I view the
Specifically, in the area of the schools of theology, pastors are being trained to be pastors. Teachers are being trained to be teachers. Even in secular schools, it would not make any sense for a person unqualified to teach elementary school to be training elementary school teachers. As such, I contend that it makes no sense for a person unqualified to be a pastor to teach pastors. Is a person unqualified to be a heart doctor the person you want to be teaching how to operate on the human heart? Is a person unqualified to be an auto mechanic the person you want to be teaching future mechanics how to work? I would certainly hope not.
So we are talking about what it means to be qualified in regards to training/teaching future pastors. While gender may not be a necessary qualifier in the secular realm, it IS listed as a qualification in the religious realm. Paul's first letter to Timothy addresses this issue and make no mistake about it, Paul is addressing how we ought to behave in the house of God(I Tim. 3:15) When we look back at chapters 2-3, we see how Paul instructed that the church should be. OUR problem is that we would rather let our present culture interpret the Scripture rather than let Scripture shape our culture. If you buy into the "culture shapes Scripture" thought, then nothing that you teach as truth today can be held as truth for tomorrow. You have no foundation on which to make such a stand. But if you hold to the concept that Scripture does not change no matter how much culture changes, then you do have a foundation from which to argue. Secular cultural shifts and recedes with the tides of human capriciousness but Scripture neither shifts nor recedes on human whims but stands on God's faithfulness to all that He has spoken. Thus, Paul's words on who can teach a man, chapter 2:12, is not subject to cultural whims but is steadfast. Paul qualifies who can teach just like he qualifies who can fill the office of bishop or deacon. Your ability to accept this depends though on your philosophy of church and present culture. Make no mistake in understanding what I am saying, a woman is not qualified to teach a man regarding theology, pastoring, deaconing and the likes. This goes for Hebrew interpretation which involves exegesis as well. WHY? Because the woman herself is not qualified to be a pastor thus she is not qualified to teach pastors. Now, she may teach women all day long. That does have its foundation in Scripture. Women are to teach the women. But I think the Word of God addresses that as well. Paul clearly speaks in his letter to Titus, the second chapter and verses 3-5. Of course, many women raised by contemporary culture feel like this degrades them but it has nothing to do with the ability of a women to perform any work that a man can do, it has rather to do with the standards of the Word of God and the organization that God gave to His people. Cultures change, the Word of God changes not. The grass withers and the flower falls away, but the word of the Lord endures forever.
The place of seminary education? In regards to training men for the pastorate, the teachers need to be pastor qualified themselves.
And this is how I see it.
46 comments:
Luke, I think you have a good post. It's certainly food to chew on. Complementarianism is my personal belief, so I am sure there is no surprise with my agreement (BTW, thanks for visiting my blog way out in the middle of nowhere in blogworld).
G'day Luke, welcome to the world of SBC blogging. Hang tough, take lessons from Peter..
Here are some thoughts..
There was movement in the wagons for the word had passed around,
That Luke of Louisianna had hit the way.
And had joined the wild Bap Bloggers - he was worth a thousand pound,
So all the Enid followers had gathered to the fray.
All the tried and noted bloggers from the churches near and far
Had mustered at Luke’s homestead overnight,
For the bloggers love hard writing where the wild bush baptists are,
And the bloggers sniffs the battle with delight.
There was Burleson, who made his pyre when Pardon won the Pup;
The young man with his letters as bold as brass;
But few could write beside him when his blood was fairly up-
He would call a better man words worse than ass.
And Grosey of the Outback came down to lend a hand,
No slacker at detection was this man;
For never blog could stop him while the rhythmic words would stand -
He learnt to write while staring down the bans.
And one was there, named Peter, a small and weedy beast,
He was something like a jockey undersized,
With a touch of hard irony - three parts antacid at least -
And such a man by conservatives much prized.
He was hard and tough and wiry - just the sort that won't say die -
There was courage in his quick impatient tread;
And he bore the badge of gameness in his bright and fiery eye,
And the mullet pride of Georgia on his head.
