The extraordinary belief that women should be forbidden from teaching men the Bible, or 'doctrine,' is held by only a handful of Southern Baptist leaders, including at least one agency head and a few strategically placed trustees in various agencies. Unfortunately, the majority of Southern Baptists let them dictate policy for the entire convention.
Let me reiterate for those who rarely read posts and jump straight to the comment section: This post is not addressing the 'office' of pastor. The BFM 2000 does that quite clearly. This post is gently rebuking those who would justify the removal of a female Hebrew professor, as well as a female history professor in 2004, simply because they are women teaching men the Bible.
The Trustees of SWBTS
It can easily be said that the belief which leads to the forbidding of a woman professor teaching a man Hebrew, or 'biblical doctrine,' or giving that woman a 'position' of authority in the classroom over men, was not the predominate belief of the Southwestern Theological Seminary trustees in 2002. Those 2002 trustees are the ones who unanimously hired Dr. Klouda to the position of professor of Hebrew at SWBTS at the recommendation of Dr. Ken Hemphill.
It can also be said that this extraordinarily narrow belief that a woman should not teach a man Hebrew, or 'Biblical doctrine,' is the view of President Paige Patterson who was hired as President of SWBTS in 2003, after giving his promise that he had no intention of removing women from the theology faculty (see June 24, 2003 press conference and this article about a private meeting with faculty in 2003). It is obvious that Paige Patterson's narrow view of women led him to force Dr. Klouda out of her position as professor of Hebrew. Since my post went public, several people have emailed me saying that there is at least one other female on SWBTS faculty who has been forced out due to gender, but unfortunately, I do not have enough information to verify if that is the case or not. Nevertheless, Southern Baptists need to realize that just ONE unjust forced removal of an SBC employee based upon gender is ONE too many. If we don't correct the problem, the courts may correct it for us. The plea of immunity may not hold water when the forced removal based on gender is an action that is CONTRARY to the position of our convention's offical statement of doctrine.
I have said over and over for the past year that the very serious problem in the SBC is the narrowing of the parameters of cooperation by demanding conformity on very rigid doctrinal interpretations of Scripture. In other words, there are a handful of influential people in the SBC who are seeking to impose their doctrinal interpretations on the entire convention -- interpretations that go FAR beyond our BFM 2000. If we do not speak up and speak out, regarding various interpretations with which we disagree, including this view that a women cannot teach a man, then we might just find those narrow views becoming convention policy post de facto (after the act) -- after several women have been hurt by our leaders' actions.
In Dr. Klouda's case, it is possible that SWBTS trustees were never informed that Dr. Klouda was being forced out because she was a women. It is feasible that Dr. Klouda never said anything about her gender discrimination out of fear of not being able to obtain good references for future employment. The SWBTS trustees will need to answer what they did know, and what they did not know, about the circumstances related to the quiet removal of Dr. Klouda because of gender. However, it is a matter of public record that SWBTS trustees in 2002 had absolutely no problem with a woman teaching Hebrew to men or teaching men how to properly exegete the Bible (more than half the Bible is written in Hebrew). For a very successful and highly acclaimed professor to be forced out by the President because she is a woman, possibly puts SWBTS in serious legal jeopardy, not to mention accreditaion problems and the angst in the hearts of a majority of Southern Baptists who always demand that we treat our convention empoloyees in a moral, ethical and Christian manner.
The 2000 Baptist Faith and Message
The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 does not forbid a woman from 'preaching,' 'teaching,' or 'proclaiming' the gospel of Jesus Christ to men. Dr. Bill Merrill and Suzie Hawkins, two of the most conservative Southern Baptists I have ever known, have spoken publicly and on the record regarding this specific issue. Bill is the former VP of the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee and Suzie Hawkins is the wife of O.S. Hawkins, President of the Annuity Board of the SBC. Suzie happened to be a member of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message Committee. The following is taken directly from a Baptist Press news article dated June 7, 2001 where both Bill and Suzie respond to an interview with Ann Graham Lotz, the daughter of Billy Graham, and an alleged misunderstanding by the CBS interviewer regarding what the BFM 2000 has to say about women. The interview in question was from a broadcast on CBS Television News Program '60 Minutes.' ---
Susie Hawkins of Dallas, a member of the Baptist Faith and Message Study Committee, shares Lotz's desire to see women empowered for Christian service. But Hawkins suspects the characterization that there can be no women preachers in the SBC as a mistatement of the BFM 2000 (My editorial comment: Suzie uses the word "preachers" intentially instead of "pastors." 'Preach' is Gk. kerusso which means to 'proclaim' - as a rooster proclaims the rising of the sun --- preachers proclaim the risen SON). Again, to say there can be no woman preachers in the SBC is a misstatement of the SBC's doctrinal statement. Instead, she said, Article 6 of the BFM, dealing with the Church, states that "the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture."
Hawkins added, "Nowhere does it say that women can't proclaim the gospel. In fact, it is in this article that women are affirmed in the statement as being 'gifted for service.'" Hawkins noted that Lotz "never pressed the issue of women pastoring" in the 60 Minutes interview, but related the example of Mary Magdalene bringing the message of Christ to others.
Her suspicion seems to be confirmed in an interview of Lotz by Jim Jones of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram last year. Lotz stated that she agreed with conservatives who say a woman should not be a senior pastor. "I know Christians disagree on this issue, but I believe God has called me into the ministry where I am," she said.
Hawkins added, "In our own Southern Baptist tradition we have the obvious examples of missionaries Lottie Moon and Bertha Smith who were used greatly by God. But Mary Magdalene was not the spiritual authority for the disciples. She was their co-laborer, their partner in spreading the gospel."
From other interviews, Lotz has stated that she does not see herself as assuming an authoritative role when teaching. "I feel when I stand up in a pulpit I'm not coming from a position of authority," she said in an April 5, 1999, Christianity Today article. "Everywhere I go, I'm invited; if men have invited me [to speak], I'm under the authority of that committee. But I don't accept the fact that as a woman I can't preach to or teach men. My authority is the authority of God's Word." (WB's editorial comment: This is exactly what Suzie Hawkins and the BFM 2000 Committee say the BFM 2000 means)
Hawkins also disputed the characterization of the BFM Study Committee as "an elitist group of men that issued some decree." Instead, she reminded, the committee was appointed in 1999 by then-SBC President Paige Patterson and included theologians, ministers and laymen, with two of the participants being women. "Upon the discussion of the issue of women in ministry, I am eager for others to know that the men on the committee were more than willing to hear the women's perspective." Once the revised statement was submitted to Southern Baptist messengers meeting last June in Orlando, Fla., it was approved overwhelmingly as the new doctrinal statement for the largest non-Catholic denomination.
Bill Merrell, SBC Executive Committee vice president for convention relations, agreed that the reference to the decision by messengers to last year's convention was misapplied in the case of the 60 Minutes interview. "The Southern Baptist Convention position is plainly stated in the Baptist Faith and Message that we understand the pastoral office to be reserved to men as qualified in the Scripture. To my knowledge, Anne Graham Lotz makes no claim to be a pastor. She exhorts and teaches and does so, I think, with a high degree of excellence."
(END)
Unlike some in our convention who wish to use the BFM 2000 as a 'doctrinal' club, I affirm the right for those who forbid a woman to teach or preach the Bible to disagree with the position of the BFM 2000. I will, however, seek to hold accountable those who forcibly exclude Southern Baptists from service and employment in cooperative areas of ministry in the SBC for doctrinal reasons that go beyond the BFM 2000.
We have all kinds of examples of women teaching men in Baptist history. Spurgeon learned the doctrines of grace from his family's female cook. Lady Huntington taught many Baptist men the Scriptures in her home in the 18th century. Lottie Moon led several men to faith in Christ in China and discipled them quite vigorously. Mrs. Criswell taught men the Bible in the auditorium of FBC for years. LIFEWAY clears $750,000 every time Beth Moore holds a Bible conference in a major city, and not everyone present is of the female persuasion. Where would we be without our own mothers? I could go on, and on, and on. Some have countered these examples with a notion that a woman can teach the Bible to a 'boy' until he reaches the age of twelve, as one commentor on my blog proposed, but that absurdity reminds me more of the Pharisees of Jesus day, and many radical fundamentalists in the Middle East in our own day, than the Southern Baptists I have known and loved for the past 45 years.
