Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: HarleyD; P-Marlowe; Revelation 911

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.


52 posted on 12/28/2004 10:17:49 AM PST by xzins (The Party Spirit -- why I don't take the other side seriously!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]


To: xzins; topcat54; Dr. Eckleburg; ScottM1968; kingsurfer; RnMomof7

I've search the Internet to find some other articles which Ms Sharon Clark Pearson has written to determine whether she is indeed liberal in her theological views. I’ve found none so I can only base my views on what is written in this article. However, it should be noted that Ms. Pearson is herself a minister and president of the Wesleyan Theological Society so she's not exactly coming from an unbiased perspective in writing about a women’s role in the church to preach/teach.

I would agree that Paul does not mean absolute silence and there are many places where women played a prominent role (Lydia, Priscilla, etc.). Ester is a prime example of a great woman God rose to prominent to save her people but it was Mordecai who she would rely upon for God given guidance and direction. Mary carried the Lord Jesus but it was Joseph who God revealed when and/or where he was to go. When the man wasn’t around, as in the case of Ruth, God used other godly women such as Naomi. There is clear Biblical evidence of precisely how God operates and a clear order of organization.

I do think Ms. Pearson takes liberties with the scriptures in assuming 1 Tim 2 has no meaning or is “difficult to understand”. I see nothing wrong with Mr. Steadman’s article as long as the woman is under the charge of the man but I don’t believe this is what Ms. Pearson is saying. From my reading she is co-equaling the woman’s role in the church with the man’s role and I believe her arguments to be spurious. If one is going to rely upon “tradition” of the church, you will be hard press to find a prominent woman theologian in the early church. Perhaps that is why they call them the early church “fathers”?

One can only conclude from the scriptures and from the tradition of the early church, women did not preach/teach theology or doctrine. Something I think the author either ignores or attributes to “Jewish biases”.


55 posted on 12/28/2004 12:03:24 PM PST by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson