"Women Can't Teach Men" makes CNN headlines

This morning I look on-line at the main CNN home page and see this headline and article right in the top listing of national news - "Church Says Women Can't Teach Men". It is the story of a woman who has taught Sunday School at her church for 54 years, but (according to the article) the pastor there just told her she can't teach anymore because she is a female. This took place at a Baptist church and you can read the article and see a video clip here.  Later in the morning the headline was actually changed from the original title to a sensationalistic new title of "Church Dumps Teacher for Being Female".

So in national news on CNN this issue is raised - and I am wondering if we are prepared to adequately answer this question.

On one hand, I hear the view from those who believe that women should not teach men - yet it seems that those who hold this view still have women singing in church (which is really teaching through lyrics if you were to just look at the lyrics of some songs). Or they allow females to be sharing what they learned in the Bible in small study discussion groups of mixed sexes and allow them to contribute there. But to stand in a pulpit and talk (which interestingly they didn't even have pulpits in the early church) and share what they are learning - females aren't allowed to do that.

I also read blogs by some females who themselves hold the view that females shouldn't be teaching men. But oddly, their own blogs are extremely authoritative as they as females strongly teach on various topics in their blogs by using Scriptures and even rebuke others (including men) who don't hold their viewpoints - which sure seems like teaching to me to. The "church" is the people throughout the week, not just a meeting. So is a female teaching both men and women on a public blog, different than standing in a pulpit for a woman who believes females shouldn't teach men? Shouldn't their blogs (if they hold this viewpoint) be for "females only"? They certainly preach and teach on their public blogs and know it is a mixed audience they are speaking to.

On the other hand, there are those who hold that women should teach - but I just talked to an elder at a church who holds this view and asked if they can they explain from the Bible the passages that say women should remain silent etc. This elder said he really couldn't explain them, but "feels" that women should be able to teach men. So with this person, having a feeling about it was the primary reason he believed women should teach men - but he couldn't answer or give an explanation from the Scriptures or be able to explain the various passages that seem to say otherwise.

My wondering, is whether what view is held by someone (or what in-between view), can we intelligently discuss from the Scriptures why that view is held? Can we do so lovingly and gracefully and respect those who differ from our view in this? We have to remember that there are wonderful godly people who study the Scriptures and pray and say "the Spirit leads me to believe women can teach in church" and there are wonderful godly people who study the Scriptures and pray and say "the Spirit leads me to believe women cannot teach in church (at least can't teach men)".

Here in national news being read by perhaps millions (I don't know the viewing audience of CNN news), at least one church is thrust into the limelight for telling a woman who taught for 54 years in her church she can no longer do so.

I know most churches don't react as extreme as the one in the headlines this morning (or at least how the headlines and article portray this story and we don't know what the real story is), but since it made national headlines - I believe it raises how we need to really, really have a way of explaining our views on this. We can't just throw out a Bible verse from its context and have that be our reason for saying women can't teach men, without adequate explanation and reasoning from the whole of Scripture. We can't really just have a "feeling" that women should teach men, without being able to have a biblically based reason for it and also be able to explain the passages that say "women should remain silent".

It is a huge question being asked today and to those outside the church, another incredibly insane thing to read headlines like this and thus have stereotypes of the church reinforced.

Comments

[rivikah]

Were there really 47 comments on this and no one really postulated a counter-reading of these passages? Maybe there was one in one of the other books or blogs mentioned. Maybe I should keep my mouth shut and mind my own business. This is an old post...What's the point of responding? I guess I'll give it a try anyway.

I'm not a Biblical scholar, but questions of the place of women in the church have some relevance to me and this is what I've learned about this passage (Unfortunately, my information comes from a variety of sources and my own memory so I can't cite sources or anything like that)

The passage commanding women to keep silent is 1 Corinthians 14:34. It's in a segment titled "Orderly Worship" in the NIV. It's about taking turns and not all talking at once and similar issues. As I've heard it explained, the women being refrenced here were not actually participating in the gathering. They were instead having conversations on other matters or interupting to ask questions that would be best answered in a different setting.

There are other passages of course. I don't know specific explainations for all of them. But there is also Galations 3:26-29

26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

If there is neither male nor female, how can we say that it is relevant that a teacher is female? Or that her students are male?

[Elizabeth]

Could the bible be simply warning believers about the tendency of women to think that they are a little more spiritual, less deceived, better able to lead and that they would like to secretly take over the whole shebang (or at least lead their own bible study?)