Let's get it straight. Women can teach and preach the Bible. They have. They will. They shall continue. The BFM 2000 affirms this. So does the Bible.
The Holy Bible Clearly Affirms Women Teaching Men
What is really odd to me is the fact that all the passages in the New Testament which speak of women prophesying (I Corinthians 11:5), participating in the gifts on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), being equal to men (Galatians 3:28), and multiple other texts, too numerous to mention here, are all ignored to jump to I Timothy 2:12 and Paul's statement to Timothy "I suffer not a woman to teach nor usurp authority over a man."
There are many ways to interpret this verse. The BFM 2000 Committee applies this verse, and others, to a prohibition of women serving in the office of pastor. Let me be clear, again,that this post is not an attempt to oppose the prohibition of women pastors. As stated, there are other texts that deal with that particular subject. Dr. Klouda did not desire to be a pastor. Dr. Klouda was not ordained to the ministry. Dr. Klouda AFFIRMED THE BFM 2000.
She was removed as a professor because a very narrow interpretation of this verse that says a 'woman' is forbidden to hold a position of 'authority' over a man or 'teach' a man --- period. This verse, according to those who hold this narrow view, goes far beyond the office of pastor. WOMEN SHOULD BE MOTHERS AND GRANDMOTHERS - and they should not hold a position of authority over a man, whether it be a professor, teacher, police officer, president, etc . . . and for heaven's sake, they should NEVER teach the BIBLE to a man. I wish to show this interpreation cannot be upheld by a proper exegesis of the text.
I believe every word of the Bible. I am an inerrantist. I believe every statement of I Timothy 2. But my interpretation of I Timothy 2 is consistent with the rest of the Bible and exalts women to their proper New Covenant position. The following is an exegesis of I Timothy 2 that has been graciously provided by evangelical conservative Pastor Dave Johnson and his fellow elders at The Church of the Open Door. This church, a large, conservative evangelical fellowship of believers in Minneapolis, Minnesota has reached thousands of people for Christ. I believe the following will be a help to all us Southern Baptist pastors who are trying to resist this very narrow view of women not that is creeping into the SBC, allegedly based upon I Timothy 2.
Again, this exegesis is to deal exclusively with women’s roles as they relate to I Timothy 2:9-15. Again, there is NO attempt in this post to justify women pastors. I am showing that the the narrow interpretation of I Timothy 2 which leads some to remove women as professors of Hebrew and theology because they 'teach men' the Bible cannot be justified from I Timothy 2. The first portion deals with the exegetical approach. The next section deals with the actual exegesis of I Timothy 2, and the last section provides conclusions.
Key Principles of Accurate and Effective Exegesis
1. Grammatical Integrity
This involves the use of original languages. We need to know what is really being said.
2. Historical Integrity
An understanding of the historic and cultural events that surround Apostolic letters gives insight into why certain things are being taught and exhorted. Failing to work in this arena results in incorrect or shallow application.
3. Contextual Integrity
Through the verse by verse study we do every week, we have comet o appreciate the importance of staying with the context. It helps avoid ‘eisegesis’, i.e. Philippians 4:13.
4. Distinguish Between Timeless Truth and Temporary Regulation
Timeless truth = love God/Ten Commandments/ Salvation by Grace/
Temporary Regulation = Deuteronomy 23:12-13/ Acts 15:8-11, 19-21
Exegesis of I Timothy 2:9-15
It is obvious that at first glance this passage creates some serious problems, not only as it relates to women in ministry, but also to women in general.
Verse 12
This verse seems to cement forever the role of women in the church as that of silent, behind the scenes support. Is that what Paul meant with these words?
When Paul came to Ephesus with the gospel originally, the Power of God rocked that city. Literally thousands were saved and it even effected the economy (Acts 19:17-29). You can be sure that among those saved were temple priestess prostitutes, priests, and leaders of false religions. Under Paul’s leadership, teaching was solid, and lifestyles were changed. Under Timothy’s leadership false teaching and sloppy living were eroding the work of God in the church.
Side Note #1
Historically, one of the greatest enemies to pure biblical doctrine is a phenomenon called syncretism. This is the blending of Christian doctrines with pagan doctrines so they coexist. We saw this illustrated clearly when we went through I Corinthians. It was also happening in Ephesus. Josephus records that Clement of Alexandria complained in his Memoirs that Christian groups had turned their communion services into drunken orgies. This was clear syncretism. Throughout the Greco-Roman world there were various groups who called themselves Christians that combined worship, teaching, and sexual immorality. This syncretism was part of what Timothy faced.
Side Note #2
Because I Timothy is a personal letter, some of these problems are not directly spelled out in the text. The reason for that is because both Paul and Timothy had common knowledge of the situation at Ephesus. In fact, Paul is most likely responding point by point to the issues Timothy raised to Paul in a previous letter. This again illustrates why history and context are so vital to accurate application.
Timeless Truth of Temporary Regulation
If Paul’s prohibition of women to teach or exercise authority is a timeless truth, there is a problem with other areas of scripture in which women are involved in ministry activity, and with Paul’s experience. Even the Ephesian church had been established in part by the skillful teaching of a Godly woman named Priscilla. She and her husband Aquila taught Apollos when he first came to Ephesus with an inadequate knowledge of the Gospel (Acts 18:18-28). Timothy knew all about Priscilla! Do you think Paul would consider a ban on women teaching a timeless truth that reflected the Divine order of things? I Don’t!
Grammatical Integrity
A closer look at the Greek word for authority (authenten) is helpful. This is a rare Greek verb that appears no where else in the New Testament and only on rare occasions to Greek literature. The usage in classical Greek is one of the only resources to shed light on the meaning of this word. The most basic rendering translates: ‘to thrust oneself’. It almost always carries, however, vulgar connotations of a sexual nature. Some evidence indicates that authenten involves a soliciting of sexual liaisons. St. John Chrysostem (400 A.D.) in his commentary on I Timothy, translated authenten as ‘sexual license’. In lengthy description of various tribal practices, the Byzantine Historiographer Michael Glycas uses authenten to describe women ‘who make sexual advances to men and fornicate as much as they please’.
Add the above information to what we know historically and culturally about Ephesus. It’s a center for pagan cults with immoral practices Syncretism was clearly at work and manifesting itself through false teaching. Paul had already warned the women who were not dressing modestly – literally wearing the garb of temple prostitutes (braided hair), but now he prohibited them from teaching or using sexual manipulation to gain influence in the church (as was the common temple practice). Instead, these women are to quietly learn correct doctrine and change their lifestyles.
As we come to verses 13-14 it appears to get stickier because Paul is apparently appealing to creation itself to explain why women can’t teach but must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.
More History
Related to the various cults and misguided Christian groups we’ve already discussed was the most powerful movement called Gnosticism. Among the many heresies was teaching that proposed women possessed superior intellectual and spiritual knowledge and in fact had priority in creation. They proposed further, that Eve was born before Adam and had a special knowledge that Adam did not have. These heresies were rampant in the early church era, but especially in places like cult centered Ephesus. An understanding and awareness of the active heresies help us unlock the meanings of these verses.
A Paraphrase
Women, you will not be allowed to sexually manipulate men to gain power and authority in church, the way you used to do it in the pagan temple. In fact, I do not allow you to teach at all. Instead, you need to quietly sit and receive instruction with entire submission! And while we’re on this thing, why don’t you wear decent clothes? You look like whores! Don’t try to blend pagan teaching with Christian doctrine. Eve wasn’t created first – Adam was! And Eve didn’t have any special knowledge hidden to Adam. In fact, she was the one who was first deceived. If she had so much special insight, why was she deceived at all?
Verse 15
This verse seems to indicate that women are saved or preserved by childbearing. What does this mean? Is it true? Really? How many children would be enough to preserve a woman? What about single women? Infertile women? Infertile husbands? Maybe something else is going on historically or culturally in Ephesus that will help make sense of this.
