Interesting clips. Also interesting that Wright uses more scripture than the other two videos. In and of itself, not a clincher, but he demonstrates the need for careful, biblical exegesis on the one hand, and being honest about the radical implications of the gospel.

Pardon my tone but how and why, in 2011, are we still debating whether women should be allowed to pastor in the mainstream American church?

Isn't the soul of the gospel the idea that those without power (as compared to the power-hoarders) are given the pearls of God's kingdom?

These are good video clips to provoke a discussion on an important topic.

In my tradition we view church pastoral leadership as one led by males in keeping with the New Testament example and exhortation. We certainly welcome and allow women to be involved in all levels of leadership save two offices, that of pastor and deacon. Given the NT examples where qualifications for these two offices are male headship we have prayerfully considered our response.

Just because gender roles in society have changed over the past half century doesn't mean we should re-evaluate the texts. In this video Wright speaks of Junia in Romans 16. I think this is a good example. While Junia (and her, likely husband Andronicus) are well known amongst the apostles they are not given the designation of apostle. Why, in the midst of a section identifying roles and offices, is this withheld from them? Perhaps it is because in keeping with the traditions of the early church male headship is formulation for two offices.

The arguments presented by Wright are good. Everyone should listen to them. The difference is that while Mary Magdalene was the first to see the resurrected Christ that is not a commission to pastorate. I love women preachers. I love listening to women teachers. A preacher isn't by default a pastor. In the NT the burden of proof is for the more egalitarian camp because it is a hard burden to meet.

Robert,

If I say that Jim was well known among the pastors of the state of Missouri the very implication is that he was a pastor. That is completely different than saying he was well known by the pastors of the state of Missouri.

Among's very deffinition means In or through the midst-of.

Let's not say a word doesn't really mean what it means and not pretend we are playing the same justification games as any others who bend the scripture toward their intention rather than the other way round.

Robert:

You mentioned that women are not allowed to be either pastor or deacon in your church. But Phoebe is explicitly called a "deacon" (not a deaconess) in Romans 16.

How have you grappled with the scripture designating Phoebe as deacon?

Wow, someone who doesn't read all of the 'church' tradition into the scriptures - very refreshing.

As soon as you make the 'church' - a 'corporation' with a 'CEO' - and assign that position to the 'pastor' - or 'senior elder' - and call that 'leadership' - then you've superimposed a whole lot of things onto scripture that simply aren't there. Would that God would spare any man or woman from that mess! I guess everyone should have to sit through a few hundred board meetings to figure out this has very little to do with Christ. I was stuck on stupid for many years.

If you turn an 'apostle' into a function - rather than an office/title/position - then of course women function in those callings. Women integrate, pioneer, and plant (apostle), gather and nurture (pastor), teach (teacher), encourage (prophet), and yes - they even go back into town and testify about what Jesus has done (evangelist). When Jesus wanted the Samaritians evangelized - He went to the woman at the well. She led everyone in the town out to see Jesus. There's no record in scripture of a more successful evangelistic campaign than that of the of woman at the well.

I find it interesting that some of the theologians and pastors who fret and fight over this topic and demand such biblical interpretations to forbid women are so casual about how the treat what the scriptures say how the early churches operated.

I think it so interesting and befuddling that some who are so particular about women are so cavalier about what Paul says concerning what should go on when the church meets. Oh, that was just for that day, I have been told. We need to develop our own worship styles; we don't have time to let people be involved; we need the most perfect service we can produce; we cannot allow chaos to reign, etc. So we "interpret" Hebrews 10.45 and 1 Corinthians to be merely historical, not God-planned for our day. We seem pick and choose which scriptures apply to us and our churches.

But, we are clear that women cannot lead -- and some say they cannot even teach -- when men are present. We are sure about that.

Mark,you said,
"But Phoebe is explicitly called a "deacon" (not a deaconess) in Romans 16."
'God's Word' translation is the only one I could find (out of a field of 19) that uses the term "deacon". The term "deaconess" is found in the footnotes of the Ryrie Study Bible - NIV version and the Analytical Literal Translation puts the term "deaconess" in parentheses after the term "servant". All other translations use the term "servant"; hardly a leadership title. In my church, deaconesses are generally the wives of deacons. And that's just my two cents.

Melody, the word deaconess didn't appear in Greek in Paul's time. The word used to describe Phoebe is deacon, in Greek diakonos, the same word used to describe Timothy in 1 Thessalonians 3:2, Apollos and even Paul himself in 1 Corinthians 3:5.

It should also be noted that the NLT, NIV2011 and TNIV all refer to Phoebe as a "deacon".

To use the word "servant" is really a cop-out: that's providing a translation (what "deacon" means!) rather than a transliteration of the work diakonos!