But not slight or weedy, one Volfan who would stay,
And the young men said, "That dave will never do
For a long and tiring tirade - dave, you'd better stop away,
Those Enids are far too rough for such as you."
So we waited sad and wistful – to gather up what friends -
To gather to the fray out at young Luke’s
"I warrant dave is with us when he's wanted at the end,
For he’s got the stick of the mountain bred."
So we went ; we found the Enids hassling over on Luke’s stump -
We raced away towards that “sacred crowd”,
And old Pete gave his orders, "Boys, go at them from the jump,
No use to try for fancy writing now.
And, Grosey, you must wheel them, try and wheel them to the right.
Write boldly, lad, and never fear the dills,
For never yet was writer that could keep that mob in sight,
If once they gain the shelter of those mainstream hills."
So Grosey rode to wheel them - he was writing on the wing
Where the best and boldest writers take their place,
And he raced his comments past them, and he made the blog files ring
With sarcasm, as he met them face to face.
Then they halted for a moment, while he swung that dreaded dash,
But they saw their well-loved Ben Cole full in view,
And they charged beneath his sarcasm with a sharp and sudden bash,
And off at Page Patterson again they flew.
Then fast the CR Bloggers followed, where the comments deep and black
Resounded to the thunder of their dread,
And the comments woke the echoes, and they fiercely answered back
At Outpost the damned place of the dead.
And upward, ever upward, the wild bloggers held their sway,
When truth and liberty ever now grew wide;
And the old men muttered fiercely, "We may bid the truth good day,
No man can hold them from the liberal slide."
When they reached old Enid’s summit, womens’ ministry in view,
It well might make the boldest hold their breath,
The compromise to culture, and the comment stream was full
Of compromise, and any slip was death.
But the man from old Georgia let the Word of God be read,
And he searched the scriptures to conquer all his fear,
And he chased Wade down his comments like a torrent down its bed,
While the others stood and watched and gave a cheer.
He sent the arguments a flying, but thin Peter kept his feet,
He cleared the false teachings in a stride,
And the man from Old Georgia never shifted in his seat.
It was grand to see that blogging pastor write.
Through the foolishness and crazies, on the rough and broken ground,
Down the comment stream at a racing pace he went;
And he never cooled the keyboard till he landed safe and sound,
At the bottom of that terrible descent.
And down by Louisiana, where the pine-clad ridges raise
Their torn and rugged battlements on high,
Where the air is clear as crystal, and the white stars fairly blaze
At midnight in the cold and frosty sky,
And where around the Baptists their keyboards click and clack
To stop the turkeys, whose parameters are wide,
The man from Louisiana is a household word out back,
And the Preachers tell the story of his hide.
With apologies to Banjo Patterson.
Steve
Byron,
I appreciate you taking the time to stop and drop a line. I look forward to discussing these issues with you in the future. Maybe one of these days soon, we can get together for lunch, my treat. And by the way, I visit your blog often. Glad to see you gettin back into the swing on your blog.
Grosey,
I sure wish I could have heard you sing that. I hadn't the foggiest clue who Banjo Patterson was until I searched the Wiki. You had me going there though. I thought you had an extra gift you had been hiding. Thanks for stopping in. You are ever welcome here and should you ever come stateside, you definitely need to stop in for a visit. From what you've written, it looks like I'll need a body guard. Hope your day is blessed.
hahaha thanks Luke.. you are a fast reader..
Every blessing bro.
Steve
Luke
Here is the money quote:"OUR problem is that we would rather let our present culture interpret the Scripture rather than let Scripture shape our culture."
AMEN, Bingo.
Chris
Chris,
Welcome to ATSBC. I think that the issue of addressing culture biblically will always cause stress. We must be creative and constantly seeking how to address our ever changing culture but we must not attempt to change that which cannot fail or fade away, the Word of God. Those who say that Christianity is for weak minds have no clue the strength we gain from Jesus to accomplish the Great Commission.
