The Pastoral Office
In the past months several churches with which I am familiar have seen their pastors resign and move away. This has left each church to start the process of finding their next undershepherd. And along the way each church will probably take the time to think through just what kind of man they want, and what they expect him to do.
But just how do we understand the pastoral office? Today it is almost a given that the pastor is to have a "shepherd's heart." After all, that's what "pastor" literally means. But I think it is a grave mistake to shape the form and function of the office according to only one of the three terms the New Testament uses to describe it.
It is clear that the Apostles used three different labels to designate the one leadership office in the church. In Acts 20:17, 28 we find Paul calling the "elders" of Ephesus together, imploring them as "overseers" to "pastor" the church of God. The same three words are found referring to the pastoral office in 1 Peter 5:1, 2. Statistically, the term "elder" is used the most in reference to the pastoral office (16 times), with "overseer" coming in second (6 times), and "pastor" a distant third (3 times, with the noun only found in Ephesians 4:11). Yet, despite its scarcity among the apostolic writings, the image of "shepherd" has come to be the dominant figure in defining the modern pastoral office and tasks.
If we allow our personal theological frameworks to be reformed according to Scripture, we'll certainly have to consider that the apostles had a purpose in referring to the pastoral office using three terms rather than only one.
The idea behind "elder" is wisdom, and especially the wisdom that comes through age. "Overseer" brings the idea of management, of making sure that all the parts are aligned and running smoothly. "Pastor" speaks to leading, feeding, and caring for a flock. My concern is that, by downsizing the church leadership task to shepherding alone we have created two major problems in the church. The first damages the pastor, while the second damages the flock.
The first problem with seeing the leadership office in the church as primarily a "shepherding" office is that it makes it appear that one man can handle all the things that are demanded of church leadership. After all, the scenes of flocks usually show one man, dressed in a nice white robe, carrying a little lamb, while the flock of happy, contented sheep are joyfully following along behind him. But this picture has no relation at all to a church congregation as defined in the Bible.
The New Testament is clear that the leadership of the local church is to be committed into the hands of a plurality of godly men who serve together as a team. And even when one is delegated to be the primary visionary leader, it is simply foolish to think that one man could carry out all that the elder/overseer/pastor triad depicts as necessary for the health of the flock and the expansion of the Kingdom. I sincerely believe that the leadership tasks imposed by the Chief Shepherd on the under shepherds of the church are so much more than any one man can effectively accomplish. And we only really come to understand the reality of this when we refuse to see the office as anything less that what all three terms describe.
The consequences of a myopic view of the church's leadership office range from poorly managed flocks to burned out shepherds. We have far too many of both, and the answer is to re-think just how we have imaged the office itself, versus the way the New Testament teaches that the office be understood and occupied by a plurality of qualified, gifted men working together.
But the second problem is just as harmful. The image of the shepherd engenders the idea that he is the primary care giver in the congregation. It is not uncommon for congregations to believe it is the pastor's responsibility to do the visiting, the counseling, the hand holding, the greeting, the encouraging, and the comforting, in addition to the teaching, writing, planning, organizing, managing, and strategic visioneering. Can you say "superman?" Of course, this is not only ridiculous in practical terms, but it is also a blatant misunderstanding of the New Testament's directions on the how the body of Christ is to function.
In every church there is a large group and a small group. We'll call the large group the "congregation" and the small group the "leadership." In lots of churches, the big group wants to be involved in the leadership decision, while expecting the small group to do the caring and helping. But this is backwards! It also just plain won't work.
Let's plug in some numbers. Suppose you're in a church of 400 people, with a leadership team of 8 men. If the 400 expect the 8 to take care of them, to care for their needs, to basically live life with them, they will certainly be disappointed. The ratios just won't allow it. But many pastors think it is their duty to meet these expectations, and they try their best to do so all the while knowing that more and more of their time and energy are being directed away from the primary things they entered ministry to do. They have less and less time to study, read, write, pray, plan, and make disciples, as hospital visits, phone calls, and committee meetings clog their schedules.