To briefly reply to a few comments above, apologies but I am not good at keeping up with these kinds of posts. :)

David,

You had (essentially) asked about the nature of the textual language in Roms 16:7. After much study and interaction with the text our leadership determined (and this will get technical) that the personal dative did not communicate agency but was elative in the sense that while Andronicus and Junia were not apostles in office they were well known amongst those few who were apostles. Their relationship to the apostles might be like Beth Moore's relationship with evangelical pasotrs. While she doesn't hold the office of pastor she is well known because of her teaching. The dative use of "en" is an important qualifying remark.

Mark,

You had asked about Phoebe in Roms 16:1. Our position on this is that the term diakonon is adjectival and refers to a pattern of service rather than an office. Paul uses this exact term (as noted by another poster) in his epistles when the individual actually holds a pastoral or apostolic office. The evidence for the term being adjectival is stronger than otherwise. If the pattern for utilizing men and women in these offices was the intent of the early church, why did they at all points seek out male headship? I cannot find specific instances of female leadership in the NT.

BTW, I love having these conversations. Thanks to those who are thinking out loud with us. As a staff we have humbly submitted ourselves to Scripture as the determinate of our polity.

We happily serve alongside other communities who have female officers and don't view them as erroneous or heretical. Our hope is that through a ministry of reconciliation we can better preach Christ and Him crucified above all else. (1 Cor 2:2)

NT's first sentence gives away his agenda. "If I was to make a biblical case for the full participation of women in the orders in the church I would..."

"orders"??? This is Catholic terminology which is fully unreformed from anything protestant. It is also fully unbiblical - separating saints off into different casts of ministry - some to dominate and some to be passive. Gifts are not anything near "orders". This demonstrates the whole thinking around everything in NT's version of leadership in the household of faith is out of order. Men after these "orders" will twist and select whatever text they want to justify what they want their "order" to be.

@Jerry
I get the sarcasm.

After much study and interaction with the text our leadership determined (and this will get technical) that the personal dative did not communicate agency but was elative in the sense that while Andronicus and Junia were not apostles in office they were well known amongst those few who were apostles

Unofortunately this is based on false data. The citation from Pss Sol. 2:6 was not accurately cited in Wallace and Burer's article and it is not elative. I have had lots of interaction with both of them on this, and they are completely aware of their error.

Please understand that their hypothesis is not defended at this time.

After much study and interaction with the text our leadership determined (and this will get technical) that the personal dative did not communicate agency but was elative in the sense that while Andronicus and Junia were not apostles in office they were well known amongst those few who were apostles

Unofortunately this is based on false data. The citation from Pss Sol. 2:6 was not accurately cited in Wallace and Burer's article and it is not elative. I have had lots of interaction with both of them on this, and they are completely aware of their error.

Please understand that their hypothesis is not defended at this time.

En plus dative is normally inclusive. Luke 22:16

Sorry, I am having trouble with the captcha. En plus the dative is normally inclusive. Luke 22:26.

Robert,

I have done extensive research into these matters and if you enjoy discussing the Greek behind the status of Junia and Phoebe, please ask me more on my blog.

powerscourt.blogspot.com

Not finding specific instances of female leadership in the New Testament has more to do with prior assumptions than with female leaders not being present. Nympha (Col 4:15) and Chloe (1 Cor 1:11) were probably both leaders of household churches.

Phoebe was certainly some kind of leader-- Paul uses the same word to refer to her as he uses to refer to himself, and also calls her his "benefactor," a word which carried a sense of authority in the Greek.

Euodia and Syntyche were called Paul's "co-workers" in Phil. 4:2. He said they had "contended at his side" for the gospel and asked them to come into agreement with one another. The fact that Paul addresses them directly in this manner doesn't seem strange to us, but if they had not been church leaders, the natural thing for him to have done would have been to speak to the leaders about them, not address them directly.

When Paul said "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is not male and female," he went on in the next few sentences to talk about all Christians having full status as "sons." This was a word that referred to the full rights and privileges of an adopted, freeborn male, who was treated the same as freeborn male heirs-- absolutely no difference in rights or privileges. Paul said we are all "sons" in this sense. No Christian has higher status, more privileges, or more rights to walk in God's giftings and callings than any other Christian. No passage in the New Testament that talks about the gifts of the Spirit, adds a caveat that some are reserved for men only. "Husband of one wife" in 1 Tim 3 was not a term that meant only husbands could lead. Since single men are accepted as pastors in most churches, clearly the church knows how to accept this-- except when it comes to restricting women, which it does more because it's always been done, than that the Scriptures, read without that prior assumption, actually support male-only leadership.

"When Paul said "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is not male and female," he went on in the next few sentences to talk about all Christians having full status as "sons...."

