What’s next?  Inter-racial marriage?  Women cutting their hair?  Rich people selling all they have and giving half to the poor?

Great post! I’m so pleased to hear the elders in the church spent significant time studying and praying about this issue. Regardless of position, holding onto old ideas, simply for the sake of tradition, is not nearly as significant as looking to the Bible for answers, and praying for God’s leadership in the process.

Ms. Roese’s words about being loving in disagreement show a great maturity and sensitivity to people with whom she disagrees. Kudos to her and her church for tackling the issue with intellect, faith, grace and love.

Thanks for the post!

The apostle Paul didn’t forbid women to teach simply because it wasn’t culturally acceptable.  Paul forbids the actions of the Irving Bible church because of the creation account, which has nothing to do with first century Roman culture.

Note Paul’s statement in I Tim 2: I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

It seems that Rev. Nelson’s concerns over the actions of Irving Bible Church are well-formed.

I appreciate several of the elder’s statements:

[Though the role of women was historically limited, the progress of revelation indicates an ethic in progress leading to full freedom for women to exercise their giftedness in the local church.]

My experience has been that most who hold the most conservative views (Like DTS and Denton Bible) ignore biblical and recorded history and especially the trajectory instituted by Jesus and continued through the establishment of the church as recorded in the NT. 

[Though women are free to use all of their giftedness in teaching and leading in the church, the role of elder SEEMS TO BE (emphasis added) biblically relegated to men.]

This statement acknowledges that there are different views about how the very limited scriptural references to “eldership” should instruct the leadership structures within our churches.  It respects brothers and sisters with different views.  It shows grace and humility, seems (to me) to communicate “this is what we believe scripture says, but we acknowledge this is a disputable issue and we might be wrong.  In the interest of order within this local church and in keeping with our understanding of the bible’s instruction, we have established this policy regarding eldership.”

Whereas, the brothers from Denton show a lack of grace through their unwillingness to acknowledge that this is a disputable issue.  ["If the Bible is not true and authoritative on the roles of men and women, then maybe the Bible will not be finally true on premarital sex, the homosexual issue, adultery or any other moral issue"]

This is the kind of statement that fails to show the kind of unity in diversity which we are called to in the New Testament.  I know of no drift toward “moral liberalism” among evangelical (as opposed to mainline) leaders who move toward more liberal views regarding the PARTICULAR issue of women in ministry leadership.  Unless and until there is evidence that this is a result, can we stop the sensationalist public statements?  It is mean spirited and does not show the “love in disagreement” which Roese herself calls for.  She and the leaders from Irving stand taller here.

Wendi

Kudos to Irving Bible Church. I applaud the time and prayer they devoted to study this matter and the courage they demonstrated by acting on their convictions. My prayer is that more churches will follow IBC’s lead. There is still much work to be done. Women can certainly lead and contribute.

Dear Matthew,
I engage with you on this topic, not to change your mind, but to perhaps show you why and how “the other side” thinks the way they do.  Obviously, I Tim. 2 is the foundational scripture for your point of view.  With that in mind, let me ask you a few questions to see where you’re coming from:

* Do you believe women are biblically prohibited from wearing braided hair, gold, or pearls, as outlined in verse 9 of that same chapter?

* Do you believe women are saved through childbearing, as stated in verse 15?

*If women are to be silent, and not to teach or have authority over men, do you allow them to teach both boys and girls, or only girls?  If you allow them to teach both genders of children, at what age do the boys become men, and thus no longer able to “sit at the feet of women”?

* Do you believe that Christian women should not respond to sites such as this one, for fear that they may accidentally say something that “teaches” a man?

*Is it okay for men to read books written by Christian women?

I ask you these questions to show you some of the issues that Christian brothers and sisters struggle with in interpreting this passage, and also in a sincere interest to see how someone who interprets this passage strictly and literally handles these issues.

Obviously, I applaud the Irving Bible Church, although, in my opinion they didn’t go far enough.

Kindly,
Nora Beerline

The progressivist line scares me. It seems many evangelicals have latched on to William Webb’s “Slaves, Women and Homosexuals” to justify the move, but it’s a bad reading of Scripture as far as I can tell.

As a flaming feminist and egalitarian, I’m entirely in favor of the church letting this woman preach. The basis of the decision does seem odd though.

On the exegetical question, I’ll just say that I sympathize with those who don’t believe the author of I Timothy could be the same as the author of Galatians or Colossians.
The question is not “can we find a Bible verse to throw at others?” but rather, “how are the various comments in the NT about women authoritative for us today?” The latter question requires a solid look at the various writings attributed to Paul, the Gospels, and the historical context. The cumulative case, in my opinion, supports egalitarianism, but it’d be impossible to summarize that case in a single comment.

