UNPUBLISHED BOOK: GOOD ORDER IN THE CHURCH

Leslie McFall

Last updated: 27 February, 2002

CONTENTS

4.10 Evangelical compromises

4.10.1. Women are permitted to teach mature men provided the women are under some "ultimate male teacher."

4.10.2. Women are permitted to prophesy in Church but are not permitted to interpret tongues.

4.10.3. Women are permitted to pray in church but not to prophesy

4.10.4. Behind many interpretations is the unstated need to justify the Western practice of women preachers/teachers and female House-group leaders.

4.10.5. A red herring: men not wearing a head covering

4.10.6. Strategies to confuse "the enemy"

____________________________________________

4.10 EVANGELICAL COMPROMISES

Under "evangelical compromises" are included views which are current in evangelical circles which may not have appeared in print. The following are some such views.

4.10.1. WOMEN ARE PERMITTED TO TEACH MATURE MEN PROVIDED THE WOMEN ARE UNDER SOME "ULTIMATE MALE TEACHER."

Those who take this view go part of the way with Paul in that they note that Paul's foundation is based on creation theology, and not on the culture of Corinth. This is to be welcomed. However, they do not go all the way with Paul. They compromise his stand against all participation of women in the worship service. They have overlooked the unbreakable connection Paul makes between silence and submission. They go together: they cannot be separated without destroying the submissive disposition.

Their compromised position is to allow women to teach men provided she in turn is answerable to another man for what she teaches, and that he can "correct" her. Surely every male teacher is in the same position as a female teacher. If s/he is in error the gathered church of male members should discipline him/her as in 1 Cor 5:4, "in the name of the Lord Jesus&emdash;ye [all the "brothers"] being gathered together, also my spirit . . . to deliver up such an one to the Adversary for the destruction of the flesh . . ." (Young's Literal Translation). There is no suggestion in the NT that over every woman teacher there sits a big brother keeping an ear open to everything she says in case she leads "Adam" astray again. The big brother who is termed by them the "ultimate male teacher" sounds very much like a male Protestant Pope!&emdash;the Ultimate Supreme Teacher&emdash;the Infallible Teacher. What happens when Big Brother departs from Scripture and the female teacher does not?

Who or what this "ultimate male teacher" is, is not clarified. Would a bishop fulfil the role of "ultimate male teacher"? If so, then women can be ordained to the ministry, but opponents of women's ordination are against this development. When the day arrives (as it surely will) when we have women bishops then she can retain her position theologically because the Archbishop will be the "ultimate male teacher." When the day arrives (as it must) when we have a woman Archbishop then she too can retain her position theologically, because the world-wide Anglican Communion will be given the title of "ultimate male teacher," or will the Pope (by then) be the "ultimate male teacher"? And then one day we shall have a woman Pope because Jesus will be "acknowledged" to be Head of the Church, the "Ultimate Male Teacher" to appease residual "Protestant" reservations.

Evangelical theologians and ministers have given in to the demand for "equal opportunities for women" by permitting them to become ordained ministers. The same force is operating even now to press for "equal opportunities for women" to become bishops and archbishops, and why not? Once the principle is conceded it is inconsistent to refuse women the opportunity to get to the top, and become Archbishop. If they are consistent with their own theological reasons for permitting women to become ordained ministers then it would be unchristian of these evangelical ministers to stop her reaching the top. There can be no half-way stage (the women will see to that!). The most powerful argument that Dr. George Carey could put forward for many years against the ordination of women was not theological, but pragmatic. His much quoted words were, "The time is not right." When pressed at the height of the debate to admit women to Holy Orders he stated quite openly: "There are no theological arguments against the ordination of women."

By making small concessions over a long period of time to the demand for "equal opportunities" the Church created a climate where the apostolic tradition was broken. Now that women are ordained, as night follows day, there will be an unstoppable engulfing of the entire hierarchy of the Church of England by those who object to Paul's teaching on Man's headship from the inside. The compromised position of some evangelicals will give the feminists the "theological justification" that they have been desperately seeking in order to teach mature men. Evangelicals who oppose women ministers but permit women to pray or speak in the public church meeting are in the same camp with the feminists. They can oppose a woman becoming archbishop because the Word that debars women from leadership of men also debars them from speaking in church. Evangelicals are being inconsistent if they disapprove of the former but approve the latter. They both stand or fall together.

4.10.2. WOMEN ARE PERMITTED TO PROPHESY IN CHURCH BUT ARE NOT PERMITTED TO INTERPRET TONGUES.

Some reading 1 Corinthians 14:34, see it as:

a prohibition on women pronouncing on an utterance in tongues, because to have a woman interpret decisively such utterances would contravene the principle of 1 Tim. 2&emdash;such interpretation would involve the kind of authority that a teacher has in expounding the word of God. In an important way the person who interprets has an ultimate authority in the particular setting. He can allow or disallow utterances: the utterances need his imprimatur and the speakers are to that extent under his authority. It is not simply a question of explaining the utterance's meaning; it is a question of adjudicating its validity. Without an interpreter the speaker in tongues cannot submit his or her utterance to the Church (v. 28). It is no doubt for that reason that women are allowed to prophesy, since ultimate authority continues to lie elsewhere. Moreover, when they do prophesy, they are under the authority of a "judge," who to that extent has authority over them (v. 29). This is all perfectly consistent with 1 Tim. 2 and the principle that it lays down.

This viewpoint assumes that the spiritual message conveyed by the tongue speaker was some kind of non-human language (the tongue of angels) and that therefore the one "interpreting" it could introduce their own ideas into what was said, leaving the congregation at the mercy of the interpreter. This is the fear that lies behind the prohibition on women being the interpreter. But this misses the point. The tongue is a human language and the interpreter is someone who is a native speaker and so know the language in question, or the Holy Spirit has given someone else in the congregation the gift of the same human language. The content of the one speaking in tongues and the one prophesying is the same, because it is the same Spirit in both that is speaking. Consequently, the interpreter is just an intermediary. Whereas prophesying is the Spirit speaking directly, the tongue-speaker is the Spirit speaking indirectly to the church. Both are valid, says Paul, provided there is an interpreter in the case of the tongue-speaker. It is irrelevant whether the interpreter is male or female. What prevents a woman from being an interpreter in church is that this is the one place where she is not allowed to speak, not even to interpret. She can be an interpreter and a prophetess outside the church.