Applying the Principles
Contextual Integrity
The context of this epistle reveals that it was a personal letter from Paul to his good friend Timothy, who was the Pastor at the church in Ephesus. It is clear that Timothy was struggling in his ministry for a number of reasons. One reason is that he was a bit timid and easily intimidated. The founder of the church was Paul, and the sheer force of his bold and confrontive style had kept the wolves at bay. Those wolves, however, were moving in on Timothy.
The most obvious expression of their presence came in the form of false teaching (Gnosticism), and syncretism of pagan religions with Christianity (1:3-10). In chapter two he begins to deal with the people who were apparently using public meetings to air disputes. From those specific problems he zeros in on some inappropriate behavior among the women.
Apparently some of the women were dressing in a manner that was indiscreet and inappropriate: indeed immodest. Some work on history will help explain this.
Historical Integrity
Ephesus was the center for a number of pagan cults and religions. The most prolific was the worship of Diana and Artemis. A significant part of worship in their temples included the involvement of temple priestess prostitutes. These women, who numbered in the thousands, were more educated than the common Greek women, more cosmopolitan, and may be compared to a high class call girl.
Marriages in those days were arranged for convenience. The result was that Greek men used their wives for producing their heirs and cooking their meals, but went elsewhere for friendship, companionship, and sex. This was a common and accepted practice; that’s just the way it was. Add to this cultural reality, a religious element. Their pagan religion taught that the highest level of communion with the gods was attained through sexual intercourse. Euphoria was a sign that you had ‘made contact’.
Verse 15 still troubles, but there are legitimate possibilities. Keeping with the context, Paul may be indicating to these women that even if they have borne illegitimate children because of their participating in cultic activities, they will still be preserved if they repent in faith, and continue in love and holiness.
If that explanation is not acceptable, then we must also reject the face value idea that proposes women are somehow saved by bearing children. It simply is not true! Thousands of redeemed women have never had children! Sometimes it’s because they’re single, sometimes it’s a physical problem, sometimes it’s because of their devotion to ministry.
Michelson: “This verse seems to point to women’s role in bringing
into the world a godly posterity.”
I Corinthians 11:12 may also shed some light.
Conclusions
In my opinion, this passage is not a timeless truth that forever prohibits women from positions of authority and teaching. There are however, timeless truths in this text. Don’t let people without understanding teach. They should receive instruction in all submissiveness before they give instruction. Morality and purity in living is also a timeless truth that is called for here! Another timeless truth is that you confront false teaching out loud! Don’t try to coexist!
Helpful Resources for Study
Daughters of the Church; Walter Liefeld / Ruth A. Tucker
No Time for Silence; Janette Hassey
Women at the Crossroads; Karl Tojeson Malcolm
Reformed Journal; Ancient Heresies and a Strange Greek Verb;
Richard & Catherine Kroeger
Reformed Journal: May Women Teach?; Richard & Catherine Kroeger
Women in the Church; Berkeley Michelson
My Personal Conclusions About Dr. Klouda and the SBC
There are two issues surrounding Dr. Klouda. There is the issue of broken integrity when it comes to things said, and actions done, toward Dr. Sheri Klouda by the administration of SWBTS.
But then, to me, there is even a deeper issue that faces us as a convention. We have already placed a prohibition regarding women pastors in the BFM 2000. Are there those who are now desiring that we place in our BFM 2000 a statement that no woman shall teach a man the Bible?
If so, we will be violating our own history, the examples of women teaching men in Scipture itself, and the principles of the New Covenant gospel. It's time we as Southern Baptist stopped the creeping demand for conformity in the acceptance of a very narrow and strict interpretation of texts like I Timothy 2.
It is not too late to do something.
And we owe it to the future women of the Southern Baptist Convention -- not to mention Dr. Sheri Klouda.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
258 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 258 of 258I posted yesterday with a different blog name which was "totally God's will only" and now it is not working so I will try this one.
The subject I posted wasthe "Total Sovereignty of God in all things".
I was saddened, and a little surprised that I did not get one response. Not one email. What does this say about all the arguing and debating on the Bible when we will not engage the Sovereign Creator's rights in all this?
I was raised in a very fundy church where women could not shave or speak or wear makeup.
Thank God! I have seen the light!
Still, why do so many just ignore what God might think of their opinions or interpretations.
Jesus said "you make the gospel of no use because of your traditions".
It is sad that we will say we follow the Faith and Message 2000 over and over and over or we will follow the trustees or we will follow the convention because the convention voted on some issue.
It seems that we worship the F&M 2000 and we worship the vote of trustees and we worship the vote of the convention and we worship our own opinions all without even a thought of the sovereignty and rights of the Living God.
We will all stand silent before the Throne
I remember your comment and agree. I am sorry I didn't expressly say so; I assumed you would know that by my (too) many comments. Thank you for adding to the discussion.
Anonymous, you talk of name dropping but don't leave your own. :) I think the strange belief that Wade is referring to is teaching the bible, not pastoring. I'm not so sure that the names you drop would agree, at least not all of them, that a woman cannot teach a man the bible. Regardless, what really matters, as the "country baptist preacher" notes is God's name, His meaning, His purpose, His plan. So, whereas I may be wrong, Piper may be wrong, Grudem may be wrong, you may be wrong, we can all rest assured in the fact that God is Right, and we can all praise Him for that!!!
Bryan,
Thank you for answering anonymous.
I don't understand why people can't see the difference between teaching the Bible to men and pastoring.
I have not called for woman pastors.
It is strange that some don't believe women can teach the Bible to men.
I guarantee you Wayne Grudem, John Piper, Al Mohler, C.J. Mahaney, and Josh Harris believe it is fine for a woman to teach a man the Bible. They would oppose women pastors.
Noody is arguing for women pastors, and you are correct in pointing this out to anonymous who obviously did not read the post.
Mr. Riley,
I agree that all of the leaders on the CMBW council could be wrong. Also, some of them may believe that women can teach the Bible over men but not pastor a church. I cannot speak for any of them. I have personally heard some on the list say that women should not teach men the Bible even in a seminary setting. Again, they could be wrong. My problem is with the characterization that the view that women cannot teach over men is a "strange" one.
Piper, Grudem, Duncan, Burleson, Cole, Anonymous seminary students, Ware, Bultmann, Crossan, Patterson, Calvin are/were all intelligent men who are/were capable of being wrong and some of them bad wrong (especially Bultmann and Crossan) I am not insisting that anyone on the CBMW is right. What I am suggesting is the assertion that women cannot teach a man the Bible is "strange belief is unhelpful.
Well, you have come up for a criticism not heretofore raised, anonymous, and for that you should be credited because many have read the post and many have commented. (Wade, how many unique visitors have read the two posts on this subject at this point?) But, I'm not sure that you've really added much by noting an objection to "strange." Strange can simply mean odd or different, and Wade is simply characterizing how he views the belief. It is his opinion. I don't really like the word either, personally, but since I realized that it was just Wade's opinion, I saw no reason to make a federal case out of it. :) He could have gone so far as to say wrong. He could have said, in some people's view, heretical. He didn't. He doesn't believe it's heretical. He simply views it as strange and thus used that word. I would have said wrong. And that is my opinion.
If anyone,
has not read the Saturday, January 20, 2007 Dallas Morning News in the “Metro Section” by Sam Hodges—Staff Writer, here it is:
SOUTHERN BAPTISTS IN ROW OVER FEMALE TEACHER’S EXIT
Seminary case fuels debate on women’s role in theology programs.
Conservative Southern Baptists are fighting again, this time over whether women should be able to teach men in seminary theology programs.
They agree that the role of pastor is reserved for men, based on a verse in 1 Timothy in which the Apostle Paul says, “I permit no woman to teach or have authority over a man.”
But some conservatives say Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, under president Paige Patterson, wrongly applied the verse to remove from its faculty Sheri Klouda, who until last year had been teaching men Hebrew in the seminary’s school of theology.
The controversy is yet another sign that conservatives, who in the late 1970s and ‘80s united on a platform of biblical inerrancy while winning control of the Southern Baptist Convention, are seriously at odds.
