"The Place of Women"

[ITS]

Critique Scott's Lesson Four, "The Place of Women."

[carlson_75]

Critique Scott's Lesson Four, "The Place of Women."

I was impressed with Dr. Scott?s thorough and biblical explanation of the role God has given woman. All too often this teaching is presented, almost as a defense in listing limitations placed on women, or dictated as a list of rules to a group of second class citizens.

The reason that Dr Scott succeeds where many have failed or at best survived this teaching, is that Dr Scott presents, and explains the biblical ?role? of women where many merely announce this as the ?place? of woman.

[IC]

I also appreciate Dr. Stott's conclusion which makes it clear that men and women are created equal in Christ. Those who hold the egalitarian or feministic view often miss this point. It's not that women are not called into ministry. It's not that women are inferior to men in God's sight. It's not that women are not as gifted as men. The Bible affirms that men and women are in fact created equal in every way. They are equal in value. They are both called to ministry and services. It's just that they are called to different roles. Not superior vs. inferior roles -- just different.

[carlson_75]

I also appreciate Dr. Stott's conclusion which makes it clear that men and women are created equal in Christ. Those who hold the egalitarian or feministic view often miss this point. It's not that women are not called into ministry. It's not that women are inferior to men in God's sight. It's not that women are not as gifted as men. The Bible affirms that men and women are in fact created equal in every way. They are equal in value. They are both called to ministry and services. It's just that they are called to different roles. Not superior vs. inferior roles -- just different.

I agree that it is the world?s feministic view that unfortunately has painted such a negative picture of the ?place? of women in the church. Many who hold to this view claim that men do not want women to be seen as equals, yet do not understand why this so called limitation, is taught. The fact that there are some positions of the church that women are not allowed to hold, can be found, not in the heart of today?s men, but in the sin of the first women. It was Eve that was the one deceived, not Adam. This therefore should not be seen as a negative limitation instituted by man, but as a positive step of protection that has been implemented by God.

[Rich]

I was very interested in how Dr. Stott would deal with this ?hot issue.? In my analysis he stayed in ?safe? territory by sticking to the text (which is always the best way) and by not taking a tangent into a ?current? debate about women in ministry. Dr Stott did venture to establish the next major point of the women in ministry argument when he appealed to the idea of cultural expressions. I do not believe he spent much time on how to determine cultural expressions from timeless truths and that is often where the debate about ?women in ministry? gets heated. Granted the text did not deal with how to determine what is cultural and what is timeless truth so Dr. Stott was staying on course with the text. By establishing that a woman?s expression of submission to authority was subject to cultural interpretation, Dr. Stott sets up the next step in the argument regarding women in ministry positions. I was pleased to see that he didn?t step over the ?timeless truth? of Paul?s use of the creation and fall. Paul established that the key issue to work though in a woman?s role is authority.

[Rich]

It is true that both men and women are called to minister as ambassadors for Christ, however, we need to be careful when the word "ministry" is used because it can have different connotations. When I first read the posting I understood "ministry" to mean a specific position of leadership or service in the church body. After reflecting further on the posting I am inclined to believe the writer intended ministry to mean serving another in the name of Christ.


I also appreciate Dr. Stott's conclusion which makes it clear that men and women are created equal in Christ. Those who hold the egalitarian or feministic view often miss this point. It's not that women are not called into ministry. It's not that women are inferior to men in God's sight. It's not that women are not as gifted as men. The Bible affirms that men and women are in fact created equal in every way. They are equal in value. They are both called to ministry and services. It's just that they are called to different roles. Not superior vs. inferior roles -- just different.

I agree that it is the world?s feministic view that unfortunately has painted such a negative picture of the ?place? of women in the church. Many who hold to this view claim that men do not want women to be seen as equals, yet do not understand why this so called limitation, is taught. The fact that there are some positions of the church that women are not allowed to hold, can be found, not in the heart of today?s men, but in the sin of the first women. It was Eve that was the one deceived, not Adam. This therefore should not be seen as a negative limitation instituted by man, but as a positive step of protection that has been implemented by God.

[Chuck Hedges]

Men and women are different in their roles but are equal when it comes to Christ, jsince there is neither male nor female. The challenge to men and women in ministry comes with one's perspective upon submission one to another. Our society's gender role outlooks of male dominace and female freedom, is where the challenge lies. Dr. Stott's teaching on the role of women in ministry was balanced and insightful. One that I want to go back and revisit.

