on “women in ministry”

I know this conversation is old, but Mark in his comments on the ESV opened up the opportunity for me to bring something up I thought I like to help us all get out on the discussion table and that what exactly meant by the term “women in ministry”?

In short, it means women as “lead” pastors or “senior” pastors, etc.

Why?  Because you don’t really hear anyone making a fuss about a women as a “children’s” pastor.  Few if any complain about a woman being an associate of some sort, be it over the seniors or women’s ministry.  Few if any complain about sunday school teachers, bible study leaders, other ministry staff such as with a campus ministry, church camp leaders, missionaries (who teach the Bible, provide spiritual leadership, plant churches, etc) and so on, all which are forms of ministry – right?  Right.

But when it comes to a women as the lead pastor?  Whoa now, that violating the Bible, women can’t be elders; or the role of casting the vision of the church only belongs to the man (as if the casting vision should be done by one person and only men), women shall not exercise authority over man, wives are supposed to be submissive, women are to be quiet and learn in submission, ask their hubbies at home, etc.

So, to sum it up, when it comes to talking about women in ministry what is really meant is women as pastors, or more specifically, lead pastors/elders.

Are we clear on that?   Okoie dokie now, let’s all continue on with the conversation, shall we?

😉

Book Giveaway: Wright’s ROSG.

Mark Stevens is giving away a copy of NT Wright’s massive work: The Resurrection of the Son of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God, Vol. 3) (Augsburg 2003).

While readers of my blog know I am not overly enamored by Wright’s work, I have heard this is a good work on the Resurrection. Wright also won Mark’s Scholar’s showdown, by one vote over his friend Gordon D Fee – who I think is a far better scholar and exegete than Wright as Wright is supposedly more a historian than a Bible scholar per se, which explains the fact that he doesn’t really “do” exegesis.

So, perhaps from a historical point of view (not an exegetical point of view – since you probably can’t really exegete historical events and realities – perhaps it will be a good read.

So, if he sends it, I will read it!