Wade Burleson, an Oklahoma pastor and leader of dissident conservatives, this week used his blog to describe and decry the treatment of Dr. Klouda, who got her doctorate at Southwestern and was given a tenure-track position at the Fort Worth school in 2002.
“Sheri Klouda is not a pastor, she has not been ordained or licensed, she does not perform ministerial duties. She is a professor, for heaven’s sake,” Mr. Burleson said by phone Friday. “The same institution that conferred her degree and hired has now removed her for gender. To me, that is a very serious, ethical, moral breach.”
Dr. Patterson did not respond to request for comment. Speaking for the seminary instead was Van McClain, chairman of the Southwestern trustees.
He confirmed that Dr. Klouda was told she would not get tenure and was encouraged to find another job. He would not say why.
But Dr. McCain did say that Dr. Klouda’s hiring as a professor in the school of theology, which occurred before Dr. Patterson arrived in 2003, represented a “momentary lax of the parameters.”
Southwestern, he said, has gone back to its “traditional, confessional and biblical position” that women should not instruct men in theology or biblical languages.
Dr. Klouda, now teaching at Taylor University in Indiana, did not authorize Mr. Burleson to make her case public. But in a phone interview, she confirmed many details in his blog account.
“I don’t think it was right to hire me to do his job, to put me in the position where I, in good faith, assumed that I was working toward tenure, and then suddenly remove me without any cause other than gender,” she said.
Dr. Klouda said she was first informed on June 7, 2004, by an administrator she would not name, that she would not get tenure and should look for another job.
Later, she said, she spoke Dr. Patterson about the mater.
“He essentially said that his perspective and understanding in this regard was that in the teaching role in the school of theology, where we’re training pastors, those teachers should also be qualified to be pastors. Therefore, those teachers should be men,” she said.
Dr. Klouda said she was never given any reason other than her gender for not having her contract renewed. She said she and her husband had bought a house near the seminary, assuming she would be at Southwestern for many years.
“The house has not sold,” she said. “I pay this big house payment every month for nothing.”
Dr. McClain, the trustee, defended Southwestern’s treatment of Dr. Klouda.
“The administration was patient with her and allowed her to teach a full two years after she was told that she would not have tenure, he said.
“During that time, she looked for a job, and the seminary even agreed to continue her support after her teaching responsibilities were over, so her family would have financial support. The seminary went far beyond anything that could be expressed as its duty or responsibility.”
Dr. Klouda earned degrees at Criswell College, with high honors, before enrolling at Southwestern. Even as a graduate student, she said, she taught Hebrew classes there on an adjunct basis.
Tacit Understanding
When she finished her doctorate, the trustees approved her appointment to the faculty, assigned to the school of theology. She said there was an unwritten understanding that she would teach language courses as opposed to more strictly theological courses.
The president then was Ken Hemphill. During his time at Southwestern, he said by phone, “There was not a policy where [women] would not be able to teach church history or the languages.”
Women have long taught at Southwestern outside the school of theology—in music and certain other areas. That continues. But under Dr. Patterson, the only woman still teaching in the field of theology is his wife, Dorothy. And she teaches women’s studies courses that aren’t attended by men. Dr. McCain said.
He added that precedent for women teaching theology in SBC seminaries is “extremely rare.”
“I do not know of any women teaching in any of the SBC seminaries presently in the area of theology or biblical languages,” Dr. McClain said. “In my estimation all of the seminaries have sought to be more consistent with most Southern Baptists’ understanding of Scripture on the matter.”
But Mr. Burleson said Southwestern had gone too far in decreeing that women shouldn’t be involved in the theological education of male pastors-in-training.
“What bothers me is the extraordinarily restrictive views of certain leaders in our convention regarding women,” he wrote on his blog.
Dallas Seminary
Among Dr. Klouda’s supporters is Eugene Merrill, a professor of Old Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. It too is a conservative evangelical seminary, though not Southern Baptist.
“Sheri is highly qualified to teach Hebrew,” he said.
Dr. Merrill said conservative seminaries, including his own, have struggled with whether the verse in 1 Timothy should keep women from teaching men training to be pastors.
He believes it shouldn’t, arguing that Paul was speaking about the local church, “not the broader academy, which didn’t exist in Paul’s time.”
Dr. Morrill said his view has gradually prevailed at DTS, where a woman is among the Hebrew teachers.
For more than a year, Mr. Burleson has used his blog to air concerns about the direction of the SBC. He said his overall concern is that the denomination is every more narrowly defining what it means to be a Baptist.
He and other “blogging Baptist” claimed credit for helping elect Frank Page, an underdog, small town pastor, as president of the SBC last summer.
Mr. Burleson said his account of Dr. Klouda and Southwestern has prompted hundreds of comments on his blog.
“This strikes a chord in the hearts of all Southern Baptists.”
E-mail samhodges@dallasnews.com
Rex Ray
But, whether he said strange or simply left it undefined and said "The Belief that a Woman Cannot Teach a Man the Bible," does not impact one whit the facts contained in the last two posts: (1) Dr. Klouda, a female, was hired to teach Hebrew at SWBTS (which thus demonstrates additional facts, for example, that she was qualified to do the job); (2) Dr. Klouda was not granted tenure and shuffled out of her position; (3) The man who was responsible for the employment decisions affecting Dr. Klouda believes that a woman should never teach a man in matters of theology or in any matter that is a part of pastoring because Dr. Patterson does not believe that a woman should ever serve as a pastor and that one cannot teach what one cannot do; (4) SWBTS is a seminary, not a local church; (5) Hebrew is a language and only tangentially relates to pastoring at best; many pastors have never taken Hebrew or know Hebrew at all beyond what they've looked up in a Strong's Dictionary; (6) Dr. Klouda was not treated well in her ultimate dismissal; (7) there are no women except Dr. Patterson's wife on faculty.
I am weary of writing and many are likely weary of seeing the name Bryan Riley so I will stop there. I could go on. It amazes me that this isn't flabbergasting to every individual who reads this. I understand questioning the facts, because one might doubt that such things could really happen, but otherwise, this is a sad story, if true, and should strike sadness in everyone.
Karen Bullock (spelling?), a church history professor, was forced out by the trustees and probably contributed to Dr. Hemhill's leaving.
Larry,
My niece and her husband graduated from SWBTS. A newspaper printed a long letter they wrote about Karen’s dismissal for speaking truth. It broke their hearts.
Rex Ray
Wade,
Getting back to the original topic of 1 Timothy 2:12. It gets more complicated with Paul’s explanation of “why” or his reason for saying women should not teach men, when we study what is pointed out by Sheryl Schatz, that the sin of Eve was from being deceived, while the sin of Adam was not being deceived but was from defiance which is a far ‘worse’ sin
1 Timothy 2:14 (Paul’s second reason why women should not teach men) “And it was not Adam who was deceived by Satan. The woman was deceived, and sin was the result.”
So in essence, did Paul say women should not teach men because men are bigger sinners than women?
Ah, the tangle web that must be woven to prove every word spoken by good men is true.
Even Jesus did not know truth when he told his disciples at Calvary his Father would not leave him alone (John 16:32). Jesus did not know he was wrong until, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” This knowledge burst his human heart, and that’s why God kept it from him or He would have died in the Garden.
Country Baptist Preacher, I relate to your being sad that no one commented on your comment. You hit the nail on the head when you say we bow (not to God) but to our conventions, trustees, and BFM. Why should they rule over the priesthood of man? We have access to the Father through his Son and the Holy Spirit. Sometimes we forget.
I was sad also that no one made a comment on my request for thoughts about my suggestion to have a march on SWBTS for restitution for the banished professor because she’s a woman.
TALK, TALK, TALK! Is that all we’re good for? Why not put some feet to our words? You know—“Onward Christian soldiers, marching…” We fight; you know…not flesh but principalities of ignorance and pride. We could call it a blogger’s march for grace and truth.
I guess I could try to get my 10 grandchildren. I know my 5 year-old would go for it.
Robert Hutchinson, you ask what’s it going to take for the SBC seminary faculties to become more gender balanced? Maybe this is it, or are we afraid of being laughed at, and it’s too comfortable in front of the computer?
How about it? Is anyone tired of sitting?