In any case the argument is confused. On the one hand it talks about a woman "pronouncing on an utterance in tongues," and then equates this with interpreting the utterance (" because to have a woman interpret decisively . . . "). If the interpreter is simply translating the human language of the tongue-speaker, this is not the same thing as pronouncing on it, or passing some value-judgment on it. They are two distinct functions. It would clarify the matter if instead of using the term "interpreter" we used the word "translator" instead.

The suggestion that the interpreter "can allow or disallow utterances" and that the hearers are at the mercy of the interpreter in conveying more than what the tongue-speaker coveyed, is not correct if the interpreter is merely a translator. If the translator fails to give a competent translation it is a misrepresentation of what the tongue-speaker said.

Having missed the point that the interpreter is a translator and nothing more, the argument then proceeds quite illogically that, "women are allowed to prophesy, since ultimate authority continues to lie elsewhere."

This compromise maintains that the prohibition on silence in 1 Corinthians 14:34 is a limited to a ban on women being an interpreter of tongues. Is not the interpretation itself also the work of the Holy Spirit? Can a godly woman not be trusted to give a true translation? If she can speak in a human tongues to deliver a Spirit-message, why can she not speak in a translation tongue? Neither the delivery nor the translation belongs to her but to the Spirit. If the Spirit is the agent for both conveying the tongue-message and for translating it, then there can be no input by the human means (male or female). The difference does not lie in some supposed unsuitability or defect in the agent the Spirit uses, but in the headship relation between man and woman. The headship of Man requires submission on the part of women and the form this takes is silence throughout the worship service as it was under the Law (14:34b).

If a woman cannot be a translator of tongues (human languages) inside the church building can she be an interpreter outside the church building? In an evangelistic address can she be a translator of a human language? In other words, must all preaching by males in their native tongues have male translators? If the situation is outside the formal church meeting then provided the woman is covered and there is no offense given to the culture in which the message is being delivered, a woman may use her gift to interpret the male speaker's message. If it is inappropriate to hear a woman speak in such a public role then a male translator should be used.

If a woman has the gift of teaching (or tongues or prophecy) from the Holy Spirit the gift of teaching cannot be any different from the same gift given to a man, so it is difficult to see how the same gift can have two gender forms: one a male form (ultimate teacher) and the other a female form (non-ultimate). The spiritual gift must be the same because it comes from the same Spirit. Consequently to regard the same gift as slightly unreliable when given to a woman, so that she always has to be under the authority of a male with the same gift (presumably), but always reliable when given to a male, is a man-made distinction and it has no counterpart when compared to the gift of prophecy or tongue-speaking which men and women receive from the same Spirit. If a woman is given the gift to teach then it is the same gift as that given to a man, and she must exercise it in the sphere in which she is called to fulfil her creation function, namely, at home and among her own sex. The same goes for every gift she is given. If she is a teacher then she must teach with the authority that a man teaches with, but only within the sphere she is called to function in. The check on every woman teacher's gift will be the menfolk of the women she teaches. Each wife is expected to put her questions to her own menfolk, but in the case where a woman convert is the sole Christian member of her family, then other female teachers will be able to edify her in her own home, if necessary.

It is difficult to accept this view because it uses 1 Corinthians 14:34 to prevent women being a translator of a message given in an unknown tongue, because, it is argued, it puts her in a crucial position between the tongue-speaker and the rest of the Church. Unfortunately for this view it does not come out of the text itself, and, significantly, it does not take us to 1 Corinthians 14 to justify this odd interpretation. Why not? The immediately preceding topic to 14:34-35 deals with prophesying, not tongue-speaking, so if anything, the prohibition on women speaking must include prophesying. But this view admits that women can prophesy in the Church. If "prophesying" includes "edification," that is, teaching (as it does in 14:3) then women, on this approach, could also "teach in prophesying." But the immediate context of 14:34 would prohibit her from "prophesying." It is therefore puzzling why this view chooses to silence the woman giving an interpretation of tongues (which is dealt with in 14:27-28) but does not silence her from prophesying (which is dealt with in vv. 29-33 and continued in v. 39). It may be that this view assumes 1 Corinthians 11:5 permits her to prophesy in church. But since Scripture cannot contradict Scripture, and since 11:1-16 comes under the out-of-church section of the Epistle (i.e., it goes with chaps 5-10; see 4.3.6) which is supported by the universal/cosmological principle in 11:3, the context of chapter 11:2-16 is not the worship service but the day-to-day exercise of praying and prophesying that all Christians (male and female) indulged in every day of the week. Women can pray and prophesy every day of the week and when they do so they must be covered. The only place and time when they must be silent is in the formal weekly gathering of the ecclesia: there they are to recognise publicly the headship of Man by remaining respectfully quiet and attentive to what is going on, just as the holy women of old did when they came with their menfolk to worship at the Temple of God in Jerusalem.

Also this view has not taken into account the hermeneutical context, which belongs to the first-century, and which shows that Paul is speaking to men ("brothers"), not women, throughout the Epistle. If this had been observed then the prohibition on women would have been seen to be a permanent ruling. The background to 1 Corinthians 14 seems to be some form of frustration in the worship service where men were using their gifts inappropriately. Maybe tongue-speakers were monopolising their limited worship time, boring the rest, especially when there was no translator present. The letter to Paul probably asked for some ruling on the problem, and he gives the guiding criterion that whoever participates in the service must see that what he has to contribute benefits all those present and not just a minority. "Let all things be for building up" (v. 26).

There are other aspects of the worship service not dealt with by Paul here (such as the reading of the OT and the Gospels [in its oral stage?] and prayers for all men, etc.) which would need to be fitted into the worship time, so Paul limits the number of tongue-speakers and prophets to "two, or at the most, three" of each kind. He then makes the significant addition in v. 34 that women are not to use their gifts of tongue-speaking and prophesying (minimum application because of the immediate context; but in fact the reason he gives in vv. 34b-35 rules out all speaking of any kind by women) during the worship service.

4.10.3. WOMEN ARE PERMITTED TO PRAY IN CHURCH BUT NOT TO PROPHESY

A Liberal-Conservative position

The bottom line of this position permits women to pray in public, and to lead men in prayer in the church meeting on the same terms as men (i.e., with an uncovered head). However, it abides by the command in 1 Timothy 2:12 that a woman should not teach (or preach to) men in the church meeting. Those advocating this position would claim to be "evangelical Christians." However, this position is a concession or compromise (some would say an act of appeasement) to the persistent secular and vociferous feminist pressure on the Church's traditional teaching.

