Why I Am an “Egalitarian”

222 thoughts on “Why I Am an “Egalitarian””

1. From what I’ve read on this and other blogs “Complementarians” are in danger of slipping into Male Supremacy mode. Most of the ex-Quiverfull blogs claim to be refugees from Complementarianism as in “WOMAN, SUBMIT! GOD HATH SAID!”

   (And I’ve seen the Catholic equivalent of Quiverfull, with a domineering “I Am Always Right and Once You Accept That And Always Agree With Me We Won’t Have A Problem” husband and a widdle wifey pumping out at least a kid a year while psychologically regressing into permanent childhood herself. It wasn’t pretty.)

   LikeLike

2. Donna, in the post itself, I am not responding in a polemical sense to the “complementarian” view because of abuses or extremes in that view. I’m stating my understanding of the Biblical story and how it leads me to take the “egalitarian” position. Obviously, many of the commenters have personal issues with one side or the other. We can’t divorce theology from life experience. However, in the end, I would hope we would respect those who differ with us, study the issue thoughtfully, and work together for the missional unity of God’s people in all traditions.

   Comments are now closed. Thank you all for an invigorating discussion.

   LikeLike

3. I think a lot of this conversation is laced with extremes and polemics that are not productive. The terms “complementarian” and “egalitarian” aparently mean different things to different people. It seems to be getting framed as a rather black and white issue. I have considered myself to be a complementarian, though what I mean by that is not what many egalitarians on this thread imply. Perhaps these terms are too charged and do not convey useful meanings.

   Anyway, to counter the extremes and polemics; Do some men in authority abuse that authority? Yes, they do. Does that mean all men do? Absolutely not. Even people who consider themselves egalitarians can abuse others. Do I believe the Bible and church tradition teach that all women are commanded to submit to all men? No, I am not required to submit to random men on the street, co-workers, or the guy who takes my order at Starbucks (chai latte, please). Does this mean that as a woman I cannot particpate in ministry/evangelism? No, there are many, many things women can do to be involved in ministering to/evangelizing others that are not exclusively within the role of priest/head pastor. Does it mean that a woman has to ask her husband’s permission to give him 2 tylenol (or to take them herself, or to buy dish towels, or decide what to wear to work that day etc…)? Perhaps it means that to some fringe groups, but not to any actual, real living couples I know in the flesh who believe the man is the head of the family. Does it mean that the woman’s knowledge, gifts and expertise is not valued and put to good use? No, it does not mean that. Just like a wise commander in chief values and puts to use the knowledge and expertise of his generals, so does a wise husband deal with his wife.

   To believe that the man is the head does not mean that he is to be “dominating”. To believe that God has set an order in the family that places men in the position of head does not necessarily mean a lot of what is being implied in this thread. It can mean these things when approached in a sunful manner, but that order is not defined by these things.

   LikeLike

4. Hi SaraG,

   “My objection to the concept of gender -based hierarchical roles is primarily that I don’t believe they’re based on an accurate reading of the Bible.”

   I understand that to be the position of many egalitarians, and I accept that is your belief. I just very much disagree that we are in a better position today to interpret what an accurate reading of scripture is than those who actually lived during the lifetime of the authors of scripture, or were taught by those who did. The wisdom from the early church Fathers, or the tradition of the church, for 1900 years clearly taught a hierarchy within the family and the church that was gender-based, and continues to do so.

   LikeLike

5. Perhaps the man in a so called “complementarian” relationship does not view it as “power” but rather as service and responsibility that God has directed him to.

   Making this about “power” is a mistake I think. Advocating that people seek out power in a worldly sense (as opposed to spiritual power which is based in humility) is not a position that is tenable in my opinion.

   LikeLike

6. It is, as they say, a small world.

   I hope you enjoyed your stay in Hot Springs.

   I’ve been here 15 years and the only water I drink comes from the springs. The fingernails grow like crazy.

   God’s blessings…

   LikeLike

7. And I thought I was the only one hangin’ out in this neck of the woods.

   God’s blessings.

   LikeLike

8. I was in Hot Springs last Saturday when all the Harleys were there in force. Wow.

   LikeLike

9. Dallas area, where I was living when I had to make the trips to Arkansas on business.

   LikeLike

10. You stayed at the historic Arlington Hotel.

    Al Capone used to hang out there.

    I wonder what old Al would say about this conversation?

    So…where are you living now?

    LikeLike

11. I used to work in Arkansas (though I was based in Dallas). Traveled to Little Rock a few times a year for a few years, but also went to Hot Springs once, and long before that visited Eureka Springs as a side-trip from Joplin, MO (my wife’s town).

    Hot Springs was wonderful, from what I remember. We had a conference there and stayed at the old hotel downtown.

    LikeLike

12. Hot Springs. Hey, you know Arkansas!

    LikeLike

13. “Paul, being very limited in his understanding of the world, was wrong.”

    I think you have taken a very dangerous position; a slippery slope if you will.

    LikeLike

14. It’s never a good idea to marry someone who wants to lord it over you.

    LikeLike

15. I am a seminary student at a Baptist seminary. I just finished a research paper on Celtic Christianity, and I think it would be interesting to examine their approach to equality. As early as the 6th century, Irish Christians had monasteries of both men and women in which a woman was the head. This is not a new issue or a 20th century issue as I believe one comment stated.

    Also, I believe that there is an issue of power and dominance created, unintentionally, by complementarians. Why is it that women must submit to specific roles, whether it be in marriage or in a church setting? Further, what about a woman makes her need to submit to a man in any circumstance? Not to be crass, but why does having a penis make you eligible to be a pastor/deacon/elder/bishop and having a vagina does not?

    This requirement of roles or submission that is directed at women seems to me to create an imbalance of power and authority. Thus, complementarians to me seem androcentric and patriarchal in a negative, though unintentional, way.

    Ultimately, some will disagree with me, but I want to make this point. I understand that complementarians do not intend to create power structures, negative hierarchies, or be harmful to women in any way. However, your intentions do not change what your actions are doing, which is harming women by placing them as lesser in the kingdom of God than men.

    (Biblically, I am on the same page as Chaplain Mike, so I will not go into the specifics of how I interpret the different scripture texts.)

    LikeLike

16. One thing that some people find annoying about complementarianism is that it has gray areas. What I mean is this. Many complementarians believe that all believers (not just male believers) have the responsibility to carry out the Great Commission. These same complementarians also believe that it violates biblical teachings for a woman teach a man. So what constitutes teaching?

    If teaching doctrine merely involves the conveying of spiritual truths, then it would be difficult if not impossible for a woman to share the gospel with a man, for the gospel is a spiritual truth. When Jesus told Mary Magdalene to go tell His disciples, “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, my God and your God”, was He overriding what in normal circumstances would be considered a sin? In other words, did He give her a one-time “you can teach and not sin” get-out-of-jail-free card?

    However, if not all conveying of spiritual truths is teaching, then what constitutes teaching? It seems the Bible doesn’t give a clear definition that is agreed upon by all complementarians. What is considered acceptable by one complementarian may be considered a blatant violation of 1 Tim 2 by another complementarian.

    In contrast, many other doctrinal beliefs (such as credobaptism) seem to be less ambiguous.

    LikeLike

17. Interestingly enough, the churches that I come from where women do with great regularity cover their heads seem to skip over the part where Paul says that this is necessary when women are participating in public worship. Women cover their heads, but there’s no public praying and prophesying going on!

    LikeLike

18. Eureka Springs?

    Hot Springs?

    LikeLike

19. Oh, those are only the liberal-almost-apostate churches – real old school Mennonites know a thing or two about properly covering that scandalous head! 🙂

    LikeLike

20. briank,
    I was smiling audibly as I read this list, enjoying my thought that I would get the chance to tell you that some people do believe that… and then I come to the end and find that you’re Mennonite! Nice to meet another one on the board here. 🙂 I’ll leave hanging for now the question of where I fit in this equation, but I do believe you have a point that consistency on this issue would demand more changes that many complementarians wouldn’t feel so comfortable with.

    LikeLike

21. I meant that my post dated September 13 at 11:42 was meant to be a reply to Donna’s on Sept. 11 at 9:26. Arrggh!

    LikeLike

22. PS. This was meant to be a reply to Donna’s post Sept 11 at 9:26.

    LikeLike

23. Neither do I see any scriptural call for Christians to hold onto what they see as power that has been traditionally theirs and theirs alone.

    LikeLike

24. I feel for you, Michelle. I too have experienced some of what you’re talking about. All I can say is that an interpretation that bears such bad fruit, cannot be a good tree.

    LikeLike

25. Thank you, Chaplain Mike. I will note that the words “be silent” used about women in 1 Cor 14 are in the context of a passage where others (specifically, people prophesying) are also told to “be silent” while other prophets are speaking. It is the same word in the koine Greek. Clearly the meaning is not that those prophesying are to never speak in the church! The idea is that they are to “be quiet” or “shut up” when it is not appropriate for them to speak. The same word is then used about women, in the context of their “asking questions.” The whole context is about order vs. disruption during the church service.

    In 1 Timothy 2:11, the word “silence” is a different word entirely. It doesn’t mean “to shut up,” and it certainly doesn’t mean “be silent, never speak at all.” The word means to be in a state of quietness. Combined with the word “submission” and the controlling command “Let a woman learn,” the idea is that “a woman” should be in a state of quiet receptiveness to a teacher or teachers.

    LikeLike

26. “It’s the danger of clericalism which is what is at the root of the whole trouble, not the fact that men only (or women only) can be called”

    I agree that clericalism is part of the trouble, but if God did not actually only ordain men to be called, then the trouble is both clericalism and gender discrimination.

    LikeLike

27. Yes, there does seem to be a touch of the chaotic in the way things are posting. My comments have wound up in places with very little connection to where I intended to put them. Oh well, maybe kind of a game – “match the comment to its topic.” Wonder if we could license/market the concept

    LikeLike

28. Dear Libby,

    You wrote:

    “…one cannot make the argument from this verse that all women are more prone to deception than all men – nor can one make the argument about men being more prone than women to willful sin. This is a very elementary logic error…”

    I think your above statement is correct.

    Do you think that I think that all women are more prone to deception than all men?

    Do you think that I think that men are more prone than women to willful sin?

    If so, I don’t know how you can come to that conclusion from what I have written.

    In my original statement in this thread, I thought the word “deceived” for Eve was better described with the word “disobedient.”

    After seeing 1 Tim. 2:14, I have to admit that Eve was deceived. God’s Word takes precedence over my peanut brain. That’s why I backed away from my original statement.

    I was not making any kind of general statement about gender.

    I was acknowledging that Eve was deceived per the scriptures.

    After watching this discussion, I think there are many different definitions of the complementary view.

    This makes it very difficult to have a discussion on the topic.

    I very much agree with your last sentence.

    LikeLike

29. As a young, self-described evangelical female pursuing ordained ministry, I find it difficult to find a nitche. Either I am described as a “liberal” because I am female, or I am charismatic/Pentecostal. I am pursuing ministry because God has placed a call on my life, and to not do so would dishonor what I believe to be the Spirit’s leading. I am humbled by the Spirit’s calling, although challenges remain. Please don’t forget the Holy Spirit’s role, in additional to scripture, in calling women into ministry.

    LikeLike

30. @Kristen 9/11 9:19 (above)– I have heard of that particular interpretation of Scripture, in fact I was raised with it and am living with the scars from it. Thanks for your thoughtful response.

    @ Patrick–Thanks for your response, too. I wonder that you didn’t address my question about your use of Gen. 3:16, but I suspect that’s a road on which you and I will end up agreeing to disagree anyway.

    LikeLike

31. The large majority of the heretical sects being founded by men, “complementarian genetics” is shown by history to be quite false.