Rex Ray
Wade,
While I’m on a roll here, I will tell something funny that happened to my niece. They work with the Baptist Student Union at a college. For several years, their ‘students’ have raised their own money and gone overseas on evangelical trips. Her husband was angry when Patterson announced that the money spent on BSU was a waste.
The funny part about what happened to my niece: she has a divinity degree and is an excellent speaker. A pastor called and asked if she would preach to their church. She said OK. He called back later to clarify that he meant to ask her to speak to their church.
Ah, yes; we are Baptist aren't we?
Rex Ray
Actually,
Some on this comment stream have questioned why no women pastors, including Florence from KY.
She asked some good questions that I wish people would answer more precisely.
What I would like Wade and others to address, maybe on another blog entry, is what is the nature of "Senior Pastor" in a congregational church that is so "authoritative" that it is the one thing that women cannot do?
Once again, I can see Volfan's restrictions. I can see Florence's non-restrictions.
I am having a hard time understanding why just this one restriction and why it is so obvious to everybody.
Karen in OK
Karen,
Short answer. The BFM 2000 Committee, appointed by Paige Patterson, placed the 'pastor' prohibition in the convention's general confession of faith.
Though I personally affirm the BFM 2000 and the prohibition itself, I do not believe it should have been placed in the confession. There are conservative evangelicals who disagree with the prohibition of women elders or pastors, even within the SBC. I believe it should be a local church issue and not something that divides our fellowship or cooperation as Southern Baptists.
But we are where we are.
If some of us don't speak out now there will be a movement to place a prohibition in the BFM 2010 againts women teaching men the Bible in seminaries, churches and homes.
Wade
so, wade, let me get this straight... you would be for us not making a statement about pastors being men only? that you would say that its ok for a woman to be a pastor in the sbc? even though you dont personally believe that a woman ought to be a pastor/teacher, but other churches ought to have that freedom and still be called an sbc church...even though the bible is clearly against women pastors...as stated by you as well, if my memory serves me correctly at this point? wow! we are already going down the slippery slope before the ink gets dry on this issue.
wade, i just have to say that i dont agree with you at all, and i really wonder how you can call yourself a conservative. i dont hate you. i aint mad at you. but, i really wouldnt call you a conservative anymore. you are truly what we call a moderate.
volfan007
No Volfann,
You do not have it straight.
There should be no statement in our confession condoning women pastors, and if that is what you are advocating, I would oppose you.
There should be no statement in a GENERAL doctrinal confession - period. The confessions that unite us should be about Christ, the Scriptures and the fundamentals of the faith.
An opinion on whether or not a woman should be a senior pastor is not a fundamental of the faith.
By the way, Volfann, you and I may agree on way more things than you think we do.
We don't agree on how to treat people who disagree, that's all.
By the way, Volfann, I don't call myself a conservative, I am a conservative.
Volfan,
I believe you must have skipped my answer to your comment. Could you answer my question as well?
Do you believe this verse (I Tim 2:12) is dealing with behavior in the local church or not?
Having come from a legalistic, radical, fundy background I had no idea what things I had to learn from God.
He sent me a wife that was formerly an FMB missionary to Africa.
Here is this narrow (very narrow) preacher who knew it all, at all times. And especially knew that most women didn't know their place.
Imagine my horror and shock to see slides and photo's of the woman I loved, preaching in Africa (jungle and cities) with a Bible in her left hand, her right hand in the air, and folks coming to Jesus.
Saying I was gasping for air is an understatement!
Thank God! He knows what he is doing even if I don't agree!
Boy, did I need some reshaping.
A good place to start is a book called "who says women can't teach" and also read "it was always Africa" which is the story of Josephine Skaggs.
I had the priviledge of meeting Jo Skaggs and truly felt like dirt in her presence. What a saint of God.
She is credited with teaching Jesus and the Word of God to over 1000 men in the jungles when no white MAN had been able to survive in that jungle, much less set up a school.
She set up a school to teach of God and also reading and writing. In order to please the FMB men, as soon as she could she taught a man (in the jungle) who said he was called to pastor. (gasp) she taught the pastor!
Oh my goodness, did I ever get a bath from her.
live in peace
elizabeth,
i believe the verse has to do with women teaching men the bible in a public setting....where they would be seen as the authoritative figure over men. thats wrong....according to 1 timothy 2, and really in other places as well that talk about the roles of men and women. whether its in a church building or not is not really the issue. its about women having a place of authority over men in teaching the bible.....
i hope this answers your question.
wade,
a moderate is someone who is basically conservative on the essential issues, but they waver on second tier issues, and they see nothing wrong with allowing liberals and charismatics and radical feminists remain in the sbc....maybe even in places of authority in the sbc.
volfan007
Does that mean that you are for chasing people out of the church, Volfan, even if they are regenerated? Or, are you saying that liberals and charismatics aren't regenerated?
Clear teachings of the bible:
Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue.
When words are many, sin is not absent, but he who holds his tongue is wise.
For those of you who are saddened and disappointed by the fact that your post received no reply or recognition, this Okie feels your pain. Not one soul has yet to loan me a crowbar, either. (Remember me, the one who still has my tongue lodged tightly in my cheek.) It's a cruel world out there. . .
In His Grace and Peace,
T. D. Webb
Thanks Volfan for your answer. Although I looked at the Scripture, I really couldn't find anything that stated or implied specifically that teaching the Bible was being discussed.
There seems to be a big stretch among some to make this verse say a lot of things that it doesn't say.
Volfan, If you do not believe Junia was an Apostle or Phoebe a deacon, you do not believe the Bible. Period. End of Story. No shadow of a doubt. No other possible explanation. Can't mean any other thing. I can only conclude that you are a liberal who picks and chooses which scriptures to believe. (End of sarcasm)
I suppose you are not going to tell us why your church does not make women keep completely silent in church, does not require them to wear short hair, does not prohibit them to wear gold or fine clothes. Unless your church does these things, you are interpreting scripture inconsistently by interpreting 1Timothy 2:12 as the only one of these similar passages that is not culturally influenced. If 1Timothy 2:12 is so clear to you, why aren't these other passages? As I already pointed out, 1Corinthians 11 (no short hair) even uses the same Adam before Eve justification. If you have an answer, I would be interested in seeing it.
Still waiting,
Steve
I believe Jesus was the most radical of all. He came to those trapped in religion and was a stumbling block to them. They stood there, in the midst of the Christ, able to hear with their ears the very words of God and yet.. they were unable to hear.
Yes, He was radical.
Volfan, about your comment about authority-as per Wades request, you should go and read Paul Burlesons post on authority in the church. It's a real eye opener.
"Let those who have eyes to see, see"
I have decided that Volfan is not who we think he is. He, or she, is a student who is trying to help the cause against narrowing the parameters of service. How else could one consistently come on this blog (and others) and stand behind such bad exegesis and other poor arguments, except out of a desire to tilt things toward the cooperating conservatives?
The cat is out of the bag Volfan, good work. I loved your comment on one of Wade’s previous posts where you said that Jesus drank diluted grape juice and not wine. Then you implore those who disagreed with you to research it. That was a dead give away.
GREAT WORK!