The justification to pray in public is taken from 1 Corinthians 11:5. Indeed, this is the only justification put forward, yet it hangs precariously on the assumption that this passage refers to the church meeting. Given this assumption, the argument goes, "If the men can pray in church with an uncovered head, then the women can also. Paul uses the same phrase, "pray and prophesy," and applies it equally to men and women. Paul treats the sexes as equals as regards their functions in church."

Two minor supporting arguments are: (1) that the watching angels of 11:10 are present in the church service and (2), the reference to "the churches of God" in 11:16 may also point to a church setting for the chapter.

OBJECTIONS

The evidence for a church setting for 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 from the two minor supporting arguments is inconclusive because angels are everywhere, not just in church meetings, and the term "churches of God" in this context is intended to cover the universal community of God's people. The custom of women praying and prophesying with an uncovered head, says Paul, is not found anywhere among the churches of God, that is, among the Christian communities throughout the world and this is borne out by the testimony of the Early Church Fathers.

The five main weaknesses of this interpretation are:

(1) It is illogical. Paul says, "pray and prophesy."

(2) It sets up a contradiction between 1 Cor 11:5 and 1 Tim 2:12.

(3) 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is assumed to refer to the church meeting.

(4) It sets up a contradiction between 1 Cor 11:5 and 14:34-35.

(5) Even if women could pray in public she must do so with her head covered. The dress-codes are gender-specific, theological, and as permanent as their natures.

Regarding the first point, Paul says "pray and prophesy," not just "pray." If women can pray in church then logically they can also prophesy or preach. By conceding women could not teach (through preaching) or have authority over men, the hope was that they might be permitted the innocent activity of praying in public. The innocent act of picking the apple was not thought to have any theological consequences at the time. What leaven is to unleavened bread, compromises are to the Truth. Both are altered permanently. Both have to be destroyed. 1 Cor 11:5 cannot be used to support women praying in public without conceding to them the right to teach (through preaching) in church. If they cannot preach then they cannot pray. The two stand or fall together. Which is it?

On the second point, Scripture is set against Scripture so that 1 Corinthians 11:5 condones what 1 Timothy 2:12 condemns. Having conceded that women cannot teach or have authority over men, this "evangelical" position is faced with a dilemma if 1 Cor 11:5 applies to the church meeting. But there is no contradiction if 1 Cor 11:2-16 is dealing with an out-of-church situation where women pray and prophesy (covered) in their own homes.

No. 3 is responsible for no. 4. We can test the assumption in no. 3 by examining the contradiction in no. 4.

We know from Acts 2:17-18 that all of God's people&emdash;male and female&emdash;could prophesy. This was a universal gift that accompanied the gift of the Spirit.

And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy. . . . And on my menservants and on my maidservants I will pour out my Spirit in those days; and they shall prophesy.

When we examine 1 Cor 14:31 we see that the same outpouring of the Spirit is still a common feature in the Christian community. But in this context the gift of "prophesying" is said to be on all the men in the church. Paul, addressing the "brethren," says: "For you can all prophesy one by one." Having said this, the Spirit then explicitly excludes the sisters from speaking in the public worship service with the words, "Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but they are to be submissive as the law also says." So a gift that every Christian&emdash;male and female&emdash;had from the Holy Spirit could not be used indiscriminately, or in prohibited places, "The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets" (1 Cor 14:32).

The ban on women speaking (Greek lalein, which is the general word for any kind of verbal communication, including prophesying) in church is anchored in God's wisdom when He set up His worship under the Old Covenant. The worship service of the New Testament Church was not set up in a cultural vacuum. Hundreds of synagogues existed all over the Roman Empire. Wherever Jews lived there were synagogues. The first congregation in Corinth consisted largely of ex-synagogue members. Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, became a Christian with all his family. He was baptized by Paul (1 Cor 1:14) and the new church met in Justus' house, next door to the synagogue (Acts 18:7-8).

The synagogue was modelled on the Temple in Jerusalem in that men and women sat apart from each other, replicating the Court of the Men and the Court of the Women in the Temple. All its functioning office-bearers were male. Women were not permitted to speak in any public meeting. God never asked any of His prophetesses to go to the Temple to deliver a message to His people as He did with Jeremiah and the other male prophets, including the twelve Apostles (Acts 5:20). Prophetesses, like Huldah, prophesied in their own homes to whoever came to visit them.

When God set up His Temple worship He, according to His own predestined plan, excluded His female followers from having any direct, public part in His worship (cultus). He, in His wisdom, excluded women from the priesthood despite the fact that the contemporary cultures of the Near East had priestesses. Even the perfumes used in the Temple were made by the men. Jesus never heard a woman speak in any of the synagogues he attended or preached in. It was unheard of. It was a shameful thing for a woman to speak in the synagogue or the Temple. For the past 2000 years the Orthodox Jewish synagogue has preserved this tradition. And this theologically-based cultus was continued into the Church by the Spirit through Paul. It has been retained by the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches and some Protestant denominations (particularly the Brethren) to this day. Only in the Western world has the tradition been dropped under feminist pressure.

Given the undisputed fact that throughout the Old Covenant period, extending back to Adam himself, women were not permitted by God to enter His service of public worship on the same terms as men, and given the fact that the Lord Jesus (through Paul) endorses His Father's positioning of them to the end of time, the Church cannot interfere in this divinely-approved arrangement. It is the way God and the Lord Jesus want it. Christ is the direct head of every man and, through man, He is the head of every woman (1 Cor 11:3). Christ expects all His Christian men to appear before Him in church and give Him their offerings of praise and devotion. Thus there is a continuity in His worship from the beginning of time to the end of time. Men, and men only, conduct His public worship and bring it to Him on behalf of their families.

Now, since all women (whose direct head is man, not Christ ) are explicitly excluded from speaking any kind of individual contribution in the New Covenant church, the reference to women "praying and prophesying " in 11:5 could not have taken place in the public meeting, otherwise there would be a contradiction with 14:34 and, more significantly, a break with God's theologically-based tradition from the time of Adam. These activities must, in the case of women, have taken place in their homes or in a non-church context, as this was the case under the Old Covenant period. Thus there can be no doubt that Paul has the community (not the church meeting) in mind when he goes on to set out the attire the men and women are to wear (or not wear, in the case of the men) whenever they "pray and prophesy."