As for the ‘slippery slope to liberalism’ argument, that’s just silly. The world is more complex than conservatives and liberals. In many cases those aren’t helpful categories.

Take me: I read Anabaptist theologians and became a Mennonite. I’m a feminist, a pacifist, an exclusivist, believe in believer’s baptism, Christ’s Resurrection, his Lordship, the unity of the Church, open theism, evolutionary biology and something like annihilationism. I believe Christians should either be celibately single or monogamously and heterosexually married.

Am I liberal? conservative? neither? both?

Who gives a flip?

The key question is: am I being faithful to Christ and his Church????

On this particular issue, Irving Bible Church is being faithful. Praise God!

And those who disagree would probaly have no issue with sending her off as a missionary to teach men somewhere else. 

She could also get up and sing a solo, all the while teaching theology and that would be okay too (even though the song wasn’t pre-approved by a man) I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve sung and the pastor following said “Wow!  Maybe I should just not preach today.  THAT was a sermon!”

And the list goes on and on in the church.

If you are going to take this stance then at least be consistent.  I am sooo weary of the hypocrisy in this area in the American church.

I recently sang at a pastor’s conference for a denomination that was very conservative.  The women had seperate sessions even and at one point while the men listened to the speaker, the wives were off making birdie houses.  Now the wives were very frustrated, and as an outsider I heard a lot on the side.
Many of them were at their churches holding the ministries together, but at these conferences the men didn’t want to recognize the fact.

One woman who was on furlough from missions in Africa, and was single, shared with me that she had just led a Catholic Bishop to Christ.  She shared this also with a table of pastors and one piped up with this gem “That cannot be possible.  Catholics cannot become Christians and especially if a woman tells them.”

I often times think that this has become and American cultural value vs what is really taught in scripture.

What other issue do we throw away all the rest of scripture based on a few verses?

What about the examples of women in leadership throughout scripture?

You should hear my husband get going on this one, if you think I’m radical.  He gets really torqued by the men around him at times.

A woman wants to teach in a church?  That’s wonderful.  Here’s the thing that gets me, though: the title of “Pastor” being applied to her.

How do we get around the commands of 1 Timothy 3 and how it says that a bishop (pastor) must be the husband of one wife?  The ruler of his house?  Having children (since there are even pastors who have no kids)?

--
CS

Phil,
You say, “This church, which is being cheered by most, has restricted women from being elders!  Why isn’t there an outcry about that from the egalitarian side of this argument?” I guess you could say we are picking our battles.  Or maybe you could say we are trying to be “unifying,” which, apparently is out of character for us egalitarians.

You also say, “Why do we think that submitting to authority means that we’re somehow “less than” or “less valued?” ‘To that I say, Phil, you are not the one who has been told that you cannot exercise your gifts or fulfill your calling. 

And, Phil, with all due respect, the curse was put on the cross with Jesus—it is not a law that we have to adhere to.  By your logic, women should not be given painkillers during childbirth either.

CS says, “A woman wants to teach in a church?  That’s wonderful.  Here’s the thing that gets me, though: the title of “Pastor” being applied to her.” So you selectively choose the portions of I Timothy that you wish to follow—the teaching part can be ignored, but the authority part must be strictly adhered to?

Also, do you really believe that having children is a requirement for being a bishop/overseer?  I guess Jesus, Paul, and Timothy would be disqualified from church leadership on that basis as well.

Matthew—I ask you the same questions that Wendi posed—and one more.  Do you really believe that women are saved through childbirth?  If so, what about single or infertile women?

Wendi argued this much more eloquently than I, but the point is that it is a rare church indeed who is strictly and consistently faithful to a literal interpretation of I Timothy.  Why is this?  Because it is very difficult to keep 1/2 of your entire congregation from exercising their God-given gifts.  And here’s the other dirty little secret—if most churches attempted to do so, ministry as we know it would fail because we women are everywhere, doing just about everything!

If you kid’s don’t stop that bickering I am going to pull this car over and I will settle it… Oops, sorry I forgot what I was going to say.  Here it is.

Phil, I think I have an answer to at least one of your questions.  You ask; 1- Why do we think that submitting to authority means that we’re somehow “less than” or “less valued?” That is at the heart of all of this.”

I think one reason is the ones who are in “authority” have made it seem so.  Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  I think we can see historically, societally, politically and religiously that men in power have a tendency to “lord it over” and give the impression that they really are better. 

I also struggle with the “trajectory” of truth but I do believe in our understanding of the bible, we cannot ever forget the “who” in terms of time, place and audience. 

