Tagged: rights

The Cost of Following Jesus – Sermon Audio on-line

This sermon covers Luke 14:25-35 and includes a drama as an introduction to the sermon.

CLICK on the following link to download  your own copy
HOVER your mouse over the following link to receive listening options

Here is the link!

“I do not allow a woman to…” (Women in Church Leadership – Part 6)

The passage I’m dealing with today is 1 Timothy 2:11-15.  Admittedly, for both sides of this debate, it is a very difficult passage.  VERY DIFFICULT.  I say that not because “my side” is in any danger of being proved wrong, but simply because both in the original language and in our English translation, the true meaning is somewhat obscure in places.  There are assumptions, on both sides of the argument, that seemingly must be made in order to understand these verses.  That’s not easy for me… because as I’ve  been harping on all along – we must let scripture say what it says!  So that’s going to be my basic approach to this passage, as far as I can go with it…

Those “for” women leading/teaching

Those who seek to allow women to be in positions of leadership within the church will address Paul’s prohibition of women “teaching or having authority over a man” in this passage by appealing to the context of Paul’s letters to Timothy (a good thing).  They point to passages such as 1 Timothy 5:11-15 and 2 Timothy 3:1-7 to show that a false teaching was going on in Timothy’s context and that the women in particular seemed to be prone to falling for it.  This, they say, is the basis for Paul’s prohibition against women being the teachers… they were typically more unlearned and were falling for this false teaching more easily.  Therefore they should not be allowed to teach or be in positions of spiritual authority.  So, in the end, for these proponents of women in primary leadership positions within the church, it comes down to believing (from these passages) that Paul’s prohibition was for this particular time and this particular place – not a universal prohibition for all time.

The problem (as I see it)

I can’t deny that this line of reasoning sounds plausible.  There was indeed false teaching going on in the church at Ephesus.  That’s a large part of why Paul wrote to Timothy in the first place.  (1 Timothy 1:3)  I could easly buy that argument, IF….  If it weren’t for one thing that Paul says in the passage…

“I do not allow…”

Paul doesn’t say, “Timothy, here’s what YOU should do in THIS situation…”  He says, “I do not allow…” a blanket statement that sounds very much like the overall way he does things.  Something that is said in such an all-encompassing manner cannot be cavalierly taken as a “temporary, cultural restriction.”   Paul gives no indication that such was the case, and in fact makes it sound very much the opposite by the language that he uses.

Another issue

Paul’s “reason” for making this prohibition is tied to the creation account.  Here’s where it gets a bit fuzzy for me, because I still don’t completely understand the truth behind this part of his argument.  (That’s not a cop-out, just an honest bit of information about where I am in this.)  Paul says he doesn’t allow women to be in positions of teaching or authority over men because “Adam was created first” and because “Adam was not deceived” but rather Eve was deceived.

If this were a temporary, cultural restriction I don’t see any way that Paul would use the creation account as part of his “justification” for it.  It seems that he’s appealing to the way God made things, the way God set things up in the first place.  Adam was created first – in my understanding – as the leader of the couple.  That was his ROLE.  He wasn’t better than Eve, or smarter, or more spiritually in tune with God.  He was just appointed to that ROLE.  He is the one who is placed in the position of “head” as I have previously discussed.  Additional support for this is that Adam is the one spoken of by Paul as the representative “head” of mankind, not Eve.  That lends more credence to the belief that Adam is viewed by God as the “head,” the one responsible to lead not only his wife, but also, initially at least, to represent mankind.

Those in favor of women being in leadership argue that this reference to the creation account was for illustrative purposes, showing what could happen in Ephesus if women (who had the lesser degree of knowledge in that day – as Eve did in her day) were allowed to teach or have authority over the men.  It’s their position that the women of Ephesus, in order to be “protected” from the false teachings, needed to submit respectfully to the leadership of the men who were more learned and able to handle the challenge of the false teachers.

Again, I could buy that argument, IF… if Paul were not so broad in the way he states his prohibition.  For Paul, it’s not an issue of “now” or “at this place.”  He phrases it as an overarching principle – and in my approach to scripture, I have to believe that is what he meant.

