It’s a good thing, then, that we have the Bible as our guide. Paul has a rather decent track record, to put it lightly. I’d rather listen to him than some folks who say we -have- to have women leaders, because the world will get mad if we don’t.

And again, we have the word ‘interpretation.’ Many times, I’ve mentioned that the ITim verse seems unambiguous, and based on non time- or culture-dependant reasons. Several times, the response has been a call for context, with no context given.

Rom16:1, however, is indeed important context.

kathryn responded with an even more important interpretation. I’m surprsed that it took this long. If I ever have this discussion again, I would lead off with Rom16:1, and follow with that bit at the beginning of kathryn’s post.

kathryn’s point is the first actual interpretation of ITim that seems to make sense.
Imagine:
A faction near the church is saying that women were created first, are sinless or something, and are saved by childbirth (I guess because they create life). Paul’s objective is to integrate people into the church. And we all know that Paul isn’t some sissy progressive who just smiles and nods when someone spouts heresy in the church. So in order to get the newcomers into the church, he needs to get them to stop causing dissention and learn right doctrine.

From this perspective, ITim reads differently. Let’s assume that the women in church are mostly uneducated, mostly believe in the heresies I mentioned above, and some are caused faction by getting uppity and dissenting in the church.

“11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” Still pretty harsh and pretty general. But in light of two thousand years of change, I’d be willing to bet that what Paul would permit would change. In fact, a small cultural or circumstance change might be all it takes. (but that still is no reason to get upset at someone who thinks the verse says what it says).

Anyway, the changes in v13-15 are more vital- because they turn a seemingly universal reason into a very specific response. Too bad we don’t have the letter that Paul was resonding to…

“13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.” Instead of reasons for the verses he said just earlier, imagine if these are instead corrections to the heresy some women were speaking. In other words, it’s not ‘you can’t teach because of these truths,’ it’s ‘you can’t teach because you believe something untrue.’ This leaves open the possibility that once everyone learns proper doctrine and is submitted to the church, they can teach and lead with the rest.

“15But women[a] will be saved[b] through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.” This reads like a ‘yes,but.’ As in, if some believed that women are saved or restored through childbiorth, that heresy may indeed be true in part, but it’s conditional upon living in faith, love… stuff Paul wants them to focus on rather than wierd heresies.

I’ve heard a lot of scornful and self-righteous progressives complain about ignorant and narrow-minded conservatives in my time (I don’t think anyone here is like that), but this is the FIRST time I have heard this explanation.

What does that say about the tenor of this debate?

Unfortunately, it’s also an extremist thing. If the leadership you’re following is wrong – or our interpretation of that leadership – then following an odious teaching would be, well, odious…

It does, but at first take it just smells like a hippie cop-out. Paul wasn’t commended leadership over the church and had the Bible populated by his writings for nothing. ‘Oh, it was only the judgement of the Apostle friggin Paul- we don’t need to listen.’

Also note, whether you agree or not, that I’ve pointed out how it’s pretty clear that Paul based his reasoning not on timing or culture, but on his take on the nature of people. Note again that if modern progressives were given a chance to sit at Paul’s feet, they’d storm out in protest, egg his mud hut and slash his camel’s hooves. Sexist bastard.

God trusted Paul, I think I can too. That doesn’t mean that he was immune from mistakes… but he wouldn’t be a bad model to follow. I think this is a mostly conservative thing- willingness to follow leadership even when some things seem odious. In the end, ‘dorky follower’ sounds more like a disciple than ‘shrill whiner for individual rights.’

Looking up the verse, I see that Rom16:1 suggests that modern church leaders are making too big a deal out of ITim, regardless of how unequivocal the verse may be. Looking at the different translations and the strong’s number, I don’t know exactly what ‘servant’ or ‘deaconess’ means in this context, but it’s clear enough. Pheobe played a role in the church that would not be approved of by modern conservative denominations. And Paul commended her, called her a sister, etc. Exactly how much approval of her rule is unclear, but the meaning is unmistakable. Paul acknowledged women deacons as part of the church. You got me, Dan.

According to Romans 16:1, Paul says:
“I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deaconess of the church at Cenchreae”

That one place in the Bible seems to say only men could be deacons and here, at least, it appears women can be deacons supports the notion of taking into mind the context. We don’t – nor should we – take every line in the Bible literally, we must think of context and recognize that some rules were time specific.