Just as bad, if the 400 decide that the leadership decisions must pass through their hands before being implemented, there will be such gridlock that things will seldom get accomplished in a timely manner. Sadly, too many churches today have let this happen, and they continue to muddle along with increasingly burned out staff, and ineffective ministries while they become less and less relevant to the lost in their community.
But there is a better way. Over 40 times in the New Testament the apostles call the large group to mutual care through a series of "one anothers". And this only makes sense! The large group is in the best position to care for one another, encourage one another, love one another, and about 37 more. The pastoral staff have, as one of their primary tasks, the equipping of the large group to do this "work of service", according to Ephesians 4:11,12.
The conclusion is this: leaders need to lead, and equip, and the congregation needs to use their gifts to care for, and build up one another. In this way the church grows together, matures together, and maintains the health necessary to be salt and light in a dark world. And one more thing: the leadership group must always remember that they actually are part of the large group as well. They are not to be isolated and insulated from the sheep. Just because they do not bear all the responsibility for the flock's wellbeing doesn't mean that they don't bear the same individual responsibility for one-anothering as the rest. As pastoral player-coaches they coach while also being actively in the game.
Hope this helps,
David
posted by heggthought @ 4:16 PM
14 Comments
14 Comments:
And, let's not forget that the leadership is the model and example for the flock in how to care for others. A caring, loving and compassionate leadership team leads a loving, compassionate flock of
G-d's people eager to do good deeds (at least, that's the goal). Leading isn't merely teaching, it is doing, as well. No, not supermen, but Spirit-filled men.
Thank you so much for your thoughts.
DH: You make an excellent argument for a clear headed review of the tragic (and mistaken) prohibition of women serving in the pastoral and any other servant leadership positions. If men would not be so terrified of joyfully serving with and being led by women, the Church would be strengthened, the burden shared, and God would be honored. Hope this helps. Oscar
Anonymous: Regardless of the problems associated with the practical outworking of the pastoral office, they do not allow us to change the script the New Testament puts down for church leadership. When God determined that He would send His Son instead of His daughter He set in motion the entire structure of leadership in the home and the church, and I believe elsewhere as well. The truth of male leadership in the church is not something we can manipulate in order to placate culture. Paul was clear in 1 Timothy 2, and grounded his words not in the culture of the day, but in the created order demonstrated in Eden.
DH: The changes affecting women in the modem era have obviously influenced the Church's
thinking, but the ministry of women is neither derived from society's ideas nor a partner to its
extremes.
Only one foundation is satisfactory for having women minister in the name of Jesus Christ. Women ought to minister not because society says so but because the Bible leads the Church to such a conclusion. These ideas are not original to me, and many have contributed to this discourse.
Usually when people speak of biblical texts on the ministry of women, they refer to only two
texts, the two that appear opposed to the idea. These texts will need to be treated justly, but all of
the Bible must be included in the discussion, not just two verses. Moreover, as with the
interpretation of all Scripture, these two texts must be understood in their proper historical and
biblical contexts. The Bible is not like a flat landscape, but is more like varied terrain, and each
part must be dealt with in its own right. This is not to suggest that some parts may be ignored or
are more important than others, but merely to stress that all the Bible must be treated fairly.
The issue of women in ministry is primarily a New Testament discussion, but there are Old
Testament texts that deserve attention. Genesis 1:26-28 indicates that man and woman were
created together in the image of God and that dominion was given to both of them. In various
contexts (such as Exodus 38:8 and 1 Samuel 2:1-10) women are mentioned as playing a part in
Israel's worship. More important are the women who functioned in leadership roles and
consequently provide an Old Testament basis for women in ministry. Miriam and Huldah are
both referred to as prophetesses who had significant roles in God's purposes (Exodus 15:20,21
and 2 Kings 22:14-20). Deborah is also referred to as a prophetess, but she is best remembered
for her activity as a judge of Israel and a leader in a time of conflict (judges 4-5). These texts do
not legitimate the ministry of women by themselves, but they do provide important precedents.