In application

I’m quite embarrassed at some of the wrangling and two-stepping that people on my side of this debate have taken in order to allow women certain ministry responsibilities (that are expedient at the time) and disallow them others that are very comparable.  Some have even gone so far as to give women the responsibilities that a man in the same position might have, but withhold the title of “Pastor” to solve the dilema.  I think that’s very inconsistent at best… and at worst, intellectually dishonest.

How do I apply this?  It seems to me that the simple understanding of Paul’s words are very helpful here.  He says these things to Timothy, a young leader of a local church.  So we can rightfully assume he’s speaking about how things should be done within the local church when he gives Timothy this prohibition.  How we apply this to Campus Crusade, Christian conferences, etc. is not addressed (because they didn’t have such in that day).  So, I believe we can only go as far as the text CLEARLY allows.  Here’s what I see…

  1. Women are not to teach or have authority over MEN.  Boys are O.K.  Children are O.K.  Other women are O.K.  So Sunday school on many levels is fine, as are women’s ministry and other forms of service within the church.
  2. Women are not to TEACH men – that would include any context where the woman is the primary teacher (Sunday morning worship, mixed gender adult classes or groups, etc.)
  3. Women are not to have AUTHORITY over men.  That would be in a Pastoral role or an Elder role.  I do NOT believe this applies to the role of Deacon.  First, it is not a position of teaching OR authority, and secondly, I believe the original language shows that Paul allowed women to serve as Deacons. (I can cover that at a later date).

I could be missing some positions in the modern-day church that fall under these simple criteria that Paul lays down.  If so, I’ll update this post as they come to mind.  But beyond these, any further restrictions don’t seem to be justified by the text.

I don’t believe Paul wanted women on a leash or to be supressed.  Nor did Jesus.  Women are valuable within the kingdom of God and should be treated as such.  The issue is one of ROLES, not value or competence.  It appears to me that the scriptures allow certain ROLES for men and certain ROLES for women.  My assumption is that God says that things work BEST when we follow these ROLES.  So, I’m just simple enough to believe that and adhere to it…

In the end, that’s my position – simply because it’s what I understand the scriptures to instruct for the church.  I don’t understand it completely, but I believe that God does – and I can trust Him!

Do women have the “right” to lead in the church? – (Women in church leadership – Part 4)

There are a couple of typical arguments made in order to support a woman’s “right” to share in the spiritual leadership of the church.  Let’s look at a couple…

“Fellow heirs” and “all one in Christ”

One of the arguments made by those who support women in the leadership of the church is based on an appeal to the scriptural principle of equality and equal inheritance for all, in Christ.  Passages such as these are often quoted…

Galatians 3: 26-28 – You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

1 Peter 3:7 - Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.

This is once again, an example of an argument that sounds good on the surface, but upon closer examination does not hold up to the test of “context.”

 NEVER, NEVER, NEVER forget that the greater context of a passage is KEY to understanding what it is saying.  In both of the passages mentioned above (You can check out the contexts here and here) context informs us as to what is meant and what is NOT meant.  Let’s look at each one to see why context shows that they are NOT talking about women and men having equal roles within the church…

Galatians 3 

The first, Galatians chapter 3 is addressing the issue of Law VS Grace.  Paul has clearly made the case in this chapter that we come INTO the family of God through faith in Christ.  It’s important that we understand THAT fact and carry it into our reading of the verses to come.  When he gets to the verse in question, he’s showing that it doesn’t matter who you are (Jew, Greek, slave, free, male, female), your FAITH enables you to be a PART OF CHIRST, and to be unifed with others of all different races, genders, etc. in that new identity!  He’s said NOTHING and will say NOTHING about roles within the church in this passage!

This passage no more supports women having an “equal right” to leadership roles within the church than an athlete has an “equal right” to be quarterback just because he’s on the the football team!  That would be an issue of ROLES, while this passage is speaking on the issue of INCLUSION on the team in the first place!  This passage is saying that ANYONE has the ability to be on the team (in God’s family) through faith in Christ.  There is no difference, no other requirement (not nationality, gender, nothing…)!

1 Peter 3

Amazingly, the context of this passage is primarily about one of the “dirty-words” to those who believe women should be able to be in positions of primary authority within the church.  What’s the word?  Shhhh ….  “Submission.”  Peter has been speaking at length in this chapter about the responsibility of a woman to be submissive to her husband’s role of leadership in the family.  When we get to verse 7 (the one in question), Paul tells the husband to live with his wife in an understanding way and to show her honor BECAUSE she is a “fellow heir” of the grace of life.  Those who desire to secure the right of primary church leadership for women typically point to this passage and exclaim, “See! see!!  Women are ‘fellow heirs’ with men!  They’re equal!  Peter was telling men to view women that way!”