[Chuck Hedges]

I also appreciate Dr. Stott's conclusion which makes it clear that men and women are created equal in Christ. Those who hold the egalitarian or feministic view often miss this point. It's not that women are not called into ministry. It's not that women are inferior to men in God's sight. It's not that women are not as gifted as men. The Bible affirms that men and women are in fact created equal in every way. They are equal in value. They are both called to ministry and services. It's just that they are called to different roles. Not superior vs. inferior roles -- just different.Male and female are not created equal in every way, since God created man first and then Eve out of man. However, the equality question comes to us through Paul's comment in scripture that there is neither male nor female in Christ Jesus. Role definition and submission to authority are areas of view that need to be defined more clearly, so that women have the freedom needed and men are given the respect they need.

[Brad Kesler]

I agree with most of Dr. Stott's treatment of this topic and believe it to be fairly balanced. I do not, however, agree with his conclusion that Paul intended to universally prohibit women from positions of authority in the church. Dr. Stott agrees that the reference to silence is cultural. I believe that, because this is the only text where a women's place of ministry is questioned, great care should go into a correct interpretation. When read in the correct Greek tense, Paul says, "I am not now permitting women to teach or to usurp authority from a man." I am not convinced that we can say with any degree of confidence that women have been eternally forbidden from positions of leadership in the church.

[Brad Kesler]

I agree that the intrepretation of cultural expressions is an important key to interpreting Scripture and resolving this sticky issue. We know that culture does indeed play a part. We know that we do not normally greet each other with a holy kiss. The challenge comes in knowing when a Scripture is intended to be universally applied and when it is intended for a specific situation. Dr. Stott did not spend a lot of time defining which was which. This is more than likely an issue that will never be completely resolved, and we will have to agree to disagree.





I was very interested in how Dr. Stott would deal with this ?hot issue.? In my analysis he stayed in ?safe? territory by sticking to the text (which is always the best way) and by not taking a tangent into a ?current? debate about women in ministry. Dr Stott did venture to establish the next major point of the women in ministry argument when he appealed to the idea of cultural expressions. I do not believe he spent much time on how to determine cultural expressions from timeless truths and that is often where the debate about ?women in ministry? gets heated. Granted the text did not deal with how to determine what is cultural and what is timeless truth so Dr. Stott was staying on course with the text. By establishing that a woman?s expression of submission to authority was subject to cultural interpretation, Dr. Stott sets up the next step in the argument regarding women in ministry positions. I was pleased to see that he didn?t step over the ?timeless truth? of Paul?s use of the creation and fall. Paul established that the key issue to work though in a woman?s role is authority.

[rwilliams91]

Critique Scott's Lesson Four, "The Place of Women."

I enjoyed and agreed with Dr. Stotts lecture of 1 Timothy 2:8-15. Men and women are very much equal in the church, however they do have different roles. Paul begins with how women are to dress, their outward appearance is to be modest. He then places emphasis on the internal beauty of the woman's character and conduct. A godly woman understands her role and seeks to fulfill that role in submission to the authority structure God has set up. Equality is not the debate for Paul, He is interested in how the different roles provide structure.

[rwilliams91]

Critique Scott's Lesson Four, "The Place of Women."

I was impressed with Dr. Scott?s thorough and biblical explanation of the role God has given woman. All too often this teaching is presented, almost as a defense in listing limitations placed on women, or dictated as a list of rules to a group of second class citizens.

The reason that Dr Scott succeeds where many have failed or at best survived this teaching, is that Dr Scott presents, and explains the biblical ?role? of women where many merely announce this as the ?place? of woman.

I think you might have pointed out a key in understanding this debate. The words we choose to use have some loaded meaning. God has given us each many roles in life. I am a pastor, a father, a husband, a friend, etc. I have different responsibilities in each one of these roles. This is easily understandable. But in a feminist world, the idea of place or rank is reprehensible. It automatically is associated with equality.

[JimC]

The place of women in ministry is a very controversial topic, even in our day. Depending on the denomination that you are connected with, you will most likely hold to the status quo in policy and procedure. It is interesting that most people read Paul's writing on this subject and come to the conclusion that he is saying to women in the church, "shut up and keep your hat on" or in other words, remain quiet and covered. The cultural context played a large role in Paul's writing, but I see that Jesus allowed Mary to sit at his feet, (a place of learning) and that it was to Mary Magdalene and His mother Mary, that He showed himself after His resurrection, not to his male disciples. Paul also writes that we are equal in Christ's eyes, ( no bond, no free, no male, no female, etc.), so it is with ministry. I am open to have women in all roles, not just supervised roles.