    LikeLike

32. I believe it would not have been prudent for Jesus to choose women as among the 12 apostles, for a very specific reason: the witness of a woman was not considered valid in that culture. Women could not even testify in court. The primary calling of the apostles was to spread the word as witnesses of the Resurrected Christ.

    This idea makes the fact that Christ appeared first to women, very significant indeed. He did not have to do so. Peter and John came to the tomb with Mary Magdalene, and He could easily have appeared to them then, rather than waiting till they had left and appearing to Mary alone.

    I believe the message to the 12 apostles was clear. “I am sending you as witnesses to a world that will not receive the witness of women. But I am insisting that you yourselves accept the witness of women. My Church is to be different from the world in this matter. Though the world will not listen to women, my Church will begin its life with its first and most significant event, witnessed by women.”

    LikeLike

33. I’ve read complementarians argue based on 1 Timothy chapter 2 verses 9-15 that the reason (or “a” reason) that women cannot teach men or have or exercise authority over them is because Eve, not Adam, was (completely) deceived and hence women are more deceivable than men.

    So, would this be Complementarian Genetics 101:

    The “x chromosome” carries the “deception gene.”

    The “y chromosome,” however, carries the “anti-deception gene.”

    Therefore, if a person has two xx chromosomes, and is therefore a female, they are by nature completely deceivable (which is one way you can translate the compound exapataô in contrast to the plain apataô in the same verse, 2:14).

    However, if a person has one x and one y chromosome, and is therefore a male, they have a genetic defense against being completely deceived. Therefore only those with both an x and a y chromosome are to be entrusted with positions of authority in the church, and only they can teach both men and women.

    – – –

    If this is not Complementarian Genetics, why isn’t it?

    LikeLike

34. Yes, the Gospel does indeed have a trajectory.

    LikeLike

35. witten,

    Remember this is a free country. No one can force you to go to a church that preaches male dominance. There are plenty of men who are willing to treat women as fully functional adults. You don’t have to fellowship with men who want dominance and control over you.

    When I was young I suffered for years under churches that preached male dominance. As much as I hated it I felt it was better than not going to church.

    But as I got older I decided it was better not to go to a male dominance church. Luckily, I found churches (and men) were changing. I have been able to attend a church where there are no restrictions on women.

    It’s better not to associate with people who believe in male dominance. Stay away from them. There are more than enough Christians these days to associate with who will treat you as an equal.

    LikeLike

36. Thanks for the kind words.
    Peace

    LikeLike

37. I gotta jump in here:

    The calling of the twelve was a symbol of the restoration of Israel in Christ. If Jesus had called 6 men and 6 women, he would not have been understood as restoring Israel. The calling of the twelve is an enacted parable, like eating with sinners, and turning the tables over in the temple.

    Also, if you are going to use the 12 apostles argument, then you also have to consider that every single one of the apostles was a Jew. So was Jesus. So is leadership then limited to the Jewish males only?

    LikeLike

38. aby,

    I am sorry you feel that way. I have done my best to explain from the Scriptures the view of those who hold to this particular view of eligibility for the Pastoral office. I have not attacked you, nor am I trying to ‘control and dominate’ women through the use of the Scriptures. I have been polite but direct, and harbor no ill will to those who differ.

    It is evident from your reaction that there may be more going on with you in regard to this subject than than the amicable disagreement concerning this issue on this forum. I hope you are able to resolve whatever personal concerns that are troubling you, and are able to let go of any hard feelings towards those who disagree with you.

    In Christ ,

    Pat K

    LikeLike

39. If you are in a dating relationship with a man who wants to dominate you, break off the relationship.

    If you are married to the man, explain that you are not happy with the relationship as it is, and tell him why. Try to work it out. A lot of comp men are willing to work this kind of problem out.

    If it is a church, pick up and leave.

    LikeLike

40. MOD COMMENT: Comment deleted.

    LikeLike

41. I appreciate someone who will not shift a position because of circumstances. After your earlier comments, I find this information interesting. You are indeed in a unique position and appear to be handling it charitably.

    God’s blessings…

    LikeLike

42. I can appreciate your comments Patrick!

    At times I have to wonder with CBMW, and other comp organizations that use the word, ‘feminized’ aren’t doing the same thing you spoke about.

    Feminized Church

    Feminized Egalitarian

    Feminized Culture

    Feminized Men, etc.

    I think you get the picture.

    It reminds me of my childhood days when boy would jump on another boy, and tell him he threw like a girl.

    Its strange how they glorify to me feminine qualities, and yet turn around as use the same term to almost demonize something. Its almost like feminine can be good, but if something is bad there is a feminize characteristic to it the way they write their articles.

    They add the word ‘feminized’ to some concept, and yet tell you how they respect and love women. lol! How they get from point A to point B still baffles me.

    I remember a article I read about how a fellowship went into town to eat, and found the restaurant they had in mind was closed. The group then had a discussion on where else to go. The author stated that the leader showed his egalitarian feminized way by not informing the group with his leadership skills WHERE they were going to eat! lol how when there is no one in ‘charge’ nothing gets done, but you can never make up your mind! What does that say about their view of women? It doesn’t sound the alarm of respect and love to me. Those ‘silly little things’ more comes to mind.

    Lets face facts! Using the word ‘feminized’ is suppose to be a cut down. It has ‘girly’ characterizations to it. To me you can’t say you love and respect women, and then turn around to use them to put down something else. Talk about ‘gender confusion’! We are loved and respected yet the source of all evil in the world as well. Our female nature as they define it is used to shame others – you throw like a girl concept.

    To me its rather insulting. You don’t tell me you appreciate my womanhood, and then use it to characterize negative aspects you don’t appreciate about the world around us. Its rather short sighted. Its demeaning. To me its talking outside both sides of their face. You don’t glorify female traits, and then use them as a weapon to shame at the same time.

    When they stop the ‘you throw like a girl’ concepts all the time? When they stop the ‘you want to wear the pants’ concepts to put you back in your place? They might not have to worry about the defensive responses they get. They seem to push the message you either believe like we do or you are participating in the ‘feminized’ culture. It sends the message that when you decide to wear the pants again come talk to us. When you decide to ‘act’ like a women come talk to us.

    People look at those types of things and wonder what other boxes do they have in mind? lol and why wouldn’t they? They are going to tell what gifts and characteristic that God gave us, and then tell us which are good enough – and which we should ignore. THAT may not be the message they are trying to get across, but from their reading list? That is indeed what is coming across.

    When they stop the female traits bashing MORE people may stop to listen. I don’t see that happening. At times I think its almost fun for them the way they do it. What a waste of energy.

    LikeLike

43. Patrick, I respect your opinion, and know that your tradition has a high view of the pastoral office, which is one reason you are careful to guard it according to Biblical instruction. Here’s my take on the passages you say clearly limit that office to males.

    1Cor 14 does not prohibit women from holding the pastoral office. It says, without exception, women are to “keep silent,” that they are “not permitted to speak,” and that it is “shameful for a woman to speak in church.” This is instruction requiring absolute silence in the gathered services of the church. One must struggle to understand how this fits with 1Cor 11:5, where a woman is portrayed as praying and prophesying, and again the context is the gathered services of the congregation.

    One must also struggle to understand how in 1Cor 14 Paul is giving instruction that is according to practices that are held “all the churches of the saints.” If this means a universal prohibition of women saying anything in church meetings, then one must also insist that it is a universal exhortation for women to wear head coverings in church, for 1Cor 11:16 says Paul knows other custom in all the churches of God. Yet I rarely hear anyone insist on this practice.

    At this point in my understanding, I think it best to let the bigger context guide when trying to understand these difficult texts. And that bigger context involves the chaotic gatherings that characterized the Corinthian church, one element of which, apparently, was women disrupting the services.

    As for 1Timothy 2, I listed several verses in the pastoral letters that show a major problem in Ephesus—women were succumbing to false teaching and were being led astray, and it was causing problems in the churches. The illustration of Eve being deceived by the serpent speaks to this very point as well.

    Therefore Paul was not permitting women to teach or to seize authority (not just exercise authority), but rather to learn. And once again, these women were to learn in “silence.” Paul is not prohibiting the pastoral office here. He is telling women who are embracing false doctrine to stop trying to advance their agenda, to sit down, be quiet, and learn the truth.

    I know we disagree on this, brother, but I appreciate your continued input and participation.

    LikeLike

44. I don’t think that men have the power to exclude women from leadership, and yet that is a power that many of them have felt the need to pick up. The question is: what do you when this happens?

    LikeLike

45. Chris,

    Yes, Eve was deceived, but Adam sinned willfully, because he was the one who received God’s instructions directly. That said, one cannot make the argument from this verse that all women are more prone to deception than all men – nor can one make the same argument about men being more prone than women to willful sin. This is a very elementary logic error – using the narrow to argue the general.

    Let’s both keep digging into the Word, and hanging on God’s grace to make our corners of the world a little bit better in our own ways!!!

    LikeLike

46. Wow, the sorting of these comments by date and time seems to be a bit askew. And to add one thing to my last paragraph/statement:

    Also, as some complementarian churches say and do and practice re: letting a woman preach or teach or be in an authority position over a man: How does a woman having a male “covering” over her allow her to do those things by protecting her and protecting and/or unscandalizing the men whom she is teaching or leading? I.e., how exactly does such a “covering” work? What are the mechanics (physical, emotional, spiritual, whatever) that are involved? What does such a “covering” literally DO? Is it the placebo effect? Does it prevent the fiery darts of the enemy from hitting men? Does it prevent the enemy’s assault on the woman? Or what?

    LikeLike

47. So, for those here who are complementarian, what is it about women as women – or a woman simply because she is a woman – that prevents them or her from being able to do the things in church that complementarians say only men or a man can do?

    To be specific about the two most common things (i.e., 1 Tim ch 2 vs 12):
    1) teach men (which usually includes preaching from the Scriptures to men or to a mixed-sex assembly) or
    2) be in an authority position in a church over men
    what is it about each and every woman that precludes any woman from doing these things, and why do you say that? (Other than: “Because that’s what 1 Tim 2 says”; because one thing the scholarly books have shown is that the interpretation of those verses is subject to a number of factors and even the “plain reading” of the verses creates other problems when the entire section is looked at – problems that demand interpretation of other verses or other things.)

    What exactly prevents someone with female physiology from doing those things? What is there in or about the nature of women (as opposed to the nature of men) that precludes or restricts or forbids each and every woman from being allowed or perhaps even being able to do those things? Or is it even right to talk about men’s natures versus women’s natures? Does the Gospel apply differently to men and to women simply because of a person’s gender?

    Also, as some complementarian churches say and do and practice re: letting a woman preach or teach or be in an authority position over a man: How does a woman having a male “covering” over her allow her to do those things by protecting her and protecting and/or unscandalizing the men whom she is teaching or leading?

    LikeLike

48. Kristen,

    Paul clearly says that some are called to be Pastors (Eph) and Bishops (1&2 Tim. really what we call Pastors now.) and that can rightly be called ‘an office.’

    You said, “But you have no standing on which to assert that some gifts and callings are only for males.”

    Yes I do. I Cor 14 and the passages in Timothy. No one here has shown that those passages should be interpreted as applying only in the cultural setting to which they were written. The grammar and syntax of the passages themselves refute that idea.

    These passages in no way infringe upon a person’s salvation, standing in Christ, or reception of the Holy Spirit, However they do limit who can be a pastor. Even a large portion of men do not meet the requirements laid out in Scripture

    You are using Galatians and several other passages in such a way that you have to interpret the strictures against female clergy as a limited situational / cultural mandate. The text does not seem to support that. Also I think you are mixing the categories of salvation in Christ and Christ’s ordering of the Church.

