zt:Role of Women in the Church

送交者: mean 2012年12月06日20:32:36 于 [彩虹之约] 发送悄悄话

Some Reflections on the Role of Women in the Church: Pragmatic Issues Study By: Daniel B. Wallace A thoughtful individual wrote to me recently about the role of women in the church. He was torn as to what view to accept (i.e., either women are in some sense restricted in their ministries today or they are not). He mentioned some pragmatic arguments for egalitarianism: women missionaries, books on theology written by women, women in church choirs or doing solos as a form of teaching. I thought his questions were insightful, and are among the most difficult questions that complementarians have to deal with. Below is what I wrote him. These are not easy things for complementarians to think about. And I must confess: attitudinally, I am an egalitarian. I find what scripture says on these matters very difficult to swallow at times. However, I am positionally a complementarian because I can’t go against my conscience. For me at least, to read these passages in an egalitarian way is to do some exegetical gymnastics in which one twists and turns the text to conform it to their views. I may not be comfortable with my complementarian position, but I am unwilling to twist scripture into something that it does not say. (I’m not saying that those who take an egalitarian position on this passage arewilling to twist the scriptures! But I am saying that I think they are, in effect, probably doing this just the same.) By the way, I think that Doug Moo’s articles on 1 Tim 2:11-15 (posted at bible.org), should be a great summary of the exegetical reasons for a complementarian view of that passage. He has done perhaps the best exegesis of this passage in print. As for your questions, I too would think that it’s inconsistent for women to be missionaries if they are not allowed to preach at home. For this reason, I urge men to go to the mission field. Not that I don’t want women there! But the men should lead the way, as historically they usually have. It is to our shame that women in the church are often taking the most dangerous and risky jobs while the men sit back home in a more comfortable setting. Another approach that some complementarians hold about women missionaries in the lead is that these women are permitted by scripture to do this, but their act of bravery and self-sacrifice should cause men to realize that they are not doing their job. (The model is Deborah in Judges 4-5.) In other words, women leading on the mission field should shame men, and God will use plan B if the men aren’t doing what they’re supposed to. If such an interpretation is correct, then it would certainly not be wrong for women to go to the mission field and to start churches and preach in them. But it would be wrong for men to sit idly by and think that the Great Commission should be fulfilled just by women! As for singing in a choir or doing a solo, no, I don’t regard this as teaching. The words are already set, and the focus is to cause us to worship God, not think about the implications of a biblical passage for life. Regarding women teaching children, I find that to be no problem whatsoever. In fact, I would say that women teaching biblical truths in college is no problem. The reason is that what is prohibited is women teaching adult males (what the word ‘men’ in 1 Tim 2:12 essentially means). By adult male, I take it that the idea has to do with those who are economically, physically, and emotionally separated from their parents. College students, by and large, don’t qualify on all three fronts. To be sure, there are always exceptions in college, but the principle taught in 1 Tim 2:12 is focusing on the norm. It is not meant to be worked out by focusing on the exceptions, which should be rare. As for women writing books that expound the scriptures, my view is that this is also not teaching in the way that preaching in church would be. The dynamic of speaking before a community of believers, in which everyone listening is seeing one’s authoritative demeanor and hearing one’s authoritative voice, is a different dynamic than a book. Books can be picked up and put down, read, interacted with, discussed, debated, written and written against. Sermons don’t fit into that same kind of genre entirely. But I admit this is a difficult call, and some good scholars would say that there is no difference between the two. At bottom, there are three reasons why I hold to a complementarian viewpoint in 1 Tim 2. First is exegetical. I won’t go into the