat cake!’ Are we allowed to eat cake, or are we commanded to eat cake? Paul is not saying that the women are allowed to keep silent, he is commanding that the keep silent.

At this point, many modern readers jump to the question of ‘why’ Paul would say such a thing. Scholars begin looking at the larger context of the letter, the context of Paul’s other epistles, the context of the New Testament in general (with special emphasis on the Gospels), and even at the context of the first century cultures themselves. As they begin weighing and configuring all the relevant data into a coherent mosaic, they are able to come up with a reasonable framework within which to interpret what St. Paul has said.

However, I’ve never seen an egalitarian scholar actually wrestle with the immediate context of this commandment (I can’t keep up with their writings, but I have read a whole lot on this).

Specifically, I think there are two very important items to consider in the immediate context that need to be considered when determining what St. Paul is saying. These are the words ‘speak’ and ‘silent.’ It should go without saying that these two concepts, in the midst of the congregation, are the main things that Paul is addressing in the context. And besides these two items, there are also the themes of ‘prophecy’ and ‘subjection’ that need to be considered.

On Speaking in the Congregation:

1 Cor 14:23 - If therefore the whole church should assemble together and all speak in tongues
1 Cor 14:27 - If anyone speaks in a tongue, …
1 Cor 14:28 – he must speak to himself and to God.
1 Cor 14:29 - And two or three prophets must speak, …​

On Keeping Silent in the Congregation:

1 Cor 14:28 – if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church
1 Cor 14:30 – the first must keep silent​

So we see that Paul is giving the church a series of commands about when to speak up and to keep silent in the church. In each of these cases, there is a very specific circumstance surrounding the exhortation. In other words, Paul outlines the conditions that must be met for each of his commands to make sense. ‘If’ this is the case, ‘then’ do thus.

When we get to verses 34 and 35, we see the same concepts passing through, and even a similar structure, but there is a very important difference. Though Paul is addressing the concepts of ‘speaking’ and of ‘silence’, he does not give circumstantial conditions. He does not say, ‘If the women get bored and begin speaking so loudly that they begin disturbing those that are trying to listen, then they must keep silent.’

Rather, Paul grounds the command for women to keep silent in the congregation in the commands of the law! To miss this structural change is to miss the whole point of the passage.

As for the relationship between 1 Cor 14 and 1 Cor 11, I think we need to fall back on the age old interpretive methods of the Reformers, 1) scripture must interpret scripture and 2) the clearer passages inform the less clear.

In this case, 1 Cor 14 is clearly speaking about how men and women are to conduct themselves in the congregation with special reference to speaking and prophesying. 1 Cor 11 however, seems to be speaking more generally about how men and women are to pray and prophesy outside of the congregation.

While I know that many good Calvinists would disagree with me here, the context, leading up to the head-covering passage is about how we conduct ourselves in public. It is only after Paul has addressed how men and women are to pray/prophesy that he moves to a discussion about the Lord’s Supper. At the very least, this is a contested passage (unclear) and therefore we should seek the help of 1 Cor 14 to make sense of it.

For my part, I take the clear command of 1 Cor 14 (women must not speak in the congregation) and use as a prism through which I understand 1 Cor 11. Therefore, I’m inclined to see 1 Cor 11 as 1) a transitional passage, bridging the instructional content of 1 Cor 10 on public conduct with the instructions on the conduct of the congregation that follows it, 2) and therefore I see the specific instructions about a woman’s praying and prophesying with her head covered as instructions that are fit for life outside of the congregation.

Well, enough said. Be well.

 

[DMcFadden]

After your assertion that "solid Bible believing" churches (and you included "Pentecostal" ones in that) believed in women's ordination you really have not named any. You mentioned ones that were apostatizing.

It is not too difficult to find inerrantists who support unrestricted teaching roles for women:

* Roger Nicole of Gordon Seminary and RTS fame
* Vernon Grounds
* John R. Kohlenberger III (?)
* Numbers of faculty at institutions promoting inerrancy such as Trinity Evangelical Divinity School or Gordon Conwell
* F.F. Bruce
* A.J. Gordon

In my opinion, Wayne Grudem has done some of the best work on the subject. His Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism, is one of my favorites.

I agree with the blogger who recommended it as follows:

1. It lifts high the authority and inerrancy of Scripture
2. It presents the arguments of egalitarians fairly
3. It equips the believer for egalitarian arguments that are unsubstantiated, purely speculative and wrong
4. It enlightens the believer as to where our culture has been, is, and is moving toward
5. It presents a sense of urgency that will require love and prayer on the complimentarians part
6. It will help complimentarian pastors develop a strong sense of Biblical standards regarding this issue
7. It states plainly that disobedience to Scripture based on any “argument” is simply disobedience and sin

 

[Scott1]

TaylorWest
For my part, I take the clear command of 1 Cor 14 (women must not speak in the congregation) and use as a prism through which I understand 1 Cor 11. Therefore, I’m inclined to see 1 Cor 11 as 1) a transitional passage, bridging the instructional content of 1 Cor 10 on public conduct with the instructions on the conduct of the congregation that follows it, 2) and therefore I see the specific instructions about a woman’s praying and prophesying with her head covered as instructions that are fit for life outside of the congregation.

Your careful study and reasoning from Scripture is commendable. It reminds me something of that of the Bereans that Paul commended.

Are you somehow concluding that women are given biblical warrant to teach, preach as part of corporate worship?

Or, is your point limited to interpretation of this one particular verse only?