    LikeLike

49. Michelle,

    You misunderstand what I am saying. I don’t believe that this whole dust up should be centered on a battle over power and authority. But power and authority seems to be the basis of much of the defense of egalitarianism. (Jesus said that in His Kingdom we are not to lord it over each other)

    Aby has called anyone holding to a complimentarian view mentally ill, saying that they wish to have power over women, and later accused me of trying to use the Word of God to hurt her. Later she said I wanted to control women.None of these charges is true. However, because she maintains that this is really about power, for the sake of argument, I said that her tactics (name calling and accusations) could be viewed, from that perspective, as manipulation of the crassest sort. And if power is really the be all and end all of the ministry, men would be foolish to give it up.

    That being said I think this whole thing is off the tracks. I am deeply distrustful of framing the debate in terms of ‘power and authority .’ ( I also get a vague whiff of Marxism / radical feminism when I hear talk like that.)

    Holding to a male only Pastoral office does NOT equal wanting to control women. To conflate the two positions is muddled at best and disingenuous at worst.

    LikeLike

50. Dave, I haven’t kept up with the latest books on the subject, but I know there are a bunch of good ones. I’m sure you could find a good representation at the Christians for Biblical Equality site: http://www.cbeinternational.org/.

    And I would agree with you if you phrase it like that: “a manifesto for revising gender roles” is not really the point. The point is a new creation, designed to ultimately restore (and surpass!) God’s blessing in the original creation. As we are living in the tension of the now and not yet, all elements of that will be imperfectly realized. However, I think we should begin to see glimpses of the ideal lived out as we grow in the grace and knowledge of Christ together. Jesus and Paul were not revolutionaries in the sense that they politicized issues like this and worked for change. They planted seeds of new creation that, at the proper time, should be harvested. In the post, I have stated my understanding of the biblical theology, and think I have a reasonable position. If you were to ask me about implementation, I would be much more hesitant and unsure about giving direction.

    LikeLike

51. After reading most of the comments, I have a stronger conviction on this issue. The discussion has been very helpful to me in a number of ways.

    There are two things on which I am certain.

    There have been gender issues since the beginning.

    There will be gender issues until the day there’s a new heaven and a new earth.

    I’m looking forward to that day.

    LikeLike

52. Mike,

    Thanks for the response. I’m not seeing a manifesto for revising gender roles in Joel’s prophesy. Doesn’t seem to fit with Peter’s application in context.

    I’ll admit that I am probably steeped in a complementarian perspective on this. Any teachers or theologians that you’d recommend in connection with this issue?

    Thanks,
    Dave

    LikeLike

53. I wouldn’t say wrong-headed, Dave, but your questions are unanswerable. Likewise, why didn’t Paul advocate for setting slaves free? It’s hard for me as a 21st century reader to read passages about slaves and put myself in his sandals. I can’t understand, from my perspective, how anyone could have tolerated that. It appears that the Bible was written in the midst of real life, and the way change happens in real life isn’t always clear or predictable.

    I happen to think that there is explicit testimony to the ideal, and it’s found in Acts 2—

    In the last days it will be, God declares,
    that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh,
    and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
    and your young men shall see visions,
    and your old men shall dream dreams.
    Even upon my slaves, both men and women,
    in those days I will pour out my Spirit;
    and they shall prophesy.

    LikeLike

54. Chaplain Mike,

    I really enjoyed your thoughtful approach to this topic but personally favor the position as outlined by the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

    How would you answer this question? why would the Lord would make such a significant change as including female leadership in the community of God’s people without very explicit instructions about this new approach?

    If this were to be a part of the New Testament approach, it would have seemed prudent for Jesus to include some women as part of his twelve disciples. He did not. Choosing the seven in Acts 6 would have presented another opportunity. But again, only guys. How about having a female writer of a New Testament book? That would have made a real statement. But once again, it just didn’t happen.

    Am I wrong-headed to ask questions like these?

    Dave

    LikeLike

55. I was joking about “Muslim style” – though many pictures of Mary look very similar to the Mulsim women in head Scarves.
    Note: some churches due require head coverings & they are usally so small that you have to look to find them 🙂

    LikeLike

56. Donna – true. Biblical power is power to serve, strength and gifts are given to build Christ’s kingdom, not our own. My objection to the concept of gender -based hierarchical roles is primarily that I don’t believe they’re based on an accurate reading of the Bible. The implications of this are first that a significant number of people who God has gifted and called to serve by teaching and leading are actively opposed and impeded by other Christians. The second implication is that one group has been granted an authority that isn’t truly theirs, to the detriment of both. Third, there is often a disruption of relationship and spiritual growth that comes when both parties must learn to work together without appeals to the short-cut of “tie-breaking votes” and “final says.” A subsidiary concern that has been bothering me more lately is that the increasing emphasis on “biblical manhood and womanhood,” with clear deliniations of what’s proper for each sex, encourages Christians to define themselves in comparison to each other, not in relationship to Christ.

    LikeLike

57. Aby,

    I believe that there are Scriptural verses which could support complementarianism and verses which could support egalitarianism. I’m a Catholic, and I accept the authority of the Church to interpret and teach the Bible, so this issue is closed for me. From a Protestant mindset though, I can see both sides, Biblically speaking. Patrick has been arguing, quite calmly and charitably, from the Scriptures, for the complementarian view. Why do you feel the need to so negatively characterize not just his arguments but him as a person? Bigotry, mental illness, domination, control…. come on. Argue and disagree, yes, but why insult a brother in Christ?

    LikeLike

58. Except for Chaplain Mike in #6 above, it seems in these discussions nobody wants to mention the gender of the first witnesses at the empty tomb. Maybe it is something we egalitarians take for granted and complementarians like to ignore. To me this is way more important than anything in the Pauline Epistles about who can have a leadership role in the Church either then or now.

    Jesus is sill teaching the world through the resurrection narratives. Consider how revelatory these are coupled with his ministry to the women of the ancient near east. It really sets them free as it does us from the dominance of the patriarchy. This is a step toward New Creation. It’s no surprise that Paul refers to significant numbers of women in the letters. Without going into a long discussion of women and near eastern religions at the time, early Christianity must have been very attractive to women.

    LikeLike

59. Martha,

    Being a recent Catholic “revert” from several years as a Protestant, I agree with your thoughts (being that they are the thoughts of the Church) in this comment. What a road it has been for me to get here though! As you might find it interesting, I’ll give you the short (yes, the short!) version, and why I accept the Church’s teaching on gender and the priesthood. 🙂

    I originally converted to Catholicism many years ago, not so much from a consciously Protestant way of thinking, as from a long time of agnosticism. When I came to faith in Christ, I reasoned that, from what I could tell, the Catholic Church had been around longer than any other church, since apostolic times, so that must be the right one to join! (I knew nothing of the Orthodox churches at that time, but if I had, I probably still would have become Catholic.)

    Unfortunately, the priest who instructed me was of the “everything has changed, since Vatican II, and that’s a good thing” school. By the time that I finished the so-called “Rite of Christian Initiation” classes, I was confused about the God and the Church that I thought I had found. After about a year and a half, I ended up leaving the Church and becoming quite an angry, despairing nihilist.

    When I came back, it was not to the Catholic Church, but to Protestantism– first, of the “free will” variety, then Calvinist. I was quite a happy Calvinist too, until I started reading the early Church Fathers at the beginning of this year. That was the beginning of the end of my Protestantism!

    Whatever the early Church Fathers (and the early Church itself) were, I just don’t see general Protestant thinking there– particularly not of the Calvinist kind. It has not been easy coming back to the Church (I’ve seemingly lost many of my Protestant friends)– but now that I *am* back, I accept what the Church officially teaches as binding. To do otherwise would be a sort of “Protestantism” within the Catholic Church. I don’t care if many priests, and even some Bishops, hold to that thinking. I can’t and won’t. It just doesn’t make sense within the Church. Either she has apostolic succession and the right to teach authoritatively, or she doesn’t. I’ve been convinced of the former, and thus, I can never be an “egalitarian” on the issue of ordination (even if Father Michael Phleger and Richard McBrien are!).

    LikeLike

60. Pete,

    Clerical celibacy is currently a mandatory Church discipline (and, as Martha writes, disciplines/rules can change within the Church, as they are not matters of theological dogma) for priests in the *Roman rite* of the Catholic Church. There is also the Eastern rite of the Church, fully in communion with the Pope, fully Catholic, in which priests are allowed to be married.

    I’m not entirely sure, but I think that this line of priests, at one time, consisted of Orthodox priests (who are allowed to marry) who decided to come back into communion with the Pope. Since the Orthodox tradition already allowed married priests, I think that the Pope allowed this tradition to continue for what are known today as Eastern Catholic priests. Both Roman and Eastern Catholics are “equally Catholic.” In fact, more than a few Roman rite Catholics have joined Eastern Catholic parishes.

    LikeLike

61. Sean,

    Honestly, after reading your post, I don’t think we can help you. You are doing just fine.

    Keep “Seek’ing ye first” and you can’t miss.

    LikeLike

62. EricW, I agree with Chaplain Mike. This is an excellent comment you have posted. Thanks!

    LikeLike

63. The question could also be why a woman would seek what she defines as “power” to begin with? I don’t see any scriptural call for Christians to seek out power that they think they do not have.

    LikeLike

64. PS. For some reason this post appears here, when it was meant to be a reply to Michelle’s post at 9:00 am, which appears below.

    LikeLike

65. I cannot speak for Patrick, but I can say this:

    Sometimes I see Genesis 3:16 used to support a “hard” complementarian view of the Creation, that Adam was created to be in authority over Eve even BEFORE the Fall. The portion of the verse that says, “your desire shall be for him” is therefore compared by this school of thought, to God’s words to Cain a few chapters later that “Sin is crouching at your desire, and its desire is for you, but you must master it.” The Fall is thus interpreted in such a way that the woman’s “desire” is the desire to master and control the man, and “he shall rule over you” is seen as the man needing to forcefully reassert his rightful “rule” over the woman– which the Fall makes him do in a harsher way than God originally intended.

    The usual result of this interpretation is that any attempt by a woman to seek full, functional equality with men is seen as the result of a secret desire to control and dominate. If a woman says anything other than, “I desire to joyfully submit to my rightful authority,” her motives are automatically suspect.

    I’m not saying this is what Patrick means. But I have seen the verse he quoted, used in this way.

    LikeLike

66. Excellent point.

    LikeLike

67. I have seen nothing in aby’s posts that show she is attempting a “no-holds-barred power grab”–she has been questioning why men appear to want so much power over women. This has clearly been a problem throughout history, within Christendom and without. Asking that question does not mean she wants to take power from anyone; in fact, earlier she said she holds the egalitarian view, which means she is for equality between the sexes.

    Patrick, by invoking Gen. 3:16, it seems you are insinuating that you should not have to listen to aby’s concerns because she’s a woman and therefore, what . . . easily deceived? in need of a male master? out to deceive all men? Forgive me if I’m wrong, but am I reading you right?

    LikeLike

68. Re: the weight of tradition – I agree that the consensus of the church is something to be considered, and challenged only with significant cause. Some questions that carry weight with me: When did lay Christians gain access to Scripture – when did literacy rates and ecclesiastical structures allow the Bible to speak for itself? How many modern Christians accept monarchy as divinely ordained? conversions at the point of a sword? the functional intertwining of church and state? rigid class distinctions? racism? indentured servitude? At what point in Christian history were each of these things rejected after being accepted for how long? I think that it could be argued that each generation of Christians, while benefitting from the lessons of the past, may yet have some terribly important lessons to learn and errors to repent of. If we refuse to acknowledge that we, too, may not have truth by the tail we may find ourselves seriously owing apologies to those who have gone before, whose errors we sadly shake our heads over.

    LikeLike

69. I agree with you David B that real world experiences are very powerful and can often be used as a “reality check” on abstract doctrine. However, my real world experience has been the opposite of yours. I am married to a woman pastor and although I’ve supported her since she’s my wife (and I’m not a hardcore complementarian), I have never found any reason to shift my hermeneutical position away from the more traditional view. It’s a strange, paradoxical position for my wife and I to be in, but I think living with these sorts of contradictions charitably is an important part of Christian maturity. It’s interesting to hear experiences like yours and I could say a lot of wonderful things about my own wife in her role. I really have no point to make—just appreciating your experience and sharing mine.