details of this, since it’s been covered quite adequately elsewhere. (And, as I mentioned, I largely agree with Doug Moo’s exegesis of the passage.) Second, the strongest arguments against complementarianism are pragmatic, not exegetical. You have raised some of the strongest arguments that are traditionally used. But it raises a significant question: if 1 Tim 2:12 can be overturned by the pragmatic outworking of ministry by women, then does it mean nothing? Those who start with the pragmatic view tend not to address the exegetical issue. (The most inconsistent position, in fact, is one that affirms that 1 Tim 2 is a normative prohibition and yet finds so many pragmatic exceptions that the text becomes meaningless.) And even for those who do address it, their starting point is almost always the pragmatic side of things. To me, this is no better an argument than saying that speaking in tongues is a legitimate manifestation of the Spirit today because most Christians are charismatic, or that since most people never hear the name of Christ, God will save them on the basis of their works. It’s the “50 million Frenchmen can’t be wrong” argument. Third, I have found an interesting sociological phenomenon regarding 1 Tim 2:12. If I may use a term inappropriately here since it is painting with too broad of a brush, let’s say that those who reject the authenticity of the Pastorals are ‘liberal’ and those who believe Paul wrote these letters are conservative. (The broad brush, by the way, concerns calling one ‘liberal’; what makes a theological liberal a liberal is, I believe, a denial of bodily resurrection of the Son of God, not a denial of Paul’s authorship of 1-2 Timothy and Titus.) Now what’s interesting to note is this: both conservatives and ‘liberals’ have historically tended to view this passage as prohibiting women from teaching men. They have viewed it as a normative command, meant for application beyond the confines of Ephesus or the first century. The difference is that conservatives have agreed to abide by this interpretation while ‘liberals’ have simply said, ‘Well, that’s not Paul.’ In more recent years, ‘liberal’ scholarship has even moved in the direction of saying that the real Paul also would agree with this restriction on women. Either that or they now excise parts of Paul’s letters that seem to conform to 1 Tim 2:12 (I’m thinking specifically of 1 Cor 14:34-35), even though there is not a single manuscript that omits these verses. All this makes evangelical egalitarians the odd man out: it is this group, and historically almost exclusively this group, that has affirmed Pauline authorship of the Pastorals yet interprets 1 Tim 2:12 in an egalitarian way. I am always leery of a particular group that has an explicit agenda being virtually the only group to promote a certain viewpoint that is somehow connected with that agenda. It is this group, by the way, that championed the excision of 1 Cor 14:34-35. And the obvious connection between regarding the Pastorals as authentic but affirming an egalitarian viewpoint and regarding 1 Cor 14:34-35as inauthentic because it gets in the way of this egalitarian viewpoint is striking. In the end, however, my desire is to be both charitable and biblical. That’s why I like Bruce Barron’s article, “Putting Women in their Place.” As an egalitarian, he distinguished between position and attitude. In attitude, I am egalitarian. And I have pushed on the boundaries of complementarianism for a long time. I have had women interns at Dallas Seminary. Three of them have earned the New Testament award for doing the best work in the NT among graduating seniors. The work was based on their master’s theses. And yes, they taught in those theses and taught well. Specifically, they have taught me some things! I have endorsed women for all sorts of ministries, including ministries that I would be uncomfortable with them doing. But since they are ministering in churches that are egalitarian, I would rather have these women ministering there than some others who may not be as well trained, as godly, as devoted to the scriptures and to Christ. Again, as I mentioned early on, I have problems with the complementarian position. I am sometimes embarrassed to be a complementarian. It would be a whole lot easier if I weren’t! But I can’t go against my conscience. And my conscience tells me that after all the exegetical dust has settled, to deny some sort of normative principle to 1 Tim 2:12 is probably a misunderstanding of this text. Sincerely in Christ, Dan Wallace

