Can Women Preach?

The Bible says women are to remain silent and keep the heads covered when they are in church right (1 Cor 13:34)? Then how come I asked my wife to speak on my behalf while I am on sabbatical? This won't be the first time she has spoken before the GPC family. I respectfully know a few people, who it has been a bit of a rub for them to have a woman, such as Lori, speak to men in church on Sunday. So since Lori is speaking for me tomorrow (Feb 8th), I will share my views on the 1 Corinthian passage as well as my thoughts on women teaching men. The following is a email conversation that I had with someone once on the very subject. So what you will read next, will be the content of my response to a geninue question on this subject.

I understand your concern and it warrants a clear and thorough review. The observation is made that women are to be silent, not talk and should cover their heads (11:2-16). The prohibition for women to speak is given in the same letter with the command for women to keep their heads covered. To do one and not the other is disingenuous; to demand that women be silent because the Bible says to, but not cover our heads when the Bible says to do so is duplicitous. So how does one interpret this passage?

If we take this passage at face value, then women speaking in the church is wrong. Then also, we at GPC violate this passage anytime a woman speaks or we allow them into the church with their head uncovered. Under the strictest interpretation women would be forbidden to even ask questions (v.35). I certainly don’t adhere to this strict of interpretation.

One principle of interpretation, when you hold to such a high view of Scripture as I do, is that the Scripture will help interpret Scripture. In short, Scripture won't compromise itself. It will be consistent. The interpreter must work for a harmony of the whole Bible.

I see women speaking throughout the Bible to men. Deborah was one of the great judges in Scripture (Judges). Mary, the mother of Jesus, practically TOLD Jesus to turn the water into wine. Mary Magdalene “preached” the first resurrection message in the Bible to Peter and John. In Acts 2:4 all those in the upper room, men and women, were filled with the spirit and all were proclaiming (preaching). Phillip, had 4 daughters who were prophetesses (Acts 21:9) Even Paul in 1 Cor 11:5, the very book that “prohibits” women from speaking, is clearly implying that women will “pray” and “prophecy” in the church.

My CONCLUSION: women are permitted to speak truth to men formally or informally, but there are deeper more local issues in Corinth that Paul is dealing with in this passage.

So why the prohibition in 1 Corinthians? It is likely due to the decision and issues within the Corinthian church (drunkenness at the Lord’s Supper, abuse of spiritual gifts, maybe women being dominant in the church). They had a whole lot of issues going on. The context of the book seems to deal more with a church in trouble theologically, practically, and possibly culturally. Paul gave instructions and rebukes throughout both 1 and 2 Corinthians seeking to bring order to their worship (1 Cor 14:40). There were clearly modesty and cultural issues playing into the church. Thus, Paul told them to cover their head and not to talk. The question must be asked, was there some cultural faux pas going on in their culture where maybe the women were using their new found faith to buck the cultural ways? Paul brings them back to a culturally relevant conduct so as not to hinder the message? Were the women being assertive and immodest and that is why Paul brings them back to submission? A lot of questions are left unanswered.

A contemporary example of cultural faux pas, would be when we go to Mali, all women must wear dresses and men pants. It’s not a biblical requirement to wear dresses or pants as much as it would be a cultural thing if when we were in Mali I were to wear shorts. If I am delievering a important message, but the Malians can't hear me because I am wearing shorts, my message is corrupt in their minds before I ever open my mouth.

My conclusion: Since women are speakers of truth throughout the Bible, I interpret this as more order and focused point of application specific to the church at Corinth due to their confused and disorderly ways. I can only take this liberty of interpretation because I am trying to keep the entire Bible congruent and harmonized. To say that women can’t speak truth to men in gatherings, leaves me with more explaining to do in MANY other before mentioned scenarios such as Deborah, Phillip's four daughters, etc.

My prayer for Lori tonight as she prepares is: "Preach the Word" from the overflow of God's Holy Spirit in you. Do it boldly, humbly, and authentically. Though I won't be with you, I will be praying for you and know that God will use you."

I Am Wearing Green on St. Pats Day this Year

St. Patrick is a new hero of mine. I just finished reading The Celtic Way of Evangelism, by George Hunter. It was a cross between a historical look at Patrick's effort to reach across cultural barriers to a people who were far from God and a 21st century look at the similarities we share with the late 5th century Europe. Sound exciting yet??? Hope so...I give it a solid B+

I always look for "take home" from any book - something I can apply to my life and ministry. The "take home" from this book was understanding how Patrick and his colleagues were so effective in starting a movement that transformed a culture that was pre-Christian before he arrived. As a missiologist, it begs the question, what lessons can followers of Christ who are living missionally in post-Christian culture learn from a 5th century missionaries engaging a pre-Christan culture? ---okay, so basically how can we learn from these guys in the past who did it right?