The New Testament texts referring to women present a view that is markedly different from the
negative view of women predominant in ancient societies. Women in biblical times usually were
not educated, and rabbis warned against teaching the law to females. The limited information
from ancient sources indicates that women who were considered respectable did not take part in
public life. Rather, such women were expected to spend most of their lives within the confines of
the home. Women were viewed as temptations to sin. They were not counted in the number of
persons needed to have a synagogue, nor was their testimony accepted in a court of law. But
Jesus' attitude and practice was in direct contradiction to that of his contemporaries. He initiated
conversation even with unrespectable females like the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4).
Because of her witness, many of the townspeople believed in Jesus. Jesus had women disciples
who accompanied him from Galilee to Jerusalem and helped finance his ministry (Mark 15:40,41
and Luke 8:1-3). Jesus taught Mary and defended her choice to learn (Luke 10:38-42). Women
were the last at the cross and the first at the tomb. After his resurrection Jesus appeared first to
women and gave them the task of telling the good news to the disciples (Matthew 28:7).
The new-found freedom and role of women in Christ is clear also in the writings of the early
Church. The book of Acts frequently mentions the presence and activity of women in the
founding of the Church. From the praying in the upper room (1: 14) to the persecution by Saul
(8:3) to the reception of the Gospel by Greeks (17:12), women were involved. (tbc)
(cont)
One of the beneficial aspects of the discussion of women in ministry is that it has helped us to
become more conscious of the way we understand and apply Scripture. Our concern in
interpreting any part of Scripture must go beyond a superficial reading that violates the original
intention of the passage. Our focus should be on why the words of the text were written. Only if
we understand why a text was written will we be able to apply it appropriately. For proper
interpretation texts must be read in context and in light of the rest of Scripture. To isolate texts
from their contexts or to deal only with passages suitable to our ideas leads to distortion. In such
instances we may do justice to the letter of Scripture without ever discerning its spirit.
A case in point is the way some people have viewed 1 Timothy 3:1-7 as a barrier to women in
ministry because it states that an "overseer"(or bishop) should be the husband of one wife. To
suggest that this injunction excludes women from ministry is to ignore the text's intention. The
passage focuses on the necessity of fidelity in a monogamous relationship as one of several tests
of the moral character of an overseer. There is no attempt to provide an eternal decree that
overseers should always be married men. Certainly no attempt has been made on the basis of this
verse to exclude single men from ministry. Nor has the guideline that an overseer should rule his
own house well (verse 4) been automatically used to prevent fathers of rebellious children from
ministering. A literalistic interpretation is inappropriate.
First Corinthians 14:34-36 and 1 Timothy 2:11,12 are of a different character, however, and must
not be brushed aside. These two texts are well-known for their imposition of silence on women,
and clearly seem contradictory to the passages supporting women in ministry.
With regard to 1 Corinthians 14:34-36, how can we understand the fact that within the one
epistle, 1 Corinthians, Paul both gave directions for proper dress when women were praying and
prophesying and asked for their silence? People have often attempted to explain away either 1
Corinthians 11:5 or 14:34-36 to remove the difficulty. They have suggested that two different
kinds of service were in mind or that one of the texts was added by someone else later or that
Paul did not really mean what he said in one or the other of the texts. None of these explanations
will do, and justice must be done to both passages. We cannot allow ourselves to ignore the texts
that do not fit with our preconceived ideas.