zt:exerpt from Moo's exegesis

送交者: mean 2012月12月06日21:00:37 于 [彩虹之约] 发送悄悄话

回  答:zt:Role of Women in the Church 由 mean 于2012-12-06 20:32:36

What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men 1 Timothy 2:11-15 Study By: Douglas Moo From the Series: Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Prohibitions on the Ministry of Women—Verse 12 The phrase full submission is the hinge between the command in verse 11—“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission”—and the prohibitions in verse 12—“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. The word that connects these verses is a particle (de) that usually has a mild adversative (“but”) force. But, as so often with this word, its mild adversative force arises from the transition from one point to another rather than from a contrast in content.10 In this case, the transition is from one activity that women are to carry out in submission (learning) to two others that are prohibited in order to maintain their submission (teaching and having authority). We may, therefore, paraphrase the transition in this way: “Let the women learn … with full submission; but [de] ‘full submission’ means also that I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man.” Verse 12 is the focus of discussion in this passage, for it is here that Paul prohibits the women at Ephesus from engaging in certain ministries with reference to men. There are six distinguishable issues that must be decided at the exegetical level: (1) the significance of the verb permit (epitrepo), which is in the present tense; (2) the meaning of teach (didaskein); (3) whether the word man (andros) is the object of the verb teach; (4) the meaning of the verb translated in the NIV “to have authority” (authentein); (5) the syntactical and logical relationship between the two words teach and have authority (they are connected by oude, “neither”); and (6) whether the Greek wordsgyne and aner mean, respectively, “woman” and “man” or “wife” and “husband.” A. The Word Permit Paul’s use of the word permit—instead of, for instance, an imperative—and his putting it in the present tense are often taken as indications that Paul views the injunction that follows as limited and temporary.11 The fact is, however, that nothing definite can be concluded from this word. No doubt Paul viewed his own teaching as authoritative for the churches to whom he wrote. Paul’s “advice” to Timothy is the word of an apostle, accredited by God, and included in the inspired Scriptures. As far as the present tense of the verb goes, this allows us to conclude only that Paul was at the time of writing insisting on these prohibitions. Whether he means these prohibitions to be in force only at the time of writing, because of a specific situation, or—as in Romans 12:1: “I urge [present tense] you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices …”—to be applied to any church at any time cannot be known from the verb permit, but must be decided by the context in which it occurs.12 It certainly is not correct to say that the present tense in and of itself shows that the command is temporary; it does not. B. The Meaning of Teach In prohibiting women from teaching, what exactly is Paul prohibiting? And is he restricting them from all teaching or only from teaching men? The word teach and its cognate nouns teaching (didaskalia) and teacher(didaskalos) are used in the New Testament mainly to denote the careful transmission of the tradition concerning Jesus Christ and the authoritative proclamation of God’s will to believers in light of that tradition (see especially 1 Timothy 4:11: “Command and teach these things;” 2 Timothy 2:2; Acts 2:42; Romans 12:7). While the word can be used more broadly to describe the general ministry of edification that takes place in various ways (e.g., through teaching, singing, praying, reading Scripture [Colossians 3:16]), the activity usually designated by teach is plainly restricted to certain individuals who have the gift of teaching (see 1 Corinthians 12:28-30; Ephesians 4:11). This makes it clear that not all Christians engaged in teaching.13 In the pastoral epistles, teaching always has this restricted sense of authoritative doctrinal instruction. As Paul’s own life draws to a close, and in response to the false teaching, Paul is deeply concerned to insure that sound, healthful teaching be maintained in the churches. One of Timothy’s main tasks is to teach (1 Timothy 4:11-16; 2 Timothy 4:2) and to prepare others to carry on this vital ministry (2 Timothy 2:2). While perhaps not restricted to the elder-overseer, “teaching” in this sense was an important activity of these people (see 1 Timothy 3:2; 5:17; Titus 1:9). At this point the question of application cannot be evaded. What functions in the modern church would be considered teaching in this sense? Some have