Teaching, preaching, and authority

This got some buzz on the Internet:

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/why-not-to-have-a-woman-preach

I hold Piper and Schreiner in high regard, but I think their argument is confused. In fairness, I think Andrew Wilson miscast the argument.

i) One question is what "authority" meant in the ancient world. To my knowledge, authority meant the power to command or forbid. The wherewithal to enforce compliance.

The ancient world had a muscular conception of authority. Authority was coercive. The power to impose your will on another. To punish noncompliance. Forcing others to do your bidding. To do things against their will.

ii) In addition, this text is bound up with the related issue of "submission." Submission and authority are correlative. Submission is the counterpart to authority. 

Submission can be voluntary or involuntary. That's where authority comes into play. Having the clout to make someone submit to your demands. Take the power of Roman masters over slaves. And that was ultimately backed up by the Roman army. 

iii) In that context, I don't see how teaching is ipso facto wielding authority over another. For instance, I read lots of books and articles by atheists. I do so to critique their arguments.

Do I put myself in submission to an atheist by exposing myself to what he says? How could a Christian philosopher or apologist ever refute an atheist if merely reading or listening to an atheist is equivalent to submitting to an atheist? 

An atheist may wish to wield authority over the reader, but that's not real authority. He hopes to influence what the reader believes. But I'm a very "insubordinate" reader. 

iv) Perhaps Piper or Schreiner would say a congregation is a captive audience, so that makes it more coercive. If so:

a) That goes beyond the text. The text doesn't specify that setting. 

b) If I don't like what I'm hearing, I can up and leave in the middle of the sermon. Or I can refuse to return to that church. 

c) Presumably, they don't think a parishioner should submit to whatever a preacher says. Presumably, they think we should exercise critical judgment when we hear a sermon. Evaluate what we hear. 

v) Piper and Schreiner use the word "regularly," but isn't that a weasel word? That modifies the issue to a question of degree rather than kind. 

vi) I think Paul was probably dealing with a house-church situation in which upper class women hosted Christian gatherings. They had authority by dint of their social class and the fact that it took place under their roof. 

Again, I'm not saying it's just culturally conditioned. Paul's discussion includes the cross-cultural principle of male headship. 

In addition, even the culturally-conditioned aspect can have cross-cultural analogues. There can certainly be modern situations that are comparable to what Paul is discussing. There can be women in authority, to whom men are subordinate–in business, government, and academia. (Whether that ought to be the case is debatable.) 

But it's not analogous to, say, a supply preacher in a modern American church. A preacher is not an authority-figure in that sense. At best, a preacher has moral authority, or the authority of an expert witness. It's a matter of rational persuasion rather than dictatorial power.  

I don't see that inviting Lydia McGrew to do a talk on the Resurrection or the reliability of the Gospels is what Paul had in mind. I don't see that inviting Karen Jobes to do a series on 1 Peter or 1 John is what Paul had in mind. I think that requires Piper and Schreiner to operate with a very diluted concept of authority which is not recognizably authoritative in the ancient sense of the concept. 

Remember, the question at issue isn't women in the pastorate. The question was framed in terms of an all-male church board. It's just a question of a woman addressing a mixed audience.  

vii) Catholic apologists routinely cast the issue in terms of "interpretive authority," as if what matters is who said it and not the quality of the evidence or the supporting arguments. But evangelicals need to resist that tendentious framework. 

Likewise, charismatic personality cults elevate the "anointed" speaker to the status of lofty authority-figure. But, once again, evangelicals need to resist that paradigm.

viii) There's a tension in Schreiner's position. He himself has reviewed books by "evangelical feminists." He must read women to review women. He must read egalitarians to refute egalitarians. Does that mean he's learning from a woman? 

Same thing with the JBMW, which reviews "evangelical feminist" literature from a complementarian perspective. Does that mean women are teaching them? There's a sense in which the women are teaching them what the women think Scripture means. Are they bowing down to a woman by reading egalitarian literature to critique it?

What about countercult ministries that scrutinize the theology of Joyce Meyers or Paula White. They must listen to these women preach to evaluate their theology. Are they submitting to their authority by hearing them preach? How could they critique them without hearing them?

What about conservative pundits who critique the legal opinions of Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Elena Kagan. Are they in submission to a woman when they examine their legal philosophy?

xi) I'd add that "teaching" is ambiguous, because it's a two-party transaction. To say a woman taught men or a man was taught by a woman can refer to what the woman did, or it can refer to how the student or listener responded.

On the one hand it can mean a man learned from a female teacher.

On the other hand, it can mean a woman expressed her opinion, but the man disagreed.

A listener may be unreceptive to what the teacher has to say.

xii) Paul commended older Christian women for counseling younger Christian women (Tit 2:3-4). And he commended Lois and Eunice for indoctrinating their grandson Timothy (2 Tim 1:5; 3:15).

So Paul doesn't object to women teaching, or even to women teaching males. Hence, I infer that his underlying objection is to women wielding authority over men. In their capacity as authority-figures (e.g. a Roman noblewoman), he objects to women teaching men. That's the only consistent position I can make out of his varied statements. Merely hearing a woman express her views doesn't subjugate a male listener.