    LikeLike

70. +1

    LikeLike

71. When I first became a Christian as a young adult, it seemed that every non-traditional religious group in the area made its way to my door (literally and metaphorically) to challenge the foundations of my new Christian faith. The Trinity, the basics of salvatiin, the definitions and parameters of Scripture – all were beset by competing claims, and I wrestled through them as best I could, studying Scripture and history with much prayer. As a result, I am now a thouroughly Trinitarian Christian with a high view of Scripture who believes fully in an incarnate crucified and resurrected Christ whi is the Way, the Truth and the life. Shortly after being firmly placed in the evangelical branch of the great flow of orthodox Christian tradition I found myself attending a venerable evangelical college (firmly complementarian) where I had access to some really good teaching and a library I spent much of my free time exploring. In a little book hidden on those shelves I read for the first time that Godly women *could* be pastors, that men and women were designed to live as equal partners. This was new and suspicious stuff! So I set about exploring Scripture and history with much prayer and by the same process that led me to become a Trinitarian Christian with a high view of Scripture and a commitment to the Incarnate, crucified and resurrected Way, Truth and Life I became an egalitarian – not based on modern cultural corruption or rebellion, but on the honest conviction that the egalitarian position truly best reflects the original intent of Scripture. I was excited by my discoveries and journey, and innocently assumed that those Christians around me would be as interested in plumbing the depths of Scripture, open to wherever it would lead. I was utterly unprepared for the response I actually got. I’m still a biblically-founded Christian 20+ years later, and still an egal – more convinced than ever on both counts.

    LikeLike

72. I am only responding to this comment at all to make it clear that nowhere did I say or imply anything of the sort. Please do not put words, especially destructive words, into other people’s mouths.

    LikeLike

73. Excellent, thoughtful comment, Eric.

    LikeLike

74. Where does it say Muslim style? I think many muslim women are allowed only enough daylight to see.

    Completely off of the subject…

    I thought of your comment today when I saw a woman with braided hair riding a harley alone (No helmet law here in Arkansas). The harleys are in my tourist town again, in force.

    LikeLike

75. Jeff, I’ve deleted the comment. Aby, please choose your words more carefully. I think you have some good things to say, but please say them respectfully. These issues elicit strong feelings, I know. The fruit of the Spirit includes self-control.

    LikeLike

76. Yeah, but the trouble with that is that it then can be turned around to mean that those in ministry are special Christians above those of the laity.

    It’s the danger of clericalism which is what is at the root of the whole trouble, not the fact that men only (or women only) can be called.

    LikeLike

77. In my experience, complementarians don’t have room in their theology for hermaphrodites (and I think the new pc term is “intersex”). I will say again that this has just been my experience; but a theology that does not have justice and equality for everyone in every situation is no theology at all.

    LikeLike

78. Coming from the Catholic side, where there are those pushing for the ordination of women, i have to mildly disagree with this: “Nor that other ways of serving God are somehow less important.”

    It’s the hidden clericalism, that seems to think that unless ordained, women are confined to a second-class role as laity. Man or woman, a lay person is just as important. But we do need reminding of that. And a lot of the language used in this debate (which, let me remind everyone, is no longer a debate since Pope John Paul II made his statement and Pope Benedict XVI has repeated it – the Church has no authority to ordain women) revolves around power issues, even if it is framed as a “justice” issue also.

    There are various groups going ahead with “ordaining” women – Roman Catholic WomenPriests is probably the most recognisable one – but funnily enough, all these groups seem to have a laundry list of doctrines they dump along with the one about women’s ordination. I’ve never yet seen one that said “We completely accept the teachings of the Church but we respectfully maintain that in this one area it is debatable.”

    And just for the record, the various offshoots of the Lefebvrists are just as bad in my opinion; I’m equally opposed to ‘The Spirit of Vatican II trumps everything’ and the ‘It all went to Hell in a handbasket as soon as they dropped the Latin’ schools.

    LikeLike

79. Seriously, CM, I know you’re not IM and have tended to allow much broader conversation to take place, but these mental illness comments I find outrageous.

    LikeLike

80. Oops,

    Just found the verse in 2 Timothy. If God’s Word says “deceived,” than deceived it was.

    “And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman…”

    That’s what it says. I back away, way far away, from my previous comment.

    The tabloid statement is still troubling, however.

    The verse helps the complementary view.

    LikeLike

81. It already has. I thought I expressed my views in a gentle way above and commenter “aby” seems intent on putting motives into my mouth and saying that anyone who expresses such views is mentally ill. I try to be respectful of others’ opinions and I find such comments by that person deeply, deeply offensive.

    LikeLike

82. Patrick,

    Luke 6:30 (New International Version)
    30Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.

    Matthew 5:27″You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.'[a] 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

    So how serious do you take these words of Jesus.

    Look there is no way I am going to believe anything you say. You are doing it because male dominance helps males and harms females. I won’t be speaking to you anymore. I know when someone is using the word of God to harm me.

    LikeLike

83. Not to be attacking you personally, Jill, but when I get the “changes his mind” interpretation of this passage it makes me want to hit something (or someone).

    There certainly is a modern liberal (though I hate using that label) strain of exegesis which goes “His encounter with the Syro-Phoenician woman taught Jesus to rise above his cultural racism and sexism” which is great – if we talking along the lines of Siddharta Gautama encountering poverty, illness and age for the first time in a sheltered existence and realising that the problem of evil exists.

    When we’re talking about God incarnate, that’s not so great.

    LikeLike

84. I heard an interesting sermon on that one years ago which changed the way I view this passage. Our pastor suggested that Jesus was testing his disciples who, only moments before, were trying understand his teaching on defilement. He knew what the woman would say and do ahead of time, and that her faith would be the example needed to prove to them that He knows hearts and accessible to all.

    LikeLike

85. MOD: Comment deleted

    LikeLike

86. oops, Christine, while typing I’d already translated your name to Megan! Where that came from I do not know! 🙂

    LikeLike

87. I’ve done the same, Megan, and the only man in my entire 25 years of being an evangelical adult who has ever encouraged me to seek out a leadership role in the church has been Chaplain Mike, at one time one of my local pastors. Thanks, Mike, for this article. I’m still chewing on what it means to me.

    LikeLike

88. I find the Eve/Adam argument a weak one. Was not Adam deceived? I actually think the word “disobedient” describes both of them better.

    The tabloid statement is awful. For every woman reading a tabloid, there is a man on-line looking at pornographic materials.

    These statements make me wonder about the motivation behind Mr. Driscoll’s complementarianism.

    LikeLike

89. I’ve mentioned this in similar threads here and elsewhere, so I’ll toss it out again.

    The Orthodox and Catholic Churches have a male preside over the Eucharist as well as the service, one reason being that he is said to represent Christ to the congregation when he officiates and reads the Scriptures and blesses them and gives them the Eucharist, and represents Christ to the Father when he prays for the congregation and confects the Eucharist. Because, after all, Christ was a male. The priest does all this from a sacramental understanding of the Liturgy/Mass/Eucharist.

    Evangelical Protestants for the most part have dispensed with sacramentalism, considering baptism and the Lord’s Supper to be ordinances and symbols (in the non-sacramental sense), but they have retained the sacrament of the reading and preaching of the Scriptures. Indeed, it has become THE sacramental act for them, even if they don’t recognize it or call it as such. For it is by hearing “the Word” that the congregation receives Christ and is changed and sanctified. In doing so, they have also, whether consciously or unconsciously, retained the concept that only a male can confect and present and officiate over this sacrament.

    And my question is: Did Christ incarnate as a male, or as a human? You could of course answer “both,” but what is the Gospel: That God has come to us in male form in the person of Jesus Christ, or that God has come to us in human form in the person of Jesus Christ? As Gregory of Nazianzus said, “For that which He has not assumed He has not healed.”

    I believe Christ’s humanity, not His maleness, is the essence of the Gospel, and as such do not believe there can or should be any gender restrictions in terms of who can lead the flock of God or who can teach and read the Scriptures in the church as the Holy Spirit has called and gifted and directed him or her. In Christ there is not male and female. It is a New Creation. A New (Hu)man. The old things have passed away; behold, new things have come.

    LikeLike

90. There is no such thing as the “pastoral office” in the New Testament. It is a later invention of the church.

    Of course not all are given to be pastors. Not all men are called to be pastors (this is a calling or gifting, not an “office”), but only some. But I am talking not of individuals, but of men or women as a group. To exclude an entire group based only their gender is to ignore “there is not male or female” and to ignore such passages as “God is not a respecter of persons,” or “henceforth we regard no one according to the flesh.” You have not shown that “there is not male or female” relates only to salvation in Galatians. Instead you fall back on the idea that God calls individuals to different callings in the Body. But you have no standing on which to assert that some gifts and callings are only for males. God inaugurated His New Covenant kingdom at Pentecost, by pouring out His Spirit on ALL flesh, on His sons AND daughters.

    LikeLike

91. Patrick, I will admit that these passages in Corinthians have some difficulties that are hard to resolve. The variety of interpretations of Paul’s words in 1Cor 11 and 14 speak to that. One of most obvious conundrums is his allowing women to prophesy in 1Cor 11 and his instruction for them to keep silent in ch. 14.

    LikeLike

92. That’s quite a stretch……

    I don’t see it as a stretch at all, especially given the prior discussion about the proper order in the service regarding the exercise of the gifts of tongues and interpretation. Paul is simply continuing along that same theme.

    Imagine if you were a teacher in a classroom with where the boys were misbehaving to the point of disrupting the entire class. The teacher may say something like, “OK, that’s at it – the boys need to be quiet, according to the rules!”. The rule isn’t that simply the boys must be quiet , but rather that everyone must be quiet. The teacher is addressing the boys specifically because they were the ones who were misbehaving.

    Anyway, if the plain meaning is like what you’re saying it is, it seems we should take term “be quiet” literally. No women giving announcements, leading worship or anything. It seems complentarians already make compromises when it comes to the “plain meaning”.

    LikeLike

93. Yeah, that Mark Driscoll. What a cutup. He’s a regular barrel of monkeys when it comes to laughs. Art Linkletter wrote a book about him, Kids Say the Darndest Things!

    😀

    LikeLike

94. Wow,

    That’s quite a stretch……

    ‘There’s nothing in that passage that insists that the phrase “as in all the congregations of the saints” should be taken as prescriptive rather than descriptive. ‘

    How about the immediately following ‘women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak’?

    “I don’t know how the phrase “plain meaning” has any meaning in regards to a passage in which is still largely debated.”

    Only recently ‘largely debated’ The Church has been consistent for about 1900 years…..until now.

    LikeLike

95. There’s nothing in that passage that insists that the phrase “as in all the congregations of the saints” should be taken as prescriptive rather than descriptive. Yes, the society in the Roman Empire at the time was still very patriarchal, so it isn’t surprising the norm was for women to be quiet. Women were generally refused the same educational opportunities as men. It seems the women in the Corinthian church were exercising their new found freedom in Christ in a way that was disruptive.

    Which law forbids them to speak in church?

    No law, actually. At least there’s no law that specifically forbids women from speaking. The law generally forbids outburst from the congregation in general during the service, so it seems Paul is specifically reminding the women to submit to this.

    This is the plain meaning of the text. Other ‘interpretations’ are extremely new in the scope of Church history.

    I don’t know how the phrase “plain meaning” has any meaning in regards to a passage in which is still largely debated. As far as Church history, well, I guess it seems odd to me that this seems to the one issue in which some Protestants are willing to submit to Church history.

    LikeLike

96. You said,

    ‘If being a minister is available to only males, then males are “extra special” Christians.’