Men are permitted to "pray and prophesy" audibly inside and outside the church. Women were permitted to "pray and prophesy" audibly only outside the church meeting and, given the place of women in society at that time, in a seemly context usually meant at home.

Whenever the men "pray and prophesy" they must ensure that they do so with an uncovered head, out of respect for their new Head, the Lord Jesus Christ. The women, on the other hand, must ensure that they cover their heads out of respect for their position among the "powers and authorities" that exist in the universe. Their power (or authority, 11:10) differs from the power that men have been given through their headship, and also from the power that angels have, who, looking on, know this.

Consequently, there is no contradiction because if Chapter 14 is explicitly stated to take place in a church meeting, and no place is explicitly stated in 1 Cor 11:2-16, then 1 Cor 11:2-16 must be set in a general or unspecified context. The reason why Paul did not place 1 Cor 11:2-16 in a specific context is because he is appealing to universal principles which apply both inside and outside the church meeting, as we shall see.

THE THEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF GENDER IN GOD'S WORSHIP

The universal setting of 1 Cor 11:2-16 can be inferred from Paul's argument that men should not cover their heads because all males are created in "the image and glory of God" (11:7). It is a theological, not a cultural argument. The question arises: When does man cease to be in "the image and glory of God" (so that he can cover his head when praying and prophesying)? The answer is: at no time. He bears the "image and glory" of God until he dies. Whether he conducts worship at home or in the public meeting he remains the same person. It follows from this that a man can never formally "pray" or "prophesy" with a covered head. So the issue whether 1 Cor 11:2-16 is set inside or outside the church does not arise. Paul is stating a general principle that does not depend on place but on the nature of man.

The next issue relating to men is: Does God make a distinction between praying to Him in public and praying to Him in private? The answer is No, because man is "the image and glory of God" at all times. Consequently, whenever a male formally enters the presence of God to pray to Him, he must come in the manner prescribed for his sex. Nothing in Paul's inspired reply has been conditioned by contemporary culture. The tradition he received and passed on to the Corinthians is permanent and universal because it is based on two things: (1) the permanent nature of man, and (2) the transfer of God's headship over Man to Christ (1 Cor 15:27-28; Jn 17:2).

The corollary with the woman brings out the following theological insights. We know from 1 Cor 14:34 that no woman can "prophesy" in church, let alone speak. This is not in dispute by any major denomination: it is the natural reading of the text. It was how the Early Church Fathers read the text. It was how the Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Reformation Churches read it. It was how it was understood for 2000 years. The question arises: When does woman cease to be "the glory of man" (so that she can pray and prophesy with an uncovered head)? The answer is: at no time. She is the "glory of man" forever. She cannot change her nature. It follows from this that a woman can never formally "pray" or "prophesy" with a uncovered head. Now the place a woman can freely and appropriately "prophesy" is at home or among other women or in a non-church setting, and when she does so she must do so in the manner prescribed for her sex. The tradition is permanent because it is based on the permanent nature of woman and the revelation that she is "the glory of man." It is her divinely-created gender, not local custom, that determines her dress-code. The female's dress-code does not depend on whether men are present or not, but whether God is present or not.

The next issue relating to women is: Does God make a distinction between praying to Him in public and praying to Him in private? The answer is No. Consequently, whenever a female formally enters the presence of God to pray to Him, she must come in the manner prescribed for her sex. The tradition is permanent because it is theologically based, not culturally conditioned. The message Paul conveys here is that dress-codes are gender-specific, theological, and as permanent as their genders. The call to all is to remain in the gender in which you were created, and remain in the calling in which you were called.

Outside the times she is praying or prophesying, Christian women can go bare-headed like any other women, unless the culture she lives in demands that she cover her head, in which case she should conform to the culture in the interests of not giving offense, "Give no offense either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God" (1 Cor 10:32); "Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, reverence to whom reverence, honour to whom honour is due" (Rom 13:7). Care, however, should be taken not to confuse the Christian woman's theological dress-code with her native costumes which might coincide with it. Costumes and customs may change; her theological dress-code will never. Unfortunately, in the West headcoverings went out of fashion and with it went out the dress-code because they were not kept distinct.

The setting for 1 Cor 11:2-16 cannot be the church meeting in the woman's case, otherwise the Spirit of Jesus condones in 11:5 what He condemns in 14:34. An interpretation which puts Jesus in contradiction with Himself cannot be the right interpretation. He commands His female followers in 1 Cor 14:34 to be silent (14:37b). They are not on the same level as men nor do they approach God on the same terms as men. They dress differently because their genders are taken into account by God, their Maker, and their God-ordained functions within the worshipping community are different as a result. They are not equal in God's sight with respect to their assigned place in His worship. This is how it was during the 1,500 years of Temple worship. God gave the primary role in His public worship to the male members. The women were active but silent participators during all that time. That is how it was then and that is how it is to continue to the end of time ("as the Law says/teaches"). It is as permanent as the Law (i.e., as God's Word). Jesus, the Head of the Church, continues to say to His twenty-first century Church through Paul, "I have not permitted them to participate audibly on the same terms as men in My Church." Who are we to overthrow this directive? He says to His Church, "If you love me you will obey my commandments." His expressed will is that He wants the theologically-established, New Covenant traditions to be adhered to, to the end of time.

CONCLUSION

It should be remembered that Paul stayed in Corinth for 18 months (Acts 18:11) and so the pattern of church life would have been well-established by the time he left. It is hard to envisage Christian women deliberately attempting to "prophesy" or speaking (i.e., asking questions) in the church meeting knowing it was not the custom.

We can conclude from this study that Paul is dealing in 1 Cor 11:2-16 with a situation where women are "praying and prophesying" outside the church context, which they are permitted to do. So spiritual activity, per se, is not the problem. The problem is not even where they may exercise this spiritual activity. So location is not the problem. So we can rule out content and location.