I am good with the idea of women in ministry, women in the pastorate, women teaching and speaking in the church.  I am not good with a woman as a Senior Pastor.  I know it happens, I know some have much fruit, I know many who are and they are always welcome at my table and in my church, but my understanding has not sufficiently evolved to let me go that far.  By the way we do have women preach and teach from the pulpit in our church (no not just on mothers day) and we have done it in teams, solo with and without me there. 

CS – I think the words of Paul were not meant as a check list of markers but rather a description of the places where character is revealed.  I do not think Paul was saying must be married, must be a father, must be a man… but rather if he is married, he should only have one wife at a time, if he is a father he should have a healthy home… Paul would never have written if HE/SHE because his time and culture could not sustain that thinking.  The description of a pastor/elder IMO are markers of character not markers of gender, social status, fertility…

Phil,
First of all, please let me apologize for what you characterize as “snotty and inflammatory remarks.” In a blog, or any written communication, tone is always difficult to convey and read, and perhaps we have misunderstood each other.  Let me clarify a couple of things. 

You said, “I never said that egalitarians are not unifying,” but let me point out in your first post that you said, “If this lady understood the controversy and was as gentle and UNIFYING as she seemed to come across why would she have allowed her church to spend 18 months on this issue” (emphasis added).  This is where I inferred that you felt that her refusal to “stand down” as an egalitarian was not UNIFYING, your word, not mine.  Quite frankly, you touched a hot button there for me, because often times, when egalitarians try to exercise their gifts, they are painted as being divisive, hence my response.  Now if I read something into your comment that was not there, I do apologize, but it did sound as if you were villifying an eminently qualified teacher for wanting to minister to her congregation in the way that the Lord had equipped her.  Also, the article stated that the Elders had spent 18 months studying and praying about this issue, which sounds like a good thing, so why would she interfere?

Then you say, “ If that’s your use of argumentive logic I hope and pray that you do not represent a majority of women because you would be doing them a disservice.” Agreed. I would absolutely be doing women a disservice if I claimed to represent a majority (or even minority) of them.  There are many, many women far more able than I to defend their gifts and abilities.  It is interesting to note that you extrapolate my comments to be representative of a majority of women, however.  I never took your comments to be representative of a majority of men.

“As a matter of fact this type of accusational, snotty, type of argumentation is probably what prompted Paul to tell women to “be silent in the churches.” You’re very 1st Century Nora.” Wow.  That’s just plain hurtful, Phil.  I am sincerely sorry that my comments were so hurtful to you that they elicited that type of a response.  (Of course, I have never seen any “snotty type of argumentation” from any of the men on this blog, so that must be why they are allowed to speak freely.)

As for the “curse” subject, I have already made this post too long, but I do feel that you are greatly reading into Genesis 3:16. In your earlier post it sounded to me as if you were suggesting that the curse of Genesis was a law or commandment that had to be followed, which is why I responded the way that I did.  If my understanding was incorrect, I do apologize.

I don’t know you, Phil, but I do know that I do not want to enter into a hurtful conflict with a brother in Christ.  For jumping the gun earlier, again, I am truly sorry.

Nora

Nora:

Now that we’re talking with each other let me clarify what confused you about my original post.

My comment about this lady was not meant to be stretched across the universe of egalitarians.  It was an observation about her.  She is teaching in the church, goes out on the road, etc. etc. so I found it interesting that she let her church go through this process for so long, and to the point of ruining their relationship with DTS, when she claimed to sympathize with those who were uncomfortable with her preaching.  Why not stand down?  It would have, in my opinion, showed more maturity.  That’s my opinion only and I do not speak for the universe of men.

I’m sorry that I sinned when I said that comment about 1st Century women.  It was meant to be snotty in return and I guess I succeeded.  Please accept my apology.

But can’t you see that your use of the following comment about men’s attitudes as an excuse for your own is not the way to dialog?  That renders your previous apology as somewhat tainted.  Can’t you see that?  If you can’t then I’m sorry again but I’m really trying to point something out.  BTW, it’s just as wrong if and when men do it.

If you understood my comments on the curse as something to be “followed” then, in my opinion, that just exposes that this subject is a hot button for you and maybe too hot.  In my opinion this is an opportunity to review your own heart as to why this subject means so much.  Is it God’s calling or your own pride?  Only honest reflection in prayer AND bible study can tell you which.  I’m not qualified to do so.

However, just to be square, the curse is not something to be followed.  The curse is an explanation for the reality which we face every day.  And that reality of the human condition will not change, as I stated earlier, until we see Jesus face to face in Heaven (Revelation 22:3)

ALL THAT BEING SAID ... I’m for women increasing their use of gifts however this church’s biblical analysis, in my opinion, was lacking. 

Let’s shake hands and move on.