Tim Bayly has a take on his blog worth reading.

http://timbayly.worldmagblog.com/timbayly/archives/026105.html

Forgive me, the blog software apparently does not automatically make URL's into links.

http://timbayly.worldmagblog.com/timbayly/archives/026105.html

Any chance the logic could persuade American Bishops to get rid of altar girls? Or, are the girls part of some other effort?

Hate to be the one to break the bad news to you, but this is spelled out rather bluntly in the Bible. Churches that DON'T follow their lead simply aren't being Biblical.

And people wonder why I don't believe in the Bible's divine inspiration...

I'd be interested in knowing who was in her Sunday School class.
In the church that I attend she could be teaching in a children's or women's class but not a class with adult men.

Hey, it worked in 62 AD in Phrygia, Galatia, and Mysia, why not in upstate New York in 2006?

I think the key phrase in I Tim 2:12 is "to have authority over a man." It refers to spiritual authority. In my experience, Sunday school teachers and Bible study leaders do not have actual spiritual authority over those in their classes. I believe the Bible allows women to hold any position in a church other than the pastor.

There also appear to be other things going on in this situation. The pastor's statement on the church's web site hints at previous incidents involving Ms. Lambert, e.g.: "Well, the following morning, Tuesday, August 15th I was saddened to learn via the Newswatch50 website that once again a private church matter was made public by Ms. Lambert."

I haven't read the entire statement yet, so I don't know if the pastor elaborates on this or not...

As there are so many places I could go with this, I'll only post a few thoughts.

First, the Bible says "I do not" this "I" is not God, is not Jesus, is not the Holy Spirit. I would also point out that this same man said "It is better to be single," but most Christians don't follow this do they?

Context and meaning is everything. Presuppositions that the church has held for so long that are not Biblical mold a belief about the Scripture that simply is not in the text.

I would submit that the Bible speaks to women as submitting and being quiet in the church merely on a physical level.

First, women should submit to men? (many Christian men believe this!) The Bible says "wives submit to your husbands"...key words WIVES, HUSBANDS.

Second, "neither male NOR female" is used to describe the SPIRITUAL aspects of people, obviously not the physical. Doesn't this contradict "I do not allow a woman to teach or preach"? By no means. Paul is talking about the PHYSICAL aspects. Whether male or female, whoever is interrupting a church service should be stopped. In this case, it was the women. Since the time this was written, the majority of women in America be given an education and a few even use their skills. If a woman is better suited because of her God given talents than a man to teach or preach, why would we as a church silence her spiritually because of her physical composition?

As Christians can we really say that the spirit of God is to hold back people spiritually? I cannot see how this would be true. I believe that the laws check our physical actions and intentions, but not our abilities to learn, process, teach, or preach.

Can we not look to the Bible and see how influential the women were? Women were the first to see and report that Jesus had risen. Women were the ones who did not run and hide when Jesus was hanging on the cross. The examples given in the Bible of Godly women were not spineless, silent, weak women. By and large these Godly women were completely scandalous. (Deborah, Ruth, Esther, Rahab)

Do we really believe that God sees women as spiritually less able to teach? After all, God's plan and purpose for us is 100% relational, and women are by far more relational than men. (I want to add here that I'm by no means a "man hater" or a "femi-nazi," I appreciate and understand the differences between men and women. However, I think that on a spiritual level we are all equal. On a whole have been given different talents, but some men are amazing comforters and some women are amazing preachers.)

I think it is easy for men to see the words, interpret them in a way that the church has supported and be done with it because it does not confront them directly. By taking that interpretation, I hear men saying, "No woman can ever be as spiritual as I could be, simply because they are a woman." I hate to break the news to you men, but you are not the "choosen" gender. For the love of God, literally, take a moment to really consider the arguments and the consequences of how you interpret this scripture.

Finally, let's take a look at 2 Peter, the last chapter...Paul says some things that are difficult to understand, which the ignorant will distort to their own destruction.

I would also point out that this same man said "It is better to be single," but most Christians don't follow this do they?

Of course not. And Jesus said "do not swear at all," yet most Christian denominations, even the so-called funamentalist ones, still swear oaths. In all, I don't know of a single denomination that actually does what the Bible says, and I must say I would not want to belong to one that did.