It seems like men's role of authority over women (in the true sense as opposed to the dictator or the wimpy sense) would be a tough principle to apply in the modern day church as well as "Christian" marriages so no wonder we are all confused.

While we're busy adding to the fine print in the church by-laws however, the world looks on as Christians lose the spirit of the law and get caught up in yet another civil war. Perhaps some people ought to lay their bibles aside for a while.

[Kim]

It so refreshing to see outside my current SBC church walls.

My question is for all the Bible Scholars: Our church will allow women to teach (to an extent) and to lead and even become deacon(esses) but they can NOT become elders...where is this addressed in the hiearchy of church evolution?

[Craighton]

There are organizations that can provide you with research material and other resources that support gender equality from a conservative, evangelical, biblical perspective. The best is Christians for Biblical Equality (www.cbeinternational.org) whose web site includes a bookstore (www.equalitydepot.com) with hundreds of print and recorded materials and a new blog (blog.cbeinternational.org). Come join the discussion. Thanks for your spirited discussion of this topic.

[Dana]

Sandy, (and anyone else who might be interested)
Michael Kruse has reviewed a new book on his blog, www.krusekronicle.typepad.com.
The book is by an Australian theologian, Kevin Giles, and it talks about the point you bring up. Scroll down to the August 24 entry.

Dan, appreciate your blog and your generosity.

Dana

[Dan Wilt]

The fact that this is still an issue in the church, after Jesus work on behalf of the woman's voice, and Paul's clear address to an imbalanced Ephesian culture (deifying women and reducing men), is deeply frustrating to me.

In another 1000 years, maybe this will be an old issue for Christians. As of today, I find it tiring; even though I embrace historical process and the humanity of the Church's history as an integral part of God's work, I find this tiring.

Women, please teach us something about honor, because men running the institutional Church has confused the whole batch.

[molly]

EXCELLENT post. Wow. Absolutely excellent.

I am a woman from a conservative (very) background who has just begun looking into the "woman question" beyond just 1 Timothy 2. I've never grappled before with Romans 16, for example, never delved into it. Let's just say my world is getting messier...

Something that really shook me regarding women in ministry (and the seeming Commands about their silence, etc) was in (this might sound funny) Acts 15. I wrote about it here, but it seriously challenged some of my here-to-for conservative "women-be-silent" assumptions. I'm still not sure what I think, but...

http://adventuresinmercy.wordpress.com/2006/07/03/what-really-shook-me-a-look-at-acts-15/

Bottom line: I want to bring God glory. I think that's what we all want, right? So if that means being silent, then I will be silent (even though I have a passion for teaching the Scriptures and sharing Jesus with others). And I have been (silent, that is).

But if bringing God glory involves excercising that gift that He has put in me, and yet I remain silent because I've misinterpreted His word and made a statement into a for-all-time command, then... Then what a shame my silence is.

Hence why I loved your post. WE DO need to grapple with the issue, and I think we actually can do it together, if we can just get past some of the battle lines that we humans seem ever so good at drawing.

Warmly,
Molly

[unmuzzled]

Lets not forget 1Corinthians 11:11
In the Lord, HOWEVER, women is not independent of man nor is man independent of woman (we need each other). For as women came form man so man comes from woman. (Goes both ways). But everything comes from God. (So it doesn’t matter anyway.)

[Stacey]

Anthony...thanks for the book recommendation. I'll definitely check it out!

[Rita]

Dan,

Sorry for not checking back to see that you had posed a question to my comment.

I think that the truth that carries over into today's church is ... if you have a known prostitute in your church, don't let them teach. :)

Of course, I'm joking. I think the principle that carries over in today's culture is to be wary of what's going on outside and to be distinctively different in ways that count.

But who am I? and what do I know?

Rita

[Jon]

after reading several people's posts about hot the media left out some of the story, i went to check it our for myself. this is a part of a letter from the church...

"The Board of the First Baptist Church is saddened that a private church matter has once again been aired in the public arena. In September of 2006 First Baptist Church will offer Sunday school classes at 9:30 a.m. for all age groups. To meet the vibrant growth of our congregation the Board has made various changes. As a church we believe that God has a special role for both men and women within the church setting. Currently 55% of the Diaconate Board members of First Baptist Church are women. Additionally, by September, 87% of all Sunday School teaching positions will be filled by female educators. We believe that organizing our church in accordance with the teaching of scripture will enable us to continue to reach out to our community in the name of our loving Savior Jesus Christ.

