research topic

For the negative side of the argument (shouldn't/can't) in a theological context cf. resources like this https://www.logos.com/product/2745/biblical-foundations-for-manhood-and-womanhood

This looks like it may argue for the affirmative, though I'm not positive: https://www.logos.com/product/43581/as-christ-submits-to-the-church-a-biblical-understanding-of-leadership-and-mutual-submission

Simply arguing along the lines of "a woman has quality 'x', quality 'x' would be a good quality to have in leadership, therefore, women would make good leaders" would be a pretty weak case unless you first demonstrated that x is uniquely qualifying for leadership and uniquely had by women. You'd probably be digging yourself into more of an argument than you're wanting to chew on taking that route. 

Edit:

Just remembered you can get both sides of the debate in a single resource: https://www.logos.com/product/54046/two-views-on-women-in-ministry

Hi Yvonne:

Church leader needs to be qualified as of what type:

Women can be praise leaders, administrative leader, prayer intercession leader, other women leader, prophecy higher gift leader, etc.

Where there is major controversy is in the ability to set / develop doctrine.

Some groups think that women is not allowed to develop / set doctrine, because they say the Bible prohibits it.

If that is the main problem, then women can be Chaplains, because they as such do not set doctrine.

Others express that the original mandate from God was: Woman is a fit aid for man (and not changed by Jesus), and that together with Paul's admonition that leadership of congregation is not allowed because of Eve being deceived by the serpent, she is not to have input in developing doctrine (interpreted by some groups in this way).

It kind of leaves the door open for other tasks if is a valid argument: evaluate doctrine: yes, by all means. And communicate doctrine (much of what a Chaplain or evangelist can do).

Lots of controversy about the theme, if you want to clarify the issues for your own personal growth, then definitively do the research and paper.

Just remember: you need to read the arguments of different sides, and check with the Scripture without letting your preconceptions, assumptions, or presuppositions get in the way (almost impossible), pray for the Holy Spirit to guide you to the truth of the matter.

Very rough overview of some points, hope this helps.

Do you know if there is a collection that has all relevant resources together for easy searching?

I'm not sure what you mean by an L8 collection. I haven't been paying attention much to the new features in L8. Do they have built-in collections now? Or did you mean what is sometimes called a bundle and sometimes called a collection, which is a group of books all sold together? (But those wouldn't be specific to L8 either, since they've been around for a while.)

There are several collections Logos sells that I know of which cover the topic:

• Women in the Church Collection (6 vols.) - egalitarian
• Crossway Women’s Ministry Collection (5 vols.) - complementarian
• Gender and the Bible Collection (12 vols.)
• Christians for Biblical Equality Collection (11 vols.) - egalitarian

If there is not a L8 one, did you make one for your studies? can you share it with us (in case you have)?

I have one huge collection of books that have to do with Women, Feminist Theology & Gender Studies. I've tagged a lot of my books "gender", so many are picked up that way, so my rule won't work for you directly. But here it is:

title:(feminis, female, gender, women, sexes) OR  "biblical equality" OR subject:(feminist, gender, women) OR mytag:gender -"men and women of the bible" -mytag:"library of early"

I've had to manually omit lots of resources from it, as it picks up too much (e.g., Little Women, the novel)

I was referring to a collection available in the Logos collection group in FL. I have not seen any as inclusive as the one you shared.

Ah yes, I rarely go on the Faithlife site and had forgotten about that group.

Do you know if the subject of women in ministry is treated in some systematic or biblical theology resource? how about in a ministry type monograph?

These are some more monographs I have that treat the subject of women in ministry from a biblical theology approach, as well as ministry monographs that focus on it. I don't think a systematic theology resource would get into that topic. (See my post above with the others that I had categorized into pro/multiview/con).

