…in our worship. Should they?
Dr. Benjamin Shaw, Associate Professor of Old Testament at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, says no. He posted on the public reading of scripture which prompted a question from a reader,
A woman in the congregation shares her testimony during the service. Said testimony includes the reading of a passage of Scripture. Is such a practice allowable?
First Dr. Shaw addresses whether testimonies are even appropriate in public worship. Then he concludes,
I think women reading Scripture in public worship is disallowed. The Word of God is authoritative, which makes its reading in public worship an authoritative act. This would be disallowed by the strictures of 1 Tim 2:12.
Don’t miss his next post a Rejoinder on the Reading of Scripture.
I agree with Dr. Shaw. The men should be the ones publicly reading the word in worship.
November 12, 2008 at 6:22 pm
The passage in I Timothy refers to women teaching new doctrine. a woman reading the Scripture in public as a part of declaring what God has done in her life is not presenting new doctrine. She is in fact declaring the truths of who God is. I am not sure that Apostle Paul is leaving out women from testifying of the faithfulness of God. My question is what is at the heart of Paul’s statement and how does this apply to contemporary 21 Century church life and cogregational expressions of fellowship.
November 12, 2008 at 6:39 pm
For a good book on the subject, I recommend Women in the Church: An Analysis and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15.
November 12, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Yes, they should.
November 13, 2008 at 6:17 am
I agree that women should not be allowed to read Scripture in worship. By allowing it, you open Pandora’s box, so to speak. What comes next…a few statements on applying the Scripture or a stated opinion concerning it?
Perhaps we could even take this a step further…Should only ordained men be allowed to read Scripture aloud in worship? Isn’t that the example set forth in the Bible?
November 13, 2008 at 8:02 am
honeyybear, how do you get that he is talking about “new doctrine?” What is “new doctrine?”
Wes, why?
DS, I actually think you are right.
November 13, 2008 at 9:23 am
I’m not so sure it’s as much of a slippery slope as it is a leap over a cliff.
November 13, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Nope.
November 19, 2008 at 8:21 pm
So Les, how would the literal interpretation of 1 Tim 2:12 mesh with a literal interpretation of 1 Cor 11:6? If we take 1 Tim 2:12 literally (as I do) ought we not also take 1 Cor 11:6 literally as well?
November 20, 2008 at 11:49 am
Arthur, I do not accept that a literal reading of the ! Cor passage necessitates that Paul was commanding something for all time (as He clearly was in 1 Tim.). The Cor. passage is putting forth a much more significant teaching than what we wear. I have no doubt, along with the vast majority of theologians over the centuries, that Paul was dealing with rank and order in the assembly. Women were to understand their rank in God’s created order and not buck that order. One of the ways in first century culture to rebel was undoubtedly in the way women carried themselves and dressed. Paul was reminding them to live out their place in submission to men and not to carry themselves in such a way as to call attention to themselves in a manner befitting a rebellious woman.
This is really a matter of proper interpretation of a text in a larger context. I remind you and others of the foot washing issue, which most do not practice. it is almost universally acknowledged that we are not bound to wash each other’s feet at communion. That practice was pointing to a larger command to serve one another.
Last, I find it funny that you my credo brother are thinking along the lines of “since we do not have any command to NOT practice head covering we should do so.” That is surely part of the arguments we paedos make to place the sign of God’s covenant on our babies.
Anyway, thanks for stopping by.