Comments on: Women in Church Leadership: A Brief Defense of the Evangelical Egalitarian Position http://zealfortruth.org/2007/06/women-in-church-leadership-a-brief-defense-of-the-evangelical-egalitarian-position/ Wed, 17 Mar 2010 06:56:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1.3 By: Thainamu http://zealfortruth.org/2007/06/women-in-church-leadership-a-brief-defense-of-the-evangelical-egalitarian-position/#comment-231 Thainamu Mon, 25 Jun 2007 20:02:25 +0000 http://zealfortruth.org/2007/06/women-in-church-leadership-a-brief-defense-of-the-evangelical-egalitarian-position/#comment-231 Yesterday in our SS class we were going over the list of heroes of the faith in Chapter 11 of Hebrews. Our group noticed Barak's name was there, but Deborah's was missing. Hmmm...out of that long chapter the only woman mentioned is Rahab the prostitute. (Maybe there is something to the idea that Paul--assuming Paul was the author of Hebrews--was a misogynist! j/k) I don't really know if the verses you cite are examples of culturally defined rules, but it does seem possible. I know there are other passages in Scripture that we interpret that way, esp. the minutia of the OT law. I certainly have utmost respect for women in ministry both today in in decades past for times when it seemed like they stepped up to the plate when men were not available (foreign missions come to mind). And, as I said before, I myself have been blessed by the women leaders in the church. There are so many things in Scripture that are all-encompassing and that appear to be important general truths for all time--things like God so loved the world that he gave his son. Other things do seem culturally-based and open to some variation (though I think it is important to look for the reason <i>why</i> certain commands were given, looking for a generally-applicable principle). Paul himself seems to be just offering his opinion, not a strong rule, when he talks about married and unmarried people in I Cor 7:6 and again in 7:12 (contrast with 7:10 when he is giving a strong rule). Yesterday in our SS class we were going over the list of heroes of the faith in Chapter 11 of Hebrews. Our group noticed Barak’s name was there, but Deborah’s was missing. Hmmm…out of that long chapter the only woman mentioned is Rahab the prostitute. (Maybe there is something to the idea that Paul–assuming Paul was the author of Hebrews–was a misogynist! j/k)

I don’t really know if the verses you cite are examples of culturally defined rules, but it does seem possible. I know there are other passages in Scripture that we interpret that way, esp. the minutia of the OT law.

I certainly have utmost respect for women in ministry both today in in decades past for times when it seemed like they stepped up to the plate when men were not available (foreign missions come to mind). And, as I said before, I myself have been blessed by the women leaders in the church.

There are so many things in Scripture that are all-encompassing and that appear to be important general truths for all time–things like God so loved the world that he gave his son. Other things do seem culturally-based and open to some variation (though I think it is important to look for the reason why certain commands were given, looking for a generally-applicable principle). Paul himself seems to be just offering his opinion, not a strong rule, when he talks about married and unmarried people in I Cor 7:6 and again in 7:12 (contrast with 7:10 when he is giving a strong rule).

]]> By: Jasen Tracy http://zealfortruth.org/2007/06/women-in-church-leadership-a-brief-defense-of-the-evangelical-egalitarian-position/#comment-233 Jasen Tracy Mon, 25 Jun 2007 20:47:16 +0000 http://zealfortruth.org/2007/06/women-in-church-leadership-a-brief-defense-of-the-evangelical-egalitarian-position/#comment-233 I don't realize Barak was in Hebrews 11, he doesn't really seem worthy of inclusion. I don’t realize Barak was in Hebrews 11, he doesn’t really seem worthy of inclusion.

]]> By: Jasen Tracy http://zealfortruth.org/2007/06/women-in-church-leadership-a-brief-defense-of-the-evangelical-egalitarian-position/#comment-234 Jasen Tracy Mon, 25 Jun 2007 20:54:37 +0000 http://zealfortruth.org/2007/06/women-in-church-leadership-a-brief-defense-of-the-evangelical-egalitarian-position/#comment-234 Also, Sarah is mentioned in Hebrews 11. Although I'm not sure if it's for her faith or Abraham's. Also, Sarah is mentioned in Hebrews 11. Although I’m not sure if it’s for her faith or Abraham’s.