Volfan,
Concerning the word Authority, to quote that memorable line in the movie "The Princess Bride":
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
d. sanders,
lol. you are really funny. a student who is doing what??? lol.
i am a 45 yr old pastor. i have been in the ministry for 26 years.
boy, people start really going overboard on these blogs....conspiracy theories and all. lol.
volfan007
stephen,
you obviously dont know how to exegete scripture, or else you dont want to do it. and, you cant take other verses in other places and take them out of context in order to try to make them fit your arguement. let the bible say what it says.
the whole context of the passage was about women not teaching men the bible in a public setting...to not have that authority over men. the example given is adam and eve. eve was deceived. you can take it from there what paul was saying about women. i feel reluctant to do it for fear of being bashed and called a woman hater and being hated on even more.
also, i asked you to read dr. a.t. robertsons word pics of the nt. do you have this work by one of the greatest greek scholars our sbc has ever known? it will help you. also, get dr. john mcarthur's commentary...it is very good and will help you understand all those things that you mention without me having to write a book here on wade's blog.
volfan007
alcylee,
i am interested. what kind of authority do you think i try to exert in my church? in my home? i am guessing what's probably running thru your head about me....which is probably wrong.
i am not a ceo, dictator leader in my church, nor in my home. i believe in being a shepherd leader. i believe in leading by recommending, suggesting, teaching, encouraging, etc. i am not a dictator.
also, my wife and i discuss everything. i thank God for my wife. she helps me understand many things. in a sense, we are partners in our marriage, but God has ordained that i be the leader of my home...the servant leader. my wife is to be submissive...willingly, lovingly, voluntarily submissive. we have been married for 24 years. its been a great 24 years.
also, it may interest you and others....wade, are you listening? that i have some reformed theology people in my church. i have a man who has a ppl in my church. they love me, and i love them. also, the last two churches that i pastored had women teaching men when i went to them. i didnt lead a charge against the women, nor did i lambast them for doing this. but instead, i gradually led them to see the error and the weakness of this....to show them the truth of the bible concerning this. no women teach men in those churches any more.
God bless all of you and have a good nite. my mom is having ear surgery tomorrow in memphis. so, i am going there early in the morning. please pray for her.
volfan007
Volfan,
Father,
I pray that you would be with this mother in Memphis tomorrow. I pray that you would guide the surgeons hands. Give the doctors wisdom and give the family peace and assurance that your will be done. Father we ask that your will be done.
In Christ Name,
Amen
Good night Brother.
Wade, you said: “I guarantee you Wayne Grudem, John Piper, Al Mohler, C.J. Mahaney, and Josh Harris believe it is fine for a woman to teach a man the Bible. They would oppose women pastors.”
I would like to respectfully disagree with this statement. Grudem, Piper, Mohler and Mahaney are all associated with the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW). I am not familiar with Josh Harris so I don’t know where he stands. The position of CBMW is that women are not allowed to teach biblical doctrine to men at any time, in any place or under any circumstance. In Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood published by CBMW, they say “We think 1 Timothy 2:8-15 imposes two restrictions on the ministry of women: they are *not to teach Christian doctrine to men* and they are not to exercise authority directly over men in the church. These restrictions are permanent, authoritative for the church in *all times and places and circumstances* as long as men and women are descended from Adam and Eve.” (Emphasis is mine).
I have been in communication with CBMW regarding their position because I received permission to use their audio tapes and their book to document their view concerning women teaching the bible to men for my DVD set called “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” Although they would agree that a single woman can teach a single man things from the bible, they will not allow for a woman to teach doctrine from the bible to a group where men are present. She cannot teach a mixed bible study in her home or on her lawn or in a school room. The prohibition, they say, is not regarding where she is teaching the bible but the mere fact that she is teaching the bible to men. No teaching of biblical doctrine to men is allowed at any time, at any place or under any circumstance. Since the men above are associated with CBMW, they would not allow a woman to teach biblical doctrine to men in any setting.
In my DVD set, I take the position of CBMW from their book and their audio tapes and compared it to the scripture’s view that 1 Timothy 2:12 in context is not forbidding godly Christian women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men. I think many people would be very surprised by the strict view against women that CBMW holds. They are not merely against women Pastors. They really do forbid godly Christian women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men.
From the CBMW website http://www.cbmw.org/questions/21.php:
"We would say that the teaching inappropriate for a woman is the teaching of men in settings or ways that dishonor the calling of men to bear the primary responsibility for teaching and leadership. This primary responsibility is to be carried by the pastors or elders. Therefore we think it is God's will that only men bear the responsibility for this office."
I think an argument for female professors can be made from a complementarian framework.
The primary responsibility for teaching that CBMW is talking about is the teaching of the body of Christ. CBMW does allow women to teach other women but they do not allow women to teach men. The "settings and ways" that women are not allowed to teach are teaching of biblical doctrine to men.
I have been told that if a woman continues to teach the bible to men and does not repent of this act that this calls into question whether she is even saved or not. One Pastor who is in full agreement with CBMW told me that if I do not repent of teaching the bible to men before I die that I will go to hell.
I appreciate my brothers in Christ, and my heart goes out to those who are so strict and are so die-hard complementarians that they can say that I am going to hell for no other reason than that I do not forbid men from coming to my bible studies. This belief must cause them to separate themselves from me and I feel for them that they can hold a belief that makes them so hard hearted. It must bother their conscience.
It is this kind of belief that can shut the door on Dr. Kouda and force them to push her away. It reminds me when scripture says: And the eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you"; or again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you." Men are saying that they do not need women to teach them. They have all the teachers they need in the male community. But God has gifted and blessed women with a different way of seeing things so that men can be blessed by our teaching too. Teaching is a position of service, not a position of lording it over anyone. Men can greatly benefit from the teaching that women can give. We women in the body of Christ love our brothers in Christ and want to use our gifts for your benefit.
According to Dr. Mohler, the gender issue may be “the critical fault line for contemporary theology.”
One of the things I appreciate about the SBC is that as part of the Conservative Resurgence we have taken a counter-cultural, complementarian, and I believe Biblically correct, stand on this. The BFM affirms that while men and women are of equal worth, men are to bear primary responsibility in leading their families; and that while men and women are gifted for ministry, men are to serve as pastors.
To support his view that 1Tim 2 does not preclude women teaching in seminary, Wade recommended writers who disagree with, and crusade against, this aspect of the BFM.
For an analysis of egalitarian approaches, including the one posted by Wade, highly recommended is Grudem‘s “Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth” http://www.efbt100.com/evangelical_feminism.pdf. Dr. Mohler‘s quote above is from his endorsement, and he adds that “(t)his book belongs in the hands of every pastor, seminary student, and thinking layperson.”
Does “authority” in 1 Tim 2 mean "to thrust oneself" and carry "vulgar connotations of a sexual nature”?
According to Grudem: “This argument by Kroeger has been almost universally rejected by…both complementarian and egalitarian camps…As far as I know, she is suggesting a meaning…that has never been found in any lexicon, ever.”
In 1995 H. Scott Baldwin published a study of all 82 known occurrences of the word, and determined that the unifying idea was “authority”. The text of each occurrence is reproduced in “Evangelical Feminism,” page 675, and anyone interested can read them to get a flavor of how the word was used.
Since the previous post advocated a book with the complementarian view, may I recommend some balanced reading presenting the other side? It always helpful to hear from both sides before making a decision. I recommend Discovering Biblical Equality Complementarity without Hierarchy edited by Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis.
Now for my own thoughts on where the strict view against women teaching the bible can take us. Taken to its logical conclusion the stance that says that a woman cannot teach men the bible could theoretically shut down all women’s ministries that teach the bible. How long would Dorothy Patterson last if men started showing up at her “women’s class” at the seminary? Does the seminary have the legal right to stop men from signing up and taking her class? If not, then when they show up for class, is she allowed to keep teaching? Surely it would be unconstitutional to kick the men out, right? It seems to me that the President could not allow his wife to teach at the seminary if men signed up for her class especially after he forced Sheri Klouda out. How would that look regarding his strict stance?
In this same way, if we take scripture the way that CBMW does, then Satan could shut down every women’s bible study by infiltrating them with men. Think about every single women’s bible study being led by a godly Christian woman teaching Christian doctrine to women. Now think about every one of those studies having one or two men sitting in to learn from her. Now she must physically kick them out or she cannot teach. Voila, you have now completely shut down all teaching by women. This is just one of those thoughts of mine that causes me to go hmmmmm……
Does “authority” in 1 Tim 2 mean "to thrust oneself" and carry "vulgar connotations of a sexual nature”? ...........
if we get our information from a "lexicon" or from a study by a group of folks who have a presumption of rightness on their every opinion, we are sure to get the answer they believed in when they started.
The evolution and use of the language outside the Bible is important.
Socretes used the word as sexual authority when he said that his cortisan had "sexual authority" over him. THAT WAS YEARS BEFORE THIS VERSE IN TIMOTHY
Shakespear used the word for the "sexual authority" when needed.
I learned that before I went to seminary.
One of my seminary profs said "we all do an exegesis or study and only use those references that agree with our pre set opinions. I will give you all an F if you don't bring me comments from every side of the theological spectrum.
