A few weeks ago a Biblical Recorder article about a potential woman president raised at least three questions. I seek to answer those questions biblically without recreating “the theological wheel.” These questions are more thoroughly answered in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, eds. J. Piper and W. Grudem (Crossway, 1991); Women in the Church, eds. A. Kösetenbeger, T. Schreiner, and S. Baldwin (Baker, 1995); How to Read the Bible for all Its Worth, G. Fee and D. Stuart (Zondervan, 2003); and Understanding and Applying the Bible, J. R. McQuilkin (Moody, 1983).
 
The article headline asked, “Can a woman be President and not a pastor?” According to the Bible, the answer to this question is yes. When we go to the teaching portions of God’s word we have a directive from Paul, an apostle of Christ for the church.

He writes, “I am not permitting a woman to be teaching or to be exercising authority over adult males” (1 Tim 2:11). We also see in 1 Cor 14:34 a similar prescription given in the context of a New Testament church worship service. First Timothy was written by Paul at the end of his ministry to guide Timothy on how to return a church (that had strayed in doctrine and practice) back to God’s proper order (1 Tim 3:15). The commands in this book have the utmost authority in the life of the church today and cannot be set aside by a historical passage of scripture.

In 1 Tim 2:9–15 Paul limits a woman’s audience when she is teaching the Bible or theology. She may teach scripture and theology to women and children, but not to adult males in the church. In fact, she is encouraged to teach women and children according to Titus 2:3–4. She may also teach adult males Spanish and geometry in a non-church setting, but she may not exercise authority over the adult males in the church (yet she can have authority over children and other women).
 
In Eph 5:22, married women are responsible to be under their husband’s authority in the home. But, the Bible does not limit a woman’s role in the state; therefore, she is free to be a president, senator, or even prime minister (Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir). Church elder roles, however, are restricted to men, that is, the one-woman-man (1 Tim 3:2). This topic should not be decided by emotions and requires some careful study and reading. Please see Piper, 179–193 and McQuilkin, 193–202 for more detailed explanations of these biblical issues.
 
Can what the Bible describes, rescind what the Bible prescribes?

Hermeneutics is the science of studying the Bible, and according to every evangelical work on hermeneutics known to this author, the answer to this question is no. Unfortunately, even the historical examples (narratives) in the Recorder article had some rather serious problems. For example, Mary in Acts 12:12 allowed a group to occupy her son’s room. (Upper rooms were built on houses so that the son and his wife could live above his parents.)

Lydia invited a group of missionaries to have a meal and spend the night in her house (Acts 16:15). Likewise, Col 4:15 has a textual variant where some manuscripts have nympha (female) and others have nymphas (male). All this text states is that this person was a believer in which a group of Christians met in their house (male or female). There is no indication of ruling, presiding, or preaching in any of these examples.

Better historic examples would have been Judges 4:4 and 1 Cor 11:5. However, even these texts, which describe what was going on at one location in history, cannot be used to undo commands given to the church.
 
Southern Baptist church members should be encouraged to read a book like Fee’s on proper Bible interpretation every few years. If this was done, any attempts to use historical citations to counter clear biblical commands would not be accepted in our publications because the editors could not handle the thunderstorm of complaints.
 
Consider an example of why biblical historical sections are not a primary guide for faith and practice. The Bible records in Judges 4:15–21 that Jael, hammered a tent peg through the head of Sisera, a Canaanite general, who attempted to eliminate the God-ordained Jewish rebellion.

Surely no one would say this description of an event was a prescription for every family or Boy Scout camping trip.

It is likewise improper to do this with any other biblical historical record. (Please see Fee, 89–125, which explains this in detail.)
 
Learning how to handle a written document takes effort, but it is essential to properly understand the Bible, our sole authority for faith and practice (not voices, holy hunches, or feelings). To properly understand Gal. 3:28 see Piper, 154–164; and Kösetenbeger, 195–208. To intelligently understand Rom 16:1–2, concerning Phoebe, as a servant, or as a deaconess of the church, see Piper, 68, 219–220, 353–354.
 
How does the Bible’s record of events help us determine ethical issue like slavery or develop a “just war” theory? The answer to this question is: very little. We need to focus on what the Bible prescribes or on historical examples that the Bible actually tells us are good models (See Heb 11: 1–38; A Just Defense, K. Payne (Multnomah, 1987); Ethics for a Brave New World, J. Feinberg (Crossway, 1993); and An Introduction to Biblical Ethics, J.R. McQuilkin (Tyndale, 1995). The teaching passages are paramount for forming biblical ethics.

Moreover, just because the Bible describes something does not mean that it endorses it for every age and time. For instance, even in the Ten Commandments the practice of slavery is mentioned (Exod 20:17). But it is not sanctioned nor is it recommended in this command against coveting. Likewise, when the Bible reader comes to the teaching in Philemon (also see 1 Cor 7:21 and Gal 5:1) as well as the many Old Testament restrictions on this institution (e.g. Exod 21:2), he quickly learns that the Bible intended to change this culturally accepted practice in the teaching sections, while it simply recorded and even limited slavery in the legal and historical sections (Lev 25:39–43; Deut 23:15–16).
 

We also need to let the biblical paradoxes stand as they are without reinterpreting them based on descriptive texts. For instance, an individual Christian is not to retaliate against evil (Matt 5:39; Rom 12:14–21) while the state is directed by God to bring evil doers to justice, which includes death (Rom 13:1–7; 1 Pet 2:13–17), according to God’s economy and revelation.

These prescriptions for individuals and states are required by God simultaneously. Likewise, the individual must also balance the righteous person’s responsibility to defend the defenseless (Prov 31:89; Isa 1:17), and thus, he must take defensive actions when he is with children or when he witnesses evil men harming widows or orphans (the positive side of the command in Exodus 20:13 is: “You must preserve life”).
 
I would not have a problem working side-by-side in a disaster relief project with the dear brother who wrote the Recorder article. But because of the way he approaches the scriptures and the conclusions he draws from them, I would be unable to serve on the same church staff with him. Disagreement on secondary level issues (e.g. women pastors) can allow us to have some levels of cooperation. But the very method that he recommended for interpreting the Bible (which is a first level issue) breaks unity even more than the conclusions he draws from that methodology.

Departing from evangelical hermeneutics and ethics does not make it easier for conservatives to partner with those who are similar to us in third level theological issues (e.g. church government). The conclusions reached by these two dissimilar approaches to solving “hot topics” issue are vastly different, and that’s why interpretation methodology is crucial and has very practical implications.
 
(EDITOR’S NOTE — Manby is associate pastor at Adamsville Baptist Church in Goldsboro.)