]]> By: Kyle http://zealfortruth.org/2007/06/women-in-church-leadership-a-brief-defense-of-the-evangelical-egalitarian-position/#comment-21082 Kyle Mon, 31 Aug 2009 02:50:25 +0000 http://zealfortruth.org/2007/06/women-in-church-leadership-a-brief-defense-of-the-evangelical-egalitarian-position/#comment-21082 You said in this article that society was "largely not ready for woman leaders". While this may or may not be true (which it probably is), since when did Paul care what society liked or was ready for? Paul bucked the social expectations on several things: *The Crucified Messiah - to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness. *Servants being equal to their masters in Christ, as well as men/women and Jews/gentiles *Doing away with the OT legal code *Refusing to engage in the intellectual presentation forms of the sophists in Corinth To say that Paul was merely bowing to the thought-forms of the day is, in my opinion, dangerous. What else was society "not ready" for? When you take a "trajectory" approach to interpreting scripture, it is possible to push aside almost any teaching as simply addressing issues that society wasn't ready to deal with. What other prohibitions has society moved past? What else is society willing and able to accept now that it couldn't then? In short, our society's willingness (or unwillingness) to accept a teaching should not determine the validity of that teaching. I don't believe Paul worked that way and neither should we. You said in this article that society was “largely not ready for woman leaders”. While this may or may not be true (which it probably is), since when did Paul care what society liked or was ready for?

Paul bucked the social expectations on several things:
*The Crucified Messiah - to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness.
*Servants being equal to their masters in Christ, as well as men/women and Jews/gentiles
*Doing away with the OT legal code
*Refusing to engage in the intellectual presentation forms of the sophists in Corinth

To say that Paul was merely bowing to the thought-forms of the day is, in my opinion, dangerous. What else was society “not ready” for? When you take a “trajectory” approach to interpreting scripture, it is possible to push aside almost any teaching as simply addressing issues that society wasn’t ready to deal with. What other prohibitions has society moved past? What else is society willing and able to accept now that it couldn’t then?

In short, our society’s willingness (or unwillingness) to accept a teaching should not determine the validity of that teaching. I don’t believe Paul worked that way and neither should we.

]]> By: Atanamis http://zealfortruth.org/2007/06/women-in-church-leadership-a-brief-defense-of-the-evangelical-egalitarian-position/#comment-21096 Atanamis Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:30:53 +0000 http://zealfortruth.org/2007/06/women-in-church-leadership-a-brief-defense-of-the-evangelical-egalitarian-position/#comment-21096 Paul also had Timothy get circumcised and preached in Athens about the "unknown god" to whom they had an altar. Paul never varied core doctrine based on culture (if anyone preach another gospel, let him be accursed), but he often shifted how things were done to avoid causing harm to a brother. (If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died.) Paul also had Timothy get circumcised and preached in Athens about the “unknown god” to whom they had an altar. Paul never varied core doctrine based on culture (if anyone preach another gospel, let him be accursed), but he often shifted how things were done to avoid causing harm to a brother. (If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died.)

]]> By: Casey Huxley http://zealfortruth.org/2007/06/women-in-church-leadership-a-brief-defense-of-the-evangelical-egalitarian-position/#comment-21101 Casey Huxley Mon, 31 Aug 2009 20:58:49 +0000 http://zealfortruth.org/2007/06/women-in-church-leadership-a-brief-defense-of-the-evangelical-egalitarian-position/#comment-21101 Timothy's circumcision is interesting in the light of Paul's teaching in Galatians. Galatians 5:2 3 - "Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law." Galatians 6:12 - "Those who want to make a good impression outwardly are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ." But then the Paul of Acts is different than the Paul of his epistles. Timothy’s circumcision is interesting in the light of Paul’s teaching in Galatians.

Galatians 5:2 3 - “Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.”

Galatians 6:12 - “Those who want to make a good impression outwardly are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ.”

But then the Paul of Acts is different than the Paul of his epistles.

]]>