I've now put my full text of my paper on the internet, if you want to read it start here:
Part One The place of women in 1st Century cultures.
Part Six Further letters, and conclusion
Sorry its so long :) its 18,000 words long. I may not have got all the footnotes right yet either. Its taken far too long to do this, and I'm exhausted, so I'll sort it out later. Hope you like it!
Many people, from the very foundation of the Christian Church, have sought to prevent women from having a place in the ministry of the church, and so in many churches today women cannot be ministers/priests/pastors.
However it does not appear that the New Testament supports this view.
Although it is true that Paul famously wrote:
1 Cor 14[34] the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.
However, one thing that many people forget is that when Paul wrote this he was not writing for future generations but a present problem, in his present church at Corinth. It is reasonable to suppose that many women in that church were creating a disturbance by talking too much, asking questions during the service which were more appropriate for other times, etc. Moreover, this statement seems very odd coming from Paul - is this the same man who wrote:
Romans 6[14] For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace. ?
I would suggest that here Paul is merely saying (in the strongest terms - it had to sink in) that women should keep questioning, rowdiness and contradicting the preacher, for its own time and place.
Another very strong argument in favour of women being able to speak in the churches, is that of Phoebe, in Romans 16:1.
Paul calls her a diakonos, that is, a deacon although many translations have this as "helper" or "servant". Yet the word used is exactly the same as the word used for the male deacons! It seems foolish to presume that Phoebe, though called a deacon, did not the same things as the other deacons, that is, teach, minister the sacraments, and talk in church. If Paul had meant her to be something other than a deacon, why call her it?
And, of course, our prime example above all, is Jesus.
Jesus was radical in his attitude toward women. He taught them, and Martha sat at his feet in the manner of a disciple toward a rabbi. It was unheard of for a rabbi to teach women at that time, Jesus was defying convention in order to teach women.
And who was the first witness to the resurrection? None other than Mary Magdalene! Not Peter, not James, but Mary. Women are also called upon to witness to Jesus, to teach others about his resurrection (including the Apostles) and share equally in his promise.
Jesus was, in fact, the first feminist!
So, because Paul wrote to women in Corinth in the 1st Century, about a conflict he was having with them, telling them not to be noisy in church, we should forever debar women from full service in the Lord? I doubt it.