    No it doesn’t.

    Remember Paul’s discourse on the members of the body? Not all are given to be a ‘mouth’ or a ‘foot’ or a’ hand’. In the same way not all are given to become Pastors.

    Paul does not need to recapitulate every point in every epistle to every church. There were and are plenty of ministry options open to women in the NT. The pastoral office is not one of them.

    LikeLike

97. Examine 1Cor :14 closely.

    ‘As in all the churches of the saints, 34women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. 35If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.* 36Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached?

    How many churches are included in ‘ALL the churches of the saints’?

    Which law forbids them to speak in church?

    Why does he add vs. 36?

    None of Paul’s argument relies on ‘contextual’ points but on the Scripture (law) and is universally applied to ALL the churches.

    1 Tm:2 says,

    ’12I permit no woman* to teach or to have authority over a man;* she is to keep silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15′

    The reason Paul gives was that the man was formed first and the woman was deceived and transgressed. No mention of the Temple of Artemis and causing people to stumble by having female clergy. He gives a theological reason that can be universally applied.

    This is the plain meaning of the text. Other ‘interpretations’ are extremely new in the scope of Church history.

    LikeLike

98. Check out Mark Driscoll’s sermon series on 1 Timothy (part 5). He remarked about the leadership of women, in the context of Eve giving Adam the apple: “This is the first exercise of female leadership in the world. It did not go well then, and has not gone well since.” Further, as to women’s propensity to be deceived since Eve, he states: “Women, when it comes to the highest authority in the church, they will be more gullible. “ He then cites the fact that women like tabloid newspapers and practice birth control as proof. And, by the way, he says that egalitarians are false teachers.

    Chaplain Mike, thanks for continuing this blog. If it weren’t reading your challenging posts, I would be reading the National Enquirer.

    LikeLike

99. If being a minister is available to only males, then males are “extra special” Christians.

    I am not playing the Scriptures against themselves. I am supporting Chaplain Mike’s reasoning that the restrictive Scriptures you cite, were intended as temporary measures to deal with the issue of uneducated women, in cultures far different than our own.

    Question: If Paul really did not intend women to be ministers, any place or any time, why didn’t he say something about this in the letter to the Romans? Rome was the place where there were the most educated, upperclass women. Rome was the place where it would have been most likely that a woman would be able to be considered fully equipped to take up the reins of ministry. Instead, Paul puts his restrict-women admonitions in his letter to Corinth, where there would have been a large population of uneducated women (“not many of you are wise, not many powerful,” he wrote to the Corinthian believers), and in a letter to Timothy about how to deal with problems in Ephesus in his absence (Ephesus was the town with a large temple to a female idol, where women coming out of that practice might be swayed by proto-Gnostic teachings about the superiority of Eve over Adam, etc.)

    But instead of admonishing the Romans not to let their women (who would be more likely to be educated) preach or teach, he spends the end of that letter (chapter 16) praising female laborers in Christ, right alongside their brothers! This would make no sense if what he was really trying to do, was stop women from having any authoritative roles in ministry.

    LikeLike

100. I don’t think it involves any hermeneutic gymnastics at all. We always look at the context a Scripture was written in order to interpret. In I Corinthians 14, there are several pretty obvious reasons why Paul would not want generally uneducated women causing problems in an already struggling church. It seems rather than adding something worthwhile to the gathering, these women were simply causing more confusion. It’s not hard to imagine Paul, in a moment not unlike a frustrated parent telling children to be quiet, to say, “enough already – be quiet!”.

     Timothy was ministering in Ephesus, home of the Temple of Artemis (or Diana), goddesses associated with the mythical Amazons. So the idea of women dominating men was very closely associated with pagan idolatry in this city. It’s not surprising that Paul would instruct Timothy to not allow women to have authority over men in this cultural situation.

     LikeLike

101. Dan,

     Great post – and we simply can’t be in this world without the full complement of diversity!

     I believe that the Holy Spirit is moving quite powerfully right now in the area of women in ministry. The Catholic Church is learning a big lesson in this. The priest scandal is indirectly caused by the church’s view on women – no leadership, no wives. So, they had a very small pool of men to choose from, and they’ve experienced a very high rate of sinful behavior because of the limited choice. The evangelical church is known as what we’re against, and not what we’re for, unfortunately. This includes women in leadership. I really think we’re more of a stumbling block than a light.

     And that’s why I love the i-monk community – a breath of fresh air, compliments of the Holy Spirit.

     LikeLike

102. Paul was arguing against the idea that being Jewish made you and ‘extra special’ Christian. Jewish and Gentile believers are on the same footing in Christ and have the same benefits in Christ. This does not address qualifications for ministry.

     LikeLike

103. This in no way trumps what Paul says elsewhere about the office if the Ministry. This passage does not negate Paul’s strictures elsewhere. You are playing the Scriptures against themselves.

     LikeLike

104. PS. “Full rights of sons,” in the original language, was a phrase that indicated the status of an adopted son to the full status and rights of a male Roman citizen in that society. Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female– we are “full-status sons” in Christ.

     LikeLike

105. Huh? What are you talking about? I am not in ministry (and not ‘in control of my own marriage for that matter.)

     I was making an argument based on Scripture.

     The commenter above who said if this debate revolved around servanthood instead of authority, it would be a different discussion.

     This making of everything into issues of ‘power’ and ‘authority’ is Marxist in nature.

     LikeLike

106. To say that Galatians 3:28 is only about salvation is to ignore the continuation of the passage through Galatians 4. Galations 4:1-5::

     “What I am saying is that so long as the heir is a child, he is no different than a slave, although he owns the whole estate . . . But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son . . . that we might receive the full rights of sons.”

     This is the continuation of Paul’s thought from Galatians 3:26. If all Paul is saying is that everyone gets salvation (gets to be in God’s family), then why this distinction between children, slaves and sons? It would have been natural for a freeborn Jewish believer to say to a woman or a slave, “Well, you get to be saved by Christ, but that’s all this passage refers to; you get nothing else that freeborn Jewish males get,” but this is in effect saying that though the woman or the slave “owns the whole estate,” she/he is still “a child” in status. This is the exact opposite of what Paul is saying.

     Further, Paul just got done telling the story (in Gal. 2:14) how he rebuked Peter for treating the Gentile believers differently from the Jewish believers. Paul adds to “there is neither Jew nor Greek (etc)” that we are all one in Christ.” “Oneness” is directly equated in Paul’s letter with not treating one group differently from another in the church.

     The “clothe yourselves with Christ” metaphor is also telling. Clothing as a metaphor in Paul’s epistles refers to a change that affects all aspects of life. It is not part of Paul’s theology (as it is the modern church’s) to separate salvation from the rest of one’s Christian walk.

     I think that a too-strict reading of Galatians 3:26-28 in terms of being in God’s family/getting to go to heaven only, is a complete misreading of this text. It is one of Paul’s many statements about the nature of the covenant community “in Christ.” Looking at the Great Story of Creation, Fall and Redemption, what we see is humans created to be one– the Fall destroying that unity– and new birth in Christ brining about oneness again. Galatians 3:28 is one of the descriptions of that oneness. It was not intended as a way to hand a sop to women, Gentiles and slaves and say, “Here, be satisfied with that. We free male Jews get all the good stuff in the Kingdom.”

     The church in history should have read the other “women” passages in light of such overarching statements as these, and not the other way around. That they did not, was a product of their imbibing the misogyny of the surrounding cultures (and particularly Aristotelian thinking).

     Male rule is a capitulation to culture. Now that the surrounding culture is moving away from that, we need to be careful lest our counter-cultural biases cause us to reject something which is actually good.

     As Christians, we must reject the man-hating excesses of radical feminism. But Christian egalitarianism doesn’t come from that. It was a sister movement to Christian Abolitionism in the 1800s. Those who saw the movement of the Spirit in history as being away from oppression (and therefore against slavery) found the same logic compelling them to promote female liberty in Christ. Let us not forget their legacy and undo all they worked so hard to accomplish.

     LikeLike

107. I think men need to ask themselves why they want so much power over women.

     LikeLike

108. Jeff,

     I think I see a double standard here. You are promoting submission for women as Christ-like, but not for men.

     Why are you so interested in making females submissive to males?

     LikeLike

109. It was also to keep the peace.

     Remember that civil disobedience was not tolerated back.

     LikeLike

110. “Many noblemen and important secular leaders in fact became monks and voluntarily submitted to the leadership of another as an act of humble worship.”

     Kristen, I always love what you say. That kind of submission from one human being to another is seriously problematic. It’s not based on mental health, and it’s human worship rather than God worship. To do that is to put a human being above God.

     LikeLike

111. Chaplain Mike,

     I have to say that on the basis of the passages esp. 1Cor 14, and 1Tim 2 passages I am forced to disagree with your position. Paul appeals to the universal practice of the churches and bases the appeal on OT passages, particularly in Genesis. To claim this was a cultural practice limited to individual congregations involves some severe hermeneutical gymnastics.

     The Galatians 3.28 passage is speaking with respect to salvation, NOT the office of the Ministry. To conflate eligibility for the office of the Ministry with ‘eligibility’ for salvation through Christ is bad Biblical interpretation all the way around.

     I think that the Egalitarian view springs from our culture and I have never been comfortable with efforts to shoehorn the Scriptures in to fit with that view.

     What it comes down to is being subject to God’s Word. There are things in there that I really don’t like, so I have to choose. To parse the word in such a clumsy manner and declare these particular parts we don’t like to be ‘limited, cultural practice,’ confined to a specific place and time will eventually lead us to where the ECUSA and the ELCA are now.

     LikeLike

112. We women are so lucky. We always have some people that are constantly working to convince us to obey men.

     LikeLike

113. “I would also offer as a suggestion the idea that women are invited to submit to certain restrictions not because they are inferior in some way, but precisely because they are fully equal to men and that therefore submission is a choice, done as an act of worship. ”

     I tried to force myself to believe that at one time. I succeeded for a couple of years, and then failed.

     LikeLike

114. Someone asked about a Hermaphrodite in a leadership position and that got me thinking…

     anyone else?

     LikeLike

115. When Jesus said to the Canaanite woman, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 15:24) He was referring to hundreds of years of tradiion. He emphatically stated a boundary that had helped to define God’s chosen people by telling her “It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.” Wow. that’s a pretty clear statement. Then, her faith changes his mind. We serve a living God. He is still speaking. Including Gentiles in His plan of salvation was a pretty big “next big thing”.

     LikeLike

116. Tell CBMW women are superior! That would be fun to see.

     Actually I don’t know how to judge humans as superior or inferior. I do feel CBMW sees women as inferior, although they say they don’t. Perhaps CBMW and I have different definitions of inferior.

     LikeLike

117. I think sometimes women are sold are the idea that a husband will take care of everything for her. But its not possible.

     LikeLike

118. I believe in complementarian, man is to complement the woman. The Bible says woman was created to help (to further the advancement of; to change for the better, make decisions for) man. Woman has to be superior to help in this manner.

     The New Testament says woman is the glory (worshipful praise, honor, and thanksgiving; something that secures praise or renown; great beauty and splendor) of her husband.

     After leaving the Garden of Eden, woman was told she would have painful labor in birth and her desire would be for her husband (a sense of longing or hoping; intense craving for self gratification – a desire to be served and provided for).To be ruled by her husband is not natural but part of the curse; God uses pagan nations to discipline Israel many times, and he uses man to rule women even though the woman is superior. To desire, and to be ruled are two distinct thoughts. She was created superior and by nature was to rule, not to be ruled.

     Her husbands curse was to “work in painful labor all the days of his life. He will eat bread by the sweat of his brow, till he returns to the ground.” The husband after working all day and comes home, is not allowed to take it easy, there is no vacation time, no time for his own pursuits. He is to work to satisfy his wife’s desires. The wife is to desire her husbands service.