The context of 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 begins with verse 26, and it is clear that the worship of the
early Church was different from our usual services. When the church met for worship, all the
people were encouraged to make a contribution to the service by offering some item for praise or
instruction. Paul's concern in 14:26-36 is the disruption of the service. Women are not the only
ones asked to be silent. Anyone who was going to speak in tongues is told to keep silent if no
interpreter were present (14:28). Also, if one prophet were speaking and revelation came to
someone else, the first prophet should be silent (14:30). Nor were women the only ones told to
be in submission. The various prophets were to be submissive to each other as well (14:32). The
service was to be orderly because God is a God of peace (14:33 and 40). The last part of verse 33
(" . . . as in all the churches of the saints") should probably be read with the rest of verse 33,
rather than with verse 34 as in some translations.
(tbc)
(cont)
The issue with regard to women is clearly within the context of the disruption of the worship
service. The new-found freedom of women in Christ no doubt caused difficulties in the
Corinthian church and elsewhere, as passages like this and 11:2-16 show. Apparently married
women were disrupting the service by asking questions of their husbands, so they were
instructed to wait and ask their questions at home. It seems from 14:36 that this disruption of the
service was one of several ways that pride was manifesting itself in the Corinthian church. This
activity was considered shameful, particularly in an ancient culture where any public exposure of
women was considered a disgrace.
There are still unanswered questions about this text, such as which Old Testament passage is
referred to with "as the law says" in 14:34. But regardless of such questions, clearly this passage
says what it does because of problems in the Corinthian church and attitudes in the ancient world
and not because women should never speak in church. To suggest otherwise removes 1
Corinthians 14:34 from its context and creates an insurmountable contradiction with 11:5.
The text in 1 Timothy 2:11, 12 is more difficult to understand, but the issues are the same. There
is no question that in this passage women were prohibited from teaching men. The question is
"Why?" Were there reasons in this circumstance why women were prohibited from teaching, or
were women never to teach men? If the latter, there are blatant contradictions between this text
and other texts like 1 Corinthians 11:5. A commitment to the unity of Scripture, and indeed an
assumption of the unity of Paul's thought (assuming some form of Pauline authorship), requires a
closer analysis of this passage.
There are specific indications as to the reason why women were prohibited from teaching in this
circumstance. Clearly the pastoral epistles were not written to be manuals of church government.
Rather they were written to combat false teaching and heresy. Approximately one-fifth of the
two hundred and forty-two verses in the pastorals explicitly treat false teaching. If false teaching
is a concern of the pastorals, it is the concern of 1 Timothy. Immediately in 1 Timothy 1:3 the
concern to prevent false teaching is expressed as the reason Timothy was left in Ephesus.
Speculations about myths and genealogies, along with emphasis on knowledge and asceticism
had led many astray. Some of the best successes of the false teachers were among women. First
Timothy 5 treats a number of problems caused by women in connection with false- teaching. The
concern in 5:13 is not merely for gossiping, but for spreading the false teaching which has
"turned some aside to follow Satan" (5:15). Second Timothy 3:6,7 speaks of false teachers who
creep into houses and take captive "silly women" who are ever learning and never able to come
to the knowledge of the truth.
(cont)
The whole of 1 Timothy 2 must be interpreted within this context of false teaching. The focus of
the whole chapter is prayer, but the concern over false teachers is clear in 2:8, where men are
told to pray without wrath and disputing, and in 2:14, where the issue is fear of deception.
Even with this recognition of the context of false teaching, 1 Timothy 2:8-15 still has several
debated issues. In 2:9 it is preferable to understand that women are to pray with proper decorum
in the way they dress, which is the same subject as in 1 Corinthians 11:5. Alternatively, some
translations would suggest that the concern is merely for the way women dress with no thought
about their praying. (The issue is whether with "likewise" in 2:9 the meaning is "likewise I desire
women to pray" or "likewise I desire.") Also some translations say in 2:11 that a woman should
learn "in silence," but "in quietness" would be more appropriate. The same root word is used in
2:2 with regard to the quiet and tranquil life that all are to lead. The desire is that both men and
women pray and that women in Ephesus learn in submission and quietness, as indeed is expected
of all Christians.