[JimC]

Critique Scott's Lesson Four, "The Place of Women."

I enjoyed and agreed with Dr. Stotts lecture of 1 Timothy 2:8-15. Men and women are very much equal in the church, however they do have different roles. Paul begins with how women are to dress, their outward appearance is to be modest. He then places emphasis on the internal beauty of the woman's character and conduct. A godly woman understands her role and seeks to fulfill that role in submission to the authority structure God has set up. Equality is not the debate for Paul, He is interested in how the different roles provide structure.

I disagree with the idea that women are equal in the church, "but" have different roles. "But," suggests that there are times when equal is not equal. I believe that a woman is in need of covering, protection in a sense, a gift for her protection and an example of God's love for her and that is our role as a men of God. This does not mean that she is incapable of leading or pastoring a group of God's people. I am a pastor and have been for 22 years. I have always been under the supervison of our denominational governmental sturucture, although I pastor an autonomus church. This is the covering needed for a woman as well. She is equal, "no buts." Jim Caruso

[bruinjeff11]

In the first place, I find it difficult and humbling to "critique" the teaching of a man like Dr. Stott! Nevertheless, I believe his lesson on a very disputed text was solid and consistent with the full counsel of Scripture. I agreed with his exhortation to block out factors such as culture, tradition, emotion, etc. when practically implementing Paul's instruction on women in ministry. In my opinion, evangelicals have allowed the culture of feminism to walk right through the front door of the church and subtly influence the average church member like the proverbial "frog in the kettle." In addition, many are now waning in their trust of the timeless principles of Scripture in light of cultural pressure. Male headship was established by God in Genesis 2, supported by apostolic teaching regarding marriage (Eph 5, Col 3, 1 Pet 3) and confirmed for the church (1 Tim 2, 1 Cor 11). God has been consistent in this principle from the beginning of time and it has been the clear teaching of the historical faith. Why are we getting shaky on it now? I also liked Dr. Stott's perspective on shedding the cultural symbols (i.e. head coverings) while refusing to shed the timeless principle (submission). He rightly pointed to Paul's use of the divine creation order to ground this teaching as a universal principle for all time - not something to be tossed around according to contemporary culture!

[bruinjeff11]

I agree with most of Dr. Stott's treatment of this topic and believe it to be fairly balanced. I do not, however, agree with his conclusion that Paul intended to universally prohibit women from positions of authority in the church. Dr. Stott agrees that the reference to silence is cultural. I believe that, because this is the only text where a women's place of ministry is questioned, great care should go into a correct interpretation. When read in the correct Greek tense, Paul says, "I am not now permitting women to teach or to usurp authority from a man." I am not convinced that we can say with any degree of confidence that women have been eternally forbidden from positions of leadership in the church.

I must humbly disagree with Brad's position on this issue. Paul's teaching in 1 Timothy 2:11-14 cannot be simply "cultural" and time-bound to first century Ephesus. By using the word gar ("for") in v. 13 he is grounding his previous statements in what is to follow (vv. 13-14). He grounds his prohibition of a woman teaching or holding authority over a man in the divine creation order. You cannot get any more timeless than the beginning of creation! Like Brad, I don't believe women are prohibited from what he called "positions of leadership in the church." I believe Scripture permits women to serve as deacons (1 Tim 3:11) and I don't see any reason to prohibit them from serving as ministry directors. Paul's prohibition is directly related to authoritative teaching in the church and offices that carry spiritual authority (i.e. "submit to this or you will be disciplined by the church"). As a result, I believe Paul is saying that women should not serve as pastors or elders because they carry the weight of authority in the church. This is consistent with the whole counsel of Scripture regarding male headship. All other "leadership" positions should be open to women!

[GTK]

Dr. Stott exhibits a balance between conviction in his beliefs and care in his heart. A balance all pastors would do well and learn, especially on a topic such as this. I am pleased that Dr. Stott begins with the methodological considerations, for this is where the debate begins between egalitarians and complementarians. The debate of whether Paul's writings in chapter 2 are cultural teachings relating only to the specific circumstance of the time or are Paul's writings timeless truths that transcend time and culture, or both. Dr. Stott continues this discussion verse by verse and solidly nails the conclusion of Paul by referencing Genesis 2 and God's order of authority, pre-Fall. Dr. Stott ends with the care in his heart by reminding all that men and women are all created equal and with different roles.

