Egalitarianism, Evolution and Abortion

One of the current interpretations of 1 Timothy 2:12 is that women are not allowed to teach men theology. Allow me to refute this interpretation as false and risk the certain possibility that I will drive non-egalitarians further into the corners of stubborn conformity.

“And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.” (1 Timothy 2:12)

This is the sole passage on which non-egalitarianism hangs. If it was not for this passage, women could be “pastors”. Still, one sentence from God is enough for the Christian, correct?

Of course, since this verse does not say “women cannot be pastors” and doesn’t even mention the word “pastor” or any other title of the church office, the non-egalitarian is forced to take it as general principle which includes the office of “pastor” among other church positions.

Of course, this general principle must include the prohibition of women teaching (didasko) men. But what do we mean by “teach”? This is a very important point!

Is it wrong for a woman to teach a man how to use a calculator?

Is it wrong for a woman to teach a man how to use a computer?

Is it wrong for a woman to teach a man how to use a Bible?

Is it wrong for a woman to teach a man French?

Apparently, it is wrong for a woman to teach a man Hebrew! Why? Apparently, teaching Hebrew is wrong because it involves theology.

“So-and-so” was quoted in a Jan. 19 Dallas Morning News article that the seminary has returned to its “traditional, confessional and biblical position” that a woman should not instruct men in theology courses or in biblical languages.

Biblical languages? I call chapter and verse on that.

I suppose then it is wrong for a woman to teach a man German because the purpose of a seminary offering German is to allow them to read theological German.

Yes, “theology” seems to be the key. The only way that non-egalitarians can now seek to justify their unbiblical position is to interpret 1 Timothy 2:12 as forbidding “theological” teaching.

So while it appears to be acceptable for a woman to witness to a man, it is wrong for a woman to teach theology. Of course, doesn’t witnessing involve some form of theological instruction? If not, how so? If it does involve theology but a different kind, then what is the difference? Really, why is it right for a woman to lead a person to God in Christ through witnessing but wrong for a woman to lead a man in the furthering of his faith in discipleship?

I know: “It just is.”

Even here it is difficult to identify the difference between witnessing and discipleship. I can’t do so. I’m not worried because neither can anyone else.

Is it wrong for a woman to pull a man aside to tell him that he is sinning in some area? I guess not because that involves theology.

What else can a woman not teach a man?

Well, apparently a Christian female biologist can not teach a male biology. The same goes for astronomy and geology. Why?

Well, as the proponents of Intelligent Design so aptly state: the universe was created by God so as to point to the Creator. Therefore, since God is involved, Intelligent Design is a theological discipline. Thus, a woman cannot teach a man Intelligent Design, including biology, zoology, geology, astronomy, physics, chemistry ...

In fact, isn’t it the case that since God created everything that in a sense is theological? Indeed, then is there anything a woman can teach a man?

By the way, I just received my copy of the SWBTS Journal of Theology for summer 2004. Dr. Klouda has an article in it.

Was it wrong for Dr. Klouda to write this article?

Was it wrong for the SWBTS Journal of Theology to publish her article?

Would it be wrong for me to read her article?

I often find similarities between the “women in ministry” debate and the “abortion debate”. How so?

Pro-Choicers have always had a tremendously difficult time debating their point. They cannot withstand even a few questions about their position without having into cease the discussion. Therefore, there are very few abortion debates held. The Pro-Choicers prefer to state, “It’s in the Constitution!” and then force everyone to agree with them. That they never state where it is in the Constitution is telling.

Non-Egalitarians are strikingly similar. They have a tremendously difficult time debating their point. They cannot withstand even a few questions about their position without having into cease the discussion. Therefore, there are very few “women in ministry” debates held. The Pro-Choicers prefer to state, “It’s in the Bible!” and then force everyone to agree with them. That they never state where it is in the Bible is telling.

So here is a final question:

WHY IS IT SO EASY TO REFUTE EVERY SINGLE NON-EGALITARIAN ARGUMENT?