I just republished a post from 2008 called The Christian View of the Role of Women. There is a lengthy discussion in the comments and I want to highlight a few points I made. One of them I rarely see addressed (if ever).

I think you’ll be able to follow this even though this is the middle of the conversation. I’m replying to Nicki.

Just another thought… Over on your website you mentioned Dr. Helen Roseveare and the book you are reading. She sounds like a remarkable woman. I am wondering what you think of her speaking to mixed groups. I took the link to the notes on the Desiring God website and it certainly sounds like she was teaching the Scriptures at that conference. And in her Wikipedia bio it says that she was a plenary speaker three times at Urbana. Having been to Urbana myself I can safely assume this means she was teaching a mixed group from the Scriptures. What are your thoughts on this?

For the record, I am personally completely comfortable with what she did in her ministry as I’ve briefly outlined above. I have no problem with women teaching the Scriptures to mixed groups as she did at these conferences (in case anyone reading here hasn’t heard me state my views on this before).

Nicki left a lengthy response. I responded to her with this.

You said:

Ultimately I believe that it the responsibility of the man to preach and teach God’s people (1 Tim 2). However, under the authority of male leadership I do not have a problem with exceptional circumstances such as Dr Roseveare ministering to men and women. I’m sure John Piper shares this view since he asked her to speak at his conference, but if you asked him if she could become part of his preaching team it would be a different matter.

This is one of the practical outworkings of complementarianism that I find intellectually unsatisfying. If a woman is not permitted to teach or have authority over a man, then she shouldn’t be teaching or having authority over a man. Period. I don’t see how a man telling her it is ok makes it ok. And if women aren’t to teach and have authority over a man because of Genesis and the complementarian appeal to the created order, then she shouldn’t be teaching or having authority over a man. Period.

And where does one draw the line and determine what is an “exceptional circumstance”? Is an exceptional circumstance a one-time thing? What about an exceptionally gifted woman? Does her whole life become an exception? Who determines who is qualified for an “exceptional circumstance” and who isn’t?

I’m not attacking you at all, Nicki, so I hope it doesn’t come across that way. This is one of the questions that I have about complementarianism that has never been adequately answered for me. And this is one of those questions that makes me feel that it is just as big a leap of faith to be a complementarian and dance around the various issues such as this as it is to become an egalitarian.

Most complementarians are not going to come out and say that a woman can never speak in front of men. There are some who do, but I don’t think the vast majority of them want to be on the record saying that. But leaving the door open for this exception and that exception leads to more confusion in my mind.

And, I would also ask (whoever wants to answer this), why can Dr. Roseveare stand up and basically preach a Scripture-based message at a conference but she can’t do the same thing in a church worship service? And if she can do it in church because she is a visiting missionary, why can’t she do it every week? If women are to be silent and not teach men, why can she do it in some situations and not others?

There was lots more discussion and then I brought this up. I had forgotten about this point, but it’s very valid.

I did have one thought today related to the view that it is ok for women to teach in certain situations if they are under the authority of a man… Why is it that when the Scriptures say I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man, that complementarians are willing to give an exception to the teaching part but no exception is given to the authority part? If a woman is not permitted to do A and B, why is that exceptions can be made for A and not B?

Complementarians don’t consistently live out their beliefs. I’ve discussed this many times including in these posts:

• The Complementarian Position Is Not Lived Out Consistently, Even By Ardent Followers
• Elisabeth Elliot Can’t Use a Pulpit to Preach, But She Can Share from the Music Stand