Ethics: Beth Moore Unexpectedly Guest Preaches Sunday Morning

I wrote a detailed reply, but it got eaten somehow.

So now I'll just say that you told me exactly what I didn't say exactly how I didn't say it. You wrote down exactly what I didn't write exactly how I didn't write it. You typed it exactly what I didn't type exactly how I didn't type it.

Extra points for anyone who can identify from what and whom I borrowed the above phrasing.

Drama Dave

David,

I highly doubt that your reputation is in much danger because of this comment stream. No need to be overly dramatic. Regarding the misrepresentation, you have suggested that the complementarian view as held by Mark, Chris, and myself does not allow for women to make any audible contribution to the gathered church. That is not true. You are saying that complementarians understand the word "teach" in such a broad sense that pretty much any spoken word that requires some thought to comprehend would qualify as "teaching." We do not have such a broad understanding of the word. Even if we did, the burden would still be on your side to prove how "teach" is used in such a limited sense as to mean "hold the office of pastor."

If you care to engage complementarians on this issue at all, I suggest you deal with our views as we present them, not as you would like to caricature them.

Andrew,

I've re-read what I have said and am very perplexed where I have "misrepresented" your views.

I've made a use of Scripture to argue my point. I've concluded that Mary's speech contains theology and thus would be an act of teaching when spoken to another. You've called it recitation of Scripture, a poem/song, not a sermon, not a teaching in the context spoken of here. I retorted that I need instruction on how it is indeed not a teaching since I claim she is making theological points and telling them to another and thus meeting a most basic definition of teaching. Is this equivalent to a Beth Moore sermon? Not exactly, but it is a teaching that comes from a woman, and I'm asking whether Mary would be allowed to make it in your assembly with males present, if that was possible.

I have challenged you not misrepresented you. You can charge that I've misunderstood you, and that I'm incorrigible, but saying that I've distorted your views to others is a rather bold charge against my reputation.

I politely request that the charge be explicated in detail.

David

David,

Your point then, is that we complementarians are inconsistent. Here's the problem: you're basing this allegation off of a misrepresentation of the complementarian position on the 1 Timothy passage and a hypothetical situation that squares with this misrepresentation but is really a non-issue in complementarian view. I'd rather you just use Scripture to argue that we're inconsistent than stoop to misrepresenting my views. I won't continue to engage in discussion with someone who so blatantly misrepresents my position. It's an exercise in futility.

I don't know if this will format correctly. This is in reply to Andrew Wencl's Sept. 22, 8:01 am reply.

Her poem/song is "hardly worth calling a 'sermon'"? The issue is whether it communicates theology.If someone communicates theology to another person, I can't see how it doesn't mean "teaching." Formalized sermons are not the only forms of teaching. The issue is whether someone can learn anything theological, ethical, attitudinal from what another communicates. Are you saying you learn no theology from a poem/song? I'm sure you don't dismiss the Psalms or Proverbs as not "teaching" anything due to their poetic nature.

If she recites it to a man, the very recitation of it is teaching theology. You either have to say there is nothing theological in it, or you would have to say that this bit of inspired Scripture came to us through a woman speaking it to another woman and it was at some point heard by a man from a woman (either Mary, Elizabeth, or another woman) at one time but a woman isn't allowed to speak it (the poem which TEACHES theology) to a male in an assembly at a later time.

I think you have strained and contorted the meaning of "teaching".

David,

Your hypothetical is not helpful. For one, the Magnificat is a poem/song, hardly worth calling a "sermon" or "teaching" in the context we're discussing. Second, by the time she would recite it in an assembly of believers, it would have been either an oral tradition being passed around by the early church or a piece of written Scripture. I've never suggested that women can never speak in an assembly of believers or that women can never share their insights or formulate theological statements. But your example could hardly be compared to what Mark, Chris, others, and I are talking about regarding women teaching men and exercising authority in the church.

I encourage you to re-read the passage. This is more than recitation of Scripture. She is chaining several Scriptures and theological concepts together (a theological task in itself) and also contextualizing these Scriptures with regard to her condition. She is remarking that her pregnancy is more than just the blessing of an ordinary woman being with child, this event is the culmination of the beginning of the hope of redemption for the ages. This is theology at its most basic. This is the first act of historically aware Christology in actual timing of the event. I would like someone to dismiss these conclusions with some detail.

Would you let her speak this theological presentation to an assembly?

She's reciting Scripture. I don't think your scenario makes much of a point.

Mark,

Thanks for the reply and the question. The reason that I would be inclined to interpret the verse as allowing a woman to preach and/or teach on a Sunday morning is that I believe that Paul is talking about someone preaching or teaching within the context of them being the teaching/preaching pastor. Therefore, in context, a woman, by preaching or proclaiming the word or testifying (or whatever else we might want to describe it as) can do so in a worship service, but not in the role of excercising authority It's been a while since I read it, but an article or sermon by John Piper comes to the conclusion that Paul is speaking in these verses of women not being able to serve as a pastor/teacher, not that women could not speak or otherwise teach if it was not connected with that particular Biblical office. As to whether I would be comfortable with a woman "preaching," I would definitely not be. However, I still don't think I would get up and walk out in the hypothetical that you envisioned. Thanks and God bless,

Howell

There are two prohibitions in the passage: not to teach and not to have authority over men in the church. The reason why these prohibitions are permanent is Paul's use of creation language, namely, his use of the first couple. The context of 1 Timothy seems to indicate that part of the problem with the false teaching was that it encouraged egalitarianism in the biblical roles of men and women.

To be honest, I can't improve upon Doug Moo's article on this issue from 1 Timothy, as he addresses the issue you raise in your first sentence, and a host of misinterpretations, like yours, on this passage:

http://bible.org/seriespage/what-does-it-mean-not-teach-or-have-authority-over-men-1-timothy-211-15

Adam, I see 1 Timothy 2: 11-15 simply saying that the doctrinal and authoritative positional teaching of the local church is to be determined by the Senior Pastor, who is to always be a male. As Howell states below, this verse does not prohibit a woman fro teaching under male authority. Now explain away I Corinthians 11, that allows a woman to prophesy in a co-ed setting with her "head covered" please? Paul, apparently invited an affirmed a woman speaking in this text?

dwight, traditionalism? it's God's word. maybe Jesus could be jessica? since when do we change God's word to be culturally accepted?

John, mine is a scriptural position, not a socially acceptable position. As a matter of fact my, position is out of the socially acceptable mainstream with many, if not most Southern Baptist.

Agreed, Chris. It is unfortunate that people would rather have socially "acceptable" positions than surrender their social sensitivities to the timeless authority Scripture.

We will simply agree to disagree on the appropiateness(sp) of the comparison. I once felt and belive the way you do about women preachers, so I do understand. I now realize that I was driven by traditionalism and sexism. I repented and changed after doing a serious Bible study on this issue.

I'm stating that one passage does not undo another. Scripture is clear in the difference in roles and calling between men and women whereas a general reference to prophesy is not altogether clear on how that gift is utilized. Taking the clear commands of Scripture, prophesy does not mean teaching men in the church.

Chris, are you implying that that verse does not predict that women would "prophesy" in the last days?

No verse stands alone. Passages of that sort must be understood alongside other texts which say in plain and simple language that women are not to lead men, women are not to be the teachers in the church, and the qualifications of leadership in the church always presume a male leader. I could go on, but we've run through this debate enough times to know it wouldn't really be fruitful to do again.