In the specific case of Ms. Lambert the Board’s decision to remove her from a teaching position was multifaceted and the scriptural rules concerning women teaching men in a church setting was only a small aspect of that decision. Christian courtesy motivates us to refrain from making any public accusations against her."

so it seems that we didn't hear the whole story.

[Sandy]

Hello,
As Christians who believe in that the bible is completely true, we must do our best to follow its teachings. Dan asked "irreverend fox" why teaching in front of the assembly is different from teaching elsewhere, ie blogs, sunday school etc. It is different because the 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 passage limits women specifically "in the churches" (vs. 33) and again "in the church" (vs. 35). Dan states that the church is the people of Christ, which is true, but it seems that the term "church" can also be used to refer to the gathering of Christians, as it is here. Correct me if I am wrong, please. This issue is not easily dismissed as a particular teaching limited in intent to one church because the teaching is repeated to the apostle Timothy in 1 Tim. 2:12 "I do not permit a woman to teach." There is some principle at work in multiple situations.

We may have an easier time limiting women to a more subservient position in the church if we gain a better understanding of the relationship between the Son and the Father in the Trinity. Jesus said that "I have come down from heaven not to so my will but to do the will of him who sent me" (Jn 6:38). Jesus also prays to the Father in Luke 22:42 "if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done." If Jesus can take on the role of serving despite the fact that he is equal in divine nature with the Father, perhaps women too can take the secondary role. And perhaps we will not see the fullness of the God who is a trinity in our churches unless both roles are acted out.

Feel free to criticize, I am open to correction.

[Anthony Stiff]

Stacey: I appreciated your comment, "My ability to lead or to teach is not questioned in relation to my ability, talents or training but to my gender, an attribute that actually makes me a reflection of God's image. My femaleness is a part of God's very nature."

There is a tension between the mystery of our gender in relation to how its intended to express the image of God in us and the assumptions we form about its roles in life. I'm caught up in a similar struggle particularly as my wife and I labor in ministry side by side, we often share thoughts and reflections on the scriptures in our bible studies at home (as we did tonight) but only I occasionaly preach in the larger body...I miss my wifes voice and yet I know that as she listens to the Spirit compelling her through scripture she finds her femaleness in soften-silence rather than an absolute one and for her that is a liberation because she sees it as the pattern of expressing God's image in her gender at this moment of the redemptive story.

As you wrestle with the passge in Galatians, and you consider the reasons for believing women can teach, there is a helpful book by Richard Longenecker you might enjoy who believes women can teach in Church, "New Testament Social Ethics for Today". It cover more than just this present matter. A humble suggestion from a blogger, of small reput...

[Stacey]

I have to say that as a relatively conservative Christian female with a heart for ministry and the church, this has always been a difficult topic for me. I have earned a Bible degree and for all intents and purposes have had the same formal education as most of my male peers. My ability to lead or to teach is not questioned in relation to my ability, talents or training but to my gender, an attribute that actually makes me a reflection of God's image. My femaleness is a part of God's very nature.

To get back to the heart of your post, Dan, I have also struggled with the distinctions of what are female roles and male roles in the church as we understand them. Why is it okay for me to blog the things I do, to sing the things I do in the situations I do, to teach children who are our future church leaders (even the boys!)but not to teach. Biblically, I'm still struggling to find a place that makes those distinctions.

I've done some research and found that a really interesting resource in favor of women leadership is a book called "Why Not Women" by Cunningham (the founder of YWAM) and Hamilton (a phd who did his doctoral studies in the difficult passages of scripture in this area). Hamilton, especially, has some very interesting things to say in favor of women in leadership, putting scripture in the context of the whole, like you mention, Dan, and looking at the heart of our Father. Cunningham goes at it from the perspective of the women he's seen in ministry. Let's throw this out there...why is ok for women to preach in the mission field but not in North American churches?

In talking with some local pastors, another biblical defense for women's role in the church (as a ministry of the kingdom, not just the building) is Galatians 3:28 - "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." We do live under Christ today which goes back to an earlier comment about whether certain passages of Scripture are prescriptive or descriptive. Are certain passages part of the story to that particular context, as has been suggested about most of the passages encouraging the silencing of women or is it an admonition to the church over the generations? There seems, in my mind at least, to be some conflict when you put those two together.