Empowering Women and Men to Use Their Gifts Together in Advancing the Gospel

Paul, Women & Wives: Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the Letters of Paul

Preaching Like a Woman

Woman in the Bible: An Overall View of All the Crucial Passages on Women’s Roles

Women in Ministry: Questions and Answers in the Exploration of a Calling

Women, Ministry and the Gospel: Exploring New Paradigms

These are some more monographs I have that treat the subject of women in ministry from a biblical theology approach, as well as ministry monographs that focus on it. I don't think a systematic theology resource would get into that topic

Grudem (who is a well-known part of the discussion) treats the underlying questions of "equal in worth, different in role" and "submission of females to males" in a chapter in his ST in the context of anthropology, including a bibliography that refers several works about women in ministry, indicating pro/con stances. Later he discusses the question "should women be church officers?" in a chapter on church government.

That reminds me of an article by a systematic theologian, J.I. Packer, "Let's Stop Making Women Presbyters" in Christianity Today (Feb 11, 1991). It's in this bundle of CT issues that Faithlife carries. Or if you don't own that yet and don't want to spend the $40 for it, that one article is online here.

Thanks NB.

Without entering in details, from your viewpoint, what resource best describes the problem with women involved in:

1 evaluating doctrine

2 developing doctrine

3 communicating doctrine

Conversely, which resources do you think best explain why women doing any of the above does not present a problem.

Thank you Rosie.

Received message and answered. 

Found a site that seems legit. (Good articles and lots of idea sparking content):

https://www.xenos.org/essays

From college days, I remember the professor had a list of topics that one could use to spark ideas or to pick one for the paper. I am surprised that no such lists exist and are posted in the net.

Many Christians would benefit from them (even the ones that cannot take formal courses).

Kind regards.

If you're doing research for a paper, it's best to not caricature the other side and maybe do your research from someone who doesn't create silly caricatures. 

That's good advice for all of us on most any topic.

NB your input gave an idea:

Grudem (who is a well-known part of the discussion) treats the underlying questions of "equal in worth, different in role" and "submission of females to males" in a chapter in his ST in the context of anthropology, including a bibliography that refers several works about women in ministry, indicating pro/con stances. Later he discusses the question "should women be church officers?" in a chapter on church government.

I made a search in the systematic theologies collection to see those that had subject index. Then I went to the index and looked up the Women entry, quickly one can hover to see if information is relevant.

Old fashioned research paper trick, used in a new technological platform. I do think it gives more specific results than just searching for women in ST collection, although that can also be done.

kind regards.

I didn't assume any side, I was referring to the source, I don't know what you're talking about in reference to "labels", and it was a caricature.

A 'side': complentarian. You brought it up, not me.

I made mention to what complementarians believe. I didn't assume the truth of complementarianism. You'll need to explain what you find problematic about that.

 I avoided at the top of the thread. And it's a fool's errand (sides).

Given that I simply pointed out that the source and your take on the source was a caricature of the opposing position, it looks like you're saying that to point out that 'x' is a caricature of what 'Group A' believes is a fool's errand. But this makes little sense. So either you're saying something else is a fools errand, which isn't what I was doing, or you must have some reasons for thinking that it's a fools errand to note caricatures of positions that I'm unaware of. 

The source: can't help you there. Source as in OP, discussion, an author, or ???

The source linked to and your comment on the source in the context of this thread, which is gathering info for research purposes.

Labels: read your post. Chock full.

Looking back over my post in question it seems that I'm just using the sort of labels that other people have already been using in this thread, like "complementarian." You'll need to be more helpful here.

Caricature: demands all of the above. You're arguing with your comment.

I'm not sure what you mean by "demands all of the above." or how you think I'm arguing with my comment--so I'm contradicting myself? 

Again, Hamilton's reference was funny. 

I suppose I can see how one might be laughing at the source for engaging in silly caricatures, but that doesn't effect my point, which I would think you agree with:

(1) No complementarian would disagree with several of the points mentioned in the article (just some assumptions in certain points, like point 25)

(2) If one is looking for resources for a paper they are working on, it's best to avoid caricatures of opposing positions

Both (1) and (2) seem pretty uncontroversial.

Interesting article:

https://carm.org/1-cor-113-word-head-does-not-mean-authority