There’s nothing in the Bible that suggests it’s different with Paul’s command (not God’s but Paul’s) to not allow women preachers.

I’m curious, RC, why does the point about Paul saying this is HIS – not God’s (“I do not permit…”) – rule not hold any water for you?

Here’s a pretty good defense of women in ministry that goes indepth:

http://broadwayassembly.org/women.html

And it is a Pentacostal source, not a “liberal” one…

And finally, I’ll offer the evidence of reality. I’ve sat at the feet of women preachers and behold, it was good. They preached the Word of God beyond all doubt.

In reality, there are women preachers. In my experience, they have been better preachers than men. That is, of course, objective, but it is a fact.

What do you do with the reality of women preachers who are preaching the Word of God and doing so quite well and being a blessing to those around? Do you say, “Well, the way I read the Bible, you can’t be preachers and so that blessing and encouragement and prophesy is all to be ignored?”

You’ll forgive us, I hope, if we choose to embrace that of God that we see quite plainly in our lives and ignore the interpretation of Bible of those who disagree with us?

Progressives say (as Dan has): “We must humbly realize that it is God’s Truth we seek, not the imposition of a few particular passages from the Bible that fit with our human-made religion.”

Conservatives say (as I do): “we must humbly realize that it is God’s Truth we seek, not the _deletion_ of … particular passages from the Bible that _don’t_ fit with our human-made religion.”

Thing is, I _don’t_ agree with the ITim verse, and most of my life is lived by ignoring it. However, I see no way to refute it, and still say the Bible is a book of Truth with a straight face. There must be a way, but I haven’t found it.

So in the meantime, I’ll default to a conservative postition. Must we have women deacons in order to bring about God’s kingdom? No, the first church did ok without them. Must we have women deacons to satisfy the world? Yes.
So to whose standards are we really bowing?

DR, you’re right. I just thought I believed anabaptist teachings. I just thought I had spent hours and hours studying and praying over scriptures. But you are wiser than I – having obtained perfection, while I have not!

Pray for me, I’ll take all the prayers I can get – especially from one who is incapable of being wrong on any point (“you think it is arrogant or incorrect of US to claim to know the truth”). And I’ll pray for you, poor sinner that I am.

Again, Michael is doing an excellent job…I mean Michael is over at his site sadly deluded and talking about the gay agenda again. Please straighten him out, too.

In Daniel’s name, Amen.

First, I am basing my opinion on our many discussion, during which you have shown yourself often to be either ignorant of the traditional position, ignorant of Church history regarding the issue, or in full rejection of those two without having dealt with them adequately (and being under persuasion of those who are either blind or deceived themselves). Look, you were the one who said you didn’t understand my arguments about the Romans 1 passage and you simply ignored all of the Church and Roman cultural history that was presented. You tried to tell me how you didn’t understand what I was talking about and how I was intentionally using too many words, etc., etc. But the reality is you never dealt with half of my arguments, but just continued to repeat your talking points over and over again (as if I did not address them). You have shown time after time that you have not grasped the full argument to many of our discussions. Just in this thread you don’t deal with the facts presented concerning 1 Timothy 2, you merely throw out the “culture card” as if that adequately answers the charge that Paul used a historical and theological argument in making a statement about women teaching. You tell me Dan: Can you deal with this statement apart from shrimp and children or is that the depth of your understanding of hermeneutics, reason, and tradition? Were you anaBaptist brethren just not as culturally savvy as you to hold to the traditional views of women, homosexuality, Scripture, etc.?

And again you charge me with arrogance, when it is you who are rejecting the traditional positions on women, homosexuality, Christ’s atonement, and Scriptural authority, as well as pit the Holy Spirit against the very Scripture He caused to be written, and God against His Holy Spirit’s inspiration, all in the name of individual interpretation (as if in the 40 years since the sexual revolution we have grown so much that we can reject 2000 years of church history and tradition).

