I have given this issue much thought and this is the summary of my research and what I believe is the basis for Women to serve in leadership and ministry.

I would love to hear your thoughts.

There are a number of instances where women were given significant roles in the Bible. The most striking is Deborah who held the two highest offices in Israel, judge and prophet. She had authority over lands, armies of men and affairs of state.

Genesis 1:27 reflects the nature of God in both the masculine and feminine. We need both genders to be heard in order to have the wholeness of God’s character. This is re-affirmed in 1 Corinthians 11:11.

In the New Testament are references to women teaching (Acts 18:26), praying and prophesying (Acts 21:9, 1 Cor 11:5, Luke 2:36-38) in public settings. Euodia and Syntyche, Priscilla and Aquila, Phoebe and Junias (Romans 16:1-16, Phil 4:2-3) were all commended for there leadership roles by Paul. Joel 2:22 speaks of women prophesying, and Peter re-affirms this in Acts 2:17-18. Galatians 3:28 says that there is neither male nor female in the context of inheritance related to the Abrahamic Covenant which includes dominion and authority (Gen 12:1-3, 15:18-21). We also see the heart of God in the way Jesus treated women, specifically Mary Magdalene.

“What about 1^st Corinthians 14, and 1^st Timothy 2?”

The bible cannot contradict itself and must interpret itself. Those facts alone make it difficult to say those two passages are for all people for all time. The weight of scripture showing women in leadership in a positive light seams to be overwhelming. How can Paul commend women for their leadership in Romans and Philippians then say no woman can ever be in leadership in 1^st Corinthians and 1^st Timothy?

“If these are not for us then why are they in the scripture?”

The context of these two passages is order. Paul is illustrating that we serve a God of order and these two churches were not operating accordingly. Additionally Paul illustrates that we should be a witness to the community (1 Corinthians 9:19-23). Women were not permitted to be in leadership in the community and were largely uneducated. Those two cultural facts do not exist today.

No one should be placed in authority simply because of gender, except where the bible specifically defines gender roles for the purpose of order, as in the home (Ephesians 5:22), or practicality (Titus 2:4). Men and women should be held to the same standards regarding ministry and leadership (1 Timothy 3, Titus 1, 1 Peter 5).

If you will indulge me for a moment this is the purpose of this space. To process thoughts.

We are in the final stages of producing “Rescued” John’s fiction work in audio theatre. It has been brought up that one of the characters didn’t say the words of repentance in the moments before she died and yet she goes to heaven in the end. The worry is that we are going lightly on her sin and we are portraying something that is not scriptural.

Why have we as evangelicals placed so much emphasis on “praying the prayer” or saying the right “words”? Are words magical? Can we miss heaven by not saying the right “words”? Is God really concerned about the right verbiage?

Jesus never taught us to pray a specific prayer for salvation. He always talked about the condition of the heart. As a matter of fact the bible talks about saying the right things and having a heart that is far from God in Isaiah.

I know a number of people who can’t point to a specific date and place that they came into relationship with God. I can promise you however that they are walking with God. The fruit is nice and sweet.

What happened that we are so concerned about words and appearances, I’m not talking about judging fruit, just what things look like. Now see I already hear some of you going literal on me. “we should avoid the perception of impropriety”. That is not what I am talking about. We are so concerned about what people will say or what our actions may look like that we don’t repent, we don’t speak the truth in love.

I have told many people not to ever sacrifice my future on the alter of my feelings. Why are we so concerned with how someone may feel today rather than where they will spend eternity or even how they will spend the rest of their lives. Would you rather have someone not speak the truth in love to point out that your thinking or your actions may be flawed and have you damage other relationships and not be able to live a fruitful life?

We must first examine the log in our own eye so that we can speak the truth in love when it is necessary without our own logs getting in the way. Jesus never spared someone’s feelings. Think of the rich young ruler, the Syro-Phoenician woman in Luke 7, what about Peter? “get thee behind me satan”. The enemy has crippled us with worrying about how imperfect we are and rendering us impotent at speaking the truth in love.

Examine the log in your eye and deal with it and then get with God and walk in His love so we can speak the truth when needed. Let’s not be so concerned with the right word or appearance and start being concerned with eternity.

What do you think?

 We have been going through the truth project in our small group and absolutely loving it. In the very first session Dr. Tackett talks about assumptive language which is designed to be accepted without debate.

When I ran across this article by Dr Williams. I think he says it pretty well. Enjoy

Straight Thinking 101
By Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Just about the most difficult lesson for first-year economics students, and sometimes graduate students, is that economic theory, and for that matter any scientific theory, is positive or non-normative. You might ask, “What’s this business about positive and normative?” It’s easy. Positive statements deal with what was, what is or what will be. Normative, or subjective, statements deal with what’s good or bad, or what ought to be or should be. Confusing the two leads to considerable mischief.

The statement “Scientists cannot split the atom” is a positive statement. Why? If there’s disagreement with the statement, there are facts to which we can appeal to settle the disagreement — just visit Stanford University’s linear accelerator and watch atoms being split. The statement “Scientists shouldn’t split the atom” is a normative statement. Why? There are no facts whatsoever to which we can appeal to settle any disagreement. One person’s opinion on the matter is just as good as another’s.

How about the statement “Gasoline prices are unreasonable”? If some think they’re reasonable while others don’t, the argument can go on forever without resolution because there are no facts to which we can appeal to settle the disagreement. However, there are facts that tend to back up the statement: Buyers of gasoline prefer lower prices while sellers prefer higher prices.

By the way, years ago, Mrs. Williams would arrive home complaining about unreasonable grocery prices. After airing her complaints, she’d ask me to unload her car full of groceries. Having completed the chore, I’d ask her whether she was unreasonable, suggesting that it was my opinion that only an unreasonable person would pay unreasonable prices. The conversation never went far in a pleasant direction.

Having explained the difference between positive and normative statements, I tell my students that in no way do I propose that they purge their vocabulary of normative statements. Normative statements are excellent tools for tricking others into doing what you want them to do. I simply caution that in the process of tricking others, there’s no need to trick oneself into believing that one normative statement is better or more righteous than another.

A related term that doesn’t make much economic sense is the term “need.” The implication of an absolute, crying, dying or urgent need is that one cannot do without the need in question. Students sometimes say they absolutely need a car or a cell phone. At that point I ask them, how in the world was it that Gen. George Washington could defeat Britain, the mightiest nation on earth, without a cell phone or a car?

The problem with the term “need” is that it suggests there are no substitutes for the item in question. Thus, people will pay any price for it; however, the law of demand says that at some price, people will take less of something, including none of it. In response, a student might say, “Diabetics can’t do without insulin” or “People can’t do without food.” I say, “Yes, they can; diabetics have been doing without insulin for thousands of years.” In some poor African countries, people do without food. Of course, the results of doing without insulin or food are indeed unpleasant, but the fact that the results are unpleasant doesn’t require us to deny that non-consumption is a substitute for consumption. Again, I tell my students not to purge their vocabulary of crying, dying and urgent needs; just don’t trick yourself while you’re tricking others.

You say, “Williams, it doesn’t sound like economics is a very compassionate science.” You’re right, but neither is physics, chemistry or biology. However, if we wish to be compassionate with our fellow man, we must learn to engage in dispassionate analysis. In other words, thinking with our hearts, rather than our brains, is a surefire method to hurt those whom we wish to help.

Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the author of More Liberty Means Less Government: Our Founders Knew This Well.

Townhall.com::Straight Thinking 101::By Walter E. Williams