suggested that we have no modern parallel to it since, as the argument goes, the New Testament canon replaces the first-century teacher as the locus of authority.14 However, it does seem right to claim that we have teaching that is substantially the same as what Paul had in mind here as he advised the first-century church. The addition of an authoritative, written norm is unlikely to have significantly altered the nature of Christian teaching. Certainly the Jewish activity of teaching that probably serves as a model for the early Christian teaching was all along much dependent on the transmission and application of a body of truth, the Old Testament Scriptures, and the developing Jewish tradition.15 Before the New Testament Scriptures, early Christian teachers also had authoritative Christian traditions on which to base their ministries, and the implication of passages such as 2 Timothy 2:2 is that teaching, in the sense depicted in the New Testament, would continue to be very important for the church. Moreover, the Scriptures should be regarded as replacing the apostles, who wrote Scripture, not the teachers who exposited and applied it. Certainly, any authority that the teacher has is derived, inherent in the Christian truth being proclaimed rather than in the person of the teacher. But the activity of teaching, precisely because it does come to God’s people with the authority of God and His Word, is authoritative. In light of these considerations, we argue that the teaching prohibited to women here includes what we would call preaching (note 2 Timothy 4:2: “Preach the word … with careful instruction” [teaching, didache]), and the teaching of Bible and doctrine in the church, in colleges, and in seminaries. Other activities—leading Bible studies, for instance—may be included, depending on how they are done. Still others—evangelistic witnessing, counseling, teaching subjects other than Bible or doctrine—are not, in our opinion, teaching in the sense Paul intends here. C. Is Every Kind of Teaching Prohibited, Or Only Teaching of Men? Is Paul prohibiting women from all teaching? We do not think so. The word man (andros), which is plainly the object of the verb have authority (authentein), should be construed as the object of the verb teach also. This construction is grammatically unobjectionable,16 and it alone suits the context, in which Paul bases the prohibitions of verse 12 on the created differences between men and women (verse 13). Indeed, as we have argued, this male/female differentiation pervades this passage and comes to direct expression in the word that immediately precedes verse 12, submission. Paul’s position in the pastoral epistles is, then, consistent: he allows women to teach other women (Titus 2:3-4),17 but prohibits them to teach men. D. The Meaning of Have Authority The verb translated in the NIV “have authority” (authentein) has generated a great deal of discussion. We will confine ourselves to three points that we think are most important. First, the frequent appeal to etymology—the roots that make up the word—in explaining this word is understandable, given the limited number of relevant occurrences, but must always remain a precarious basis for conclusions. Not only is the etymology of the word debated, but also the usage of words often departs, in unpredictable ways, from their etymological meaning (e.g., the word butterfly). Second, the occurrences of this word—the verb—that are closest in time and nature to 1 Timothy mean “have authority over” or “dominate” (in the neutral sense of “have dominion over,” not in the negative sense “lord it over”).18 Third, the objection that, had Paul wanted to say “exercise authority,” he would have used the word exousiazo19 does not bear up under scrutiny. Paul’s three other uses of that verb hardly put it in the category of his standard vocabulary, and the vocabulary of the pastoral epistles is well known to be distinct from Paul’s vocabulary elsewhere. For these reasons, we think the translation “have authority over” is the best English rendering of this word. Again, we must ask the question of application. What kind of modern church practice would Paul be prohibiting to women in saying they are not to have authority over a man? First, we must, of course, recognize that it is not a question of a woman (in the New Testament or in our day) exercising ultimate authority over a man; God and the Scriptures stand over any Christian in a way no minister or human authority ever could. But, within these spheres of authority, we may nevertheless speak legitimately of a governing or ruling function exercised under God by some Christians over others (see 1 Thessalonians 5:12; Hebrews 13:17). In the pastoral epistles, this governing activity is ascribed to the elders (see 1 Timothy 3:5; 5:17). Clearly, then, Paul’s prohibition of women’s having authority over a man would exclude a woman from becoming an elder in the way this office is described in the pastoral epistles. By extension, then, women would be debarred from occupying whatever position in a given local church would be equivalent to the pastoral epistles’ governing elder (many churches, for instance, call these people deacons). This would be the case even if a woman’s husband were to give her permission to occupy such a position, for Paul’s concern is not with a woman’s acting independently of her husband or usurping his authority but with the woman’s exercising authority in the church over any man. On the other hand, we do not think Paul’s prohibition should restrict women from voting, with other men and women, in a congregational meeting, for, while the congregation as a whole can be said to be the final authority, this is not the same thing as the exercise of authority ascribed, e.g., to the elders. Nor do we think Paul would intend to prohibit women from most church administrative activities. But what about women teaching or having authority over men in other activities in society generally (for example, in government, business, or education)? While this broader issue is addressed in another essay in this volume (see pages 50-52, 88-89, and 388-393), it is appropriate to note here that Paul’s concern in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is specifically the role of men and women in activities within the Christian community, and we question whether the prohibitions in this text can rightly be applied outside that framework. E. Are Teaching and Having Authority Two Activities or One? Thus far we have spoken of Paul’s prohibiting women from two specific activities: “teaching” men and “having authority over” men. It has been argued, however, that the two verbs should be taken together, in a grammatical relationship called hendiadys, such that only one activity is prohibited: teaching in an authoritative (authentein) way.20 If the meaning of authentein is “exercise authority,” this interpretation would not materially change the first prohibition identified above—for the teaching Paul has in mind here has, as we have argued, some authority in itself—but it would eliminate entirely the second prohibition (against having authority over a man). We do not, however, think this interpretation is likely. While the word in question, oude (“and not,” “neither,” “nor”), certainly usually joins “two closely related items,”21 it does not usually join together words that restate the same thing or that are mutually interpreting, and sometimes it joins opposites (e.g., Gentile and Jew, slave and free;Galatians 3:28).22 Although teaching in Paul’s sense here is authoritative in and of itself, not all exercising of authority in the church is through teaching, and Paul treats the two tasks as distinct elsewhere in 1 Timothy when discussing the work of elders in the church (3:2, 4-5; 5:17). That teaching and having authority are “closely related” is, of course, true, as it is true that both ministries often are carried out by the same individuals, but here and elsewhere they are nonetheless distinct, and in 1 Timothy 2:12, Paul prohibits women from conducting either activity, whether jointly or in isolation, in relation to men. F. Are Only Husbands and Wives in View? The final item on our list of exegetically significant issues in verse 12 is the relationship intended by the words gyne and aner. The difficulty arises from the fact that these words are used to describe both the marital relationship (wife/husband) and the larger gender relationship (woman/man). If, as many think,23 Paul is here using the words in the former sense, then what he is prohibiting is not the teaching or exercising of authority of women in general over men in general, but only of wives over their own husbands. However, the wording and the context both favor the broader reference. If Paul had wanted to confine his prohibition in verse 12 to wives in relationship to their husbands, we would have expected him to use a definite article or possessive pronoun with man: “I am not permitting a woman to teach or to exercise authority over her man.” (Paul readily made a similar distinction elsewhere in writing of male/female relationships. Women, he said, are to submit to “their own [idiois] husbands” [Ephesians 5:22, NASB; cf. Colossians 3:18.) And the context (verses 8-9) clearly addresses men and women generally as members of the church, not (as in Ephesians 5:22-33; Colossians 3:18-19) as husbands and wives, as members of family units; it is not only husbands who are to lift holy hands in prayer, but all the men, and not only wives who are to dress modestly, but all the women (verses 9-10). Therefore, the prohibitions of verse 12 are applicable to all women in the church in their relationships with all men in the church.

