Why is it that you must resort to the slavery issue when you have no other argument? I am not going to debate slavery with you but be assured that the slavery that Paul was speaking of is not the slavery that was abolished in the 1860's. The slavery that was practiced in the Scriptures was slavery from debt not from one group of men warring against and enslaving others. I believe Paul's admonition holds as true today as it did in that day. Also I am quite convinced that the Spirit didn't inspire those words just for that time. Your argument is a red herring. One has nothing to do with the other. The issue actualy boils down to the inspiration of the Scriptures. Either they are inspired or they aren't, there is no middle ground. If they are then we are bound to follow them. If they aren't then we can not trust any part of them.
I am not debating the slavery issue either. I assume (and hope) that we agree on that issue. What I am attempting to point out is that your interpretative methodology allows you to recognize, in one instance, that Paul's writings were a product of his culture. Yet, you insist that those of us who are okay with female leaders and even pastors are wrong for doing so in another instance.
Nor am I debating with you the inspiration of Scriptures. Scripture is inspired by God; I don't doubt that. However, Scripture needs to be interpreted to be applied. We call this process hermeneutics, which begins with exegesis. What this boils down to is not about the inspiration of Scripture (I think we both agree on the inspiration of Scripture), but on how Scripture ought to be exegeted and applied to our lives. I believe, as do most biblical scholars (liberal, conservative, mainline and evangelical), that proper exegesis must consider things like historical context, literary structure, genre, and other factors beyond the plain language of the text.
How we digest context and other extra-textual factors is certainly a valid subject of debate, and this is largely what separates liberal and conservative schools of theology. But, we cannot even get to this conversation when one side accuses anyone who disagrees with their position of doubting the inspiration of Scripture or throwing around allegations of logical fallacies that are not at all present.
My point in the post above was this: Many of the passages that address the role of women in the family and in the church also address the role of slavery. Contemporary Christians (even many conservative and fundamentalist Christians) have no problem addressing Paul's command to slaves to obey their masters as a reflection of a specific element of Paul's time and place. (BTW, Paul's command here has little or nothing to do with how the institution of slavery was conducted, and very much, if not everything, to do with the role of the First Century Church and individual believers within the world at large, but that is a topic for another debate). However, sometimes, these same people will not even entertain the very same exegetical concepts in dealing with Paul's teaching on the role of women. I am simply trying to engage in conversation about why this is.