[GTK]

The place of women in ministry is a very controversial topic, even in our day. Depending on the denomination that you are connected with, you will most likely hold to the status quo in policy and procedure. It is interesting that most people read Paul's writing on this subject and come to the conclusion that he is saying to women in the church, "shut up and keep your hat on" or in other words, remain quiet and covered. The cultural context played a large role in Paul's writing, but I see that Jesus allowed Mary to sit at his feet, (a place of learning) and that it was to Mary Magdalene and His mother Mary, that He showed himself after His resurrection, not to his male disciples. Paul also writes that we are equal in Christ's eyes, ( no bond, no free, no male, no female, etc.), so it is with ministry. I am open to have women in all roles, not just supervised roles.

I agree with Jim that unfortunately there have been many in the Christian church who have read verses 11 and 12 and relegated women to utter silence. This is not what Paul is saying though. He is pointing to the openness of the Christian faith to women by even letting them learn and be taught God's Word, contra to some in the Jewish faith at that time. Paul is following in line with Jesus who also held an uplifting view of women as evidenced in Luke's gospel. I believe women have a great and extremely important place in God's church. We would both agree that Christians must not "just" follow the status quo of a denomination or tradition, but we must search God's Word. And I do believe in these two verses Paul gives much freedom to women, but also states an order that God created. We must not see designated "roles" as incarcerating, rather very liberating in being able to accomplish God's will. This can be seen in the work of the Trinity.

[mchap]

Dr. Stott affirms that men and women are called to different roles in the church. We should not overthrow the roles God has given to men and women. The issue is one of authority. Man has an authority role not given to women. The issue is not priesthood or teaching but one of authority. Oversight, discipleship, and rule over men is not a role given to women. There are certain pastoral roles permissable to women provided that role is limited and not one of exercising an authoritative role or leadship over the team of pastors.
I agree with Dr. Stott's view because it is based on an appeal to the whole of scripture. Scripture does not contradict itself, it has an inner consistency and harmony. When interpreting a passage we must discern between eternal truth that is permanently valid versus its contemprary cultural expression. The issue should not be settled by social convention or by emotional prejudice. It is not settled by ecclesiastical tradition that is not based on scripture, for example Thomas Aquinas based his view on Aristotle. It is not settled by ecumenical relations. We are not to be guided simply by what other churches are doing. It is not settled by practical needs, for example if there is a shortage of men in a church.
Therefore, we can not ignore the Biblical support for Dr. Stott's view. Both the Old Testament, for example Genesis 2 and 3, as well as the New Testament support this view. The passages most clear and undeniable in support are 1 Tim. 2:8-15, 1 Cor. 14:34-35, and 1 Cor. 11:2-16.

[mchap]

Jim reminds us that the role of women in ministry is a very controversial topic. One reason it remains controversial is the widespread practice of taking a passage out of context to support one's view. It is precarious to appeal to Galations 3:28 as support for any view on the role of women in ministry. This passage falls within Paul's exposition of the purpose of the Law. Paul is not speaking of relationships in the family or the church but of our standing before God in rightewousness by faith. I recommend the book, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood by Wayne Grudem to those who have posted on this topic.

The place of women in ministry is a very controversial topic, even in our day. Depending on the denomination that you are connected with, you will most likely hold to the status quo in policy and procedure. It is interesting that most people read Paul's writing on this subject and come to the conclusion that he is saying to women in the church, "shut up and keep your hat on" or in other words, remain quiet and covered. The cultural context played a large role in Paul's writing, but I see that Jesus allowed Mary to sit at his feet, (a place of learning) and that it was to Mary Magdalene and His mother Mary, that He showed himself after His resurrection, not to his male disciples. Paul also writes that we are equal in Christ's eyes, ( no bond, no free, no male, no female, etc.), so it is with ministry. I am open to have women in all roles, not just supervised roles.

[rouvinez]

Critique Scott's Lesson Four, "The Place of Women."
I appreciate Stott's desire to show more restraint and sensibility than is often the case in the gender role debate. However, as is often the case in the lectures for this course, his viewpoint is presented with just a few remarks. So, aside from the respect he commends as commentator and the general appreciation one may have for his view, it is difficult to evaluate how his exegesis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 translates into the remarks he makes. There are also issues that he does not address at all but assumes, such as the context for the applicability of the injunctions (worship service) and the woman vs. wife question. He does not really interact with the debates concerning the proper translation of the text.