It is absolute nonsense to say that you cannot have a Hebrew teacher who is a female if there are pastors or potential pastors in her class. Nonsense. Absurd.
The tortuous path to get to the position that women cannot teach Hebrew in a seminary comes not from the BFM but, I suppose, from emmanations and the penumbra of it. Ludicrous.
I trust that in time, sensible heads will prevail in the SBC. This current path is sheer idiocy.
William,
If it is your contention that I arrived at my position because of what the BFM states, then let me borrow a few of your own words, nonsense, absurd, ludicrous, idiocy.
luke,
amen, bro.! you hit the ole nail squarely on top of the head.
welcome to the land of blogging. it will be a journey that you will regret often, but it will be a blessing...and, with people like you, it will bless others.
david
Vol,
Thank you for the kind words. I, like you, do not believe the Lord is through with the SBC. May our agreements be many and our disagreements be few.
Luke,
See. Already come the juicy words--idiocy, absurd, etc. Of course, no justifying argument; just juicy words.
Grace. With that, I am...
Peter
Engineers are taught mathematics, not by engineers but by mathematicians. They are taught computer skills by IT professors. They are taught literature by English professors. What makes them an engineer is not who they were taught by but the aggregate of the skills and knowledge taught by knowledgeable people of many disciplines.
Physicians are taught not only by physicians but by those unqualified to be physicians, such as biologists and chemists and mathematicians.
A pastor is an aggregate of several different disciplines, skills, and knowledge bases. A pastor must be taught by some pastors surely. But to limit his education to only males is a mistake.
Were the people teaching in our seminaries taught by women? If so, does that disqualify them? My question is, if you are taught by someone who is not qualified to teach you, then you also are not qualified.
I want to point out one additional thing. The BFM does not limit the role of deacon to men.
Peter,
I endeavor to speak to an issue without exhorting to the use of such words. Surely I fail and I am quite sure that if one were to go back throughout my entire collection of sermon tapes, instances of where I have been guilty of the same would be found. Never-the-less, one aspect of this new venture will surely help me to hone such skills. I'll even agree that at times we might believe the right thing and are not able to defend it completely but it still is no excuse for the lack of clear communication. Sorta reminds me of my elementary school days.
Bill,
There is a world of difference between the secular and religious of which I am sure that you agree. And yet, to try and dissect the study of the Bible into such distinct portions as you have done with biology and math is to miss the point entirely. The study of the Word of God is not meant to be a simple gaining of knowledge but it is to always be an experience of worship and learning. Too often, I will agree, we study not to worship or learn but to simply win an argument to which I add may God have mercy upon us. Whether it be hermeneutics, languages or exposition, the teaching of Scripture is still teaching and to my best understanding of Paul's instructions to the church, men are to teach men.
Having said that, I do not have a problem with women expositors teaching women, or women with degrees in the languages teaching women, but teaching men is restricted to men.
As to your first question about did women teach the men, sir, you would have to ask them.
Next, you asked would if it would disqualify them. The best answer I can give you to that is that what transpired should be ruled out of order and an error to be corrected. What was taught may not be in error, but who taught it would certainly be. And the ends would not justify the means.
Luke: In the end we won't agree on this, but I appreciate your dealing with this issue without the ridicule and polemics that have characterized blogs on both sides of this debate.
Bill,
I also appreciate your conversation without the baggage as well. One thought I'd like to add just for clarity. I do not believe just because a woman teaches a man that she is teaching error, but the fact that she is teaching a man is the error. I do hope that is clear. I'll return to my garden now.
I attended Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (SEBTS). This may have been mentioned already, but I'm certain that it is one of the SIX SBC seminaries.
What do you think?
eric,
Thanks a million. I have already made the changes. I apologize for the oversight. I hope you approve of how I corrected the mistake.
Luke,
Thanks for the change! It looks good.