zt:Interpret 1 Tim 2:12

送交者: mean 2012月12月06日20:41:51 于 [彩虹之约] 发送悄悄话

回  答:zt:Role of Women in the Church 由 mean 于2012-12-06 20:32:36

Interpretive Issues in 1 Timothy 2:12 Study By: Daniel B. Wallace October 2009 The force of almost every word in 1 Timothy 2:12 has been debated. This brief paper will lay out the major interpretive issues involved, without commenting on which view is superior. It will also glance at the context for support of each view. In the Greek text, 1 Tim 2:12 says, διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, ἀλλ᾿ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ. 1. δέ: (1) contrastive (‘but’) or (2) continuative (‘and’). If it is contrastive, it is most likely contrasting the positive statement in v. 11 that women are to learn. Thus, the emphasis in v. 11 would be on this positive aspect. If continuative, then it most likely would be continuing the restrictions stated in the two prepositional phrases of v. 11—ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ, ἐν πάσῃ ὑποταγῇ. 2. διδάσκειν: There are lexical and grammatical issues related to this infinitive. (1) Lexically, (a) it might refer to teaching of any sort or (b) specifically spiritual instruction. What may be key here is whether the Pastoral Epistles should inform the meaning more than the whole corpus Paulinum or even more generally the use of theδιδάσκω word group in Hellenistic Greek. In the Pastorals, the word group is used 23 times (12 in 1 Timothy alone), all of which seem to be restricted to spiritual instruction (both good and bad instruction). (2) Grammatically, (a) διδάσκειν might be taken absolutely—that is, a woman would be prohibited from teaching anyone anything, or (b) it might be restricted to teaching men. At issue in the grammatical decision is whether two verbs can take the same direct object even if one of those verbs does not use the accusative for the direct object.1In this instance, αὐθεντεῖν is the other infinitive joined to διδάσκειν. Diagrammed, the options are as follows: Absolute διδάσκειν: Both infinitives take same direct object: 3. γυναικί: (1) a woman, that is, an adult female; (2) a wife. Although ‘woman’ is the default meaning of γυνή, some argue that in this context a wife is in view. Further, even though γυναικί is generic, the question is raised whether this text is prohibiting women from teaching men (group teaching) or prohibiting a woman from teaching a man (individual instruction). 4. οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω: (1) is the verb a progressive present with the force of ‘I am not now permitting’ or (2) a gnomic present with the force of ‘I do not as a principle permit’? Those who take the progressive view suggest that it implies that Paul would allow this at a later time. (3) Another issue is whether the expression ‘I do not permit a woman to teach…’ is the equivalent of an imperative or whether it has a softer force. 1. οὐδέ: (1) epexegetical conjunction in the sense of taking the two infinitives together as ‘authoritatively teach’; (2) a simple negative connective conjunction, indicating that each infinitive is prohibited. 5. αὐθεντεῖν: This is probably the most debated element in 1 Tim 2:12. The two broadest views are (1) usurp authority—that is, use authority over a man that is illegitimate, and (2) exercise authority (in a neutral sense). There is a third view, ‘to kill,’ so that, with some syntactical gymnastics, the verse says, “I do not permit a woman to teach that she can kill a man,” but this view has few adherents and is quite unlikely on both the lexical and syntactical front. 6. ἀνδρός: The issue here is when is a man a man? Some consider a male adult to be anyone over the age of 13, while others consider a male adult to be someone who is no longer attached to his parents economically, physically (in the sense of living under their roof), or spiritually (in the sense of being obedient to his parents). 7. ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ: (1) absolute: ‘in silence’; (2) relative: ‘quietly.’ The lexicon supports both uses. This also impacts v. 11 since the same phrase is used there. 8. γάρ in v. 13: This also is a crucial issue. Paul seems to ground his argument in Gen 2, but how is the γάρto be taken? Is it a marker of cause or reason, the normal use of this conjunction (see BDAG, s.v. γάρ 1.)? Or is it a marker of clarification or illustration? If the former, the ἐπιτρέπω would most likely be gnomic; if the latter, it could be progressive. 1. Verse 15: There are some who argue that the passage is anything but clear, and they point to v. 15 in support of their contention. Others say that just because one verse in a pericope is not clear does not mean the whole pericope is unclear. 1. Chapter 3: Is this chapter relevant to 2:12? If so, then the fact that only bishops are required to teach, and both bishops and deacons must be husbands of one wife, suggests that women could not have the office of bishop or deacon. But if ‘husband of one wife’ (3:2) simply means ‘married only once’ (as the NRSV has it), then women could be bishops and deacons. Further, does 1 Tim 3:11 refer to wives of deacons or to female deacons? Some who take it to be the latter would allow women to have the office of deacon, but prohibit them from the office of bishop. These are the basic issues in this passage. There are several subordinate issues as well, but the major ones are presented in this paper. 1 The absolute position is taken by egalitarians who argue that this therefore must be a temporary restriction on women since Titus 2:3-4 explicitly tells older women to teach, and especially to train younger women to love their husbands and children.