The most difficult part of this passage is 2:12, which is usually translated as: "I do not permit a
woman to teach or to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness." The problem is with the
word translated "have dominion over" (authentein in Greek), for it does not occur anywhere else
in the New Testament. This is not the usual word for authority. Outside the Bible the word is
used of murder, suicide, having dominion over, and, some argue, of sexual offenses. The original
idea seems to have been "to thrust oneself." The uses of the word for murder and suicide
obviously are not pertinent for this text. If the reference is to authority, as seems likely, the
negative connotations of this word would require a translation such as "domineer." Whatever the
meaning, what is prohibited of women with this word seems so negative that it would not be
permitted of men either.
The words of 1 Timothy 2:13-15 are difficult on any understanding of the text, but they seem to
be caustic comments directed at women influenced by false teachers to leave their
responsibilities. The only other reference to Eve in the New Testament is in 2 Corinthians 11:3
which is also concerned with seduction by false teachers. Elsewhere when the fall of humanity is
discussed, reference is always to the disobedience of Adam. In a society where women were not
educated and had not previously been full participants in everyday life, without doubt women
would have been easy targets for false teachers.
There is no need, therefore, to see a contradiction between 1 Corinthians 11:5, where women are
viewed as praying and prophesying, and 1 Timothy 2:12 where women are prohibited from
teaching men. The prohibition in 1 Timothy 2 was required by conditions in that time and place.
Specifically the prohibition was required because false teachers had led women to leave their
domestic responsibilities, to be disruptive, and to be nonproductive in the community. These
words should not be used as a universal prohibition of teaching by women.
Those who are quick to argue against women in ministry on the basis of texts like 1 Corinthians
14:34-36 and 1 Timothy 2:11,12 need to ask why they do not imitate the kind of church service
described in 1 Corinthians 14:26-36 or why they do not institute widows' roles and care for
widows according to the instructions of 1 Timothy 5. Using proof-texts out of context and using
only the parts of the text that we like are not suitable practices for a church claiming to believe
the Bible. Likewise, we ought not to set some texts against others as if to suggest that we may
choose the one group and ignore the others.
(cont)
In addition to a discussion of the relevant biblical texts, there are several theological issues that
are decisive for the position one takes on women in ministry. Often assumptions are made about
these topics that are informed more from our society or traditions than by the Bible and the
Gospel. A reconsideration of these topics can lead to the removal of many of the barriers to
effective ministry in our time.
Often when people are opposed to women in ministry, the real issue is not the Bible, but
authority. They argue that women ought not be in positions of authority. Such people need to ask
themselves what authority really is and why men may have it and women may not.
Misunderstood texts dealing with husband-wife relationships have wrongly been applied to the
question of women in ministry. For example, people have viewed the term "helpmeet" in Genesis
2:18 as a basis for arguing for the inferiority of the woman. The words in question, however,
mean "a helper suitable for him" and do not suggest inferiority, for the same word "helper" is
also used of God (Deuteronomy 33:7). Similarly, people argue that women are not to be in
positions of authority because in Genesis 3:16 Eve was told that her husband would rule over
her. However, these words are descriptive of life after the fall, not descriptive of what God had
intended for humanity.
The biggest offense is that people have assumed this world's understanding of authority and
applied it to the Church, but in Christ authority must be understood differently. The classic text
dealing with authority is Matthew 20:25-28 in which Jesus instructed his disciples that the
world's views on authority and greatness ought not be their view. Rather than leaders lording
over and having authority over others, the leaders should be their servants. This teaching is valid,
not only for the ministry, but for family relationships and all other kinds of leadership roles.
Ephesians 5:22, however, is often used to argue that women should not be in authority since
wives should be in submission to their husbands. It is questionable whether texts dealing with the
marriage relationship should be applied to the question of women in ministry. But apart from
that, the more important point is that Ephesians 5:22 is one of the most abused texts in the Bible.