The problem being addressed in 1 Cor 11:2-16 is connected with a relaxation of the tradition that women should "pray and prophesy" with their heads covered. Some women were refusing to abide by their theological dress-code, maybe with the best intentions for evangelistic purposes&emdash;to put the best spiritual construction on the innovation, though others view it in a more sinister, feminist light. Although this breach was taking place outside the church meetings&emdash;in the community&emdash;nevertheless it could have implications for their conduct in church, because there should be consistency in their respective dress-codes when it comes to "praying and prophesying." Men, it would appear, were abiding by their dress-code inside and outside the church meetings, hence the brief reference to them. The longer focus on the women's proper dress-code suggests that the problem lay with them.

The crucial point is: In 1 Cor 11:2-16 the issue is about headcovering outside the church meeting and not about praying and prophesying in church. In chapter 14 the issue is about prophesying in the church meeting and not about headcovering.

Once the issues are clearly identified it can be seen why 1 Cor 11:2-16 appears at the end of 7:1&emdash;11:1 (which deals with the Christian in his relations with his secular environment, i.e., out-of-church issues) and before 11:17 (the start of the list of internal church disorders which begins with 11:17, "For first of all, when you come together . . . . [v. 18]" and ends at 15:58). 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 lies at the interface between these two distinct blocks of material. It is a Christian community issue, not a church meeting issue, although Paul may have had in mind the possibility that men could be tempted to neglect their own theologically-based tradition. In which case it would become a church meeting issue. But there is no suggestion that the men were the disturbers of the good order. This analysis now explains why 14:34-35 is placed where it is; it is an internal church matter.

If both chapters are the Word of God then there can be no contradiction between 1 Cor 11:5 and 14:34. The contradiction is avoided if in 11:5 Paul is addressing the issue of women "praying and prophesying" in the wrong manner outside the church meeting. They should have been doing so with their heads covered because they are not males. Nature, not nurture; cultus, not culture; genes, not generations, underlies Paul's argument in 1 Corinthians 11 and 14.

The Early Church Fathers bear witness to the Apostolic tradition that women did not speak, preach, or prophesy, or have any leadership role in the Church. Women prayed silently while in the church meeting. The Fathers held to the revelation that women were created to be a helpmeet to man, not to take the lead in any aspect of his life. She is a true helpmeet when she remains silent and compliant when accompanying him in the church meeting&emdash;her beauty being her gentle and quiet spirit which is very precious in the sight of God (1 Pet 3:4). From the beginning God gave her a personal and private, one-to-one role in His world, to serve her husband in a love-headship relationship, not to preach to, or lead in prayer, some other woman's husband, or other single men. Her role in God's good order is single-minded devotion to one man&emdash;her husband&emdash;her head. She is called to excel in this calling. If she fails there she fails everywhere.

At home she can enquire about her religion (1 Cor 14:35).

At home she can speak in tongues and prophesy (1 Cor 11:5).

At home she can pray with her family (1 Pet 3:7).

At home she can teach the younger women to be submissive to their husbands so that Christianity will not be brought into disrepute or laughed at (Tit 2:4).

At home she can be a teacher of good things (Tit 2:3).

At home she can bring her children up to know the Lord, as Timothy was by his mother and grandmother (1 Tim 1:5).

So highly valued was the wife's role in the home that she was likened to the great altar on which the nation's sacrifices were offered to God because she sat still (like the immoveable great altar) in her house and was not wandering about in the houses of the faithful, dissipating her energies in tittle-tattle. The wife in Proverbs 31 is still the model of industry in the home for women today and Sarah is still the model of a submissive, loving wife (1 Pet 3:6). Both models lived approximately 1000 and 2000 years respectively before Peter's day which suggests that these are permanent models in the man-woman relationship which we ought to imitate today to achieve our God-ordained goals to His glory.

4.10.4. BEHIND MANY INTERPRETATIONS IS THE UNSTATED NEED TO JUSTIFY THE WESTERN PRACTICE OF WOMEN PREACHERS/TEACHERS AND FEMALE HOUSE-GROUP LEADERS.

The command not to teach is violated when a woman is made a teacher of mature men in a house-group or a house-church. No man should put himself in the position of having to ask a woman to teach him his religion.

The advocates for permitting women to teach smaller mixed groups argue that functionally there is no difference between a woman teaching in the formal Church service and teaching in a housegroup, because in neither place is she the ultimate teacher. So why not permit her to exercise her gift in both places?

In reply it can be said that the distinction over place is, in reality, a distinction without substance. The reality is she has authority over the men she teaches (or she should, if she is a true teacher) whether she teaches them in a brick building called a "house" or one which is called a "church." The place cannot make the difference.

The compromise on Paul's clear prohibition on women teaching men reflects the fait accompli that has gradually come about in the Church through neglect. Because of this fait accompli few today are going to go against it, otherwise they would lose their "moderate" image. The wall has tilted over too far to be straightened up again, so its tilt has to presented as something normal.

On the one hand these evangelicals think they have carved out a theology that prevents the ordination of women to the Christian ministry, and on the other a theology that will justify the unofficial ordination of women to the Christian ministry. There is no difference in substance because the ordained and the unordained woman do exactly the same things in church. Those in favour of unordained women leading men in their worship have had to play down Paul's revelation on the headship of Man and how he understood&emdash;by divine revelation&emdash;the silence of women in Church with a covered head as an indispensable manifestation of her true submission to her head, Man, and through him to the Lord Jesus.

There is just no way that evangelical ministers today are going to examine Paul's position in an objective manner and straighten the tilted wall to bring it into line with Scripture. Too much is at stake, especially their own self-image and popularity. It is generally conceded that the Western Church will never return to the position that obtained in all the churches of the New Testament period. That can be taken as a "given." The Western Church is probably too distant from Paul's teaching on headship to entertain going back to his view for one moment. Its future history (to go by the recent past) will be one of discovering a New Hermeneutic in which every stage of its downward decline will find theological justification.

Because evangelical ministers have now a vested interest in keeping the new status quo of ordained women they are not going to investigate Paul's theology too closely in case they discover they have put themselves in an untenable position theologically. Most of them just want a quiet life. Some seek to get away from the issue by immersing themselves in a furious crusade of preaching the Gospel, or re-doubling their efforts in some other direction hoping thereby to absolve themselves from their cowardly retreat in the face of a "democratic decision" by the laity to go against the clear teaching of Scripture. Others put their head in the sand and hope no one will notice that Jesus' commands are being flouted, while others try to put a brave face on it and declare that nothing has happened! If a change has been made it is dismissed as "secondary" and certainly not central to the Gospel. The last thing these compromisers will do is stand up in the pulpit and warn their congregations that the ordination of women is unbiblical. Oh, no, that would be a step too far and could cost them their carefully cultivated popularity, their carefully groomed "self-image," and their much sought after image of being a Mr Nice Guy, someone who is "balanced in his approach," not a "hard-liner" or a "hawk." The thought of being classed as a "hard-liner" or "traditionalist" sends a shiver up their spine.

