You had to get in a shot, didn't you. :) I'm not positive, but I think it's correct that you can't look to any Reformed posters you know on this thread about this issue. I can only "unofficially" speak for SBC, and to date I'm unaware of any women senior pastors anywhere.
I agree with you that none of our churches passes every test of "the rules" perfectly. That's why I don't think it's right to make a federal case out of Reformed churches not mandating that women be covered artificially (i.e. with a veil), the way Kawaii has been. That verse isn't even crystal clear as to interpretation anyway, as 1000 S has demonstrated.
Seniority is not part of the formula, FK. It's something a lawyer would throw in to obfuscate the issue faced with a lack of any real argument. :)
I agree with you that none of our churches passes every test of "the rules" perfectly. That's why I don't think it's right to make a federal case out of Reformed churches not mandating that women be covered artificially (i.e. with a veil), the way Kawaii has been
By all means, I couldn't agree more! But it's important to understand where the 'tide comes from' so to say. certainly, the non-compliance in Apostolic churches did not come from within those churches, but from western influence, based on Protestant individualism, pride, hatred for authority, etc. all the things we cherrish in secular life and mistakenly bring into our spiritual life.
It is even more hypocritical that it should come from the Protestant side since the Protestants 'live by the Bible.'
Artificial or not, +Paul is very clear when it comes to 'being covered.' There is nothing ambiguous about his commandments, FK. Let's face it, women find it 'offensive' to be excluded. They feel that they are somehow 'demeaned' when they are covered. Those ideas don't come from the Bible. They don't come from the Church, either.