I heard Bill Hybels speak well on this a while back. He suggested that if Satan were looking for a way to disable half of the Christian "army," the best way to do that would be to find something that they couldn't change and tell them that because of that they were unfit to serve...it seems to me that he's done that. Not only that, but we spend so much time trying to maintain it and make sure that women aren't leading that sometimes I think we forget the real purpose of the church...to see God's kingdom come! Particularily true in today's culture, not only is it a distraction to us but it's a barrier to those around us. What sort of reaction would CNN viewers in today's society have had to hearing that she couldn't serve because she's female? I'm not saying that we should conform to the world but perhaps "the world" is further ahead by recognizing that God is equipping women of all shapes and sizes in ways beyond what we imagine (childcare, cooking, janitorial as one of the comments so kindly posted). I'm not a feminist but I hate to see this issue get in the way of God's Kingdom reign being extended. Thanks for posting, Dan. I appreciate the discussion!!!

[Makeesha]

abmo - very good points :)

[abmo]

Actually, I think it is a funny and a sad issue. Can men be taught??....at all??....even by men?? I was just wondering.
The whole church thing bothers me.

My mom can teach me how to love Jesus at home. But not at church?

And since when did God confine Himself to the churchbuilding as the place He teaches people? And since when is His main "thing" teaching? OK,OK that question is probably not relevant for this posting. I believe God is everywhere and He will use even an ass, if it suites Him. Perhaps He has used asses ever since and that is the reason women should not be teaching. That is the role reserved only for the ass-ones or men as we are called. God is not limited by what we believe or how we intepret the scripture. He will use whom is available. I have come to know and love Jesus, and for 99% of the time, that happened outside the church building. The church gave me the principles of love, but that is not the same as the experience of His love through the people around me. That includes a lot of women.

Christianity is not a thing that is taught. It is a life lived in God's love. Words are a by-product, not the essence.

Perhaps we should make an experiment. For the next year nobody would be allowed to talk about Jesus. We will show Him to others through our lives. And we will teach each other through what we do, and, "how" we love. How will the men and women rate in that kind of teaching? Who will teach us to live in the reality of God's love?

One thing is sure. It will not be the person standing in the front of the congregation speaking to us. Women or man. There is to much distance.

But I tell you what, let's debate it. It would probably take about 3 years, and half of the people will still not agree with the other half. Then God can choose which of these groups, He loves the most. Because this is what the debate is finally about. It's not about the Father, or Jesus, or the Holy Spirit. It's about us. And that is just sad.....:-)

Thanks

[sean]

We only allow woman to serve in Biblically specific roles in our church. In accordance with the scriptures, which clearly show God giving different gifts to men than he does woman, we allow woman to lead or serve in these ministries: secretary, janitor, Sunday school teacher assistant, church cleaner, child care worker, cook, pastoral attendant, back-up singer, prayer team leader (woman lead this meeting since I’m normally preparing teachings on orthodox prayer), receptionist, chair set-up, accountant, maid, etc… As you can see, we allow women to lead or serve in servant-ministries, which is in accordance with the words of Jesus in Matthew 23:11 “The greatest among you will be your servant.” Therefore, we don’t allow men to learn from women. Unfortunate, really is.

[Anthony Stiff]

Makeesha: Thanks for giving me a heads up on his post. I visited it earlier, Witherington was making some very good biblical arguments for the position that women should be teachers. I was a little hesitant to post after seeing how the blogger, 'traditionalist1611', was handling himself...very un-Christlike. Also while making some points for the position that women should not 'teach' I'm not drawing to many lines what that is supposed to look like. I more interested in making the point that both sides can amass a lot of sound exegetical arguements and we're still left with the need for charity toward one another and solid, Christlike inclusion of women into the life of the church...(one might also add younger children, sometimes I think we treat them like second class Christians as well).

What attracted me to Dan's posting was that I frequently read them and my interest is in what the Lord is doing in the emerging churches, particularly in California because my wife and I are hoping to be in Sacramento doing ministry.

Anyway, I'll revisit it, thanks.

[Makeesha]

unmuzzled - very articulate, concise and perfectly balanced. That is my position and my husband's as well...almost verbatim.

Anthony - it would be worth your while to check out Witherington's blog, he has several entries that are very heady theological explorations of the writings of Paul regarding women and the comments are just as good as the original posts because he responds to those who disagree. Ben has also published works on this topic....since you asked for people who disagree with the complementarian opinion of Paul's gender writings.

