Debates over women in leadership are a good test of PC environment on Christian college campuses...

Here's a question I've also asked on Volokh Conspiracy, with no response: Does anybody know of any case in any era in which a professor was punished for speaking in favor of homosexuality? (or in favor of, say, racial desegregation?) I wouldn't be surprised if there were, and I've heard of cases where professors were punished for homosexual activity, but I've never heard of a university objecting to a professor's abstract views on the subject. In contrast, I recently heard of a dean who told a law professor he wouldn't be allowed to teach first-year courses because he opposed racial preferences in one or two op-eds (outside of class, which was on an unrelated subject) and that made some students uncomfortable. The prof is objecting, and we'll see what happens.

I work in IT for a public University. Of the relatively few leaders in the organization that I truly admire for integrity and competency, two of the most remarkable are women. It's a strange world... Universities, doubly so.

An inarticulate generation: Taylor Mali http://youtube.com/watch?v=SCNIBV87wV4

>Is it possible that some unimaginable set of circumstances could lead condemporary reformed leaders to similar conclusions? Let's hope not. Although you don't seem very well read in the period you are discussing...

Professor Foreman, you're quite wide of the mark, historically. As for reformed men changing their minds today, where have you been looking? They're everywhere. How do you think the PC(USA) and its predecessor denominations got to the point where men unwilling to ordain women to the ministry and the eldership were refused ordination? And why do you think all the PC(USA) churches fleeing the trainwreck these past few years are almost all entering the EPC? Haven't you watched the CRC, recently? Come on, sir: the whole world is filled chockablock full of reformed men who've changed their minds on this subject. They're everywhere! The real miracle is that anyone is going against the flow. But God is merciful and His kindness leads us to repentance.