     LikeLike

119. As a young woman I was converted to the comp view. I forced myself to believe it, but deep down inside I knew there were a lot of problems with it.

     Converting to the egal view allowed me to confront what I questioned in complimentarianism.

     LikeLike

120. ” I teach parenting and anger management classes to men.”

     What a nice thing to do. I’m sure you help the men a lot.

     LikeLike

121. Perhaps he was excluding polygamists?

     LikeLike

122. Mark,

     To some people patriarchy is a positive word, to some a negative word.

     I find some comps feel they are patriachal, and others feel they aren’t. So I myself don’t know whether to say comps are patriachal or not.

     I used to distinquish between comps and pats, but stopped when I found some comps using the pat term.

     LikeLike

123. Thank you Mike. I love it when men stand up for the egalitarian view. It means a lot to me.

     LikeLike

124. Some groups actually call this view “patriarchy” and glory in it.

     LikeLike

125. I do understand that, in our culture, many men have abandoned engagement with the spiritual life and with their families. What Mark Driscoll is facing in Seattle is a generation of males who have no clue about Christian spirituality and virtue. However, that does not justify, IMO, swinging the pendulum as far as he has in promoting complementarianism.

     LikeLike

126. I never wanted to marry a woman I had to lead. I wanted someone who was intelligent, strong, and didn’t need me to fulfill her Disney princess dreams. I’ve seen some women who are content to be taken care of, told what to do, and pretty much just live vicariously through their husband, but to me that seems to selling themselves short of being the people God created them to be.

     My wife has a PhD and is smarter than me. Why in the world would I need to “lead” her?

     LikeLike

127. But so-called Evangelical complementarianism fits the dictionary definition of patriarchalism. In fact, I find the patriarchalists’ use of “complementarian” to describe themselves to be a bit disingenuous, as the term sounds more like “equal” than what it really means, which is that only males can have positiions of leadership and authority. Women “complement” men the way followers “complement” leaders.

     And patriarchalism/complementarianism in the church is condescending – toward women.

     LikeLike

128. I love this post, Chaplain Mike! Your paragraph starting with “I humbly disagree” sums up things nicely. Thank you.

     LikeLike

129. Excellent point Mike. If we’re going to take things as literal and “biblical” (as opposed to “advice”), then Paul clearly writes here that only married men can be pastors. Paul himself was disqualified according to such logic. Therefore, this passage must be interpreted or understood in a different manner to make any sort of sense. Further, these “gymnastics” are necessary to uncover the meaning behind the words of the text, especially considering that for most of humankind’s history men have dominated and subjugated women to a less-than-equal status. It’s not surprising so many are resistant to your, and others’, analysis. They are blinded by their male pride, cultural prejudices, and/or insufficient biblical understanding.

     LikeLike

130. Exactly. And I do think the nobility of submission to unfairness often gets lost when egalitarians are arguing their side, but like you said, Paul’s calls to submit do not in and of themselves imply support for the cultural structures demanding that submission.

     When Paul told Christians to submit to the governing authorities I’m pretty sure he wasn’t saying that empire is awesome or that Rome was a model for other countries to follow or that those in an occupied territory should submit to Rome FOREVER. It was a way of making sure Christians didn’t forget that Jesus was the center of everything and everythingelse was secondary. How we twisted that often baffles me.

     LikeLike

131. +1000 to this response. I was just about to reply to say the same thing, but you said it much better than I could have.

     Having watched many good men wear themselves out trying to “lead” their wives (when nowhere in the Bible are they ever actually instructed to lead) I just worry about what that kind of approach will do for the husband’s physical and spiritual health. It’s just too much. Wives are said to be a blessing…let them be one!

     I get why this approach is initially appealing to women (we all know passive men and their wives/girlfriends who try desperately to get them to care about anything spiritual) But a worn out, stressed out, overburdened husband is not really a great solution.

     LikeLike

132. agreed. and for the record, I’ve always been more concerned with my responsibility to love my wife as Christ loved the church, than any authority I might have.

     LikeLike

133. It was actually reading the book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood that allowed me to move awayy from my long-held Complementarian beliefs. The fundamentalist church that I grew up in was not actually that strict on gender roles (as far as I remember anyway…I was a child) and I always felt more horrified at the verses I read in the Bible than anything I encountered in church. It bothered me more and more the older I got but I never really thought there could be an egalitarian way of interpreting those verses.

     Ifinally read RBM&W to explore the biblical support for the Complementarian position and was actually surprised by how NOT straightforward this interpretation is. I had always assumed that egalitarians were just doing mental gymnastics in order to get the text to say what they wanted to hear, and discovered that similar mental gymnastics were also required for the Complementarian position. I have to give those who wrote that book major props for being intellectually open & honest about their process. Their description of the egalitarian position was fair and served as the catalyst for my change in views. In the end, I felt like there was relatively equal textual support for both interpretations, and that the overall trajectory of Jesus’ message tipped it (quite a bit actually) into the egalitarian side.

     Having grow up fundamentalist and being taught that everything in the Bible is plain and straightforward for the average reader, it’s always refreshing to read fundamentalists who don’t pretend their views are always that obvious. There does seem to be a welcome difference in tone and approach between scholarly exposition of beliefs and church exposition of those same beliefs. I think I often prefer the scholarly tone.

     LikeLike

134. PS. While we were trying to be complementarian, my husband sometimes came across as “passive and weak” because he felt so much pressure to perform and be the leader ALL THE TIME, that sometimes he would just run from it. Now that I’ve been set free to lead beside him, we’re BOTH stepping up to the plate more. I no longer abdicate responsibility and force him to make all the decisions (which he never wanted to do, so how exactly was I “submitting” to him anyway?), and he no longer feels overwhelmed. We share the leadership, and we’re both stronger for it.

     God said “it is not good for the man to be alone,” and made a woman to rule beside him (and God blessed THEM and said to THEM, have dominion. . .”) So when the man rules the woman, it’s as if he’s putting her in the place of the creatures. And this renders him alone again. It’s lonely at the top. Better to have a co-ruler to share the load.

     LikeLike

135. Sean,

     If, in an area where she has more expertise than you, you would be willing to defer to her, then that is what I would define as “mutual submission,” as set forth in Ephesians 5:21. As you go on in your relationship, you might find that there are times that it’s quite natural for her to take the lead. For example, if you come home with a high fever and a terrible cough, and she takes one look at you, leads you to the couch, eases you onto it and then gets a glass of water and some pills and says, “Take these!” I sure hope you will submit! (grin)

     Male rule is part of the fall. Notice that in Ephesians 5:22 and following, though the woman is asked to submit, the husband is never actually told to lead. Instead, he is to lay down his life and nourish, cherish and serve. I believe Paul was teaching a new paradigm within the cultural norm of male rule– where the male laid down his privilege and raised his wife up, even as the Church is raised up to be “seated with Christ” as shown in Ephesians 1.

     LikeLike

136. Part of my struggle. I love the “gospel-centered” movement. Missional stuff. Getting entire churches involved. Celebrating the person and work of Christ as the central thing. Talking “Jesus Jesus Jesus” all the time. Gospel-dash-everything.

     But it’s true, to really be part of this movement, one has to believe the same thing about EVERYthing. Way too much conformity, which I’m always against on principle. Got a dose of that in person when I went to the Advance 09 conference (which Michael Spencer also attended and wrote about). Everyone was the same. And I was on board with much of the same-ness…..when I thought I was unique with it. Now, not so much.

     Still going for Gospel-everything, but with actual emphasis on Gospel-fruit, rather than being on board with the theological cool guys.

     LikeLike

137. True enough– it is noble to submit to unfairness– but that doesn’t mean the unfairness is the plan of God. The unfairness came from the fallen world’s systems, which Paul taught Christians to live with and work within, but he was not endorsing male rule any more than he was endorsing slavery.

     LikeLike

138. I find your statement that the complementarian view is patriarchal subtly condescending.

     LikeLike

139. Thank you Chaplin Mike, I very much like what you have written here.

     I think the paradigm turns on that verse in Genesis 3:16. I’ve often heard that verse used to PRESCRIBE patriarchy. However, once someone pointed out “Hey, God just might be describing the consequences of sin here” it became fairly clear that such was the meaning intended.

     It has been years since I have really thought about this issue, but I remember when reading and talking about it with peers that it seem groups like “Center for Biblical Equality” were doing more thorough, thoughtful, hermeneutics than that of their detractors.

     LikeLike

140. The brunt of that verse seems to rest on the fact that it uses the masculine pronoun. Since Paul says “he” it must mean only a man can fulfil the role in question.

     Assuming the masculine pronoun there means exclusively men here is a bit over the top. Even in contemporary English, the masculine pronoun is used in a gender inclusive way when the object that the pronoun refers to is not totally defined.

     If I a group of students walked into a classroom and did not see the normal teacher there, but knew a substitute was coming, and one student spoke up and said, “whoever the substitute is, I hope HE is not a total jerk” it would be wrong to assume that said student believed that ONLY men could be a substitute teacher. Other examples abound.

     “Do not hire anyone unless you are sure HE is qualified.”
     “That was a nice anonymous gift. Please pass on my thanks to HIM.”

     LikeLike

141. Personally, I find the explanations people attach to passages used to support complentarianism unconvincing, and I really never even knew of this as an issue until not that long ago. I guess because I grew up in Pentecostal/Charismatic circles (AoG, namely) I always was around women pastors and board members. Currently, two of the best friends my wife and I have are ordained women. I’ve seen the fruit of their ministry, and to me, that speaks more than any other argument I’ve heard.

     I suppose it is possible to be comlentarian and really be a secure man, but to be honest, many of the men I’ve been around who make the biggest deal about simply seem to be insecure. I don’t say that o be inflammatory – it’s just my experience.

     LikeLike

142. Also, haven’t read through the comments yet so I don’t know if this was addressed, but this all has big ramifications in the relationship/marriage department.

     Most of the complementarian guys I’ve read and listened to taught me well about how to spiritually lead a woman. If you’re not leading her, you’re not loving her. It’s been good teaching…challenging yet sensitive. But “spiritually leading” always seems to come first, and “loving” is a sub-category that falls under it. It should be the other way around.

     I’m finally learning this in the 3 month old relationship I’m in. We do agree on me being the one to lead, take initiative, etc. But that includes me making sure she is given a voice, completely equal to mine, and that she feels secure and confident enough in herself and in us to speak up and confront and do whatever she needs to do. Also to encourage her awesome gifts in ministry. All of that comes under the ultimate category of “loving,” under which can also be found sacrificing, and…..well, too much else to name.

     It’s just so funny how much fear is involved. I know some of thethe very, very strong complementarian folks are scared that equality would come to mean men would have an excuse to be passive and weak. Well, we always have that excuse. That’s not the thing. It’s the personal threat of insecurity that’s in play some of the time.

     Just some observations. Would love to hear people talk about the relationship factor in this discussion. I need the help!

     LikeLike

143. Thank you Chaplain Mike.

     It is scary how much I’ve been changing lately. I think I’m too young (in age and in time as a believer) to have changed so much already.

     Not completely in terms of my views, but in my attitude in approaching these subjects. To put it simply, I’m much more open-minded. I’ve embraced the freedom that comes with admitting I’m wrong about things. It’s wonderful. It takes the burden of having to be one of the sole defenders of “truth” away from me. I’m freer to not care about labels, and not to care so much about what camp I fall into concerning certain subjects, which means more time to care about the most important things….knowing Christ intimately, communicating the Gospel articulately, and learning to love.

     I never thought I’d sound so “liberal.” And yet I feel as passionate (oops, theres that word again!) in my relationship with the Lord, desire to know the the Word, and desire to be used of Him as I ever have. It’s crazy.

