本学期的《系统神学III》主要的题目是：教会论、圣灵论和末世论。而教会论中处理的三个主要问题是：教会体制、女性角色和圣礼（尤其是婴儿洗vs.成人洗）。我们这位可爱的碎碎念老师足足讲了两个周末的女性角色。本校曾有一位出名的教授在女性角色这件事上有强烈的立场，据传他在进入一间有女生的讲道学课堂时说“我以为我走错教室了，女生不该选这门课的。”（据传，我也不知道他到底说了什么）因因而被学生向校方投诉。可能是这个原因，碎碎念老师在处理这个话题时格外小心，虽然他本人持有“互补论”（Complemnatarian，即上帝造男女平等但有不同的角色，女性不宜被按立为教牧领袖。John Piper等大多数福音派领袖均持此观点），但是在讲授课程时小心翼翼的多次表示平权论（Egalitarian，即认为神给男女同样的人格和权利，姊妹同样可以做牧师长老）的合理性，使我听着听着都不清楚他到底想表述什么观点了。
互补论的旗手，恰好也曾是本校教授，所以三一在这个问题上显得非常的谨慎和小心，不愿意任何一位教授过多的代表神学院或者宗派（美国播道会）的观点。另一方面，由于本校有很多的女生和女性教职员工，所以对这个问题的讨论往往会触发情绪而使讨论不能正常的继续，所以我理解教授的小心。但另一方面，深入了解女性角色问题会发现这是一个相当宽泛的光谱（spectrum），从严格禁止女性教导（“传统主义”，他们甚至包括反对女性担任任何教导性角色——例如公立学校）到支持女性担任主任牧师，中间还有各种不同的“折衷派”：女性可以“分享”但不能“教导”、女性可以“偶尔讲道”但不能担任领袖、女性可以在男性的领导下担任领袖角色（不是主任牧师）……
碎碎念教授从所有跟女性的经文入手，首先要回应的问题是：圣经有没有教导女性的家庭角色？（有！），有没有教导女性的社会角色？（似乎没有），有没有教导女性的教会角色？（这里有争执），关键的经文在于提前2:12和林前14:34-37：保罗究竟是在处理一个特定文化下特定教会中特定的问题，还是在教导一个普遍性的原则、理应适用于所有的教会？另外，我们要注意到保罗并没有“禁止”女性讲道，因为林前11:5说到“凡女人祷告或讲道，若不蒙着头……”就表明说姊妹是有讲道的操练的，换句话说，即便保罗在教导一个普适的原则，这个原则也是有例外的。那么什么时候可以例外呢？我在这堂课上特别受到启发是：圣经多处教导了长老的资格（徒6，提前3，多1），这是圣经显明的对牧长的要求。而女性是不是可以做牧长，则是一个隐含的、引申的解释（即圣经没有明明的写着说“姊妹不能做长老”，但是从提前2和林前14可以很容易的解释出来看到这是一个合理的解释。保罗甚至引用了创世纪的经文来作为论证，可见它不是一个文化性的适应而是神学性的教导。）。既然如此，我们是不是可以说在发生冲突的时候，明显的教导比隐含的教导更具有优先性呢？
例如，在很多教会里姊妹多弟兄少，而且弟兄们都不愿意服事，姊妹比弟兄灵性成熟，姊妹可不可以做领袖？我认为可以，因为如果强行让弟兄服事，明显领袖不符合圣经中对牧长的要求，违背了圣经明显的教导，而这明显的教导具有比隐含的教导更高的优先性。教会要做的，是让相对更符合圣经要求的肢体来带领，并恳切祷告求神使教会成长成熟，好让男人们“男人无忿怒，无争论，举起圣洁的手，随处祷告”，成为合神心意的领袖。换句话说，我认为在这些情况下，可以有例外，就像保罗不希望姊妹讲道，但是又有例外一样。
千字已到，没东西可写的时候再回来探讨这个问题，此为挖坑文。
我想选讲道学这门课，还不知道让不让选呢。
一点分享，请指教。
如果说1 Tim 2的经文是按照创造的秩序(the order of creation)来argue的话，那么一个明显的结论是姐妹不能给不信主的男性传福音。因为按照创造的秩序来说，即便是不信主的男子毕竟是男的，即便是主内的姐妹，毕竟是女的。另外，传福音的本质也是教导性的，这一点不知道是不是大家都认同。如果认同的话，那么一个暂时的结论，姐妹不能给男性传福音。
但这一点貌似有些荒谬。那么支持姐妹不能教导的人就必须另辟蹊径，引入“新创造”的概念。因为姐妹在基督里是新创造，所以“高过”在旧的创造秩序中的男性，所以新创造中的姐妹可以给旧创造秩序中的男性传福音。
这样的argument我可以接受。可是带来的新的问题：既然论证的根基从创造的秩序转移到了新创造的秩序，那么为什么啃肉吃的姐妹不能给吃奶的弟兄教导呢？在新创造的秩序中，有吃肉的，有喝奶的，如果恰巧吃肉的是姐妹，喝奶的是弟兄，为什么就不能教教呢？
如果仍然要坚持姐妹不能教导，那么就必须要回到创造的秩序。在同为新创造的前提下，论证的根基又要回到创造的秩序，才能解释为什么姐妹不可以教导弟兄。
但，我的问题是：论证的根基变来变去，这样的argument还有力吗？我还是吃奶的，有理解不当的地方请指教，不管是弟兄还是姐妹。谢谢。
（当然，如果认为姐妹可以教导，但不可以讲道的不在这个回应所指的范畴）
我的教授同样也举了这个例子，他甚至用更生动的方式来指出传统主义者（就是认为姊妹啥也不能教的人）的悖论——他讲了一个假设自己是受教于传统主义的姊妹，坐飞机碰到身边是个慕道友的故事。所以很明显提前2的经文不是指一般意义上的“教导”，不然姊妹连教儿子、教烹饪也不行了，而是指教会聚会崇拜时的教导，经文讲述的“教导”是有范围的。保罗引用创造的秩序，我认为他是想要指出女人不能“辖管”男人，因为男女有不同的角色。教导——尤其是教会崇拜时的教导——是一个带出“辖管”的举动。你说的“新创造”我从没听过。下回我再继续。
Good thoughts! I agree that it is probably best to understand 1 Tim. 2 in the context of corporate worship, though I think the “spirit” of the passage is consistent with other Scriptures that speak of a broader context, such as the wife’s submission to the husband (1 Pet. 3, Eph. 5). Such a reading, by the way, would make allowances for women to share the gospel with unbelieving men or serve as corporate managers, as the case may be. I would also point out that the passage in 1 Tim. 2 does not forbid women from teaching in general, but rather from teaching over men in particular. That said, a literal interpretation of that verse would not preclude women from teaching other women or children.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the matter. I sincerely appreciate your intent to treat this issue with measured biblical precision.