[rouvinez]

Jim reminds us that the role of women in ministry is a very controversial topic. One reason it remains controversial is the widespread practice of taking a passage out of context to support one's view. It is precarious to appeal to Galations 3:28 as support for any view on the role of women in ministry. This passage falls within Paul's exposition of the purpose of the Law. Paul is not speaking of relationships in the family or the church but of our standing before God in rightewousness by faith. I recommend the book, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood by Wayne Grudem to those who have posted on this topic.

The place of women in ministry is a very controversial topic, even in our day. Depending on the denomination that you are connected with, you will most likely hold to the status quo in policy and procedure. It is interesting that most people read Paul's writing on this subject and come to the conclusion that he is saying to women in the church, "shut up and keep your hat on" or in other words, remain quiet and covered. The cultural context played a large role in Paul's writing, but I see that Jesus allowed Mary to sit at his feet, (a place of learning) and that it was to Mary Magdalene and His mother Mary, that He showed himself after His resurrection, not to his male disciples. Paul also writes that we are equal in Christ's eyes, ( no bond, no free, no male, no female, etc.), so it is with ministry. I am open to have women in all roles, not just supervised roles.

Unfortunately, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood -- for all its endorsement and well-known contributors -- is in my opinion, not a great contribution to the debate because its militant fervour impinges on the quality and objectivity of the scholarship devoted to exploring the pertinent scriptural and theological issues. I agree that egalitarians often apply Galatians 3:28 out of context. Yet, complementarians cross the line also when their interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:15 is that a woman's role is part of the grounds of perseverance required in connection with salvation. Each relevant passage must be duly and fairly examined. There is considerable debate and certainly quite unclear elements in each of the "key" texts in Paul (1 Cor 11:3-16; 14:34-35; 1 Tim 2:9-15). One's level of persuasion does not change that fact and it is not right to claim that it is some kind of moral flaw that prevents others to see the alleged "clear teaching" of these passages. In the same manner, one would be hard pressed to find a commentator on Genesis who comes up with all that is claimed based on it by just looking at the text and not being unduly influenced by the gender role debate. My own very detailed studies of this issue have led to believe that this is really a disputable issue, one that is hard to settle because biblical evidence is at times unclear and rather divided. Putting aside the specters of fear that are brandished to exacerbate what is really at stake, perhaps it is time to really ask ourselves this question. Can we live with disagreement on this issue and if so, what would be lost if one or the other side was wrong?

[Josh]

I do appreciate Dr. Stott's lecture on this topic. I think he is very pastoral and careful to not offend. It is too easy to offend people when discussing this topic. Many churches have broken apart on this issue. I think that his discussion about what the issue is not is especially insightful. We do tend to let society influence our beliefs and understandings of portions of Scripture. We often pick and choose potions of Scripture that support our views. We need to guard against this. I agree with nearly all that Dr. Stott said on the topic but I cannot agree with his interpretation of verse 15 (women shall be saved through the birth of a child). Although this is nice and tidy, I am not sure that is what Paul means. I think that he is more likely referring to the usual ways in which a woman functioned in society. A woman will be saved by continuing in a normal Christian lifestyle. This is my only criticism of this lecture. I also really appreciate the emphasis on the equality of men and women. In these sorts of discussions, the essential equality of people is forgotten. We get so concerned about how to interpret Scripture that we forget that we are all equal at the foot of the cross. Thanks Dr. Stott.

[Josh]

It is all too easy to point to the fact that Eve sinned first to support only men in office. When we say things like this, we need to explain what that means. If we do not wrestle with this, we say things like, "a positive step of protection that has been implemented by God". What does this mean? I trust that it does not mean that woman cannot hold office in the church because they are more easily decieved! We know that this is not true. Although I agree with the viewpoint in general, we do have to be careful of what we say and how we say it. This debate become militant quickly! We need to be clear and affirm the equality of men and women always.

I also appreciate Dr. Stott's conclusion which makes it clear that men and women are created equal in Christ. Those who hold the egalitarian or feministic view often miss this point. It's not that women are not called into ministry. It's not that women are inferior to men in God's sight. It's not that women are not as gifted as men. The Bible affirms that men and women are in fact created equal in every way. They are equal in value. They are both called to ministry and services. It's just that they are called to different roles. Not superior vs. inferior roles -- just different.