Again, please consider the greater context!  There are two things I want you to notice that the context makes very clear…

  1. Peter has already established that women are to be submissive to their husband’s leadership in this very passage!  Think it through… how can they be submissive to the leadership of their husbands if they are then allowed to be leaders of their husbands in the church?  It’s contradictory!
  2. This passage, like the one in  Galatians 3, says NOTHING about roles within the church (for men or for women).  The phrase “fellow heirs” again speaks of our POSITION in Christ, our equal standing as members of His family.  It’s on that basis that Peter urges men to consider their wives and treat them well.  To stretch this text into saying that equal standing as members of Jesus’ family naturally equates into equal opportunity and “right” to all roles within the church is ridiculous!  The passage simply does not say that!

Scriptural examples of women teaching and speaking authoritatively

I have no desire to deny that there are instances in scripture where certain women (Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Anna, Priscilla, Andronicus, Junia, etc.) functioned in certain roles of spiritual authority.  That’s clearly true.  But my response is very simple… just because it happened “once upon a time” doesn’t mean we should feel justified in ignorning the VERY CLEAR GUIDELINES set out in the New Testament on this issue.  There are always exceptions – even in God’s way of doing things.  For example…

Morally, we’d all agree that scripture would generally not condone a man spending time with a prostitute or woman of bad morals.  Yet, God had Hosea, a prophet of God, MARRY a woman just like that!  God had a purpose in doing so and we have to allow room for that.  So, in our situation I’d allow for God to do something out of the ordinary regarding women in spiritual leadership in the church… HE has that right.  But WE do NOT have the right to routinely overstep the clear guidelines that He’s given us on this issue.  He would have to make an exceptional circumstance very apparant and clear so that we could be sure it was indeed what HE wanted.  But otherwise we should adhere to the standards He’s already set forth.

Again, my motivation is not at all to subjugate or mistreat women, Peter makes it clear in the passage we’ve considered that masculine attitudes of that kind are unacceptable.  My desire is to understand, without making excuses or justifications, what the scriptures say on this important issue!  We’ve got to learn to stand on what God says, without injecting our own human “reasoning” into the equation…

Women should be silent in the church? (Women in Church Leadership – part 3)

Silent?  Does the Bible really say that?  Yep, it does – 1 Corinthians 14 gives the entire context.  As chapter 14 begins Paul is in the process of wrapping up a wonderful treatment of spiritual gifts and the overarching importance of love in guiding them (chapters 12-14).  If you’ve ever had questions about the reality and appropriateness of the gift of “tongues” you should give it a read…

He begins in verse 26 to clarify how his previous instruction regarding the gifts looks when it comes to the public worship of the church.  I encourage you to read the entire 3 chapters before reading on, so you understand the context.  It’s in verses 33-35 that the controversial statement comes.   Here’s what it actually says,

33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints, 34 women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

Sounds pretty absolute, doesn’t it?  Pretty clear-cut…  until you consider another statement Paul made previously in this very same letter to the Corinthians - chapter 11, verses 4-5…

4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head…

I’ve already dealt with the actual issue of “head coverings” in a previous post - so I won’t go into that again.  However, here’s the point we need to notice.  Paul is giving instructions to men and women here about the practice of two things in the context of worship – prayer and prophecy.  Prayer can be practiced in a silent way, so that could still fit with the “remain silent” command we are considering from chapter 14.  But prophecy is a different thing altogether.  Prophecy is public, out-loud… in other words, it’s not something that can be done silently.  And Paul specifically says, “every woman who prays or prophecies…” indicating that a woman IS allowed to speak a prophecy aloud in the worship gathering.  Hmmmmmm…

So… what are our options?  Either Paul is blatantly contradictory (which would cause us to wonder about the ‘inspiration’ of this text,” or he is meaning something other than absolute silence in chapter 14.  Given the tension that the first option would produce, I believe the second is the more simple and reasonable assumption for us to make.  But if so, we still have to be able to understandably (and without stretching the text) explain what he does mean…