[Anthony Stiff]

Jason: Thanks for replying, Ive given thought to what you meant by story and also how you pointed to the way Jesus used the bible. Thank you. Jesus's treatment of women in the gospels - particularly in Luke - was a redeeming paradigm for all of us who follow him in our own journeys.
----------

As I consider Jesus example I am curious why he never argued for women rabbi's in the synagogue or gave a speach about women's freedom in his sermon on the mount where he engaged many difficult cultural issues (this isn't meant to be very persuasive point, only a point from a surface reading). I see Christ redeeming women and men in many ways but I don't see in him something contrary to Paul's teaching (I still don't think anyone has posted an interpretation that speaks against Pauls message). If Christ is our example and we're reading the whole bible as story then I see no reason why we should not accept Paul's apostolic message, since he was Christ's chosen vessel, nor do I see a reason why we should not accept the nominal practice of male leaders whether that be in the judges (Deborah is a counter example) of Israel, in the kings, or in the prophets, or in the apostles. Scot McKnight in an article 'Future or Fad?' made a point about the relative absence of Paul's teachings in our churches, that we as the emerging churches tend to focus in on the Gospels and Acts and focus less upon the letters after them. I think there is a danger in dismissing or not engaging Paul by praising Jesus because he was more interested in women in his ministry (I don't believe he necessarily was), the danger is we end up misunderstanding them both. Dan raised the question well, those who don't believe women should teach need to do more than just quote a verse they need to demonstrate from the whole of scripture why that is its statement on the matter, but those who do believe women should teach need to have an answer for the teachings that tend to say otherwise [particularly in Paul's teaching in 1 Cor and 1 Tim].

I'm wondering though whether either of these positions will really mean holistic justice/redemption for women or good PR for the "church". In my opinion its not good interpretation that will rescue us from this controversy or not being able to reconcile the bible with our different aproaches to mission, its humility and a willingness to continue to strive along side one another even though we have differences as we live missionally to those around us. And ultimately its conceding that 'salvation' from this will only come when Christ restores all things, when every eye (woman or man) is lifted up to behold his glory. The curse of sin will finally be put away then, and is presently being put away as we labor in the love and mercy Christ provides for all...

[unmuzzled]

Adam and Eve sinned.
God cursed Adam and Eve.
Adam now rules over Eve. BECAUSE OF THE CURSE!
Jesus died on the cross. Breaking the curse of sin and death.
Paul tells men to be like Christ and die. Give up there curse given right to rule over women.

[Jason]

Anthony....I do agree it is more than just story...I meant we read it like a story and in that story lies lots of things that include Truth, Poetry, Symbalism, etc, etc...I gues my point is the church as I know growing up was always this is what it said therefore it is...but when I read the Gospels and how Jesus taught and lived it seems quite opposite of what is written in a lot of the Bible...a lot of churches use the Book of Acts as a basis for "how church should be done" - while I can agree that book holds a lot of truths for the church today, I also see it as a description more of how the church began...obviously they didnt have it 100% correct, thus my view on that....this whole thing with women is what gets me the most...as noted if the Bible were written in the mid 20th century, I think you would see a slant of racism or anti-minority views from authors in there.

Jesus seemed very adamant that women were just as equal as men and he made a lot of people mad by showing favor to women at times.

At the last E/C conference in Nashville, I thought McLaren made some really good points about when we slice and dice verses into what we want them to say, or to make the Bible "back up" our theology by quoting parts of verses we are missing the bigger story at hand. He had an illustration he used that I thought was awesome, I wish I still had it somewhere on notes.

[Dan]

Ben Witherington, a theologian who holds a high view of Scripture blogged about this very thing today - and the posted and running comments are worth reading.

http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/08/sunday-school-teacher-of-54-years.html

[bob]

Not to detract from the conversation, but apparently there's more to the news story than originally and sensationally reported... http://www.getreligion.org/?p=1839

How our little emerging-type, pub church worked through this issue...
here: http://www.evergreenlife.org/web/boards/index.php?topic=410.msg3799#msg3799

[Papa Tony]

First time on your blog in many months. You can imagine my surprise at the subject matter. All I can say is "Here we go!"

[Makeesha]

thanks Anthony - Revolution is actually the "alternative" service/ministry of our church but we do have a heavy focus on issues of justice both local and international :)

[Anthony Stiff]

Makeesha: I appreciated the way you gave emphasis to the need for charitable conversation when it comes to divisive issues, like this current one - Makeesha and her husband are doing a well put together international justice ministry, see it here (http://3drevolution.wordpress.com/).