The submission of wives must be seen only as one example of the mutual submission that is
required of all Christians in 5:21. In fact, in the manuscripts of 5:22 followed by most editions of
the Greek New Testament, the word "submit" is not even present; it is assumed from verse 21.
From this world's perspective- mutual submission does not make sense but it is merely another
way of expressing the point of Matthew 20:25-28. In the context of the ancient world, wives
were instructed to submit to their husbands because Christianity with its call of total commitment
to Christ was viewed as a threat to the family. In Titus 2:5 wives are asked to submit so that the
word of God is not blasphemed. Husbands are referred to as "head" in Ephesians 5, but only to
place greater responsibility on the husband in caring for the wife. He is to give himself for her in
love as Christ gave himself for the Church. Both in the family and in the Church mutual
submission is the controlling principle.
In recent times some people have granted that women may minister, but argue that women ought
not be in positions of ultimate authority. Such a distinction cannot be defended, for no biblical
texts indicate two levels of authority in ministry. We do not need a view of authority that will
keep women from functioning in ministry. We need a view of ministry that subverts what this
world understands by authority. Mutual submission is the Gospel in action
(cont)
Often when people are opposed to women in ministry, their opposition is based on their view of
ministry. Particularly if the Old Testament priesthood is taken as the model for ministry, women
will hardly be accepted as pastors since only men were priests in the Old Testament, and only
men who were Levites at that. Even in the Old Testament, however, the original intention was
that the Israelites should be a kingdom of priests (Exodus 19:6), and this idea becomes important
in the New Testament. While there are some parallels between the Old Testament priesthood and
Christian ministry, the former is not an appropriate model for the latter. As Protestants, we do
not have priests; rather, we stress the priesthood of all believers. Stress on the priesthood of all
believers ought to require the ministry of women.
Focus on passages such as Ephesians 4:12 has rightly emphasized that ministry is the task of the
Church and not just the task of the clergy. Distinctions of value, sanctity, and privilege between
clergy and laity ought to be rejected, and the ministry of women is one way to emphasize the
ministry of all the Church.
Ordination, because it has been viewed as conferring special status on pastors, has often
functioned as a barrier both to the ministry of women and to the ministry of the laity. This
practice of ordaining certain people for ministry has antecedents in the New Testament, but it is
not taught explicitly. This is not to argue against ordination and certainly not to argue against a
professional clergy, but the Church needs to discuss what ordination means and make sure that
ordination does not become more hindrance than help in proclaiming the Gospel. Ministry is not
some privilege to which the few are called. It is the task of all Christians as they identify with the
ministry and love of Jesus Christ.
Closely related to the discussion of the ministry of all the Church is the focus on the variety of
gifts in the Body of Christ. By recognizing the diversity of gifts within its fellowship the Church
recognizes that the Spirit of God functions in different ways in different people. A person's task
in the ministry of the Church is determined by the way the Spirit is manifested in that person's
life and actions (1 Corinthians 12:11). Whether a woman or a man is granted the privilege of
serving the Church as a pastor is not based on that person's choice to do so, but on the
recognition that the Spirit of God has led and empowered that person for pastoral ministry. The
requirement for pastoral ministry is manifestation of the Spirit not being a male. Nowhere in the
New Testament are the gifts of the Spirit determined by gender. If women are encouraged to
affirm their gifts for ministry, the Church will have new resources for evangelism, service, and
discipleship. Such a new power for the spread of the Gospel could be decisive for the growth and
health of the Church.
Some people have opposed women in ministry merely because the Church rarely has had women
ministers before. There were exceptions, but basically this is true. Still it is not a valid objection.