     Here was a “light going on” moment from this post:

     ” 3. Gen 3.16 clearly states that conflict between the sexes is a result of the fall, and that man’s rule over woman will be the dominant outcome. Patriarchy (man ruling over woman) arises from a broken world, not God’s original design.”

     Wow. Never saw it before. *Click*

     LikeLike

144. Athanasius would probably tell you that they DO still do that — in the fourth century, anyway….

     And I like the hermaphrodite question: it often takes a very rare, unusual sort of phenomenon to throw everything into focus. Black swans, so to speak.

     LikeLike

145. Unfortunately it is likely to come.

     LikeLike

146. Nice of you to remember that. Not that I remember when I wrote it. 🙂

     LikeLike

147. And that’s why a question as to what ordination is may be good for the discussion. I know in my tradition, for example, preaching and teaching are not restricted to the ordained ministers.

     LikeLike

148. Here are my thoughts from an earlier post when discussing Bible translations.

     The Greek is (and excuse my transliteration) “mias gynaikos andra”, or most literally, “of one (as opposed to many) women a man”. I think in this case the literal translation is very good, “a one woman man” That is, a guy who is above reproach (the purpose of the whole passage) and one that won’t fool around on his wife.

     So the primary task then of the translator is to say how best to communicate this message. Is the intent of the author to restrict leadership to only men with one wife, or is the intent of the author to call for a marriage that is above reproach. Seeing as the whole passage is about being above reproach, translating it as “husband of one wife” actually clouds the meaning of the passage and might lead people to believe that Paul is making an injunction here against female leaders. However, since Paul’s intent of the passage is for a leader to be above reproach, starting with the marriage relationship, then “married only once” or perhaps “faithful to his marriage” communicates that quite well without assigning to Paul a position on a topic that he was not even discussing in this passage.

     LikeLike

149. Scriptural arguments aside… Being the son of a woman pastor, Having attended a church with a preaching woman pastor, and being trained alongside other women pastors in college and seminary, my experience alone tells me these are genuine teachers called by God. It can be really easy to not let ourselves change when we simply brush the possibility to learn and experience aside because our hermeneutical peccadilloes give us a convienient out to stay within our own four walled conclusions.

     Go tell your woman boss at work she has no authority over you and see how that works out for you.

     LikeLike

150. Ray, no problem — just trying to deal with Paul saying he “does not allow” a woman to teach, and squaring that us “we are all one” in Christ.

     LikeLike

151. Great discussion.

     These terms are new to me but I guess I would be considered “complementarian” at church, but that’s where it ends.

     It’s hard for me to get around 1 Cor. 14:34 although I’ve been to a church where the woman doing the kid’s message (my wife), in my opinion, was the only thing in the service from whom one could learn anything.

     The church I’m currently attending would be considered “complementarian,” but not strictly so. It is a very strange thing – I find myself getting uncomfortable when the pastor’s wife is making announcements for any length of time. Why is that?

     I spend most of my time at a pregnancy crisis center where the director is a woman. The only male at the center, I teach parenting and anger management classes to men. We talk about Jesus all day long and I’m never uncomfortable with a female being the leader there.

     I guess I would be egalitarian when it came to family. There have been many times when my wife’s spiritual discernment has been better than mine so I’ve learned to listen.

     Would these statements make me an compleglarian or an egalicomplian?

     Honestly, I’ve never done a good in-depth scriptural study of the subject so I can’t really speak comfortably with any great level of authority on the subject.

     I’ve enjoyed reading everyone’s comments.

     LikeLike

152. Dan: what about Phoebe? She was a deaconess of the church at Cenchreae (one of the ports of Corinth) — and she was not only in leadership, she was the person who delivered Paul’s magnum opus, the epistle to the Romans, to Rome. So, even in Corinth — or at least its suburbs.

     (That’s always been my final tag for the appropriateness of women in public leadership — if Paul can entrust the delivery of his greatest work to a woman, why can’t we entrust a pulpit to one?)

     LikeLike

153. Ok…this may sound bizarre because it is. What about a hermaphrodite? And by the way this is a dead serious question. Could a hermaphrodite have a leadership role.

     Oh and remember the verse that some men become eunuchs for the kingdom…do they do that anymore….or is that too just another metaphor

     LikeLike

154. So, Matt, your take is that an elder must be a married man? So, Paul himself would not have qualified to be an elder?

     LikeLike

155. I haven’t absorbed the comments above – beyond the post itself — because my thoughts are short and I want to get to the point. Women in leadership — in Paul’s time, especially in Corinth, it would have smacked of paganism and goddess-worship, and it would have been a bad witness. Today, WITHOUT women in leadership, a church comes off like a bunch of patriarchal bigots, and it’s EQUALLY a bad witness. How can a church deal with issues like domestic abuse and abortion if no women are in leadership? We’re all one in Christ. PERIOD.

     LikeLike

156. That was a triple back flip. Great gymnastics.

     Paul’s advice is good in 1 Cor. 7 and he gives it as advice. He does not in any way give 1 Timothy 3 as “advice.” He is giving requirements. Big difference, the context of those passages says it all. One is given as advice the other as requirements and yet, with hermeneutical gymnastics, you compare them as if they are the same.

     LikeLike

157. I won’t comment on the matter at hand, rather on something that you said (relatively) offhandedly.

     “What is [prophecy] if not teaching and/or preaching in the congregation?”

     For awhile, I’ve taken prophecy and teaching to be two different things, (as in Eph 4:11-12). I currently have a definition for neither: the leadership giftings in these verses are ones whose modern-day practical meanings I am still exploring.

     LikeLike

158. With respect, you’re talking about two different things. An organizational system, such as a monastery requires obedience to the leader based on little more than willingness to obey. There’s very little a leader in such a situation can do to compel anyone’s obedience. Aside from kicking them out. Thus everyone must be on board with the system and rules; or there is no organization/group/etc. Placing such obedience in religious terms is a powerful way to ensure said obedience and consistency of group behavior. And a perfectly legitimate one in such cases.

     There is however, absolutely no inherent necessity for any woman to submit to any man.

     LikeLike

159. If you think English doesn’t have a gender inclusive masculine form, you must not work in technology. There, the term guys, such as you guys, those guys, that guy is entirely non-gender specific, though guy, clearly, is a masculine form. It’s a good thing we don’t conjugate our verbs by gender like Hebrew otherwise it could get confusing!

     LikeLike

160. Absolutely. It seem no different from the numerous times in my life when I’ve inattentively called for a group of my female friends by saying “come on, you guys”.

     LikeLike

161. Isaac,

     I think this is a good point. I wonder why as modern day believers we think we have a better idea of what Paul meant than those who were taught by the apostles. How can we be so sure we understand their culture better than they did?

     LikeLike

162. This has become a very core issue for me personally. I truly cannot understand how any organization can call itself in service to God (or any deity for that matter); then set themselves in the role of determining who said deity has called to a particular service. I mean as little offense as possible; but the more I look back on such doctrines in the church I grew up in; the more the whole idea of restricting pastoral roles based on sex seems just plain bizarre.

     LikeLike

163. My only hang up w/ “egalitarianism” is not a biblical problem ( I think the culture of the times caused Paul’s “complementarianism”). My only hang up is the ecumenical problem. It does create one more hill to climb when different Churches comes together. I believe the “egalitarianism” approach is the right way – I’m still a recovering “complementarianism” with alot of bridges to build back from my younger years. but it pains me that this adds one more burden to the Church “reunion” ( whatever that is ) While I’m “egalitarianism” I’m not militant about it(Mennonites usually arn’t 😉 . ) we must becareful not to burn bridges down when Churches want to come together. In my experience, when a Women Pastor serves in humility of being able to shepard God’s flock – any Male pastors who have a problem usally is stuck in silence due to her caring approach – “the meek will inherit the world” peace

     LikeLike

164. Danielle, you have a good point.

     So, where do we draw the line from social and doctrine? Is marriage doctrine or social? (arguably both, of course)

     We see this happening in the NT, of course. Abrogation occurs. “kill and eat” Peter hears in a vision three times and suddenly bacon double cheeseburgers become a reality. Yet, paradoxically a few chapters over, the apostles are still encouraging new believers to abstain from blood….

     We get some mixed messages about gender roles as well….

     If the answer was THAT clear, it wouldn’t be much of a discussion.

     Grace & peace.

     LikeLike

165. When a woman is “reborn”, I’m saying that she IS in fact like that nobleman and is equal to men. It’s at that point that voluntary submission comes into play and voluntary submission is, of course, eminently Christlike. Christ humbled Himself more than we can ever hope to understand or emulate, so why, even if it seems unfair, should we balk at humility and submission? Even if one thinks it’s “unfair”, the message more often than not of NT writings and of many of the writings of great saints is that submitting to and enduring “unfairness” as an act of worship is one of the most meritorious and “Christlike” things one can ever do.

     LikeLike

166. I was almost afraid to come here to read the comments, thinking that the conversation would be angry or mean-spirited by now. I’m very glad to find I was wrong.

     LikeLike

167. I have generally considered the terms “complementarian” and “egalitarian” to apply to gender roles within marriage and family and not nessecarily the role of women in the priesthood/pastorate, and perhaps wrongly so. But, it seems to me that I know christian couples who are egalitarian in their marriage, but do not believe that women should hold the office of priest/bishop/head pastor. I also know couples who have a complementarian marriage, but the woman is a children’s or women’s minister etc. So, I don’t necessarily see complementarian meaning that women cannot teach, minister, or evangelize, or that egalitarian means that women can hold any role in the church, including priest and bishop.

     LikeLike

168. PS. In fact, according to complementarianism, a man could not act like those Christlike noblemen. He could not lay down his privilege and choose to submit to a female church leader even if he wanted to. Such a thing is not allowed.

     LikeLike

169. Here’s some fun verses to make rules with:

     1tim. 2:9
     I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes

     Cor. 11:5-6
     5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying, disgraces her head; for she is one and the same with her whose head is shaved.

     1 Tim 2:11
     Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.

     Fundamentalism Rocks! – I’m so glad are Bible is an encyclopedia 😉

     LikeLike

170. JeffB said:

     “Submission and humility has long been part of true Christian devotion. Consider the rule of St. Benedict in which initiates are asked to submit to the abbot almost as if to God. Many noblemen and important secular leaders in fact became monks and voluntarily submitted to the leadership of another as an act of humble worship.”

     Absolutely! But the submission of women is not based on choice of occupation– it’s based on their birth. Wonderful that noblemen would forego their birth-privlege and submit in the name of Christ– but what complementarianism really says is that males have a birth-privilege that God endorses as their eternal right. It’s impossible for a woman to ever be born a “nobleman” when it comes to her relationship with men. She is born a “peasant,” born to be ruled and to submit– and God decreed this for all time. And it’s impossible for a man to be born a “peasant” when it comes to his relationships with women. He is born a “nobleman,” to rule for all time.

     How does this demonstrate voluntary submission at all? In what way is this Christlike? Is it not the pattern of the world, imbibed by the Church through the centuries?

     LikeLike

171. I understand your disagreement and we’ll just disagree amicably. I do find it nauseating to see how some authoritarian males in the church treat women, but like you, I have to be honest with how I myself read Scripture and (in spite of those bad examples), I have not found any reason to move from the views which I put forward.

     LikeLike

172. Good points, Kristen. As I said in the post, “Though men and women certainly do complement each other in many ways, are not identical, and do have some different tasks unique to their respective sexes that they are to fulfill in life, these differences do not indicate universal hard and fast “authority” and “role” structures.“

     LikeLike

173. As for this:

     “I agree with the statement that full partnership between men and women in the service of God’s kingdom is intended. However, I don’t think it’s a necessary conclusion that “full partnership” means interchangeability.”

     I don’t think that anyone really believes in “interchangeability.” That seems to me to be a strawman argument against egalitarianism– that it means saying men and women, or husbands and wives, are exactly alike.