Truth is in tension – it seems all biblical truth is held in tension by counter balancing factors – a doctrinal tug-o-war if you will. Law and grace, free will and sovereignty, faith and works, the love and fear of God, His permissive and directive will – all must be accepted in “both/and rather than either/or” conclusions. The struggle for balance in our view of men and women is similar. Both physically and spiritually, men and women are far more alike than different. Apart from our interdependence, neither could exist. Together in masculine and feminine distinction we reflect the likeness of God. In Christ we are equally loved and accepted by God, equally baptized into the body of Christ and equally accountable to honor and love one another. Together we are called in the ministry to serve one another in the attitude of Christ. By far the majority of the New Testament instruction treats men and women as equals who are called to the kind of strength of character that occurs as Christ is formed in us. Our overwhelming physical and spiritual likeness and unity however, must not blind us to the creative differences and marks of distinction that our Designer has built into us for our common enrichment and survival. Physically speaking, men do not honor themselves by going out of their way to be feminine. Women do not distinguish themselves or glorify their creator by trying to be masculine. We do dignify ourselves by building on the complementary similarities and differences that God has built into us. Ministry in the church has some of the same implications. Opportunities for ministry are more alike than different. Men and women have been called to help one another with whatever gifts they have to offer. They are called to encourage, to challenge, and to teach one another. Only in roles of general oversight are there well-defined differences. And though much has been written about how Christ lifted women to a place of honor far exceeding the social attitudes and customs of the first century life, and the bible is full of noteworthy women and their achievements. Women then had authority to prophesy only when they wore head coverings. Which reflected gender distinctions and acknowledgement of male headship. (1 Cor 11:3-12). With Deborah as my example: Judges 4:1-3. Deborah received direction from God that she passed on to Barak and told him that he was to raise an army of 10,000 men and go up against the Canaanites. It is significant that God spoke through the judge Deborah and not directly to Barak. And in that way Barak resembles us in that we do not get a direct word from God, but we live on the words given through God’s prophets and apostles. However, Deborah knew her position as a woman and told Barak to fight instead of her. In contrast Barak didn’t assert his headship and therefore was dishonored put to shame. A woman though not Deborah won the victory. A balanced view of scripture leads a woman to (1) feminine distinction, [which keep in mind during that time they all wore dress like robes, so this does not mean women can’t dress in slacks and men can’t wear kilts according to the culture] (2) selective submission, [in accord with the law of God] (3) spiritual equality, and (4) strength of character. Many Women of character who distinguished themselves by the desire to know and be used by God can be seen throughout the bible. Women are not mindless home appliances and by no means, should be thought of as barefoot and pregnant or property. God’s order for husband and wife relationships as described in Eph. 5 is important to understand. When the principle of male headship showed up in Paul’s discussion of the church, the apostle was protective of God’s order for Husband’s and wives. (1 Cor. 11:1-12) This is clear from the fact that Paul was concerned that cultural head coverings be in place to protect the principle of headship order in men-women relationships. Paul showed that gender is a factor when the church meets to worship. He reasoned from the principals of (1) headship (2) creation order (3) Greek customs of head coverings and (4) natural law. The most important of these seem to be the headship. Headship seems to imply leadership and authority. In (Eph 5:22-25) he describes a kind of loving servant leadership. He asked wives to submit to husbands, who in turn were instructed to protect and cherish and nourish their wives. So does this go beyond the husband and wife? Paul made an issue of men in headship while discussing the cultural practice of head coverings in the church. Paul was concerned that women not violate the principle of headship by discarding customary head coverings while praying and prophesying. So would ordaining a godly woman have less implication for headship than the head coverings Paul was concerned about? What is important is not the title but the function, office and role. What is important is that the church does not organize itself in a way that will confuse the order God has built into marital relationships. It is not surprising that when Paul listed requirements for a bishop he called for spiritually qualified men (1 Tim 3:1-7). He may have been thinking more broadly than just the marital relationship, but because he did not take pains to clarify that we can only assume that he was, at the very least, showing concern for marital headship in the church. This concern for a relationship that is clearly described in Eph 5 is significant. We can be sure that Paul was more concerned about pastoral modeling than he was about head coverings. Having a woman as a ruling Pastor or elder equivalent role would confuse husband-wife relationships in the church. And we are not to separate our church life from our home life it is all one life in Christ. Leadership according to Christ is self-sacrificing. To lead us to His Fathers’ house, Christ suffered slaps of hatred that should have fallen on our faces. To lead us from the slavery of sin, Christ exposed His back to whips, His head to thorns, His hands and feet to nails, His side to a spear, His lifeless body to a barrowed grave. To bring us out of darkness, He showed a leadership that first made Him a follower who was willing to say, “Not my will, But yours, be done” (Lk 22:42) And Paul as a church leader who served in the Spirit of Christ. He did not act like some one enamored with his own position and influence. He labored not for the praise of men but for the approval and honor of the Lord under whose authority and oversight he served. Such leadership if practiced today would solve many problems. It would help persons “under authority” to feel respected by church leaders and heads of households who are not above washing feet, dishes, clothes, walls, and bathrooms. It is a leadership that could be accepted more readily after reading (Heb 13:17). Some might be so resentful of the exclusion of women from pastor and elder roles that they are tempted to reject Christ Himself. Such an inclination is a signal to look within. We need to be sure the real issue is not between our right to equal treatment and God’s right to be God. Furthermore, just because He created us with complementary differences does not mean that He treats us differently when it comes to our need for love, prayerful conversation, forgiveness, and security of relationship, full acceptance, eternal life, and legal rights to His everlasting Kingdom. It is absolutely true that he will receive all who receive Christ. Men and women alike will be saved by believing that salvation is found not by trying but by trusting, and by trusting not in our merits but in Christ’s Mercy. (Jn. 5:24; Rom. 3:23; 6:23; Gal 3:22-29). And in conclusion I want to state that without love and specifically without the kind of love Paul described (1 Cor. 13:4-7), the differences will not work for one another but against one another. All the faith in the world that one’s ideas rooted firmly on the authority of God’s Word or in the heart of God’s own Spirit is something that will have no profit unless it has love. (1 Cor. 13:1-3) Without this Leadership is worthless.