You know you talk about community, but the community of saints throughout the ages speaking on these issues is of no account to you. Yes, you can agree with a bunch of very open-ended and all-inclusive statements that even a 1st century Gnostic could agree with, but those only overarched the core of their theology, which included the absolute sovereignty of God over all things, the atonement of Christ for sins through His penal substitution, and the view that apart from one’s knowledge of Christ and confession of the name of Jesus there is no salvation. And you undermine the traditional view of the family as man and wife when you accept that homosexuality is a valid expression of Christianity. Last time I checked the Church in Paul’s letter to the Ephesians was symbolized in the traditional view of the husband as the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church. So in a homosexual marriage or relationship who would be the wife? Who is the husband? You have negated this great symbol of Christ and His bride without even understanding the language of Romans 1, without knowing Paul’s argument regarding nature was an allusion to Plato’s Symposium and without recognizing that even as far back as the 3rd century B.C. homosexuality was in pagan cultures spoken of in the same way as it is today – with marriage and love being core discussions among the pagans.

This is what you do Dan that is so frustrating. This is why I don’t think you study hard and seek understanding, why I don’t think you consider all of those men you read, and why I think you are either blind or greatly decieved. And it is why I have called you to repent of these views over and over again – pleading with you to reject this perversion of the faith and return to Christ under the authority of Scripture.

So, as I have tried before to do, I will again do. I ask, no, BEG you to repent and if you will not, then I am sorry, but I am not going to continue to strive and stuggle with you. I am done. I have prayed for your repentence, asked that your eyes be open, but I am certain now, that I can do no more to convince you. May God have mercy on you and through His kindness lead you to repentence.

You were the one making the issue of study, saying: “it takes much more work, study, and dilligence to actually understand all of the issues in the text” – I merely responded by saying you were wrong to imply that I have not done the work, study and diligence.

DR went on to say:
“You apparently haven’t listened to those who you’ve read.”

And you’re basing that upon knowing my heart better than I? I have indeed listened to those I’ve read and took it all to God in prayer and relied upon God to help me make sense of what I’d read in those authors and in the Bible. Is this not what you do?

Do you pray that God reveal God’s message and then, if that conflicts with what Mohler or someone else says, you go with Mohler? I don’t think so. You go with God’s leading.

“And you have rejected your Anabaptist roots, yet continue to try to identify with them.”

From a Mennonite website:

The main tenets of the Anabaptist faith left to us by Menno and his followers include:

· community. People are baptized upon confession of faith into a discipling, nurturing congregation

· non-conformity: being citizens of the Kingdom of God, not of Satan or the World

· non-violence: resisting violence in personal and national life

· evangelical mission: spreading the Good News of Jesus, including this four-fold witness, through word and deed.

I am fully and 100% in solidarity and agreement with these tenets.

A bit longer, but even better put is the list from mennohof:

http://www.mennohof.org/php/who.we.are/beliefs.php

Or, as another source puts it:

1. The Bible [interpreted through the life of Christ] is Central
2. New Life In Christ
3. Voluntary Membership and Commitment to Christ
4. Reaching Out to the World
5. Belonging To Each Other
6. Taking the Teachings of Jesus Seriously
7. Helping Each Other

http://vaszary.com/basicbeliefs.htm

Again, I believe each of these 100%. Again, your arrogance will be your undoing.

That there may be one or two lesser teachings of traditional anabaptism that I don’t subscribe to does not make me any less anabaptist than the fact that you have parts of traditional southern Baptist teaching that you don’t cling to make you not a Southern Baptist.

I really don’t care how much you’ve read and how old you are. You apparently haven’t listened to those who you’ve read. And you have rejected your Anabaptist roots, yet continue to try to identify with them. Maybe I just can’t understand why you are so blind to the differences in your theology with those who have come before or how you could know that your views on Scripture, God’s justice and wrath, Christ’s atonement, sin, and eternity are night and day from those who went before you and yet you still believe you are right and those guys were so far off. It just amazes me. It’s like you consider yourself a modern day Gnostic or something. At least my arrogance is built upon a foundation of the assurance of those who came before and their interpretation of Scripture. Your’s is so divergent from that and yet you seem to have no real explanation that doesn’t require you to use the same examples of shrimp and killing disobedient children, even though those charges have been answered over and over again (and as if had our Baptist forefathers known Scripture enough to know about those examples, they would believe as you do). I just don’t think you see how far from orthodoxy you really are. And as I said, it amazes me.