God can do what He wants, How He wants, with whoever He wants.
Only his interpretation counts.
and just to be a little smarfy...when God said "I cannot leave him alone, I must get him a helper........" could that be because he could see that men would make the wrong choices (including slavery) and that women would have to truly HELP fix all men's problems?
How many times have the women bailed out the CP?
How many times have women wasted money like our SS board?
How many times did women sweep it under the rug?
Seems to me that some men really do need help.
LETTING GOD BE GOD
Cheryl,
Thanks for the clarifcation.
I am looking into this issue since I respect your opinion on the matter. I am very surprised about their view of women, if that is the case.
In His Grace,
wade
After scanning through the various comments I am probably in the minority but here some thoughts;
I have concerns about comments that relate the issue of women teaching to ability. The issue is not ability but it is about God’s commands. Now there may disagreements with how one interprets scripture but there is always a danger when ones final analysis of the text is driven by ones experience. I do not know how many times I have heard the argument that “I know woman who teach better than men but are not allowed to teach men.” Well again the issue is not ability other wise we might as well simply get the best teachers men or women, believer or unbeliever to preach. The bottom line is the text has to dictate the action not the ability dictate the text.
Another issue I have always had with the interpretation of the issue of women teaching and this text is how much extra biblical information needs to be added to understand it as those who use this information interpret it. The two issues I have with this are that first we do not know for sure the context that is usually portrayed as it is just a hypothesis so to base ones understanding of words on conjecture could be an issue. The bigger issue to me is that if I were to read all the extraneous thoughts on the times as the average believer in the pew I would leave very discouraged. The reason would be it would seem that scripture would be basically impossible to understand apart form a seminary degree or being taught by someone with a degree. I am not saying that the extra stuff is not important but it is dangerous to appear to rely so heavily on it.
Should the Seminaries hold to a different statement of faith or other statements that add to he BF&M? I think that should be their prerogative. Does not Southern have their teachers sign the Abstract of Principles and we do not seem to mind and that is more specific than the BF&M. It would seem we only grumble when the stance that is made steps on our toes, and I am as guilty of this grumbling as anyone. This is the issue we will always have when the SBC is so loosely held together by such documents as the BF&M. The more free one is the more there will be disagreements.
My prayer is that in all discussions, even if one adamantly disagrees, there will be the love we are called to have in these discussions among brothers and sisters.
Curious as to why "Women in the Church" (http://www.amazon.com/Women-Church-Analysis-Application-Timothy/dp/080102904X/sr=8-1/qid=1169434551/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-1820271-5552918?ie=UTF8&s=books)is not listed under the helpful books section, considering it seems to be the definitive scholarly treatment of the passage.
Tony, you make excellent points, and I agree with both of the main points, but when you admonish (prudently) about extra biblical information do you consider the fact that these passages are unclear or that they, standing on what appears to be a clear reading, seems contrary other clear principles in God's word? I think that is why, in this instance, it is worthy of careful study before simply resting on assumptions about the clarity of the words. Moreover, I don't think it should be discouraging to people seeking the Truth that sometimes the Truth is something learned over time. We go from spiritual infancy and milk to more mature and meatier issues. It would be a mistake to teach otherwise to anyone.
Volfan, Believe it or not, Robertson does not address my simple question either. An answer is offered in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, but it is heavy with assumptions and not at all convincing. I would be interested in hearing why you do not use the context to interpret 1Cortinthians 11 and 14 literally with regard to the behavior of women in church. I may not know how to exegete but I know faulty logic when I see it (I make my living with logical arguments, and I know when someone is blowing smoke, and when someone keeps referring you to books but will not answer a simple question, that's a dead giveaway). By the way, I really like the theory about you being an agent provacateur (is that how you spell that?)
The irony of you title is, that is the same way they responded to Paul's true teaching in Acts 17:20: "...you bring some strange things to our ears."
stephen,
i dont know what a provo....actur of whatever you said is. but, i guess i aint one. whatever that is.
well, i aint trying to blow smoke your way, neither. i was trying to answer you without writing a book, when books have already been written on these subjects that are very good.
in 1 cor. 11...i think you are talking about the head covering passages...are you not? well, the whole idea there....in the context of the passage...was for the women in corinth to not shave thier heads like the prostitutes and the radical feminists in corinth were doing. they did this to show that they would not yeild to the authority of a man. so, paul told the christian women to not shave thier head like them...to keep thier hair as a sign of submission to thier husbands....and to show that they submitted to the authority of the elders in the church. that they were not radical feminists, nor temple prostitutes to the false goddess in corinth. paul was telling them to not look like those women.
likewise, he told the men to not cover thier heads....to not be like women.
does this answer your question?
in 1 corinthians 14, i thinnk you are referring to the verses dealing with women speaking in church? well, the context there is tongue speaking and disrupting the services with numerous questions. the women were told to not speak in tongues in the worship service. and, paul told them to not ask questions during the service, but to wait til they got home and ask thier husbands about it.
i do hope this helps...although its a short version. i've got other work to do my dear bro., so i must be going.
volfan007
What you are doing, Volfan, is telling everyone what you have been taught. Just like you can buy into the extrabiblical information that helps us all interpret the verses in 1 Corinthians 14 about head coverings, you could also buy into the many arguments presented over the past week (and which have been argued for a loooooong time) that suggest a cultural, or specific individual, explanation for 1 Timothy 2. You choose not to, but neither Stephen nor I understand why you draw the distinction. That's Stephen's point!
There weren't a lot of SBC seminaries back then, Volfan. :)
But seriously, yes, I do. I think that Chyrsotom acknowledged that it was pretty cool that Junia was an apostle. I also see that the bible is filled with women in leadership ministry roles. I also believe, as do a great many scholars, theologians, and regular joes (and josies) like me, that the issue of gender injustice is the result of the curse and that now we are no longer under condemnation in Christ. It just sometimes takes us a while to recognize freedom. Moreover, I just have to wonder how many people thought these things or even wrote about them, but because the structures in place were opposed to such notions, the writings didn't survive. I'm not basing any arguments on that idea, but it is not uncommon in history for such destruction of ideas to occur and it might be worth some people's time to think about such things.
Moreover, if you go back just another century, before the emancipation of slaves in the Western World, Volfan, there weren't many who would talk about slavery and the great sin that it was. I know that many tire of that argument, but it is appropos. Even though it would appear that the plain language of the bible approves of slavery, the reality is that the law of love does not.
Likewise, Christ introduced some pretty fresh ideas in His time, not the least of which was actually talking to and listening to women.
Finally, you simply cannot acknowledge the picking and choosing you are doing with your reasoning and your arguments. I find it amazing. But, I suppose they were the same arguments I used to make, hear made, and accept without question.
Some Scholars believe that Jesus died betwen 30-33 AD.
70 or so years later, Pliny wrote to his king about the Christians:
“Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called ministers. (Note: some believe this says “deaconesses.”)
Pliny the Younger (c. 62 - c.113 AD) was the Roman Governor of Bithynia (present-day northwestern Turkey). Around 111 or 112 AD, he wrote the above letter to Emperor Trajan of Rome asking for advice on how to deal with Christians.
I wonder if anyone in this discussion has ever taken the time to study the extensive list of the history of women being use in the church.
Earlier I mentioned how God raised up and called Miss Jo Skaggs to train men in the African jungles in the middle part of the 1900's. If you will also read “God and one redhead” you will see where God called a non-baptist lady from Ireland to go to the Niger river country in the 1800's to take the gospel. At that time most of the natives had never seen a white. At that time the tribes still slaughtered all twins.
God has always used women to teach. It can be tracked and documentd from the first century.
The biggest problem is that men tend to slander as liberal all that they disagree with.
Interestingly, Christ broke the established rules set by the religious men when he healed on the Sabbath and thethe religious leaders condemned him. Some even said he was from Satan.
Some today act the same as those religious folks then. Some believe their every application and interpretation is inerrant.
We will give account before God.
Pride comes before a fall.
God is still on His Throne
He gets to choose who His teachers are.
Whe unto those who dare to tell God who he can call to teach.