Eric
Bill, there is one thing we probably agree on, and that is that women can be deacons as well as men. The office of deacon is a position of service, not authority, to the best of my understanding of the NT. However, in the SBC (as far as I know), the positions of elder and deacon are basically combined in the same office. But in an eldership church where these positions are kept distinct, I see no problem with women deacons, because it depends on the spiritual gifts given by the Holy Spirit under His authority.
Which brings me to my main point. Unlike secular academic instruction, preaching and teaching require spiritual authority and must take place in a Scriptural manner. Many have argued well for the position of women as pastors and teachers in the church, as well as the seminary (which is indeed probably an extension of the church because the church is not a building or even a place but a people taking the form of local congregations). I personally disagree with egalitarianism, because I believe this position violates Scripture. I do not doubt the sincerity or the motives of many in this position, however.
Byroniac: Whenever I question why SBC churches have pastors rather than elders, I am told that our deacons basically serve as elders. And that is true. But what gives us the right to alter the positions like that? What biblical mandate is there to treat deacons like elders?
I believe the prohibition against women as elders in a local church is probably the best way. I don't believe the prohibition should extend one inch beyond that. When does a boy go from being under his mother's authority to being an authority over her? What gave Priscilla the right to teach Apollos? Too many questions without answers.
Bill, you're right. That is a question for the SBC to justify. However, in their defense, this is not altering the positions. The positions themselves are dictated by Scripture and gifted according to the will of the Holy Spirit. God distributes gifts as He pleases, and in perfect order and harmony with His will. We come along behind Him and label this however we want (even mislabel it but with good intentions) without changing the underlying spiritual reality. However, we should always abide by and attempt to follow Scriptures to the best of our ability.
Who said that a mother's son gets to be in authority over her? Unless he is specifically called of God to teach and preach, he need not exercise any authority over her that I can see. The point is, he is not under her spiritual authority once he reaches a certain point in development, which we approximate with a chronological age.
In Acts 18:26, notice that Aquila is listed along with her, and to my memory, Aquila's name is always listed with hers in Scripture. The Holy Spirit gave her the right to teach for sure. However, this took place in the proper way and under the proper authority, with respect to the husband's leadership and oversight.
Yes, there are many unanswered questions. Almost all of them fall neatly into the "what if" category. The most important aspect is the principle which is evident in Scripture.
Byroniac: I don't quite follow. How is treating deacons like elders not altering the positions?
Sorry Bill, I am probably not making the proper distinctions. I believe the SBC ecclesiology on this point lacks Scriptural validity (altering the positions from the Scriptural example), but the positions themselves are not altered in the real spiritual sense. That is, a man may wear the label of "deacon" in an SBC church while actually bearing the gifts of elder (or bearing no gifts at all, for the sake of argument). His real spiritual calling is not altered by the label.
Some Baptist churches have 2 boards: deacons and elders.
Some that met this way have conflict where the deacons want to be elders and the elders want to be deacons as they meddle in each other's business in the decisions they make concerning the local church.
A single unified board is good. Calling them generally "deacons", but recognising the godly example of some as being "elders" in their deacon role, seems to be a good functional preservative for peace and unity in decision making on behalf of the church body.
As churches grow larger, then the elder role becomes more recognisable .. I guess we call them associate pastors etc in Baptist churches.
One of the greatest dangers I have ever experienced is laying hands on someone too early (1Tim 5:22 Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure.) as this results in big headedness that destroys the fabric of unity and affects the life of the promoted poorly.
I think Elders naturally emerge in the crises of church life.
After years of crises, and valid long term teaching ministries their gifts and graces are naturally recognised amongst the flock, and they exercise an elder ministry whether recognised by title or not.
Just a few thoughts ..
Steve
Steve: Those are good words. I had not thought of it that way. And I have had my own personal experience with the truth of 1 Tim 5:22, so that is a very relevant truth to me. Hope your weekend and Lord's Day is blessed (aren't you hours ahead of us?). I wish your church was closer; I would come visit (and if the Lord is willing, I might do that someday).