Jason: I gave some thought to what you said here, "I always wonder how much of the Bible is de-scriptive rather than pre-scriptive? The Bible is a story correct? Well, if we wrote the Bible in say 1940 wouldnt there be a lot of things about minorities shouldnt teach, etc then too?" I was wondering Jason if you've given much thought to the Bible not as story, ie that there might be sections where narrative/story isn't as present and some other genre of literature is like say 'letter' (they don't always exclude oneanother). I agree that knowing the difference between what is descriptive and what is prescriptive is important (that's not to say stories can't be both of these) but in my mind that kind of question doesn't work as well when it comes to the 'letter' genre - even more so when it comes to the subgenre of 'wisdom speech' within a letter. Paul seems to be using creational prescedence as well as redemptive progression in 1 Tim and in many parts of 1 Cor. I hope I don't seem terribly modern here but not everything is story; theres poetry, there's apocalypse, and many other forms of literature in our bibles. In addition to that we must remember the presence of the Spirit of God inspiring these writers...people of their own times they were but people of the Spirit as well. Its a difficult matter I just want to play it down either missionally to women or in my interpretation of scripture.

I don't think that good interpretation can free us from struggling with living with scripture here or our need to see the freedom of Christ applied...but I do think we must wrestle regardless of the difficulty. Jason, what do you think about my reflection on your posting? I'm open to correction on the matter brother.

[Jason]

Weird...I just blogged about this yesterday as well as soon as I read it on foxnews.com - Anyways, I always wonder how much of the Bible is de-scriptive rather than pre-scriptive? The Bible is a story correct? Well, if we wrote the Bible in say 1940 wouldnt there be a lot of things about minorities shouldnt teach, etc then too? I mean it also says do not eat pork, and do not get a tatoo in the Bible - but I think most agree this was part of the old law.....my biggest thing is Jesus was the bridge for ALL humans. The woman at the well was a huge story about how he viewed all are equal....I just think we get too wrapped up in specific verses sometimes and dont realize a lot of what is being written is more descriptive of the time it was then. Women weren't thought of as hardly human at that point in history. Times have changed.

[Makeesha]

Marika - excellent point. In fact, your point applies to many areas of dissent within the Church. I have no problem "agreeing to disagree" with a complementarian/patriarchist who humbly acknowledges that his view is his best understanding of the scriptures and admits that there is interpretation involved that is shadowed by many factors. Because that's how I approach many issues in scripture where there is disagreement, yielding to the possibility that my view may not be correct and that I may in fact change my mind at some point. But if someone is not willing to extend that grace it's kind of pointless to talk with them about it.

[Aaron Ortiz]

I believe we should obey Paul's command, even though it has become unpopular. Nevertheless, the modern worship service is VERY different from a New Testament meeting, in which there was not necesarily only one person speaking, or leading worship, or prayer, but there might be several. Women were allowed to prophesy and pray.

The real question is whether the limitations on women teaching should be limited to the general meeting of believers, or should apply for every context.

Are Sunday school or bible classes a 'meeting' in the sense the meetings of NT christians were? Should women be allowed to teach secular subjects?

It appears that the context of Paul's command was limited only to the general meeting of believers, as Paul is dealing with many problems of improper adn disorderly worship.

"17In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. "
1 Corintians 11:17-18

[Dan]

Hello Rita!

As a Southern Baptist and after you just wrote what you did about understanding those passages as being specific to what was an issue at that time in the church - what do you believe carries over or not to today's church?

[Rita]

This issue is near and dear to my heart. Being a young, vocal female and a member of a Southern Baptist Church, I understand that this has been a long-held belief of traditional Southern Baptists. Based on the scripture in Corinthians (14:34) that advises women should "remain silent in the churches", this verse causes a lot of hard feelings toward the church, especially from women (understandably so).

I was discussing this scripture and the application of it with a friend of mine recently, and he brought something out to me that made sense. I've been thinking on it a lot recently, and ... I just thought I'd throw it out here for you to toss around in your head too.

It's clear from reading the rest of Paul's first letter to the Corinthians that there were some issues going on in that church that were of a sexual nature (1 Corinthians 5, 1 Corinthians 6:12-20, 1 Corinthians 7, and others, I'm sure). The advice to have women stay "silent in the churches" was merely to _separate_ them from the pagans and the confusion that was going on in the pagan congregations.