 

[EricP]

I must say, as a non-theologian I am amazed and impressed with the breadth and depth of the thinking and comments of so many on this board, and generally the controlled tone of the conversation. I can add really nothing of exegetical value, but please allow me a social comment or two. As an old guy who was an atheist for the better part of his life, I see "the church" (generically speaking, but indicating those who have not derailed too far off orthodox tracks) as lagging behind common culture by a couple of decades--the feminist stuff hit the world at large years ago, and has been slowly entering church circles since. As far as I know, no new Scriptures have been discovered in that time; rather, "new" interpretations of old Scriptures have been found. Admittedly, church "tradition" is not as deep a well to draw from as Scripture itself, but there is water there which can still slake a thirst; it isn't inerrant, but exegetes today are telling us in effect that traditional exegesis of Scripture HAS been in error--wrong-headed, patriarchal, exclusive, whatever, but wrong in deed. In my opinion, common culture generally has no use at all for bible believing Christianity; I certainly didn't before I was saved: in essence, common culture wishes no good for the church, for Christians, or for matters of faith in one, all powerful, sustaining and creating God. Common culture wants God dead, buried, and marginalized--does now, and always has since Christ walked the earth.
So now, the push for inclusiveness--what is the drive behind it? If the driving force were a generally, exegetically, theologically agreed-upon "aha" moment ("face it folks, all of us agree that the church has been wrong about this for 2000 years; let's get our acts together") then fine. The skirmishes I have read not only here on the PB but elsewhere suggest strongly that this inclusiveness has not come from anything generally agreed upon, no system-wide "oh, that's what Paul meant..." event; rather, as one not on the exegetical front lines, it seems as if the changes in common culture have driven the changes in exegetical emphasis; changes which, as they have in common culture and elsewhere, begin a real domino-falling process which like it or not leads to a change in attitude/acceptance for various abnormal (historically) sexual and other behaviors (in and out of church circles), as well as a trend away from biblical inerrancy, and so forth. The domino theory is real, and can be seen readily in what has happened in the American culture over the past 40 years or more. While many of the proponents of Christian gender-inclusivism are nice, articulate, well-meaning, intelligent, believing people, that doesn't mean that they are right, or that their "movement" shouldn't be resisted--the stakes are too high. As the book of Judges proves, pagan culture generally wears down the faithful--not so much victory in battle as victory in the day to day, the Christian version of "can't we all just get along", and "it just seems right" to do such and such--ordain women, ordain homosexuals (initially abstinent, but then "how can we reject another form of love--God is love, right?"), supply denominational money to Planned Parenthood ("they do provide counseling!"), etc. NT Wright may be a smart articulate guy, but he and others had best be able to prove that they are smarter, more articulate, and more faithful than 2000 years of Christian theologians before they can step to the podium and say "this is what Paul REALLY meant". The law of unintended (and I'm being kind here) consequences is a hard taskmaster; God is omnipotent, but Christ's bride can be willful, weak, and fickle. Women are smart, strong, and competent and their roles in the church are and should be many and varied; but we had best be sure our hearts, minds, and exegesis are in their right places before we condone or support a movement the foundations of which involve forces and opinions that generally do not have the best interests of the church in mind!

-----Added 12/12/2009 at 08:38:56 EST-----

 

[TaylorWest]

Women Teaching?

TaylorWest
For my part, I take the clear command of 1 Cor 14 (women must not speak in the congregation) and use as a prism through which I understand 1 Cor 11. Therefore, I’m inclined to see 1 Cor 11 as 1) a transitional passage, bridging the instructional content of 1 Cor 10 on public conduct with the instructions on the conduct of the congregation that follows it, 2) and therefore I see the specific instructions about a woman’s praying and prophesying with her head covered as instructions that are fit for life outside of the congregation.

Your careful study and reasoning from Scripture is commendable. It reminds me something of that of the Bereans that Paul commended.

Are you somehow concluding that women are given biblical warrant to teach, preach as part of corporate worship?

Or, is your point limited to interpretation of this one particular verse only?

Eric,

For the record, I think Paul restricts women from 1) Preaching (any environment), 2) Teaching men (any environment), and 3) Leading the congregation in Prayer or even the Reading of Scripture.

From the flow of thought in 1 Cor 14, it is evident that the 'speakers' in each case are 'speaking' in such a manner as to edify in a very upfront way (leading that aspect of the worship service). I'm concluding by the fact that Paul uses a blanket statement, without conditions, that women are not to take part in the leading of congregational worship.

When our church has a time of announcements, in the middle of the worship service, I think it is more of a parenthetical moment, unrelated to worship. Therefore, I don't believe that Paul's exhortation for women to keep silent at this time applies. Giving announcements is not an act of one in authority.

Was there something I said specifically that gave the indication that I thought Paul would permit women to preach? I didn't mean to.

 

[KaphLamedh]

It has been door to liberalism, if the church has female pastor.

 

[Scott1]

TaylorWest
Was there something I said specifically that gave the indication that I thought Paul would permit women to preach? I didn't mean to.

Christopher,
Great post- and your summary here appears to be the biblical one, and the one witnessed by the church through history.

Only trying to follow the careful reasoning here, and wanted to clarify.

While I know that many good Calvinists would disagree with me here, the context, leading up to the head-covering passage is about how we conduct ourselves in public. It is only after Paul has addressed how men and women are to pray/prophesy that he moves to a discussion about the Lord’s Supper.

If I'm understanding what you are saying, and what I think is the biblical principles here, we would say God has qualified men to lead in corporate worship and authority by office and by function.

We don't understand the "keep silence" to be no speaking ever, but no authoritative leading of corporate worship. Some exceptions:

1)esp. older women teaching younger women,
2)women teaching younger children,
3)and maybe some incidental parts of corporate worship (e.g. announcements).

But clearly, reading scripture, exhorting from scripture, teaching, or qualifying church office leadership as deacon or elder is biblically qualified to men.

As well, men ought ordinarily be leading in aspects of worship, as reflective of the priority of creation, with many un-ordained men and women helping and serving under that