Patrick, in A.D. 432, began an indigenous Christian movement that resulted in many thousands being baptized. At least 55 new churches were launched under Patrick's lead. Several points of application come from his success.

Indigenous Church planting...
The Roman Christian leaders required that a culture be civilized before they could tell them about Jesus. They had to be able to read and willing to do church in Latin...the Roman way. When in Rome, do as Rome and when outside of Rome do as Rome, was the clear methodology of that day. The church assumed that reaching the barbarians (Anglo-Saxon, Celts, Goths, etc) was impossible because you couldn't train them to do Christianity the way Romans did it. It is sad to say, but Rome's approach to church planting was the colonial approach with many church planters in the 19th and 20th centuries. If you don't do church like the mother church, or like the County seat First Church, you are not a legitimate church.

Ireland and Italy were and still are vastly different in culture and worldview. The Irish were more emotional and Rome was more logical. The Irish were primarily right brain thinkers and the Romans were left brain dominate. The faith communities started under Patrick were far more in line with the Celtic culture than with Rome.

Incarnation of the Gospel...
The monastic communities of the Celts were not faith communities that were exclusive and an escape the evil world. However, this was one of the goals of Eastern monasteries. They were located outside the greater communities in deserts, cliffs, away for society. Celtic monasteries were located in the heart of the community where the "pagan" people lived. They existed, in part, for the "barbarians." They were organized to save peoples' souls rather than to save one's soul from people.

Personal communication approach...
Another lesson learned from the Celts the process that new believers came to faith. I think of similarities between the non-Christian versus Christian cultures. The Roman model for evangelism favored the predominate Christian culture. In the Roman approach: one explains the gospel, the listener accepts Christ, and they are welcomed into the church (presentation, decision, then assimilation). Many churches still to this day use this approach.

The Celtic model appears to be more appropriate in a non-Christian milieu such as Pre-Christiendom or post-Christendom. In the Celtic model, first you establish community with the people (e.g. Celtics placed their monasteries among the pagans rather than out separated from them). Second, they engaged outsiders in prayer, worship, ministry, etc. even if they were not followers of Christ. Finally, once a "pagan" felt they were a part of the fellowship, they found themselves committing their lives to following Christ. They belonged before they believed.

In the book, the history of the Celtic's gets a bit long and dry after some reading. If the reader will focus his mind to unpack and process the lessons from history down deep into the methods and practices of his/her own faith in this post-Christian culture we live in now, the Western world can be reached... again.

An Imam and a Pastor Engage in a Conversation

Day 5

Throughout our days on this trip, God continued to allow me to engage in conversations with Muslims. I have had conversations with Muslim men often in my travels, but never so often or at this level. My last two days in the bush gave me the opportunity to sit down with the retired Imam of the village. (An Imam is the Muslim leader of the village.) It was a first for me to be able to talk with someone so schooled in Islam and so influential in the culture. He was forced into retirement due to the deterioration of his eye sight.

Our meeting came as a result of what happened in his grandchild's life in November. When the GPC team was in K-village in November, his grandson became a believer. Each night while our Jan team was there, the little boy sat with us every night around the the camp fire as we told stories from God's Word. He listened intently. Other children slept and others played. He was listened.

I believe it was the little boy's hunger for the message of Christ and the change that it made in his life that stirred the grandfather to explore the Christian faith. The grandfather came one night to greet us and hear our stories, but before we got started he needed to be led by the hand home.

I told the Imam that I was willing to come to his hut and tell him the stories of Jesus. He said he would like it very much. The first morning Sara and I went. I shared the story from John 1 and how Jesus is God and is our connection to God. Sara went back later in the afternoon and told the story of the "Creation to the Cross" with his wife and the Imam. By the time Sara got to the Imam's home he was able to recite a verse from the morning lesson.

Our time in the village was closing. I was able to go back the morning before we left. This was my second visit with him. I simply built on the foundation Sara and I had laid the first day. We talked and shared about how Nicodemus was a religious man, much like the Imam was a religious man. We also shared how in John 3 Jesus told Nicodemus that he had to be born again. We told the Imam he would also have to be "born again."

All mankind, if they want to know God and be with Him forever must be born again. I had to be born again, Nicodemus had to be born again, and the Imam has to be born again. After some discussion and deliberation. He stated he knew he had a big decision to make. He said the teaching was very good, but he didn't know what he was going to do yet.

Pray for one blind Imam in K-village that he would spiritually see more than he has ever seen physically. May the light and truth of Christ become abundantly clear to him and may he choose to accept Christ.