Here’s my take on it.  It seems like the greater point Paul is making in the portion of chapter 14 we are considering, is that of order in their worship gatherings.  Notice by the entire context, how closely he ties this issue of whether women should speak out in worship with the issue of worship being orderly.  As part of that discussion Paul says that a woman should ask her husband in private if she has a question.  This implies (more than implies) that questions during the service may have been the specific issue he was addressing.  This could explain why it was tied to the “orderliness” of the service.  I think that assumption makes sense, given the culture they lived in.  Let me explain…

It was common in their culture (both Roman and Hebrew) for boys/young men to be schooled, both religiously and academically, while it was almost always the case that girls/young women were not.  Given this understanding, we can imagine that there may have been quite a bit of “disturbance” going on during the worship gatherings because of women who may have understandably had more questions of various sorts than the men did.  As well, up until the time of Christ, women and men worshipped entirely apart.  Jesus’ approach to ministry was much more considerate and open toward women overall, including “joint” worship between men and women.  These woman no doubt felt a great sense of relief that they were finally allowed into the worship meetings along with the men.  Perhaps they were taking advantage of that fact, to the detriment of the entire church.  It could have been that more time was being spent in answering random questions than in worship and prayer.  (If you’ve ever led or been a part of a discussion group, you know how counter-productive those “rabbit trail” conversations can be.)

I believe that this is an ample, believable explanation for Paul’s comments about women remaining silent which fits both their cultural circumstances and the context of the letter.

Having said that, I want to clarify how I apply this in our day.  Since Jesus ushered in an inclusion of women in the context of worship (which was the right thing to do), the church has continued in that pattern.   Over the centuries, being a part of worship and being included in education overall, women have become just as learned and astute as the men in their church communities.  So, the guidelines have changed as those cultural circumstances have changed.  What I’m saying is this… women are no longer uneducated and novice in the church, and therefore there is no longer a “reason” for women to ask their husbands about religious/theological issues at home, since their liklihood to be disruptive in the church is no more than that of the men.

As always… comments are welcome…

The head of the woman is man? (Women in Church Leadership – Part 2)

As we begin this journey – one principle HAS to be at the forefront of the conversation… LET SCRIPTURE SAY WHAT IT SAYS!  A plain reading of the text is most likely the right reading of the text.  We can’t allow ourselves to read into the text or interpret it to mean something that it is clearly not saying.  The goal is to understand what it SAYS, not make it say something it doesn’t. 

One of the first passages I think we need to deal with, as it can give good foundation for all the others, is 1 Corinthians 11:3-16.  It says…

 3 Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. 6 If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.  11 In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.

Wow!  What’s all that saying?  Let’s walk through it very s-l-o-w-l-y…

What does “head” mean?  

  • Those who contend that this does NOT mean any kind of authority often appeal to one legitimate meaning of the word “head” that means “source.” (see “Good News for Women” by Rebecca Merrill Groothuis).  In so doing they say that “perhaps Paul was referring to the man as the life source for the woman because the first man was the life source out of which God created the first woman and this serves somehow as an analogy for the husband-wife relationship.”  This sounds good, except when you apply that meaning to the other uses of the word “head” in this passage.  If we do so the passage would have to ALSO mean, “Christ is the life source out of which man was created…” and “God is the life source out of which Christ was created…”  The first is possible, as Christ was active in the creation of the world and man.  But the second is not possible, because Christ was not created at all (John 1:1).  It couldn’t even mean that God is the source out of which Christ comes, because Christ and the Father are one… and always have been – neither is the source of the other because they are completely equal.  To say that it means “source” in reference to the man being the source of the woman, and deny that it should mean that in regard to the Father’s relationship to the Son is being inconsistent.
  • In my humble opinion, the only meaning of the word “head” that makes any sense when kept consistent throughout the passage is that of “authority.”  God is the “authority” over Christ, Christ is the “authority” over man, and man is the “authority” over woman.  It is that way because it is the way God has organized it to be.  I see no other meaning that makes sense.  I must also say that I see nothing here that indicates that the woman can ONLY come to God/Christ through her husband.  That doesn’t seem to even be implied.

What’s with the head-coverings?