A couple of points that caught my attention:
1). You mention 1 Cor. 11:5 as stating that “凡女人祷告或讲道” — i.e. “[when] a woman prays or preaches.” I’m not by any estimation a Greek scholar, but I have studied enough Greek to recognize that the Chinese translators in this instance made an interpretive decision here that may be questionable. The second verb is actually the verb for “to prophesy,” not “to proclaim” or “preach” (cf. 2 Tim. 4:1). I know there is no small amount of debate with respect to the nature of New Testament prophecy, but I think to render it in such a way as to make it indistinguishable from “preaching” seems to be much too loose a translation for my comfort. Besides, if prophecy corresponded perfectly to preaching, then it would hardly seem sensible that Paul would expressly forbid women from “teaching” over men in 1 Tim. 2. I think 1 Cor. 11:5 should be translated “[when] a woman prays or prophecies” to avoid the category confusion.
2). I can appreciate your effort to give priority to those biblical texts which speak with the most clarity over those from which we base our “inferences.” You state near the end of your thoughts that the Bible is clear about the standards of male eldership in the church, while the Bible is less clear about the issue of whether sisters may serve as elders; hence, you reason, if there are no qualified brothers to serve as an elder but there are indeed some competent sisters, then the sisters should be granted an “exception” to preach. While I understand that the issue of a male “supply crunch” is is a difficult, and very pervasive, issue in some parts of the world — and that there may be situations in which an inchoate, unhealthy church may have to suffer through an awkward growth phase if there are no brothers who can preach — I’m not sure that I can wholly agree with your analysis. You mention that we “infer” from texts like Acts 6 and 1 Tim. 3 that only men serve as elders (as opposed to women), but I think that the Bible speaks with even more pertinence to the issue. I would suggest that the question of whether women can preach during church services is most directly answered NOT by the question of whether the Bible expressly prohibits women from serving as elders, but rather by whether the Bible expressly prohibits women from teaching over men. And that, furthermore, is a question for which we do not need to any inferences: Paul makes it clear in 1 Tim. 2 that women are not permitted to “teach” or “have authority” over men. That said, if we’re speaking in terms of the “prioritizing” of verses that speak clearly to the issue, shouldn’t 1 Tim. 2 be considered at the very top of the list?
Just some thoughts to mull over. Feel free to share any of your follow-up thoughts!
Very insightful comments, Robert. I’ll think about it and reflect later.