So some saints are concerned to close the male - female gap in the household of faith? Would they also care to close and eliminate the lay - clergy gap as well? I know there is a paycheck out of the offering plate and a special title in it for them, but if there is any substance to "follow the Word" they would not seek to climb into the clergy status role but eliminate it. If they know that "En plus dative is normally inclusive" then they know that the Word says we are all "called into full time ministry" and we are all "the people of God". It's all in plain English. Now then it doesn't matter at all if Junia and Phoebe and Euodia, etc were "official leadership" or not. There was no clergy, vestments, backwards collars, robes, elevated pulpits, dominating lecturers, sacerdotal performers or special titles then. They are a huge distraction to God's building of His church now. In so many ways they nullify the commands of God.

too bad, regarding women, that Yeshua's death was just not enough.....
oh, it was? then why act as if there is a reason to subordinate, instead of ordinate.
If that is her calling, her gifting, that does not come from you, (men) which is what Paul commented in the Scripture..what? Did the gospel come from you or to you only?

Interesting that this was posted on CT's all-male-contributor blog and not on the all-female-contributors blog.

I agree with the Word of God, that both men and women called and appointed by God must be obedient to God and not the human voice. Even in the Old Testament, we see God chose a woman Judge, Deborah. In Christ, we are neither male or female. I have never seen a male or female human spirit. Our human spirits are the candle of the Lord, and HE speaks to our spirit, and lets us know when we are born again, and He is the ONE who leads us into all truth. The steps of the righteous are ordered by the Lord, and this goes for both men and women. God never discriminates. We are equal in God's sight. In marriage, there is not a boss and a worker; it is a man-woman (husband/Wife) relationship, and the Word of God exhorts us to submit to one another. It is a team work. God is sovereign, and He chooses who He wants, regardless of what the human, male or female thinks. God's ways and thoughts are highter than our ways and thoughts. We must honour God in all that He says and does. (psalm 8 says, what is man that God is mindful of him?). God is the One who calls, and He is the One who anoints, and gives the messages from His Word. God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble (both men and women).

A few thoughts: In 1 Tim 2:11, Paul states that a woman should learn in silence with all submission. The question is, who is a woman submitted to? Is she submitted to all men? The word submission means: obedience, to take instruction from. Does Paul mean a woman must be obedient and take instruction from every man? It is extremely important to interpret God's Word accurately. For example: Does 1 Tim. 2:15 mean women can’t get saved unless they bear children? The Greek word for "saved" in that text is "sozo" - same word used for salvation in other scriptures. What would that mean to a woman who cannot have children, that she cannot get saved? Another point to consider: was the New Testament only written to men? Most of the scriptures were translated to address men only as in Romans 12:18. Are we only to live peaceably with men and not women?

The scriptures reference women in the anointing/office as prophet, Exodus 15:20, Judges 4:4, 2 Kings 22:14, 2 Chronicles 34:22, and Luke 2:36. If a woman can be a prophet, why would she not be able to fill one of the other anointings of the five-fold ministry-apostle, pastor, teacher, evangelist? Paul writes in 1 Cor 14:34-35 that women can’t speak in Church, but prior to that in 11:5-6, he wrote “every woman that prays or prophesies …” The Greek word in that text for prophesies literally means to teach, refute, reprove and admonish. Where would a woman prophesy, which is speak? Wherever there is a body of believers, it is the Church. 1 Cor 14:35 implies the women were unlearned and interrupting the service. Paul corrected them for rudeness. One would hope that at some point these women would grow in God's wisdom and discipline and graduate from disciple to leader. There is something wrong if a person never matures. Most of 1 Cor 14 is a correction to that church. What about 2 Tim 3:6? Certainly, not all Christian women can be classified as silly women, for women who have accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior should not be laden with sins, and living contrary to the Word of God. Traditionaly, why is it acceptable to allow women to teach Sunday school to male children? Once the male children turn a certain age, do they completely disregard their female Sunday school teacher? What about a boy’s mother? Is she qualified to teach her male children the Bible?

Is the Great Commission of Matthew 28:18-20 written only to men? If it is for everyone, how can one not witness and teach at the same time? The two are synonymous. Some of the greatest sermons and witnesses recorded were teachings. The sermon on the mount – Matthew Chapters 5-7; Acts Chapter 2; Acts Chapter 7; Acts Chapter 10; Acts Chapter 17; Acts Chapter 26. The Holy Spirit came on the Day of Pentecost to 120 people-men and women. In John 14:26, Jesus said the Holy Spirit would remind us of everything He said and taught. Did the Holy Spirit dissect Himself and only give that promise to men? If a woman has a burning inside her heart to share Jesus and build His Church is that from Satan? Can we honestly believe that Christ would be offended by a woman pastoring on His behalf because of her gender?