On the other hand there is pressure on evangelical churches (those against the ordination of women) to give women a public role in the mistaken belief (1) that this must be the right direction to be moving in because "everybody else" is doing it, and it would "look bad" for them to be "behind the times;" or (2) that this will mollify those clamouring for women to be given a public voice in the church service. Appeasement is never satisfied with tidbits. While (3) others are swayed by the "general climate" to make a token gesture on the strength of some slanted theological argument, or the misapplication of Galatians 3:28, or some idea about bringing "liberty" to downtrodden women, and breach Church tradition at the local level by allowing a woman's voice to be heard in some minor capacity in the hope that this will take the pressure off them. It is hoped that by compromising at the edges they can secure the citadel of the ordained ministry for men only.

It is not difficult to tell what state a church is in. If women are praying with uncovered heads, house-groups are conducted by women, and women take part in the public worship, there you have an untaught church. These are symptoms of poor leadership. They immediately tell you that the doctrine of headships has never been taught in that place. It will generally be found that the rate of divorce among its members will be little better than in the secular sphere because the doctrine of headship is not in operation. It will generally be found that such a congregation that has been fed on milk for many years and is immature in the faith, and unable to refute wrong teaching, let alone recognise it. It will generally be found that the worship service has been turned into an evangelistic service to mask the leader's inability to lead the people into the presence of God where all the male members can contribute something to express their relationship to the Lord. It will generally be found that the lack of teaching the "meat of the Word" will be compensated for in different ways to hold the congregation together. Some go in for entertainment, drama, loud, modern music, noise, noise, noise, activity, activity, activity, all in an attempt to compensate for, or mask their inability to worship the Lord in a meaningful experience. Its services will please the eye and satisfy the ear, while the spiritual faculties are neglected through disuse and eventually die.

Doctrinally-based Traditions are permanent. No one can change them. They are set in concrete for all time. An elite minority group does not have the right to gag all the other male members of the church from freely contributing to the worship service without prior arrangement (as set out in 1 Cor 14, "you can all prophesy" but only two or three at one meeting). It is the birthright of every male to contribute freely to the worship service. This right has been taken away by an elite group (who ought to be servants not dictators and) who often happen to be paid by the Congregation. This right should be restored immediately as an integral part of every worship service. Let there be long silences of meditation between contributions if necessary, in the belief that where "two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them."

If we kept that belief in focus and in sustained meditation throughout the period that we devote to worship, then the presence of Christ in our midst will bring its own benefits. We have been starved of this kind of worship for the past generation and the Lord has been robbed of our undivided and undistracted devotion. If the Head of the Church is with us in spirit this should result in a serious and mature manifestation of adoration and praise. This experience has escaped most men every Sunday except fleetingly on some Communion days.

Let us return to the old tradition and focus on Him and Him alone for the total period of our worship and leave the task of evangelising to another time. There is a time and place for the exercise of each spiritual gift and evangelism should not intrude into our worship service. It is a House of Prayer, not a House of Evangelism. It is a time to focus on the face of our Lord and keep the focus there without distraction or interruption that should be the aim of every member at every worship service. If our inherited Liturgy and the recitation of our Creeds aids in this focus then bring back our spiritual traditions and the singing of the Psalms again.

By limiting the number of those contributing to the same two or three paid members of the body each week, the congregation is in danger of not rising above their level of understanding. The beauty and wisdom of the Spirit's ruling allows the full range of spiritual gifts to be exercised to the benefit of all. We are the poorer by the gagging of the Spirit's gift to other members. In His wisdom He has seen to it that one member does not constitute the whole body, else where would be the eye or the ear, etc.? Marginalising or gagging members is as unhealthy as putting a tourniquet on a limb of the body.

All males can "speak edification and exhortation and comfort to men" (1 Cor 14:3). By continual suppression this ability or gift has all but disappeared and most men would not be able to speak publicly in church. "For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil" (Heb 5:12-14).

When men take their rightful place in any church it will soon manifest itself in good order in that church. And that good order should be a replica of the churches that Paul founded. Men alone will conduct the worship and men alone will speak in the church. These are the marks of a biblical church and good leadership. There will no divorces where headship is acknowledged by all the church members. There will be a maturity in the church's worship services where the oldest Christians lead it. Younger men will have mature role models in front of them to emulate and honour. There will a good teaching ministry exploring the "whole counsel of God."

4.10.5. A RED HERRING: MEN NOT WEARING A HEAD COVERING

Because Corinth was a Roman city it is conjectured that the most senior civic persons would have presided over the Roman pagan religious ceremonies with their heads covered.

Both statues and coins from Corinth . . . depict the emperor Augustus performing religious sacrifices with his head covered. What is noteworthy is that other, secondary, priestly figures at sacrifices do not have their heads covered. The use of head covering, thus, denoted status and seniority at a public function. In Paul's view, with this cultural background, it is inappropriate for men to have their heads covered, because the chief official of their community and at their community functions is Christ. If a man were to wear head covering it would be a statement that he viewed himself as the chief official. The suggestion is that there were those in the community whose positions of importance within broader Corinthian society were in this way being paraded also in the church. They were covering their heads in order to demonstrate their own importance&emdash;an action which was deeply divisive and of which Paul strongly disapproved.

Can it be shown that only the Emperor wore a covering on his head? Did only the most senior male (when the emperor was not present in Corinth) cover his head? Where are the coins and statues found in Corinth showing males covered in Roman worship? The novel suggestion ignores the fact that all Christian men are to worship with uncovered heads, be they senior or junior males, on theological grounds, because they bear the image and glory of God, their Creator. All Christian men are equal which was not so in Roman worship even if it is granted that only the Roman emperor dressed differently to the other male officiants (which has not been proved). The suggestion gives the emperor's head covering a social and religious significance that has not been proved to exist in reality. Roman men went about in public with a covering on their heads or not, depending on personal preference, and carried out many functions both covered and uncovered, again on the whim of their fancy. The covering appears to have been purely optional and reflected personal preference. There is no law (Roman or Greek) demanding that senior men be required out of respect for the gods to approach them with a covered head.

