As a general rule, not that many women sexually interfere with children (I'm sure it does happen, its still despicable) so I cant see what motivation they would have to have an interest in either role.

The senior pastor of the baptist church I attend had 20+ years of experience before he got the role.

That more women are now graduating from theological colleges, I wouldn't expect to see a significant increase in senior pastoral women for any years because they do not yet have the experience.

"A majority of members in Australian Baptist churches today, and almost all the opinion-makers and gatekeepers, are cultural conservatives who are tacitly opposed to women in lead roles."

This statement is not supported. My own personal experience with many in the leadersip of the baptist union and members of the baptist church would indiciate it is not only unsupported, but also incorrect.

Another point is the fact that roughly 50% of all baptist church members are women. They vote for elders and other leaders of the church as much as the men do. It is not a patriachally controlled establishment.

Perhaps the author should look past her own beliefs on equality and instead evaluate people on the basis of character and ability. (Which is not implying anything other than different people, regardless of gender, have different abilities and character)

Correction...I said the author and her, when I should have said the author and his....
I guess I should pay more attention to gender....

Justice Crennan's appointment is to be celebrated, but her disavowal of feminism is disengenious to say the least. Without the feminist movement of the last 200 years or so, she would have been disbarred from attending university or practicing law. Her ability to choose her own course in life limited to marriage, motherhood or as dependent spinster.
Promotion on merit is an interesting concept. If it occurs (which I doubt) it seems white, middle aged blokes, almost exclusively, are the people who have merit. I suspect in all institutions, including the Baptist Church, promotion actually occurs based on a person who is most like me basis, me being the person or people doing the selecting. Promotion on merit in our society is a laughable concept, and demonstrably does not exist. Lawyers, politicians, religious leaders, businesspeople etc are all clones of one another and many are not particularly bright or effective.
But congratulations to the author of the article who is clearly a thoughtful and fair minded individual who is genuinely gender-blind.

I still find some of your contributions fascinating Boaz, if only in the same way I find fascinating the curling of a lizard's tail after it has been shed, or an orb weaver spider eating her mate.

>>"There is a clear scriptural mandate for women not to 'rule over men'"<<

Err... not to be in any way doubtful of their motives, but were the scriptures written by men, by any chance?

>>"There is no reason I can see why women cannot contribute in many ways, but 'formal teaching of the Church' is not one of them"<<

But surely, Boaz, women make very good teachers. Aren't we talking power structures here, not spiritual guidance? Teaching has little to do with "ruling over men", after all.

>>"The Church has indeed been at the cutting edge of much social change as mentioned in the article, "Amazing Grace" having been written by John Newton, former Slave trader"<<

This one cracked me up. As anyone who reads a little more than the saccharine-soaked "I saw the error of my ways" tales about Newton knows, it wasn't his religious nature that turned him away from slave trading. In fact, he quite happily continued trading slaves from his acceptance of christianity in 1748 through to his leaving the sea in 1755. Not once did he set any free, by the way, as many of the stories claim.

When he left the sea he became a form of customs officer, earning a living from keeping half the contraband he found. He only became a priest ten years later, and eight years after that he co-wrote "Amazing Grace" alongside William Cowper and a handful of others.

The foundation of christianity is, of course, largely based on myth, so I suppose one more won't make much of a difference. But this one did give me a good chuckle, for which much thanks.

Confusion about Biblical status of women occurs because Greek word usage is translated differently. Women are to be submissive (doesn’t mean doormat) to husbands, not all men. Husbands likewise shouldn’t lord it over wives, but love them sacrificially, as Christ loved the church.
Boaz, 1 Cor says that when, not if, women are giving a message in church, they should cover their head - a cultural propriety.
Many Biblical women are given rights and roles way beyond contemporary cultural restrictions. Only God qualifies to set rules for what’s proper, not human conventions, as only He has all knowledge to make proper decrees and assessments.
Nobby, to use the word “Scriptures” is to claim inspiration by God. God, not us, decides what is true and the benchmark of decency. Isn't God by definition the one who is above all, knows all, and is the judge of all?
Speaking of appointment of High Court judges, though we may attempt to appoint whichever real or little tin god we like, it makes no difference whatsoever. God always has been who He is and is not in any way changed or dethroned just because some creature doesn't want to believe Him.
Pericles, the idea that the God of every religion is the same God is the real myth. Ask a Muslim if Allah is the same as the God of Jews or Christians. He would doubtless say “no”. You can’t have it every way. God can’t possibly fit the descriptions of all religions when they’re so contrary.
As to that well-worn claim that Christianity is largely based on myth, have you actually investigated this? I doubt you think Julius Caesar is a myth, although there’s much more evidence to support the life, death and even resurrection of Jesus Christ. Even contemporary secular writers and historians mentioned these events.
Much in the history of the institutional church deserves condemnation. Jesus’ harshest criticism targeted religious leaders, whom He called white-washed sepulchres. Because someone goes to church, or even leads a church, doesn’t mean he’s a real Christian. We have to separate charlatans from the genuine article.