I agree that it is the world?s feministic view that unfortunately has painted such a negative picture of the ?place? of women in the church. Many who hold to this view claim that men do not want women to be seen as equals, yet do not understand why this so called limitation, is taught. The fact that there are some positions of the church that women are not allowed to hold, can be found, not in the heart of today?s men, but in the sin of the first women. It was Eve that was the one deceived, not Adam. This therefore should not be seen as a negative limitation instituted by man, but as a positive step of protection that has been implemented by God.

[tcforchrist]

I thought Dr. Stott gave a balanced presentation of women's role in ministry. My prediction was that he was going to limit women's ministry to teaching only women and children. However, he appealed to the entire scope of Scripture and made an argument that women's role is much broader than what is taught in 1 Timothy. Women did serve as prophetesses and served with Jesus and Paul. Thus, women and men are called to ministry. They are to serve in different roles in the church. The authority of the senior pastor must be a man. The man is the leader in the home and the home is a reflection of the church. Of course this concept is hard for the world to deal with when a woman has the possibility fo being the President of the USA. Women should definitely be allowed to preach to church congregations, but it must be under the leadership of a senior pastor. Joel 2:23-32 prophecies about our current day when women and men will prophecy. In light of this verse women's ministry should only be limited within the structure of the church.

[Ron R]

I appreciate Dr. Stott’s concern for methodological considerations. However, the issue of determining cultural vs. timeless expression of eternal truth is a much thornier issue than what Dr. Stott was able to cover in his lecture. Nor would this particular course be the proper avenue for examining this issue in the depth needed—it would better fit under Hermeneutics and Interpretation, or could even be a course unto itself!
I do like the interpretation of “the childbirth” as a reference to Christ and Genesis 3:15. However, I am not sure it is the best interpretation given the fact that Paul later instructs the younger widows to get married and start families (5:11-15).
I agree that the issue is not one of capabilities or equality but of authority and submission. The crux of the matter is creation order, as well as the structure of the fall narrative whereby (possibly) there is a greater focus on Adam's culpability. I see Paul's reference to Gen 2-3 as what William Webb, in Slaves, Homosexuals, & Women, calls “a quiet whisper of patriarchy within the garden” (130, see also Webb’s chapter 8). Though I wish I could be egalitarian, I find myself a soft complementarian. As such, I would tend to agree with Dr. Stott’s conclusion regarding the role of women.

[Ron R]

I disagree with the idea that women are equal in the church, "but" have different roles. "But," suggests that there are times when equal is not equal. I believe that a woman is in need of covering, protection in a sense, a gift for her protection and an example of God's love for her and that is our role as a men of God. This does not mean that she is incapable of leading or pastoring a group of God's people. I am a pastor and have been for 22 years. I have always been under the supervison of our denominational governmental sturucture, although I pastor an autonomus church. This is the covering needed for a woman as well. She is equal, "no buts." Jim Caruso

I appreciate your answer. Coming from a denomination with congregationally governed churches, I was reflecting the other day on what the role was of the church body vis-à-vis women pastors. Yes, as my church’s (sole) pastor I have a distinct leadership role within the body. On the other hand, my authority is not all-encompassing. I am accountable to the leadership team (read deacons/elders… the lay members roles are fuzzy, thus the use of “leadership team”), and all of us on the leadership team are accountable to the church membership, composed of both men and women, for our leadership. Ultimately, each member and adherent within our local fellowship is to submit themselves to the apostolic authority of the Scriptures.

I wonder, along the same lines as what you have mentioned, if a woman were to be a sole/senior pastor, then would not those lines of accountability provide the authority/submission roles that were practically seen in Paul’s time as a prohibition on women teachers?

On the other hand, I remember reading somewhere about how so much of our thinking is consumed with leadership considerations. Yet, the majority of the time we find ourselves in follower roles. This would hold true for the world of business and certainly also in the church. Maybe what is lost in the “equal, but” debate is that men are also “equal, but” since not every man is called to the role of pastoral ministry. RR

[Chaplain]

Stott adds value to the debate by offering a balanced, informed opinion on women's role in the Church. He address' both historical and biblical evidence. I appreciate how he emphasis' agreement that there is a shortage of male Pastor's. Yet on the other hand, this does not mean we can lower the biblical standard. He address' the issue then, not based upon supply/demand but rather on principle. In the end, his balanced approach seems well rounded, leaves room for debate and has stretched my thinking on this matter.