Just a thought.

[Anthony Stiff]

What constitutes a mature, missionaly minded position of 'women teaching in church'? I thought I might chime in after reading the comments of irreverend fox and the replies to him.

For me the difficulty in holding a missionaly minded position on this controversy is that the scriptures seem to be speaking in a way that is not as missionaly helpful in reaching women as I like them to speak. Part of the problem is that there is tension even in the book of 1 Corinthians where this controversy arises out of. 11:2-6 says women can pray and prophecy in church but 14:33b-36 says they cannot teach, why?

Part of understanding Paul's apostolic vision for Corinth is acknowledging that his culture was dealing with different values and symbolic ascriptions of meaning than ours. Both the OT and NT were written in a time where male dominance was more nominal than today (though not exculsive because there were nations even back then where women lead). Paul was a man of his day of his culture, but here comes the twist, the way he argues in 1 Tim 2:9-15 is by using 'wisdom' (a form of speaking found in our OT in books like Proverbs, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, etc.) categories based on standards God sets up in the order of creation and redemption.

It seems to me that what ties 1 Cor. with 1 Tim. together is the principal of order, and Paul is clear in both places that order means particular roles for women and men. The tension arises for myself, and I believe us because our current culture in America wants to see women leading much more equaly in a 'vocational sense'. And order that might have 'gender' particular roles are offensive. So what do we do? Do we play down scripture or play down our cultural mission field's values? "What constitutes a mature, missionaly minded position of 'women teaching in church'?" We have to maintain both, in my mind what that means in the life of the church is male teachers/preachers leading us when we're all gathered together but not an exclusively male podium with exclusively male agenda but one that is shared between the gender's. What are your thoughts on this...where might I not be honoring our Lord in my missional reflections here?

[Derek]

Dan,

Thanks for the challenge/reminder to know where we stand and just as importantly, why we stand there.

Your comments made me realize that sometimes I'm one of those people who "feels" that my position is correct but lacks the Biblical basis for that stance.

Your blog and the ensuing discussion via these comments has sparked in me the desire to take a good look at the topic and seek out a Biblical basis for it!

[-Justin-]

I agree with you Dan, but after checking out the church's website, I really think there is more to this story than CNN is reporting. I blogged about it today.

Still, this is a good conversation for the church to have.

[Paul]

Dan - great thoughts - the question that i'd like to ask is: please could you explain/demonstrate/model explaining your view/take on this subject?

I ask cos I think that's what people need, healthy ways of expression, conversation and even disagrement - i do anyway - and i find it a lot easier when i see how others model it so i can learn...

[Marika]

Hey Dan,
Glad you are addressing this issue on the blog. I think one main problem that arises in the desire for neutral or middle ground, is that if one side really does not think a woman can have say at a decision-making level, then there can be no discussion. Whatever she would say would be null in the other's view. Agreeing to disagree is a nice idea, but if one side really does not see the other as equal or even having the ability or permission to speak, then there is no dialogue possible. In many churches in America, men lead, men speak, and men make all the decisions while over a half of their congregation is female. It is amazing to me that this issue is not discussed more in church, but then i remember, it is only the men doing the discussing.

[Makeesha]

I echo Dan's question and I would also like to add that your ideas sound like nails on a chalkboard to me as well - are you calling my Christianity into question?

[Dan]

Irreverend Fox -

I got a question for you. You wrote:

"I believe that when the local congregation gathers for worship, that a women should not take the roll of teacher when the sexes are mixed. Sharing is one thing, I believe, in a discussion format. But standing before the assembly of God as the teacher, is clearly in violation to scripture."

My question is where in Scripture does it say that? Where do the Scriptures describe the "standing before the assembly" as what it means for someone teaching. I don't see that anywhere as defining what that means, so I would be curious where/how you determine that as the standard if it isn't in the Bible.

Thank you!!

Dan

[irreverened fox]

Dan,

I believe that when the local congregation gathers for worship, that a women should not take the roll of teacher when the sexes are mixed. Sharing is one thing, I believe, in a discussion format. But standing before the assembly of God as the teacher, is clearly in violation to scripture. This is a prime example of a time when the scripture that is our authority sounds like nails scratching down a black board, to the ears of the unsaved.

In a setting that is not an actual, orderly, gathering of the local assembly, such as a blog, or drawing water at a well, or in general conversation, or in evangelism, then women have plenty to say and should be encouraged to say it!