While tradition should be valued, only the Scriptures are authoritative. At numerous times in the
history of the Church Christians have realized that the Gospel in their time required new
thoughts, definitions, and actions that had not been expressed in earlier times. The doctrine of the
Trinity is an obvious example of such developing theology. In the sixteenth century the
understanding of salvation and the role of the Church were redefined. In the last century the
abolition of slavery in. the United States took place as a result of the application of the Gospel in
new ways. In focusing on the authority of Scripture, we do not believe that God is prohibited
from doing new things. Our God is alive and continually leads his people to apply the Gospel to
their own time. The Gospel does not change, but the way that it is applied in a particular time
and place may.
(cont)
Our society faces numerous problems, many of them related to sexual roles and distinctions.
These problems are also problems in the Church. The extremes in our society create fears about a
deterioration of family structures or other changes that might occur. The encouragement of
women in ministry does not derive from these extremes and should not contribute to the fears.
Women in ministry not only will release the energies of the Church for the proclamation of the
Gospel, but having women in ministerial roles will also help the Church deal honestly and much
more wholly than before with what it means to be a man and with what it means to be a woman.
The ministry of the Church is an enormous and sometimes difficult task. The gifts and abilities
of women are needed as much as those of men. Women will encounter the same kinds of
problems that men do, but the Church cannot afford to erect additional obstacles that will inhibit
their ministry. It is time to let the Spirit of God work through all of God's people, including
women. Enjoying the freedom of the Spirit will not only mean that women are allowed to
minister, but that God's people will also allow themselves to be ministered to by all those who
are gifted and called by God.
Hope this helps. O.
O, thank you for taking so much time to present your view. I agree with much of it, especially those texts that clearly point out the place woman can and should have in the ministry of the church. The real issues aren't ministry, or value, or even the role that women can have as partners in the mission of Christ. I believe your points in those areas are very good. My disagreement centers on my belief that leadership in the church and the home has been given by God to men and not women. I do not believe this is based on any inequality in essence or standing, but purely on the purposes of God in which he decided to give different roles to men and women.
This basic disagreement can center in on 1 Timothy 2:11-15. You suggest that this was an ad hoc determination based on false teaching in Ephesus. This theory has been overturned by Scott Baugh and others in Women in the Church (ed. Kostenberger et al). Further, he also has proven that the two infinitives in 12 linked with kai must both be seen as positive, and leaves no room for a negative understanding (such as "dominate.") The research he has done here is quite thorough and conclusive. It is also clear that Paul grounds these exhortations, not in the society of the day, but in the created order, before the fall. Neither the fall, nor the Ephesian culture is seen by Paul as the basis for his teaching. This is decisive in my estimation. That being said, I very much appreciate your response, with the careful attention you pay to the text. With you, I only want to draw my theology of men and women and all things, from the Scriptures, and not society. Thanks for the dialogue! This is iron sharpening iron for me. David
DH: I should have checked back sooner! I enjoy the dialogue as well. I was certainly a bit long-winded, it took multiple posts because for some reason only about 500 characters are allowed in a comment..probably for just this reason! Oscar
DH: I do question your statement that “this theory has been overturned by Scott Baugh and others,” referring to the situational nature of this teaching. This, too, is somewhat over-confident given the difficulties inherent in 2:11-15. If anyone had successfully overturned any opposing view in this area, honest scholars still wouldn’t be debating the merits of the opposing positions. But, of course, they are, and will continue for a long time. By the way, the very nature of epistolary material (or any other Scripture) is that it is always situational. It was written at a specific point in time to (in this case) a specific individual who was facing specific problems in a specific place. Of course the Pastoral Epistles are situational! Nobody should deny that. The question is not if Paul’s teaching reflects the current situation in any of his letters; the question is to what extent does it? I am confident that we should not separate ourselves from the leadership and influence of women in any role in the church. Of course, one neat trick is to simply call them "Directors" instead of "Pastors!" Hope that helps, O.
DH: This format (like email) can be a little "flat" in it's delivery tone. I didn't mean to sound smart-ass or disrespectful in my most recent post. Oscar
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home