更全面的资料链接

送交者: 新民 2012月12月06日21:26:54 于 [彩虹之约] 发送悄悄话

回  答:zt:Role of Women in the Church 由 mean 于2012-12-06 20:32:36

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Timothy_2:12

ardmore: 改革宗不许女人讲道对吗？（陈鸽）

送交者: ardmore 2012年11月30日08:39:47 于 [彩虹之约] 发送悄悄话

一位弟兄问：“请问改革宗不许女人讲道的说法对吗？希望详细说明。” 陈鸽答复：论到女人在教会中的服事，我想，我们当避免两个极端：一是“男女不分”，二是“压抑姊妹”。 前者打着“男女平等”的旗号，提倡女权至上，因此放任姊妹在教会中冒头与篡权，更妨碍了弟兄的兴起（哥林多与以弗所教会就犯了这个毛病，林前 14:34-36；提前 2:11-15）；后者则歧视姊妹，压制女性，不让她们发挥恩赐，甚至不许她们公开祷告，如此便剥夺了姊妹在教会中的服事（今天中国一些改革宗教会似乎有这倾向）。这两者，一个太松，一个太紧；一个偏左，一个偏右，都离开了主平衡的正道。圣经教导我们：神造男女，先后有序，功用不同，愿我们同心合意，各尽其职，来荣耀我们的元首：主耶稣基督（弗 4:15-16）。 林前 11:3 “我愿意你们知道，基督是各人的头；男人是女人的头；神是基督的头。” 提前 2:11-13 “女人要沉静学道，一味的顺服。我不许女人讲道，也不许他辖管男人，只要沉静。因为先造的是亚当，后造的是夏娃。” 林前 14:34-37 “妇女在会中要闭口不言，像在圣徒的众教会一样，因为不准他们说话。他们总要顺服，正如律法所说的。他们若要学什麽，可以在家里问自己的丈夫，因为妇女在会中说话原是可耻的。神的道理岂是从你们出来吗？岂是单临到你们吗？若有人以为自己是先知，或是属灵的，就该知道，我所写给你们的是主的命令。”  从以上的经文来看，请问？是《改革宗》不许女人讲道呢？或是《圣经》不许女人讲道呢？ 要回复这个问题，我们需要根据圣经的总原则，全面地看问题。我相信：圣经中，姊妹在教会中服事，至少有四个大原则： 1：神的安排中，领导与教导的职分，不是给姊妹，乃是给弟兄的。 使徒保罗，本着主耶稣的权柄，说：“我不许女人讲道，也不许她辖管男人。”（提前2:12）。“讲道”原文作“教导”，最好翻译成“作教师”，因为“教导”是长老、牧师、监督的职责（提前 3:2；5:17；多 1:9）。新约中，没有女牧师、女监督、女长老。旧约中，也没有女祭司与女君王。唯一的例外就是那篡位并剿灭王室的女王亚他利雅（王下 11:1-3）。中国帝王史上唯一的两个例外（武则天与慈禧太后）也都祸国殃民、臭名昭著。可见，不论在教会里或世界中，神的定规都是男人领头，男人教导。然而，这并不否定姊妹在适当场合，面对适合对象时（例如：妇女、青年、孩童），运用教导的恩赐（多 2:3-5）。 2：一般情况下，姊妹可以运用恩赐，但不要运用弟兄的权柄。 保罗写信给哥林多教会，说：“凡男人祷告或是讲道（或作：说预言），若蒙著头，就羞辱自己的头。凡女人祷告或是讲道，若不蒙著头，就羞辱自己的头……。” （林前 11:4-5）可见，只要女人蒙头，就可以祷告或讲道。蒙头，是“服权柄的记号”（林前 11:10）。换言之，只要服在教会的权柄之下（未必外表蒙头或戴帽），姊妹就可以运用她的恩赐，这也包括先知讲道与公开祷告。初期教会，男人与女人一同祷告（徒 1:13-14）。百基拉、亚居拉，夫妻二人一同教导亚波罗（徒 18:26）。（随便一提，这对夫妻的名字，在新约圣经中一共出现六次。其中三次，就是一半的情况下，姊妹的名字都放在弟兄前面。