Pilgrim,

I apologize for the confusion. I had actually included the two examples of sharing a testimony in a church service, or sharing some thoughts from a scripture passage, as things I had expected you or others here would consider out of place biblically. Not to say I believe this myself- I'm studying these issues right now myself, and haven't drawn many firm conclusions at all.

The problem is, many strong, conservative, godly men have done their exegesis and studied these passages long and hard, and have come to differing conclusions. For example, men like Ligon Duncan and John Piper, in their work with the CBMW, would subscribe to the following:
Quote
When Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:12, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent," we do not understand him to mean an absolute prohibition of all teaching by women. Paul instructs the older women to "teach what is good. Then they can train the younger women" (Titus 2:3-4), and he commends the teaching that Eunice and Lois gave to their son and grandson Timothy (2 Timothy 1:5; 3:14). Proverbs praises the ideal wife because "She speaks with wisdom, and faithful instruction is on her tongue" (Proverbs 31:26). Paul endorses women prophesying in church (1 Corinthians 11:5) and says that men "learn" by such prophesying (1 Corinthians 14:31) and that the members (presumably men and women) should "teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs" (Colossians 3:16). Then, of course, there is Priscilla at Aquila's side correcting Apollos (Acts 18:26).

It is arbitrary to think that Paul had every form of teaching in mind in 1 Timothy 2:12. Teaching and learning are such broad terms that it is impossible that women not teach men and men not learn from women in some sense. There is a way that nature teaches (1 Corinthians 11:14) and a fig tree teaches (Matthew 24:32) and suffering teaches (Hebrews 5:8) and human behavior teaches (1 Corinthians 4:6; 1 Peter 3:1).

If Paul did not have every conceivable form of teaching and learning in mind, what did he mean? Along with the fact that the setting here is the church assembled for prayer and teaching (1 Timothy 2:8-10; 3:15), the best clue is the coupling of "teaching" with "having authority over men." We would say that the teaching inappropriate for a woman is the teaching of men in settings or ways that dishonor the calling of men to bear the primary responsibility for teaching and leadership. This primary responsibility is to be carried by the pastors or elders. Therefore we think it is God's will that only men bear the responsibility for this office.

You can find more on this here.

But then, for example, reading John MacArthur's notes in his study Bible, you'd get the idea he would disallow any public participation in a church service by a woman. This comes from what seems to be a no-questions-asked interpretations of "silence," per 2 Tim. 2:11-12. And, carried to its logical conclusion, this would bar women from sharing publicly in song, i.e. a solo or whatever (or perhaps this is a non-sequiter on my part; hence this thread). But even MacArthur seems to avoid laying down too many hard and fast rules: http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/54-16.HTM or http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg54-17.htm. (As a side note, if I remember correctly from my two-week trial of the Shepherd's Fellowship, I got the impression that Grace Church has women sing solos or whatever in their services. I could be wrong here.)

So, needless to say, I'm a little confused. Perhaps there's more perspicuity in these issues them I'm seeing. What is your take, and why? You mention leading worship. How would you see this as different from the aforementioned activities of singing, sharing a testimony, etc? I'm curious what you believe. Others, feel free to jump in.

Last edited by Henry; Wed Nov 24, 2004 12:20 AM.