I do not know what this is. I just believe that for His own reasons, God has said it and He ment it.

[Fred Peatross]

Dan,

Thanks for your comments on this subject. Shame on us for washing our laudry while the world watches.

I have some comments on my blog about Mary Lambert

http://fredpeatross.blogspot.com/2006/08/fem-phobia.html

[Makeesha]

I don't think it says she taught kids (??) I assumed it was adult Sunday School - otherwise why would it be an issue, she wouldn't have been teaching men she would have been teaching boys.

[Anthony Stiff]

Dan,
I'm a frequent reader of your blog and I have always appreciated your ability to deconstruct church culture, while also reminding the church that the world is watching them, and close drawing some thoughtful pastoral challenges at the end of your reflections. This blog is no different...but the question is a serious one and a difficult one.

What constitutes a mature, missionaly mindid position of 'women teaching in church'? I think your own thoughts made something of an answer to this question clearer to me. I am understanding you to be conveying that we must keep in mind the horizon of the text and the horizon of contemporary culture (horizon: meaning the world of values and meaning that either the author of a text holds or his audience holds), while also continuing to ask what responsible & charitable exegesis of each of these horizons looks like.

Dan if you have some further thoughts on this I would appreciate hearing them...this is a difficult question indeed, a divisive for our churches and a question that seems to leave us more wounded than restored in imageo dei...

[Anthony Stiff]

Dan,
I'm a frequent reader of your blog and I have always appreciated your ability to deconstruct church culture, while also reminding the church that the world is watching them, and close drawing some thoughtful pastoral challenges at the end of your reflections. This blog is no different...but the question is a serious one and a difficult one.

What constitutes a mature, missionaly mindid position of 'women teaching in church'? I think your own thoughts made something of an answer to this question clearer to me. I am understanding you to be conveying that we must keep in mind the horizon of the text and the horizon of contemporary culture (horizon: meaning the world of values and meaning that either the author of a text holds or his audience holds), while also continuing to ask what responsible & charitable exegesis of each of these horizons looks like.

Dan if you have some further thoughts on this I would appreciate hearing them...this is a difficult question indeed, a divisive for our churches and a question that seems to leave us more wounded than restored in imageo dei...

[Anthony Stiff]

Dan,
I'm a frequent reader of your blog and I have always appreciated your ability to deconstruct church culture, while also reminding the church that the world is watching them, and close drawing some thoughtful pastoral challenges at the end of your reflections. This blog is no different...but the question is a serious one and a difficult one.

What constitutes a mature, missionaly mindid position of 'women teaching in church'? I think your own thoughts made something of an answer to this question clearer to me. I am understanding you to be conveying that we must keep in mind the horizon of the text and the horizon of contemporary culture (horizon: meaning the world of values and meaning that either the author of a text holds or his audience holds), while also continuing to ask what responsible & charitable exegesis of each of these horizons looks like.

Dan if you have some further thoughts on this I would appreciate hearing them...this is a difficult question indeed, a divisive for our churches and a question that seems to leave us more wounded than restored in imageo dei...

[dagurreotype]

As an adult, I've always heard that St. Paul was speaking about certain women in a certain church in a certain city at a certain time in history as opposed to all women in all places for all of time.

I grew up Baptist. The pastors were all male, but the (pre-school - 5th Grade) Sunday School teachers were at the least almost exclusively female in not 100% so. I may be a girl, but I'm sure the boys in Sunday School with me also learned more in Sunday School from those lovely ladies than in "Big Church" from the all male pastors.

[Makeesha]

good pondering Dan. I agree with the idea that we all should be able to humbly explain our pov and accept that there if their is a definite right or wrong, we certainly could be "wrong" but we're doing our best to live out our understanding as led by God's Spirit in our lives and ministries. Unfortunately, this is a very hard thing to do, even for the most well intentioned.

You also bring up good points about blogs and singing and such. Good stuff all around :)

[t]

!!!OUCH!!!I would log on today while visiting my friend at work. Right between the eyes Dan. No witty come back from me this time.

----------
"On the other hand, there are those who hold that women should teach - but I just talked to an elder at a church who hold this view and asked if they can they explain from the Bible the passages that say they should remain silent etc. - and they said they really couldn't explain them, but they "feel" women should teach. So they have a feeling about it, but couldn't answer or give an explanation of the passages that say otherwise and how to view them."