I've read a few different books and articles over the past few years on the issue of women in ministry, particularly in the role of pastor or teacher.  On the one hand, i've just read Barbara E. Reid's "Choosing the Better Part? : women in the Gospel of Luke" (a feminist commentary on the female characters in Luke) for my exegesis class, and while studying for a theology paper i read an interview with Wayne Grudem, explaining why he thinks that "Evangelical feminism" (his term for egalitarianism) would eventually lead to:

1. denial of male headship in marriage
2. denial of masculinity in anything, including God
3. acceptance of homosexuality as a legitimate sexual preference
4. fundamental denial of the authority of the Bible in the lives of believers

(See Grudem's "Evangelical Feminism: a new path to liberalism?", 15-16 for details on this view.)  I must admit that on first glance, Grudem's claims seem rather outlandish, even offensive, to one who accepts egalitarianism but not the views that he claims follow on from it.  However, i respect Grudem's scholarship enough that i think his views need consideration.  (I haven't read the book yet, except for the few pages available at Amazon.com.)

To my mind 1 Timothy 2 is the Achilles heel of egalitarianism.  (I accept Gordon Fee's view of 1 Corinthians 14.34-35 - that it was not present in the original text.)  One of the main reasons i originally embraced egalitarianism was the problem of accurately and consistently applying the teaching of this passage to my life at a practical level.  If i cannot accept 2.15 at face value without denying the clear teaching of other Scriptures, there seems good warrant doing the same with 2.11-14, since the verses are tightly linked.

Or to state it another way, if egalitarians are inconsistent in their interpretation of Scripture, complementarians are inconsistent in their application of it.  How many of us have heard of churches that will allow single women to be missionary church planters in Africa, but will not allow them to speak from the Word in the pulpit at home?

This week i was in a church members' meeting where we were called to vote on an issue that had theological implications.  I went to the meeting thinking i was going to vote one way, but changed my mind because i was convicted by the views expressed by two ladies in our congregation.  I'm an elder in my local church, and if i were to apply 1 Timothy 2 the way it naturally reads, i would have to conclude that being taught by those women was a theological error on my part.  (Not only this, but at least one of these women was wearing gold jewellery while she spoke in our assembly!    cf. 2.9, 11.)

These difficulties exist without even addressing the notoriously difficult question of the meaning of 2.15.  The two Evangelical commentaries i own on 1 Timothy (Gordon Fee and Ralph Earle) don't arrive at an adequate answer to the difficulty, in my opinion, but at the moment i don't have anything better, except perhaps to suggest that it might be best to translate σωθησεται as "will be healed" (rather than "will be saved"), as it is sometimes translated in the Gospels.  On that note it seems to me that Grudem is somewhat unfair in insisting that we come to a resolution on the issue of women teaching in this passage.  (See the interview linked above.)

Is Grudem right, or is there a way that Evangelicals can responsibly adopt an egalitarianism that can still be called biblical at some useful level?  I'm genuinely interested in ideas about how to deal with this from a methodological perspective.  If you have any suggestions, please contact me.  (I'm thinking about working on this issue from the perspective of theological methodology in my M.Div. project in a couple of years.)