Luke,
I saw Peter's link, but just now have had time to come take a peak. Well done! Welcome to the dance. :)
Looking forward to many fine posts.
Blessings,
Ron P.
Steve: I agree that what you are describing is common and practical, but I don't think it is biblical. Deacons are not elders. They shouldn't have any expectations that they will do the job of an elder. Paul did not confuse or conflate the two roles. Deacons are not meant to be spiritual leaders within the church.
This would probably vary from church to church, but I don't think Pastors and Associate Pastors are really the same as an elder board. Associate Pastors are usually paid positions and thus more for larger churches. But eldership can and should be the norm for all churches.
Bill, there are so many various types of eldership that are not servant leader models that are destructive to the life and ministry of the church. Paul's qualificaqtions for eldership in 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1 will most certainly be THE issue in appointing many elders in any churches.
Titus makes it pretty clear that the elders appointed must have the spiritual and character qualifications indicated in Titus 1.
This means that the congregation must recognise these people as elders before anyone appoints them as elders.
Titus 1:5 says The reason I left you in Crete was to set right what was left undone and, as I directed you, to appoint elders in every town: 6 someone who is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of wildness or rebellion. 7 For an overseer, as God’s manager, must be blameless, not arrogant, not quick tempered, not addicted to wine, not a bully, not greedy for money, 8 but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, righteous, holy, self-controlled, 9 holding to the faithful message as taught, so that he will be able both to encourage with sound teaching and to refute those who contradict it. 10 For there are also many rebellious people, idle talkers and deceivers, especially those from Judaism. 11 It is necessary to silence them; they overthrow whole households by teaching for dishonest gain what they should not.
THIS is the standard, and this regulates the nature of eldership in churches. The number of elders in every situation is limited to the spiritual character development of the person or persons present.
Steve
Steve: No argument with what you say. I guess what I'm wondering if you see the single pastor model of most Baptist churches as a superior model than plural eldership. In my opinion and experience, there is far more abuse of power in the single pastor model, besides the fact that I just don't think it follows the biblical model laid out in the epistles.
I'm a congregationalist. So I think elders are recognized and selected by the congregation, as you suggest.
Thanks Bill,
As to your question:
The number of elders is only limited by God's Sovereignty in provision of godly men to fulfill the role. I do not believe that the appointing of someone to the role is actually the issue... if someone IS a godly elder they will fulfill the function whether or not they have the office.
And if they fulfill the function, then the office will be recognised by the church in God's time, not in the fella who desires the office's time.
Likewise, as far as pastoral office is concerned (and "pastor" is not an office, rather it is a spiritual gift) no one should venture to put themselves into this ministry without the recognition and the compulsion into ministry by the congregation of which he is a part.
this safeguards the issue of servant leadership.
If we are keen on pluraility of eldership regardless of spiritual character we are asking for big trouble.
Steve
Steve: Thank you. I'm glad to hear someone else say that Pastor is a spiritual gift, not an office. Just a couple more points. The scriptures do speak of "desiring" the office of elder (or bishop), which I don't think is necessarily a bad thing. I believe much of what we discern as a "call" starts with our God given desires. I'm in no way advocating electing elders regardless of spiritual qualifications, but if there are those with those qualifications, as a practical matter of leadership they can be officially recognized and serve in the office, so that things may be done decently and in order. In a healthy congregation, I would hope that many such people would be qualified, whether they are "officially" recognized or not.
Luke, I admire your entrance into the Blogosphere. You have here a decent argument. However, it proves too much. If we take this argument to its logical conclusion, we can deduce that women should not be in authority over men in any teaching situation. Therefore, we would have to fire all women professors of any field of expertise be it mathematics, physics, English, history and so on in all SBC institutions of higher learning and maybe even high schools. This is not something I can see as Biblical.