The suggestion ignores the fact that Paul uses the head covering to distinguish males from females when they approach God in worship. In its context it has nothing to do with distinguishing males from males. The suggestion also ignores the theological background of headship that dominates the whole passage. Jesus Christ is not the "chief official" at Christian functions, Rather, He is the object of Christian worship. The Lord Jesus does not take the place of the Roman emperor.

The statement: "If a man were to wear head covering it would be a statement that he viewed himself as the chief official," does not make sense in the context of Paul's thought, because he urges all the women to wear a head covering! This novel interpretation of Paul's teaching has not been adequately tested in its biblical setting: it has been imposed on the passage.

4.10.6. STRATEGIES TO CONFUSE "THE ENEMY"

"The Enemy" in C. S. Lewis' parables, as seen by the Devil, is the Lord Jesus Christ. The Devil is continually scheming to disrupt the Kingdom of God and to create disorder among Christians. His strategies are numerous. Here are some of them.

"Cloud the theological issue at stake"

Suggest that 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is about "loose-haired feminists versus a conservative group concerned about hairstyles." In this suggestion we can hear the Devil telling his juniors to divert the Church's attention away from the real issue because if the issue can be switched into a low-grade dispute over hairstyles this will play right into his hands, because he knows that he can then dupe the Church into dismissing 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 as of antiquarian interest only, and we can sit back and smile to ourselves at the nit-picking mentality of the early Christians (compared to our more spiritual, mature, and highly developed sense of values approach).

"Paul was confused and contradicts himself"

Galatians 3:28 contradicts the three central texts. Here the Devil encourages his minions to pit Galatians 3:28 against all other statements of Paul that appear to undermine it, and to make sure that Galatians 3:28 comes out on top as expressing the deepest insight that Paul had. He encourages his scholars to try to trace a development (my favourite word next after "redaction," he tells them) in Paul's thinking that puts the central texts at the bottom and Galatians 3:28 at the top. In this way the Church can dismiss anything below Galatians 3:28 as "secondary" and not expressing the best in Paul's egalitarian theology.

One writer, referring to Paul's logic in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, can put him in his place: "This is, surely, a classic instance of Paul's ability to use both hierarchical and egalitarian models of the male/female relationship, apparently unaware that these are mutually exclusive." Here is a classic instance where Paul's teaching is misrepresented and then the misrepresentation rightly condemned!

"Notorious exegetical difficulties: it cannot be unravelled: it is an enigma"

Paul's confused theological inconsistency can be compounded by noting the complex history of research. Scholars have noted difficulties in "its uncertain logic, its imprecise terminology, its underlying customs, and its literary unity." It is important, we can hear the Devil say to his junior devils, to sow confusion in the mind of the Church. The Devil has on his side the innate rebellious nature of the Christian not to do something he finds difficult or demanding if he can find a way out of doing it. So keep suggesting, he urges his supporters, that since the "scholars" do not understand the chapter, the Church is at liberty to ignore what it appears to be teaching, and let the die-hard, conservative-evangelical Christians go their own schismatic way. So long as the majority of the Church listens to us we can cause tremendous disorder in our Enemy's Kingdom. He urges his cronies to illustrate the confusion among scholars by the way they disagree over the meaning of "head." They must avoid the natural meaning of "authority and supremacy over" at all costs, and water it down to some "caring leadership" idea, or simply "source." That is a good functionless term.

"Castigate Paul"

Paul was an Apostle of the Lord Jesus, and directly commissioned by Him. He was among the witnesses who met Jesus in the flesh after His resurrection. He was the mouthpiece of the Lord. His teaching carried tremendous authority and he was highly respected among his fellow-apostles. The Devil's strategy is to demean him and show that by modern standards he compares very badly. One scholar put Paul in his place by pointing out that 1 Corinthians 11 "is hardly one of Paul's happier compositions. The logic is obscure at best and contradictory at worst. The word choice is peculiar, the tone, peevish." Another states, "Paul's arguments are here . . . remarkably incoherent and awkward." Another states that Paul's rhetoric here is so convoluted that "it can no longer be unravelled completely."

"1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is an interpolation. Paul did not write it"

Rather than castigate Paul and his "beneath us" rhetoric, some have tried another tactic&emdash;dismiss the pericope as not genuine&emdash;Paul did not write it, on the grounds that it "so obviously breaks the context of the letter at this point." This will then, apparently, leave Galatians 3:28 without contradiction&emdash;as the only thing Paul wrote on the subject of male-female relations. The beauty (and cunning!) about this approach, the Devil gleefully points out, is that on the one hand, it appears to remove the contradiction between what Paul said in Gal 3:28 and what he says in the central texts, but on the other, we can have 1 Cor 11:2-16 removed/deleted entirely from the Enemy's Handbook, as not a genuine writing of Paul! The important thing, he reminds his saboteurs, is to make sure Galatians 3:28 is not deleted from the Handbook.

"Discrimination not distinction"

The Devil tells his cohorts to deliberately reverse the teaching of Paul who stressed that 1 Cor 11:3-4 is concerned with distinction not discrimination. By reversing the terms this will fuel the pride of humans to the point that they will feel they are being discriminated by Paul in making women appear to be second-class Christians. By talking of empowering women to develop their potential to the full, this will ensure there is disharmony leading to divorce among the Enemy's families. "Appeal," urges the Devil, "to the natural instincts to be free of any hierarchy of authority/responsibility, and your "Gospel" will be welcomed as a "liberating manifesto.""

REPLY

The New Testament writers were clear about certain "traditions" or "deliverances" that they were required to "hand down" to the next generation of Jesus' followers. We have focused on two of these in this work. First, the responsibility of the male members to gather together in local gatherings and give true worship to the Head of the Church and to exercise their spiritual gifts in edification, exhortation and comfort (1 Cor 14:3). This responsibility is not to be passed over to their families. It is a duty that each man must not shirk. It should be conducted with the utmost gravity such as mature men&emdash;under a deep sense that they are in the very presence of the Lord Jesus Himself, His angels and His Father&emdash;can give to their Head. This weekly service will be characterised by gravity, decorum, and the awareness that they are presenting to God, as representatives of their families, the service due to God the Father and God the Son, aided by God the Holy Spirit.