  • For a man to wear something on his physcial head while doing some religious act of worship (praying or prophesying) is said to “dishonor” his “head” (Christ).  How can we explain why this is?  I’m not sure – it’s something that isn’t a well-known fact in our day and culture, though Paul states it like everyone should understand.  It may be similar to when I was a kid and my mom would insist that I take off my cap when I went indoors.  She said it was respectful or polite toward others.  I never really got it, but I did it anyway.  It was a cultural thing.  So should we conclude that THIS is cultural too – and therefore only applies to the time/culture in which it was written?  Let’s hold off on that until we get through the entire passage…
  • For a woman to NOT wear something on her head when praying or prophesying would be to dishonor HER “head” (her husband/man).  It may be a custom that is similar to the wearing of a  Burqa in the Islamic faith.  It seems that in 1st century times, among both Jewish and Gentile cultures, the women were known to have worn head coverings any time they were in public as a sign of modesty and discretion.  For a woman to refuse to wear the head covering, especially in a worship setting, would be a flagrantly immodest thing to do – and would bring shame on her husband.  Paul says that if she is going to do that she might as well shave her head or cut her hair (both signs of a disreputable woman – either a slave or a prostitute).  He’s going to extremes to point out that no woman would willingly disgrace herself or her husband by doing those latter things, so they should not do a similar thing by insisting upon wearing no head covering.  Again, this sounds very cultural, but we’ll reserve judgement on that until we finish the passage…
  • Paul states that the man is the glory and image of God and the woman is the glory of man.  I have to be honest and say that this is a tough one to understand.  It’s clear from Genesis that both man and woman were made in the image of God, so I’m not clear what point Paul is making here.  He could be referring to the “order” and “manner” in which man and woman were created.  The verse continues in a way that seems to bear that out.  It appears that Paul is saying that the man was created first, and thereby put in the place of leadership, and the woman was created second, from the side of the man, and was thereby put in the role of submission to his leadership.   It’s for “this reason” that she is to have a sign of “authority on her head.”  That’s key.  Her head-covering is to demonstrate that she is submitted to the leadership of her husband as God created it to be.  This is also a primary indication that the reference to “head” as it speaks of God, Christ, and the man is a reference to their authority or leadership.
  • “Because of the angels”????????   I’m not really convinced what this means.  The best guess I’ve read is that Paul is saying that angels observe our worship, and would be shocked at such a dishonorable action as a woman having her head uncovered when she is praying or prophesying, since they cover their faces when in the presence of God.  But again, I’m not convinced…

No independence should exist

  • Both man and woman are placed into roles by God in such a way as to work together.  One is not to be domineering over the other.  Neither is to be inordinately controlling or abusive.  And by the same token, neither is to resist or disparage the other’s role.  Woman came from man (created from his rib) and man came from woman (born of woman).  In that same way God has designed the genders to work together, each bringing things to the table that the other does not have.

Judge for yourselves…  does not nature tell you…

  • Paul appeals to the reason and common-sense of the readers.  He asks them to make their own judgement about what is right in this issue.  If he were to tell us to make our own judgement about this issue, in our modern world, most of us would honestly and without any agenda say, “It doesn’t seem necessary to me that a woman cover her head during worship.”  Why would we say that?  Because in our culture there is NOT anything intrinsically dishonorable about a woman having her head uncovered.  We strain to even understand the concept!  This phrase alone causes me to lean heavily on the side of this practice (headcoverings) being a cultural thing.

IN CONCLUSION:

  1. The issue of headcoverings seems like a non-issue in our day and age.  This passage seems easily understood as a cultural issue Paul was dealing with.
  2. The principle of “head”-ship is tied to the order of creation – not a cultural belief.  As such, men are placed into a role of leadership within the family/church.  The comparison to Christ being the head of the man and God being the head of Christ bears this out.  There is no other meaning that allows that comparison to make logical sense.
  3. Though men and women have been given differing roles by God, neither is to see it as an adversarial or “greater-than/ less-than” issue.  It is not an issue of value or importance, but rather an issue of roles.  They are to work together in a harmonious way to fulfill God’s purpose for both.
  4. But also notice, though I didn’t point this out, Paul assumes that it is allowable for women to take part in worship gatherings.  The examples he singles out are prayer and prophesy.  While prayer can often be a very private thing, done silently, prophesy is seldom so.  It is a public action, spoken aloud to the group that is gathered.  What does this say for the role of women in the church given the fact that in this very same letter Paul singles out prophets as one of the more influential and important roles within the church?