Heath,
Good morning from the balmy deep south. My argument, per the title of my post and the conclusion of the post, was directed at "seminary" education of pastors and was not directed toward the world in general. In fact, to make it clearer for you, the seminary education relating to pastors has to do with the realm of preaching, teaching and exposition of the Scriptures. I take no issue with a woman teaching a man math. I take no issue with a woman teaching a man English. I do take issue with a woman preparing any man for ministry in the area of Biblical studies of whatever sort. If this is the logical conclusion of Paul's words to Timothy, perhaps we ought to take notice? But I do not believe it is either Paul's or my own logical conclusion. At least not with the parameters that have been set. Blessings.
Luke, I understand your aim in the post. However, despite your intentions, there are implications and conclusions to the argument that go beyond the scope of 'seminary education'. If you would like to support your claim, you might try using a different text.
Heath,
It might would help if you speak of these implications and conclusions which you say go beyond the scope of seminary education. I would be quite interested to see just how far you believe you could take this.
Hey Luke,
I agree that the Seminary is an extension of the Church, and thus what applies to the Church, applies to the Seminary also.
I grew up in a Baptist Church, and now attend a Baptist Church here in Hallandale Beach, FL, where I have recently relocated due to my job. Back in Jacksonville, where I call “home,” I attended First Baptist Downtown Jacksonville, but mainly Celebration Church, pastured by Stoval Weems, who is absolutely loved by his congregation, and it was a true pleasure and gift to be able to serve God in that Church. One dilemma, however, that my Bible study group had wrestled with, was the matter of women “pastors” in the Church, especially at Celebration Church. In fact, Mrs. Weems goes by the title of “Pastor,” and she has spoken from the pulpit on occasion. Additionally, I have heard women speakers address the congregation, as a spokesperson for “Voice of the Martyrs” as well as another lady speaking on her first-hand experience as a missionary in China. There is also Christine Caine who frequently speaks to the singles, when visiting from Australia. My Bible Study Group has wrestled with the right-ness of such matters. The way in which we had tried to reconcile the matter within the group was to simply accept these matters as special circumstances, rather than institutionalized roles of women training men. For instance, at Celebration, there seems to be dozens of people who go by the title “Pastor,” and in reality, despite infrequent messages by Mrs. Weems, she is really only a pastor to the women, and the other women mentioned (with the exception of Christine Caine), were merely relaying their experiences as special speakers. Christine Caine, however, seems to be an established woman preacher. This, we could not reconcile. Should we sit under her training? To us, she is merely a guest speaker, though to her own Church in Australia, it is much more. On another occasion, I joined a group that went to Orlando to hear Joyce Meyer. I went with the group, merely to show support for them, while disagreeing with Joyce Meyer on a few significant matters. I felt that I did the right thing, by showing support for my fellow Christian brothers and sisters. To me, if someone should be convicted, and come to repentance, as a result of that trip, then to me, the fruit must be considered. In other words, the question arose as to whether someone became saved, after listening to a message by Christine Caine? While I would disagree with having her as a Pastor, should I attend a speaking engagement by her? We felt that the right thing to do was to show her support, despite our biblically based reservations against women Pastors.
By the way, have you ever heard of “Rescued” by John Bevere? If you have, I’d be interested on your take.
God bless,
Richard
One other thought pertains to Lori MacGregor, former JW, now counter-cult expert.
http://www.macgregorministries.org/
She speaks, writes and produces videos for Christians regarding cults. I actually found her material to be excellent. I bought a DVD from her, and a book, and both were actually very helpful, if not downright terrific. How would you address the rightness of her ministry?
Richard,
Good to hear from you. I am unable to say that I know anything about John Bevere. Perhaps I am suffering from brain freeze at the moment but the name strikes no bells. I'll have to go look him up. As for the scenarios that you have related, for sure I will agree with you that where we have doubts about application of the Scripture, we should proceed cautiously but if we err, we need to err on the side of grace.
Now to your question of this ministry. A few preliminaries to make myself understood. I DO believe that women are commanded to teach and are capable of teaching. I do not believe the prohibition to teaching men means that women are not to teach at all.(see above) I see the roles in church make-up as being God ordained rather than the result of some misogynist plot to hold women back. I tie the seminaries closer to the church than others would be comfortable with. I see a distinction between what I would call parachurch ministries and the church. Although, after typing that, it would seem that I have not thought this through as much as I have tried to do.