[Chaplain]

I want to believe that women and men are the "same." Yet nature and the bible say they are different in many ways and scripture does offer constraints to women, otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate. That virtue allone brings caution to the matter. Granted, there is room for debate but there is enough doubt on the topic to cause me to take a position of "no deal" for women as Pastors.
I offer an illustration. God likens his relationship to the Church as to a bride. Can you imagine if a wife asked, "Honey, are you Faithful to me?" and the spouse was to reply, "Oh yes! Often"...."9 times out of 10 dear." Our wives demand 100% commitment and so does God. Often in scripture it's not the blaring sins that caused great harm to the innocent but the simple crossing of holy boundaries. Uzzah, the man who tried to steady the ark of the covenant (2 Sam. 6), the prophet who believed the lying prophet and was killed (1Kings 13). Their "violations" were not malicious however it's the innocent that often get hurt. In the end, I feel that it is clear in scripture that:
1. Things that are different are not the same.
2. Women and Men are different in ways that transcend gender. (role and authority). Consider the Genesis account of creation.
3. Women only held temporary positions of authority in scripture by exception not rule. John Calvin, on this topic states,
Paul excludes them (Women) from the office of teaching, which God has committed To men only…If anyone bring forward, by way of objection, Deborah (judges iv.4) and others of the same class, of whom we read that they were at one time appointed by the command of God to govern the people, the answer is easy. Extraordinary acts done by God do not overturn the ordinary rules of government, by which he intended that we should be bound…He who is above all law might do this.” (
John Calvin, Calvins Commentaries Volume XXI, Commentaries on the epistles of Paul, Baker Books 66)
For all these reasons, I am very cautious towards putting women in Pastoral positions. Steading the ark seemed right, listening to a "prophet" with some good "reasoning" seemed right. In the end though, God's boundaries were violated and the innocent paid a big price. There is room for debate on this issue but there is enough "doubt" and information to support a "boundary" of God for the Church on this matter. I fear to cross it. Too much doubt and information for me to "stick out my hand." I am going to take the low road.
I submit all of these things to you friend as a challenge to your suggestion that "in a sense" we are "all" accountable/under authority, etc., so perhaps women may Pastor. This seems to be stretching a technicality to reach out and "touch" something that God has declared not to "touch."


________________
I appreciate your answer. Coming from a denomination with congregationally governed churches, I was reflecting the other day on what the role was of the church body vis-à-vis women pastors. Yes, as my church’s (sole) pastor I have a distinct leadership role within the body. On the other hand, my authority is not all-encompassing. I am accountable to the leadership team (read deacons/elders… the lay members roles are fuzzy, thus the use of “leadership team”), and all of us on the leadership team are accountable to the church membership, composed of both men and women, for our leadership. Ultimately, each member and adherent within our local fellowship is to submit themselves to the apostolic authority of the Scriptures.

I wonder, along the same lines as what you have mentioned, if a woman were to be a sole/senior pastor, then would not those lines of accountability provide the authority/submission roles that were practically seen in Paul’s time as a prohibition on women teachers?

On the other hand, I remember reading somewhere about how so much of our thinking is consumed with leadership considerations. Yet, the majority of the time we find ourselves in follower roles. This would hold true for the world of business and certainly also in the church. Maybe what is lost in the “equal, but” debate is that men are also “equal, but” since not every man is called to the role of pastoral ministry. RR

[Jared H.]

I appreciate Dr. Stott's consistent treatment of this passage and its application as it pertains to women in ministry. Dr. Stott demonstrates how he believes this passage has both timeless truths and cultural expressions. The timeless truths Dr. Stott identified are that women should strive for modest dress, quiet character, and submissive attitude. Dr. Stott then went on to say that the cultural expressions of those timeless truths in the Ephesian church represented women not adorning themselves with braided hair and jewels, they should live a life of good deeds, and that they should learn in quietness in the Ephesian church. Dr. Stott handled this passage in a consistent method that is not usually observed in such heated topics, and came to conclusions that seem to more clearly address the prime concerns of the passage.

[Jared H.]