这是违反犹太传统的，可见，这姊妹一定很能干，然而，她依然敬重丈夫，服在权柄之下，运用她的恩赐。） 3：一般情况下，弟兄是主角，姊妹是配角。 换言之，弟兄该站领导地位，姊妹则当顺服（提前2:11-14），因为女人顺服，是神的命令，神的定规，神的次序（林前 11:3；提前 2:11-13；林前 14:34）；这并不意味男女不平等（加3:28）（注一），更不是歧视女性。主耶稣首次启示他弥赛亚的身份，是向那撒玛利亚的妇人（约 4:25-26）；他复活后，也最先向妇女显现（可16:9；约 20:11-18）。（在当时那重男轻女的时代，这是不可思议的。）并且，主耶稣教导妇女（路 10:38-42），医治妇女（可 5:25-34；路 13:11-13；太 15:21-28），并接受妇女的服事（路 8:2-3）。彼得也提醒，“你们作丈夫的，也要按情理和妻子同住；因她比你软弱，（原文：软弱的器皿）与你一同承受生命之恩的，所以要敬重她……。”（彼前3:7）圣经中所有的应许、命令、祝福都一视同仁，平等地赐予男人与女人。尽管如此，在神的设计中，男女有别，主次有序。不可本末倒置。不论在社会中、教会中、家庭中，姊妹都当顺服弟兄。不要颠倒了角色，混乱了次序（林前 14:34-40）。 4：特殊情况下，当缺乏弟兄时，神也许暂时兴起姊妹来。 请注意，以上所言都是一般情况下：姊妹服事的原则，但在特殊情况下，就是当没有弟兄起来，或弟兄不成熟、或不争气的时候，神也可能兴起姊妹来带领他的百姓。所以，士师记中才会有个底波拉（士 4:4），唯一的女士师。 士师的兴起与君王不同，君王是世袭的，并且必须是男性的；而士师则是圣灵随己意运行，神主权的拣选，正如先知一样。虽祭司与君王，都必须遵循律法的制度（唯有亚伦的后裔可以做祭司、大卫的后裔可以当君王），但先知则是圣灵随己意所恩膏、所兴起的。“风随著意思吹，你听见风的响声，却不晓得从那里来，往那里去……”（约 3:8）圣灵的作为也是如此，可能完全在人的意料之外。神说：“我要行事，谁能阻止呢？”（赛 43:13）在摩西时代，神曾经兴起米利暗（出 15:20）；列王时代，他兴起了户勒大（王下 22:14）与以赛亚的妻子（赛 8:3）；旧约末期，他兴起了女先知亚拿，她“不离开圣殿，禁食祈求，昼夜事奉神。”（路 2:36-37）；在新约时代，他更兴起腓力的四个女儿（徒 21:9）。这些都是神主权的作为，我们唯有感恩，不能禁止。 然而，底波拉（女先知）领导以色列人时，也显明了那时代的堕落与荒凉。底波拉打发人去召巴拉来，去与迦南人争战，并应许他必然得胜（士 4:7）。（既然神选召巴拉，我相信他定是当时最杰出的男人，但他不过是矮子中的将军罢了。）巴拉对底波拉说：「你若同我去，我就去；你若不同我去，我就不去。」（士 4:8）哎！最勇敢的男人不过如此！所以，底波拉说：「我必与你同去，只是你在所行的路上得不著荣耀，因为耶和华要将西西拉交在一个妇人手里。」（士4:9）可见，神重用姊妹、不用弟兄时，正表明了弟兄的窝囊与无能，不是因姊妹要抢先和冒头，乃是因弟兄的懦弱与退缩，所以，神兴起了女先知底波拉率领以色列人奋勇的争战，又兴起了希百之妻雅亿智擒西西拉（士 4:17-22）。 感谢主，在宣教的最前线，主往往使用姊妹，冲锋陷阵。当弟兄们追逐名利，裹足不前时，姊妹们却弃家舍业，挺身而出。“主发命令，传好信息的妇女成了大群。”（诗 68:11）也感谢主，在中国兴起了许多勇敢的姊妹们。当弟兄贪爱世界、不肯委身时，神就兴起姊妹，挑起重担，扛起大梁。我们当为中国教会的妇女们感恩！然而，神所兴起的姊妹，也知道该何时隐退。当神渐渐兴起合适的弟兄时（提前 3；多 1），她们就自愿退下，隐藏自己，甘心顺服，默默地在幕后帮助弟兄，建立教会。这些忠心的妇女，她们的赏赐必不亚于在台上抛头露面的弟兄们（彼前3:7；太 5:19）。