Second, as a sign that the men accept the position that God has given to His Son to be Head over His Church the men are to acknowledge this transfer to Christ by worshipping God with an uncovered head; the women are to acknowledge the position God has given them vis-à-vis men by covering their head in the presence of God.

Both signs are given a theological (not a cultural) meaning and significance and are consequently never to be dropped or neglected without severe consequences. If laws under the Old Covenant were punished severely by God because of the arrogance or high-handedness that they manifested how much more will those who profess to worship the Lord Jesus, who high-handedly throw off the "traditions" and "deliverances" that He instructed His apostles to hand on to His Church. While the Master is away (as some think) church leaders have taken it upon themselves (out of fear of public opinion, no doubt) to allow Christ's Church order to be changed. Since the time of the Apostles the ministry had been conducted by men, and women covered their heads in the presence of God, now the fashion of the world has swamped His Church to such an extent that to follow Christ's teaching is an embarrassment. But the Church must keep a constant eye on the Master's teaching and buck the trend in the desire to remain faithful at all times in all ages. The present fashion of breaking with apostolic tradition in the Church will pass away. Feminist values may be the flavour of the month today and have a devastating impact on the Church in the twenty-first century, but while there is an open Bible there will always be those who will call the Church back to Christ's teaching. The Lord Jesus has stated that as the Son of the living God He will build His church "and the gates of hell will not overpower it" (Mt 16:18). The present Church can not plead ignorance of the Master's will. Nor can it expect leniency or exemption for its wilful defiance of Christ's commandments (1 Cor 14:37). A instructive illustration is provided in Numbers 15:30-41 (LB).

But anyone who deliberately makes the "mistake," whether he is a native Israeli or a foreigner, is blaspheming Jehovah, shall be cut off from among his people. For he has despised the commandment of the Lord and deliberately failed to obey his law; he must be executed, and die in his sin.

To show that this was no idle threat Moses immediately records the following breach.

One day while the people of Israel were in the wilderness, one of them was caught gathering wood on the Sabbath day. He was arrested and taken before Moses and Aaron and the other judges. They jailed him until they could find out the Lord's mind concerning him. Then the Lord said to Moses, "The man must die&emdash;all the people shall stone him to death outside the camp." So they took him outside the camp and killed him as the Lord had commanded.

The Lord did not take this man's life from him in a callous or dictatorial manner. He was deeply moved at having to order the man's execution because He expected this man (and consequently every man) to respect what He had to say more highly than what anyone else had to say to him. If each man was to follow this man's high-handed disregard for God's commandments then He would cease to be in control of His people: democracy would replace His rule. This man's life had to be taken in order to instil reverence for His commands and in order to maintain a dominant headship control over His redeemed people, and also as an expression of His own regret at having to take this man's life. God later gave them another law which would prevent this breach occurring again. Immediately after the man's execution&emdash;

The Lord said to Moses, "Tell the people of Israel to make tassels for the hems of their clothes (this is a permanent regulation from generation to generation) and to attach the tassels to their clothes with a blue cord. The purpose of this regulation is to remind you, whenever you notice the tassels, of the commandments of the Lord, and that you are to obey his laws instead of following your own desires and going your own ways, as you used to do in serving other gods. It will remind you to be holy to your God. For I am Jehovah your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt; yes, I am the Lord, your God."

It is clear from this provision that God does not delight in the death of any sinner, but it is equally clear that when we take it upon ourselves to disregard His commands and especially His Son's commands we can expect the same severe punishment of being put out of His Son's Church and inheriting eternal damnation. The challenge today is as great as it has always been. Many are following another Christ&emdash;a feminist Christ, a twenty-first century Christ&emdash;who is vehemently opposed to the Apostolic teaching of the New Testament. Many are carried along in the current, not as willing participators, but simply because it is fashionable to follow the trend. The trend is growing stronger as the Church seeks to distance itself from Christ's teaching which gave it its distinctiveness among all the nations and religions of the world. Moses pleaded with God:

If you don't go with us, who will ever know that I and my people have found favour with you, and that we are different from any other people upon the face of the earth? (Exod 33:16 LB).

The Church took over the role of being God's distinctive people. But the call to be "different" is too embarrassing today, hence the trend to conform to norms set by others. Because others conformed to trends not set by God they were condemned not to enter the Promised Land, "But my servant Caleb is a different kind of man&emdash;he has obeyed me fully. I will bring him into the land he entered as a spy, and his descendants shall have a full share in it" (Num 14:24 LB).

God's people do have a distinctive culture which sets them apart from all other religions and cultures. This is nothing to be ashamed of but to glory in. But the history of God's people, especially in the Old Testament, is the story of the blurring of that distinctiveness, and even to abandoning their allegiance to the God of their Fathers. Today the same innate forces are at work to entice Christ's Church to lose or tone down its distinctive practices and beliefs in the interests of ecumenical dialogue. The Christian who is deeply concerned at the present fashions and trends that are swamping Christ's Church can rest assured that the Church will never drown. It will be on the earth when Christ comes again. In the meantime it may be buffeted and blown off course but always, because Christ is at the helm, it will rediscover its distinctiveness and return to full fellowship with Him and with those who walk in the light of His Word. In every age there will be men, like Caleb, of whom Christ will say, "he is a different kind of man&emdash;he has fully obeyed Me." The challenge is on not to be caught out of synchronisation with the mind of Christ on any issue or doctrine.

Until the twentieth century the Church universally accepted the Scripture's teaching on male headship. But then the rise of the feminist movement about 1906 caught the church unawares with the rational, plausible, humanist argument that men and women were equal at every level except for gender differences. Galatians 3:28 became its proof text with its misrepresentation of "neither male nor female" to force through political and religious reforms. The failure to "Watch and pray" over the centuries left the Church weak doctrinally, so that it became embarrassed over the Spirit's record on a whole range of issues to do with the relation between man and woman, and between how men and women were to approach God.

Waltke noted that many evangelical churches overthrew the Spirit's record and its rich heritage on the superficial basis that scholars were divided on the issue of ordaining women to the ministry. The truth is, he retorted, that scholars are divided on most theological issues, including the Bible's trustworthiness. On that basis no doctrine is safe, and the more liberal perspective and practice must prevail.

END OF SECTION