Volfan, Thanks for the answer! The commentaries I have seen offered the same story you did as a possible explanation of the hair/head covering comments. However, it's not in the text, so really any supposition is little more than a guess. These are very clear statements about specific behavior, and one of the reasons given for the hair length is the order of creation of man and woman. I don't know how hair length and order of creation are related, but Paul thought they were. That being the case, why do you not regard the specific manifestation of this command (long hair/head covering) to be mandated. You are reading into the passage that it really means women are not to look like prostitutes and men should not look like women, but it isn't there. It is just as reasonable to read into the 1Tim 2 passage that the eternal truth is that women should not behave in a way that would discredit the church to its culture and thereby prevent the effective spread of the gospel. I would suggest that this is precisely the same type of exegesis as you describe for 1Corinthians 11. Why the difference? I am aware of the context in 1Corintians 14, but the relevant statement is provided as an explanation of his command for women to ask their husbands at home. He indicates that it is a shame or disgraceful for a woman to TALK in the church. Talk is laleo, defined as "preach, say, speak (after), talk, tell, utter." It is difficult to understand how this can possibly be viewed only in the context of tongues or disrupting the service. Paul does address those issues, but here he is telling the Corinthians, women should not be talking at all in chruch anyway because it is a disgrace. Of course, I believe that this is a culturally influenced command, but I do not understand how you can make that conclusion when you are absolutely certain that is not the case with 1Tim 2.
I find it rather revealing that the commands that would, if implemented, cause an uproar and loss of many members, we somehow manage to interpret as culturally influenced so we can essentially ignore them. Whereas the 1Timothy command, which expresses a view that is acceptable to most of our conservative southern church members and prospects, we do not interpret to be culturally influenced. Excuse me, but I smell interpretation by convenience here, not objective exegesis. In any case, I still have not heard a convincing reason to handle 1Tim 2:12 differently from these other passages. Either they all could be culturally influenced or they are all literal, eternal, and universal. Picking and choosing without convincing evidence seems just the type of thing we accuse liberals of doing. I do not regard the prostitute scenario you mentioned as convincing, because there is an eternal justification specifically for literal long hair (not just avoiding looking like a prostitute). It is the same one used to justify women not teaching or exerting authority over men. So I still don't understand why you interpret one passage one way and the other differently.
Wasn't there a volfan comment in between my two comments near the bottom of this comment stream? Somewhere around #250? The second one of my comments was in response to more of what Volfan was saying.
Stephen, again, you are spot on. Thank you for adding to this discussion mightily.
Wade, Thank you!
If you’ll forgive me for butting in...
I see no inconsistency.
Head covering and hair length are outward symbols. These symbols had a specific meaning in Corinthian society. The apostle was concerned that the use of symbols be agreeable with Christian theology. Of course we are not expected to use outward symbols today which are meaningless in our society. But, 1 Cor 11 is inspired, profitable, and in force today. An application is that the church continue to use symbols in ways that reflect Biblical truth, especially in ways that honor Christ as head of the church and the husband as head of the wife.
In 1 Tim 2, male eldership is not an outward symbol, it is the reality itself. Women are not to teach or exercise authority over men. This is because, positively, Adam led in God’s order of creation. Negatively, Eve led in the fall. Therefore, though men and women are of equal worth and are both integral in the church, overseers are to be men. A job description follows, and requires that an overseer/elder/pastor be “husband of one wife.”
Johnk said: "positively, Adam led in God’s order of creation. Negatively, Eve led in the fall"
Actually scripture says that Adam led in the fall even though Eve sinned first. Eve's sin was not the same as Adam's because she was deceived into disobedience. Adam sinned willingly with his eyes wide open. Scripture says it was Adam who brought sin into the world, not Eve.
Also scripture that says Adam's first creation was a key event that allowed Adam not to be deceived. Why wasn't Adam deceived? I have posts on my blog that discuss why Adam wasn't deceived. www.strivetoenter.com/wim The post is called Why wasn't Adam deceived? the post on December 11, 2006 and a couple posts on December 21 and 27th on Why was the sin of Adam more serious than the sin of Eve? also discuss the way God dealt differently with Adam and Eve because both had different motives for sinning. God is just and looks at the heart.
When one takes a position of saying that women cannot teach men, it is very common that one reinterprets scripture to make Adam the only ruler of the world in creation. It is simply not scriptural.
Johnk said: "positively, Adam led in God’s order of creation. Negatively, Eve led in the fall"
Actually scripture says that Adam led in the fall even though Eve sinned first. Eve's sin was not the same as Adam's because she was deceived into disobedience. Adam sinned willingly with his eyes wide open. Scripture says it was Adam who brought sin into the world, not Eve.
Also scripture that says Adam's first creation was a key event that allowed Adam not to be deceived. Why wasn't Adam deceived? I have posts on my blog that discuss why Adam wasn't deceived. www.strivetoenter.com/wim The post is called Why wasn't Adam deceived? the post on December 11, 2006 and a couple posts on December 21 and 27th on Why was the sin of Adam more serious than the sin of Eve? also discuss the way God dealt differently with Adam and Eve because both had different motives for sinning. God is just and looks at the heart.
When one takes a position of saying that women cannot teach men, it is very common that one reinterprets scripture to make Adam the only ruler of the world in creation. It is simply not scriptural.
No wonder we aren't efficient in proclaiming the gospel. The "big wigs" in the Convention are too busy policing "prayer languages" and women professors. Thanks Wade, it seems you are causing many people to look into an obvious mis-application of Paul's words to Timothy which cannot be applied outside the local church. God bless.
Colossians 3:17
Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father. International Standard Version (©2008)
I am not part of your church, I still would like to leave this comment.
Whenever a woman or man, who is in the Lord speaks or acts, they ought to do it in the name of Yeshua. That is the authority that was given to them, from the Lord of all. That is great authority, and all who are in the Lord have it.
Again, I say: All who are in the Lord have the authority to do all in the name of Yeshua.
Thank you for your time.
Contemplate it and may the Lord be with you.
~A woman.
Dear evangelical/Baptist Christian brothers and sisters:
1. No English translation of the Bible interprets Scripture in the manner that Baptists and evangelicals say that it should be translated.
2. No German, Spanish, or French translation of the Bible interprets Scripture in the manner that Baptists and evangelicals say that it should be translated.
3. The Greeks in the Greek Orthodox Church do not translate their Bible in a manner that agrees with the Baptist and evangelical interpretation. On the contrary, the Greeks share with western orthodox Christians, the belief in baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence of Christ in his Supper.
4. Their is no known evidence, anywhere on planet earth, that ANY Christian in the first 800-1,000 years of Christianity believed that baptism is simply and only a public profession of faith/act of obedience or that the Lord's Supper is simply a memorial service.
5. There is no evidence of a "Catholic" conspiracy to destroy all evidence of the "early Baptist/evangelical believers of the first century AD.
6. There is no evidence of Baptist/evangelical-like believers hiding out in caves for fifteen hundred years.
7. The belief that only "the true believers" of the Christian Faith can see the Baptist/evangelical interpretation of the Bible as the TRUE interpretation of the Bible, is a typical ploy of cults. "We have the truth, and only if you are one of us, will you see the truth". This position eliminates any threat to the cult's belief system by declaring that God gives the truth ONLY to "us". Thus, anyone who questions or challenges their beliefs is not of God, is not true a believer, is not saved.
8. When backed into a corner, Baptists and evangelicals will retreat to one of the above unfounded conspiracy theories or will find a new one such as the assertion that all English translators of the Bible have introduced their own (orthodox Christian) biases into their translation. Such a statement flies in the face of God's promise to preserve his Word! God did NOT preserve his Word just for ancient Greek educated/ancient Greek speaking evangelical/Baptist Churchmen to understand!
You are intelligent people. Open your eyes, my evangelical/Baptist Christian brothers and sisters! What you have been taught is false doctrine; doctrine that neither the Apostles nor the Christians of the first approximately 1,000 years of Christianity would even recognize as the teachings of Jesus Christ!
Corporate Office Interiors makes creative interior & architecture. Please visit for high quality affordable new and preowned office workstations.
Post a Comment