No you have not answered it. the passage quoted to support your argument says WOMEN MUST KEEP SILENT. So hiw are they keeping silent while teaching? Are they using sign language or something. all you explained above is why they are not going against the instruction to not have authority over a man. that is not what was asked.
The passages he has chosen to take literally rules out any justification for not taking this other passage lierally. so of course he can but lets also see the justification for why interpreting that way for both passages. bet i could make a hole in his argument big enough to drive a truck through!
When it comes to "literal" interpretation, there are freight-train sized holes in the interpretation, theology and practice of many Churches (the Real Presence, the efficacy of the Sacraments, the proper uses of Law and Gospel to mention a few, which are topics for another thread). We do the very best that we can with what we have to work with.
For you I am interested how you can justify taking certain passages literally when there is possible claim that they shouldn't but not take other passages literally that have no justification for not doing so if you take literally that when the bible talks about being the husband of one wife.
For Mark Rohfrietsch he has quoted the passage that says women are to keep silent in church as support of why women should not be allowed to be bishops yet he is happy to allow them to teach sunday school. So he needs to explain why we should take the passage he quotes but ignore one verse in the middle of the passage. his answer is that because the women are acting under the authority of the minister it is ok but that does not explain how the verse that women are to keep silent is justifiably ignored.
I guess you could also go so far, using your argument, that mothers then should not nurture their own children, helping them to grow in the faith, either, which would be absurd. In this day and age, parents are busy, often both work; parents and God-parents often do not have the resources to fulfil the commitments to bring children up in the faith as they promised to do at their children's baptism, unfortunately, there are few who have the time or the resources to provide the spiritual nurturing, instruction in the Bible that is so important for the nurturing of the young. As a result, the Church, through it's teaching authority, provides Sunday-school and "surrogate" teachers (male and female) to provide the instruction that is often lacking at home. As I stated above, such is done under the direct oversight and authority of the Church by the ordained Clergy and the Elders/Deacons.
In our tradition, Sunday-school and the public worship services of the Church are held at two separate times. We encourage attendance for the children at both Sunday-school and Divine Service.
In our Congregation, our Pastor opens Sunday-school with the short office of Morning Prayer and a short homily explaining the appointed readings; after which the children go to their classes; and Pastor leads an adult Bible Study; Following these, our Pastor leads us all through the celebration of the Divine Service.
Would you have the Church neglect the spiritual life of the Children?
Look, there's been a clean-up and a bunch of new posts since I last checked this thread. i find you telling several different people that they didn't answer something plus some other accusations....but there's no indication of what you are referring to. You're going to have to set this up clearly, state your point, and show us what the problem is that you think you see.
Thanks Albion, I tried one more time; although I'm sure that some here will still find that it's not good enough.