Never-the-less, the ministry you listed I would call a parachurch ministry and see it as a stand alone ministry apart from the church that assembles together. In other words, it operates outside of the parameters given to a local church. I would see them more as missional than congregational if I may use those two terms for this discussion. In fact, I would doubt that this ministry seeks to start churches but would rather, try to send converts to churches around them that practice the faith. So at this point, in practicing such a ministry as they would seem to have, I am not sure that the rules/roles associated with the local church assembly would apply to such. I would say that if you brought them INTO your local church, that it would be better/right that the woman teach the women and the man to teach the men.
I hope this kinda in a non sort of a way answers your question. I think I have answered it, though not to the liking of some I am sure. I'll be posting on the relationship between a seminary and the church soon Lord willing. That may help some see a little clearer why I draw the distinction where I do.
Good to hear from you Richard.
It would seem that, given the mission and purpose of Seminary Education, we ought apply the same rule to institutions of higher learning (and maybe even secondary education) that are distinctly Christian. And maybe we should even say that, any man, who at any time wants to do ministry, can never be taught theology in a church affiliated setting by a woman. Obviously, this is not the case we see in Scripture. We need to be very clear on some of our terms when discussing such issues. If a certain school is not considered a part of the church, that should be noted. I am currently studying at a non-denominational Christian University which has quite a few female professors who teach subjects across the board, theology, New Testament, Communications, whatever. This has been a personal struggle for me since beginning at the school, being that I am a member of an SBC church. I'm trying to figure it out for myself.
I don't see how we can take Paul's letter to mean "Seminary Education" only. I.e., I don't see how we can take this argument and use it to guide us in qualifications for theology teachers only without it being qualification for history teachers as well.
Heath,
There are some, not me, who have taken the distinction to mean never having a woman teach a man period. I do not agree with that. What I do believe that Paul is teaching is that women are not to teach men Scripture/Theology/Exegesis whether it be college or seminary or church. BECAUSE, teaching the Scripture is not an ACADEMIC exercise or at least it should not be for the Christian. It should be an act of worship. Our problem is that we simply relegate the Bible to being a textbook to be studied and by doing so, miss the whole point of Scripture.
So I would agree that "if" we apply this to Seminaries, then we ought to apply this across the board to schools of higher learning that are distinctly Christian and where theology/exegesis/Scripture is taught.
Hello again Luke, it has been a while since our last discussion. Just had a question. In 1 Tim, why is it that you believe Paul to be talking about the role of women as it applies specifically to theological education?
Mark,
I am quite unsure how you can separate teaching Scripture from theological education. If you can, I'd be interested in hearing all about it.
Hi, Luke. That's easy. When you teach theology, make sure it isn't Christian. See? Problem solved. :)
(Sorry, I'm having a silly moment this morning...I don't see how it is possible to separate the two if anything genuine is being taught, so I agree with you).
I was going to joke about Islam being taught in American schools and not requiring any Christian Scripture at all, but after reading a recent news article, I no longer feel like joking about it.
Metro charter school accused of teaching Islam
To me, this only reinforces the issue of why teaching Christian Scripture with Christian theology is important. Other religions teach their faith with all due diligence. We should be that much more motivated to teach the truth in every facet of theology, and that can only be done using Scripture.
Byron,
I like your jest there and understand the humor and good spirit with which you offer it. I am totally amazed that our society would accept the teaching of the Islamic faith but deny the Christian faith in our public school system. The complete hypocrisy that is so readily apparent is unmistakable. What is even so much more amazing is that Islam is so much more radical than "mainstream Christianity" and yet people would rather that Islam is taught. Women will be wearing veils again if this were to continue. But I digress.
You offer some genuine support in favor of this post and I appreciate your comments.
Post a Comment