Unfortunately, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood -- for all its endorsement and well-known contributors -- is in my opinion, not a great contribution to the debate because its militant fervour impinges on the quality and objectivity of the scholarship devoted to exploring the pertinent scriptural and theological issues. I agree that egalitarians often apply Galatians 3:28 out of context. Yet, complementarians cross the line also when their interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:15 is that a woman's role is part of the grounds of perseverance required in connection with salvation. Each relevant passage must be duly and fairly examined. There is considerable debate and certainly quite unclear elements in each of the "key" texts in Paul (1 Cor 11:3-16; 14:34-35; 1 Tim 2:9-15). One's level of persuasion does not change that fact and it is not right to claim that it is some kind of moral flaw that prevents others to see the alleged "clear teaching" of these passages. In the same manner, one would be hard pressed to find a commentator on Genesis who comes up with all that is claimed based on it by just looking at the text and not being unduly influenced by the gender role debate. My own very detailed studies of this issue have led to believe that this is really a disputable issue, one that is hard to settle because biblical evidence is at times unclear and rather divided. Putting aside the specters of fear that are brandished to exacerbate what is really at stake, perhaps it is time to really ask ourselves this question. Can we live with disagreement on this issue and if so, what would be lost if one or the other side was wrong?

I greatly appreciate your responses and the fact that you have researched this topic of women in ministry and find that both the Egalitarians and the Complimentarians utilize scripture outside of context and its intended purpose. I have come to similar conclusions on this matter finding that the Biblical material given on the topic does not provide clear answers to many of the questions we are asking in our particular context and situation today.

[lackeyb]

First, a reflection of Dr. Stott’s appeal to scripture alone essentially infers that it has always been God’s good intention for women to have an active role in ministry as opposed to a passive role—as both man and woman are created equally. Based upon scripture alone, a woman’s ability to express her character and service in ministry (whether through a local church or various ministry settings) represents the fundamental purpose he created both man and woman. Second, Dr. Stott’s guiding boundary of making reference to the whole of scripture attests further to the active role of women in ministry—looking to the ministries of Jesus as well as the Apostle Paul. Distinctively, Dr. Stott points out the inclusion of women’s active role, in both the Old and New Testaments, as that of prophetesses as well as in the ministry of both of these men of God; in addition, with this inclusion, it’s evident that the whole of scripture supports God’s active calling to burden women as well as men to the service of the body of Christ. Third, Dr. Stott appeals to the eternal truth of scripture as yet another tool that validates women’s active role in ministry. One could arguably affirm that all authority was given to the disciples of Jesus—making no mention of women—to actively continue the burden and mission that Christ initiated. But, because the kingdom of God is much larger than the ministry carried on by the disciples of Jesus’ time, one could better argue that the issue of authority for women in ministry finds resolution in Pauline theology. Paul’s teaching attests to Christ’s good intention in delegating his authority as a gift in Romans 6:22-23, to those who will represent Him as servants to both God and one another. Thus, the indirect and typically conflicting issue of headship—man’s superiority over women—affirms that man was created before woman; however, this priority of creation does not represent the equal distribution of authority given by God’s spirit to all flesh, not does it support an argument that God’s spirit was given to nurture, mature, and sanctify the spirit of man only—seeing that all are created by God.

[lackeyb]

I was very interested in how Dr. Stott would deal with this ?hot issue.? In my analysis he stayed in ?safe? territory by sticking to the text (which is always the best way) and by not taking a tangent into a ?current? debate about women in ministry. Dr Stott did venture to establish the next major point of the women in ministry argument when he appealed to the idea of cultural expressions. I do not believe he spent much time on how to determine cultural expressions from timeless truths and that is often where the debate about ?women in ministry? gets heated. Granted the text did not deal with how to determine what is cultural and what is timeless truth so Dr. Stott was staying on course with the text. By establishing that a woman?s expression of submission to authority was subject to cultural interpretation, Dr. Stott sets up the next step in the argument regarding women in ministry positions. I was pleased to see that he didn?t step over the ?timeless truth? of Paul?s use of the creation and fall. Paul established that the key issue to work though in a woman?s role is authority.
I disagree with Rich’s assessment of how Dr. Stott did not touch on the current debate of women in ministry. After listening to the lecture for the second time, I clearly understood Dr. Stott’s support for women in ministry, despite cultural as well as religious challenges, affirm that women have an active role to play in the church or any other arena of ministry. This understanding find premise on the basis that they too follow their inward calling and act on their shared burdens to submit themselves, just as men submit themselves, to the same headship—Christ. Although Rich attests to the fact that this passage did not directly deal with the specific cultural expressions of women and their calling and gifting, I find that Apostle Paul’s premise for cultural expression is understood within the broader teaching that a demonstration of one’s faith and reasonable service naturally flows out of a passion and love for God and others.