Jason,

I think the big question is who is saying it? God or the author himself? If God says it, then I say following it. If the author is suggesting it, I say consider it prayerfully.

My point is I don't think I know a Christian alive who thinks that it is "wrong" to get married. I know a few too many who think it is sinful for a man to learn from a woman (isn't that what a teacher is, a person we learn from?)

Paul's discussion of singleness never touches on the "rightness or wrongness" of marriage; he merely expresses that it is easier for a person to serve God wholeheartedly if that person is single and does not have a family to care for.

RHLL--the prohibition against women being in spiritual authority over men in no way implies that women are less spiritual or less able to teach. And as you correctly note, there are many examples of women in the Bible exercising other kinds of leadership.

It is interesting, however, that Paul uses the phrase "I do not allow." I'm not aware of this phrase appearing in any other epistles. That might lend more weight to an interpretation that is tied to a historical situation, not a universal absolute.

Jason--of course, when you talk about a denomination "doing what the Bible says," you must take into account the proper interpretation of the entire Bible. With the exception of some very liberal denominations, I don't think there are any churches which consciously disregard any of the Bible's teachings.

Eric --

What do you make, then, of mainstream Protestant denominations, when they still swear oaths? Jesus directly commands his followers not to swear by anything at all. Yet most Protestants swear on the Bible. The answers I have heard to this question all seemed mere handwaving to me.

And I must say the same applies about women in places of authority, too, even if it was not Jesus who commanded on the subject. I don't believe it is an acceptable hermeneutic technique, except among the very liberal, to discount a Bible passage because Saint Paul said it, and because Paul's authority may be relatively more doubtful than that of the other authors. Yet it seems to be the stance taken here.

Rabbi Yosef Kanefsky, rabbi of Los Angeles Congregation B’nai David-Judea says, “The stupidest thing the Orthodox community does now is not having women rabbis. It wastes intellectual and spiritual talent.”

A lot of Jews believe that will change within the next 20 years---that there will even be Orthodox women rabbis, just as there have already been Conservative and Reform women rabbis for the last 30+ years.
As Blu Greenberg writes: "Orthodox women should be ordained because it would constitute a recognition of their intellectual accomplishments and spiritual attainments; because it would encourage great Torah study; because it offers wider female models of religious life; because women's input into p'sak (interpretation of Jewish text,) absent for 2,000 years, is sorely needed; because it will speed the process of reevaluating traditional definitions that support hierarchy; because some Jews might find it easier to bring halakhic questions concerning family and sexuality to a woman rabbi. And because of the justice of it all."

She makes a good case, but more amazing, Jews listen! The Ten Commandments may have been written in stone, but to Jesus and Paul, their religion was a living, breathing thing, constantly changing and evolving, just as it is for Jews today.

Unfortunately, that's certainly not the case for us Catholics, at least as Rome is concerned. I've come to the view that the worst thing that ever happened to my religion is our top-down approach and Pontiffs (and the Curia!) who try to crush the life out of it. Looks to me like First Baptist Church in Watertown, NY has a similar problem.

Jason,

Most Christians don't interpret Jesus' instruction in Matthew 5:33-37 to be a prohibition against all oaths, but rather an indictment of the way the Pharisees were using oaths, as described in Matthew 23:16-19. (Basically, they were using oaths to lie, saying if they swore on X it was binding but if they swore on Y it was not.) In fact, Jesus placed himself under an oath in Matthew 26:63-64. (See here and here for more commentary.)

I don't believe it is an acceptable hermeneutic technique, except among the very liberal, to discount a Bible passage because Saint Paul said it

That's certainly not what I was saying. I was pointing out that for Paul to say "I do not allow" is different than him saying "Do not." Personally, I don't think this changes anything, but I'm open to the possibility (if it can be shown through proper hermeneutic techniques) that this passage does not prohibit women from ever holding the position of church pastor.

Of course, you have to consider what the oiginal language says. "I do not allow" is in English; do we understand that properly in the contect of what Paul actually wrote?

Whether Paul said it or whether Jesus says it is not at all relevant if it is in the Bible. The Bible is the Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit and written by human hands. Everything in the Bible is the Word of God, whether it is a direct quote of Jesus or not.

This discussion has started me thinking about all the important issues related to this story that are not really being discussed. Check out my blog to hear my take on things.