Sorry, I’d have to disagree. Consider some of her statements…
”The concept of subordination is only first referred to in Genesis 3:16 as a consequence of the Fall. Domination/subordination is presented as a new reality brought into being by sin and is represented as a part of what is broken in the marriage trust. Speculation on this text which envisages women as inferior or as properly subordinate is a late development in Judaism, occurring first in the second century before Christ.”
”The prohibition in 1 Timothy (2:11-15) is unclear”
“But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.” 1 Tim 2:12
There is nothing unclear about 1 Timothy (is 1 Tim 2:4 also unclear which is what you like to use on us Calvinists???). This is the mindless dribble that infects the church today. Use the scriptures you want and discard the rest but sound so scholarly. If she has a "high view" of scripture then perhaps she should join the Catholic Church who don't buy into sola scriptura.
If this represents the scholarship of the Methodist is it any wonder they’re having the problems they’re having.
There is nothing unclear about 1 Timothy (is 1 Tim 2:4 also unclear which is what you like to use on us Calvinists???).
There are several women on these threads that have taken it upon themselves to attempt to publicly teach and admonish and otherwise assert scriptural authority over Christian men in matters of gospel and doctrine.
Since you believe that Paul is clearly stating that women should not exercise authority over a man, and should not be in a position to publicly teach doctrine to men, should they not leave such correction about doctrine and rightly dividing the word of God to the men on these forums?
Or is maybe 1 Tim 2:12 not all that clear on the subject? :-)
Apparently, you don't know what a theological liberal is. This woman is no liberal.
She says that the BIBLICAL and historical evidence indicates the church should be more visionary; i.e, I assume she means they should accept the ordination and pastoral leadership of women.
I'm not willing (yet) to go that far.
I am willing, however, to say that ministry within the church should be far more open to participation by women. That 1 Tim 2 passage is one that simply might have a more household-specific interpretation than many have acknowledged. It very well could be a censure of domineering wives.....which fits with all the remainder of the passage.
None of this speculation is extra-biblical. A liberal would have based their case on the argument that 1 Timothy is not an authentic Pauline letter.
This lady has tried to deal with the evidence, not dispose of it.