More to come…

Women in Church Leadership – Part 1 (My story)

There is so much written on this topic already, why would I write something more?  Simply because I have taken the time to study this issue because it’s important to me to understand what the Bible says about things such as this so I can feel that I’m informed and diligent in making application to the church I lead.  And, a few weeks ago I promised that I’d address it….

I thought I’d start out by telling you my story as it relates to this issue.  I was raised in an independent-fundamental-King  James only-baptist church, so you KNOW what position they took on the issue.  As I was growing up this issue was one of the furthest from my mind, naturally.  But as an older teen I did begin to slowly move away from a lot of the legalism and strictness that the church-of-my-childhood insisted everyone be conformed to.  I began to doubt whether women should really have to wear dresses all the time, or whether it really was a “shame” for a man to have long hair, or whether playing cards, dancing, having an occassional drink, or going to movie theaters were really unforgiveable sins.  It may sound unbelievable to some, but all of those issues were like barometers of spiritual maturity in my church.  If you did them, you were not very spiritual – if you didn’t, you were a giant.

Moving into my college years I began to learn a ton about the grace of God, about the freedom we have in Christ (as Paul describes it), and about the inner life being much more important than the outer life (though the inner life SHOULD and almost always DOES impact the outer life).  It was during this time that I first became aware of the tension that existed between various people about this issue of women’s roles in the church.  Some advocated complete equality in every role, others insisted at the very least that women could not hold positions of leadership, while some would go even further and say that women could not even speak in church.  Every position stated appealed to scripture as the basis for their conclusions, believe it or not.  I was very confused.

But, I was not confused enough (yet) to engage in a thorough study of the issue myself.  I was in college, and had a lot of “more important” things on my mind.  When I finally graduated and began getting into church ministry (youth ministry first, associate pastorate next, finally a lead pastor position), it was some time before I felt that the issue was divisive enough in my setting to warrant me doing the afforementioned thorough study.  Looking back, I think I might have been avoiding the issue.  It was toward the end of that time that I began realizing that Christian leaders I respected differed on this issue.  I didn’t know what to believe, and I honestly didn’t know what the scriptures really said about it.

So, that’s when I decided that I really needed to have a conviction of my own on this issue.  It was no longer enough to ride on the coat-tails of my own traditions or the beliefs of others.  I had to have my own belief, from the scriptures, that I could stand confidently upon.  So I began my study.  From the outset I honestly didn’t have an agenda toward either side.  I had served with and known some very competent and able women (my wife included) who I thought could possibly make fine teachers or church leaders.  I honestly wanted to allow women (and men) every freedom and liberty possible, but I also wanted to be careful that I took a position that was actually scriptural.

I studied all the relevant passages, read numerous books on the subject by authors on both sides of the issue, and prayed – a LOT.  My wife and I had many discussions as I shared my discoveries with her (she was doing her own, smaller study of the issue at the same time).  I even consulted with my wife’s uncle who can legitmately be said to be a Hebrew and Greek scholar, having taught both languages on a seminary level for many years.  I finally came to a conclusion that I feel very confident about.  Having said that, I could be wrong.  Humility always demands that I remain open to that possibility, but I do not believe, at this point, that I am.

So, in the days to come I will be pointing out the significant and most telling points of my study so you can see what I believe about this issue, and why.  Here are my ground rules for this series of posts, the same as were the ground rules for my study…

  1. I will honestly look at every relevant passage in the scriptures.
  2. I will endeavor to take the scriptures at face-value, understanding them through their cultural context, scriptural context, and how they apply to our modern context.
  3. I will address the Greek or Hebrew meanings of words only if they have the potential of signficantly altering the meaning of a passage one way or another.
  4. I will give you both sides to the issue whenever possible.

Having said all this, I really want you to know my motives in writing this series.  I love women (appropriately, of course).  Women are valuable, important members of the Body of Jesus Christ (the church).  I have no desire to demean, subjugate, or oppress women.  That has been done by men far too much in the past and is a cycle that is slowly seeing the end of it’s days.  But I also have to say that even greater than all those things is my desire to honor God and what HE has said the church’s leadership structure should look like.  I believe that when we understand and apply His instructions, the way they were intended, then we value and honor HIM in all His holiness.

OK, away we go…