     The problem with complementarian’s idea that there are God-given gender roles is, in my opinion, that the gender roles as described are not equal roles. Female ‘roles” are always about following or serving, and male “roles” are always about leading or having authority. This isn’t really about “roles” — it’s about authority and subservience.

     Complementarians say, “males and females are equal but different,” but what they usually mean is “men are in authority, women are under authority.” Different, certainly. Equal? No.

     But as Buttercup said in “The Princess Bride,” “We sort of skipped that part. .. .”

     LikeLike

174. I would also offer as a suggestion the idea that women are invited to submit to certain restrictions not because they are inferior in some way, but precisely because they are fully equal to men and that therefore submission is a choice, done as an act of worship. Submission and humility has long been part of true Christian devotion. Consider the rule of St. Benedict in which initiates are asked to submit to the abbot almost as if to God. Many noblemen and important secular leaders in fact became monks and voluntarily submitted to the leadership of another as an act of humble worship. Today, we seem more concerned with the exact opposite viewpoint where every person is “entitled” to anything they want and any kind of “submission” or “restriction” is evil. I admit that many “complementarians” do not promote the idea that submission is a voluntary act of worship by an equal and instead seem to emphasize male authority and superiority. To me, this is not a good thing but I would just as food for thought suggest that the attitude which devalues humility and submission is no better.

     LikeLike

175. Amen Arni!

     LikeLike

176. Eph 5:21 applies to you, too.

     LikeLike

177. With regards to “husband of one wife,” I think it’s really very simple. In Koine Greek, the masculine construction is gender inclusive (just like English used to be). Any generic group of people was referrred to in the masculine construction. In fact, if you were talking about a group of 10 people, of which 9 were women and one was a man, you would still use the maculine construction to speak of that group. The only time you would use the feminine construction (such as “wife of one husband”) if is the group you were speaking of was exclusively women (Paul uses this construction when speaking of widows).

     Note that Paul says deacons are also to be “husbands of one wife.” But he also calls Phoebe a “deacon.” It’s the exact same word. If “husband of one wife” means “must be male,” then Phoebe could not have been a deacon.

     Since Phoebe was clearly not male, then “husband of one wife” has to be gender inclusive. The best way to translate it in today’s modern English idioms would be “faithful spouse.”

     LikeLike

178. Jeff, I actually agree with you on the level of application and implementation. No one is saying women must be pastors or hold positions of authority. Nor that other ways of serving God are somehow less important.

     I would disagree with your last statement. From my standpoint, a “cultural limitation” reading of Paul’s restrictions comes from trying to harmonize his teachings that express the ideal of full equality and the less-than-ideal realities of church life and pastoral ministry which led Paul to give instructions that seem to contradict that ideal.

     LikeLike

179. At the end of the day, if a woman is called to pastoral leadership by God, it is not for man to tell her no.

     We can try to bind the Holy Spirit by saying that It cannot act in a way that seems to us contrary to Scripture, but it does and has.

     I don’t know if God is interested in a meritocracy, but to the extent He is, He’ll put women in charge of the church just as often as He does men. Perhaps more 🙂

     One of the things that made me look scathingly at Christianity for a lot of years was the traditional subservience of women. Seeing that there were denominations which ordained them was a major paradigm shift in my life. There is no telling how many men and women have walked away from the church because male dominance seems at such odds with any view of a just God.

     LikeLike

180. “I enjoy reading what Paul wrote, but I’m not blind to the reality that he was a man of his time and not necessarily of our own.”

     This hits the nail on the head. if we are to ignore all of Paul’s 1st century Jewish & roman culture we are going to have to change alot in the present Church:

     NO braided Hair
     NO men w/ Long Hair – (how long no one knows?)
     NO Jewelery
     women MUST wear head coverings – Muslim style!
     women CAN NOT talk in church
     & many others – trust me I’m Mennonite I’ve seen these arguements

     Most people cherry pick what they think is culture & what is LAW
     peace

     LikeLike

181. I agree with the statement that full partnership between men and women in the service of God’s kingdom is intended. However, I don’t think it’s a necessary conclusion that “full partnership” means interchangeability. Paul makes the point in 1 Corinthians that not everyone has every gift and that different people are suited for different roles (I know that this is not talking about male/female but I’m just using this passage for illustration). A more particular example is, say, King David in the OT—noone would argue that he was somehow inferior to the priests and Levites in the temple, yet he (any king for that matter) was not permitted to enter the temple or offer sacrifices. The point is that full partnership does not imply the absence of well defined and at times exclusive roles.

     For those who start with the assumption that egalitarianism is what is true (and also respect the Bible), there is no other possible conclusion but that the passages CM refers to must have some sort of local, cultural reference. I would humbly disagree and say that the plain sense is the opposite of the sort of “no differences” egalitarianism described here. Great female saints throughout history have served God’s kingdom in incredible ways but have not for the most part (until recently) seen the inability to be a pastor or priest, for example, as an impediment or an affront. I’m not in any way a hardcore complementarian, I can appreciate the possibility of Paul’s writings on this subject having some cultural limitation and I would never even remotely make this some sort of litmus test for being “saved.” However, I don’t think the plain sense warrants the egalitarian interpretation and I think most of the “cultural” limitations are from 20th (or 21st) century re-readings and re-interpretations of these passages to fit a preconceived desire to find egalitarianism.

     LikeLike

182. I think the discussion would change drastically if people started thinking of being a pastor, priest or minister as a service, and not a position of authority.

     LikeLike

183. Who said anything about Scriptures changing based on the times? You are misunderstanding my point, Dave.

     LikeLike

184. I’m out of my league by commenting, but I don’t buy into #10. Who is going to pick and choose which portions of scripture change based on the “times”? Too many teachers that I respect disagree with passing this off like that.

     The best comparison I have heard on this relates how each member of the Trinity has a different role in salvation. Not that one is greater than the other but that of different roles.

     LikeLike

185. As my earlier comment suggested, I think many of Paul’s instructions were “complementarianism” as a a way of relating to his culture. And I think Michael Bell is right in recognizing this as a valid reason to adapt the church’s practices. For example, I work for a hospice agency. All of my team leaders and a majority of the administration is made up of women. I work with and for professional women every day. For me to communicate anything but respect for their gifts and full inclusion in ministry as a pastor would certainly be awkward at best.

     LikeLike

186. A valid objection — but I am inclined to think that social issues and doctrinal issues should not be viewed the same way. In theory at least, the basic doctrinal tenets of the faith as established in the councils or the elements of Christian worship established and maintained over centuries are aspects of tradition that can be expected and made to endure across time. But when you come to social issues like sex roles, the social circumstances change radically over time — even basic cultural ideas about the meaning of being a man or a woman change. The problem of translating a concept appropriately across time is tricky, to say the least.

     Paul is especially paradoxical, because he asserts a kind of eternal divine order that includes gender categories (I admit readily that these are the most problematic verses for egalitarians like me). But at the same time, I wonder if we aren’t missing the boat when words that actually undermined the very, very restrictive gender roles in ancient Greece by redefining male leadership as service are used today as an entirely conservative force. Something’s been lost in translation, because the disconnect between the old context and the new are just so great.

     Another problem we face right now is that, in western Europe, America, and parts of Asia at least, the social equation, esp. in regard to sexuality and sex roles, is changing in such fundamental ways that the traditional meanings sustained in conservative religion and the common experiences of people are beginning to veer away from each other. Again, a tricky problem, no matter what position you take on it. Practices and interpretations that have endured for centuries, even when refined into something as elegant as the “theology of the body,” made more sense in all those earlier centuries than they do now. It is only recently that women, in a major civilization anywhere in the world, have enjoyed rights and opportunities for public leadership approaching that of men. A century and half ago, in this country, married women didn’t even have a separate legal identity from their husbands, much less the vote.

     The closest, and maybe somewhat unfair, comparison I can think to make is the discovery of the heliocentric solar system; no one looses sleep over it now, but at the time it was a big a crisis for theology because the idea that the earth was in the center fit in so well with the way everyone thought about God, humanity, and the cosmos.

     Sometimes, the paradigm just shifts.

     LikeLike

187. I saw this recently on Jesus Creed:
     http://www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed/2010/08/23/elders-for-men-only/

     “The phrase, a one woman man, is however an idiom, and there are dangers in applying it too literally. Because it is an idiomatic expression, many people have had difficulty explaining and applying its meaning in the context of contemporary Western church culture; a culture that is vastly different from first century church culture.”

     LikeLike

188. I believe Michael Bell has referred to egalitarianism as a way of relating to the modern culture because he sees complementarianism as a throttle on acceptance of the gospel by non-Christians. Certainly there were those in my faith who rejoiced when the SBC put submission front and center in their convention one year. Why rejoice? Because it made it less likely we would lose people (especially women) to the SBC.

     And yet it seems complementarian sects are doing very well. SO perhaps this concern is unfounded.

     LikeLike

189. I don’t think so. I believe the “household codes” in the NT, a form borrowed from the surrounding Greco-Roman culture, were designed to serve two purposes: (1) to encourage Christians to live in ways that those in the culture around them would respect, and (2) to infuse those household codes with new redemptive elements that would ultimately transform not only the individuals addressed, but also the nature of the relational structures of society.

     For example, in Greco-Roman household codes, it was typically only the person “under authority” that was addressed, and this was designed to promote the status quo social order. However, in the NT, the person “in authority” is also addressed and instructed to act in such a way that the nature of the relationship will be completely changed if lived out. This is why the book of Philemon is such an important document about relationships in the NT. If Philemon truly takes Paul’s message to heart, and treats Onesimus (a slave) as his brother, then the whole notion of slavery comes into question.

     Similarly, in the relationship between husband and wife, if the husband truly loves his wife and lays down his life for her, all notion of “authority” in our human understanding of that word gets turned on its head.

     LikeLike

190. agreed. my point exactly.

     LikeLike

191. I’m going to look like I’m talking out of both sides of my mouth now. While I think that the most adequate interpretation scripture dealing with church leadership is egalitarian. Ephesians 5:22ff seems to take an almost opposing view of gender role (actually responsibility) within the context of marriage. This creates an obvious tension. I have chosen to simply live with that tension (which I realize would be more difficult if I were a woman).
     Am I the only one that sees it this way or do most of you fall the same way on leadership in church and marriage relationships.
     I’m stepping away from the computer for the night so I won’t be around to elaborate (sorry) or for the discussion, if there is one.
     Sorry to pull the pin on that grenade and run.

     LikeLike

192. Not in the Eastern rites. I believe there are at least one or two, possibly more that do allow married priests. Remember, Catholics encompass more than just the Latin Rite.

     One reason why I almost fell off my chair when I heard a speaker on Catholic radio saying that the fullness of the Truth is found only in the Roman Catholic church. I’m pretty sure some Melkites (Syrio-Malabars, Byzantines…) would take objection to that!

     LikeLike

193. God is called our Helper in the OT. He most definitely is not our assistant.

     LikeLike

194. “2. The word “helper,” which is used to describe who Eve was created to be for Adam, does not indicate submission but a full complementary role with man (Gen 2.18). It does not imply in any way that the woman was created to be man’s “assistant,” but rather his full partner.”

     Isn’t the same hebrew word “helper” used in reference to the Holy Spirit. That would certainly indicate that there is nothing second class here.

     LikeLike

195. There are two passages in which Paul justifies his hierarchal assignment of the sexes that sound like general principles, but I believe are deeply flawed.

     “For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man” (1 Corinthians 11:7-9 ESV).

     “For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner” (1 Timothy 2:13-14 ESV).

     I believe that he is basing his understanding on the Pentateuch, given his use of words like “created” and “deceived,” referred to the accounts in what we today call Genesis. Paul, being very limited in his understanding of the world, was wrong. He had only the primordial accounts found in the Pentateuch and lacked the scientific understanding that we currently enjoy. He exhibits much of the same dangerous ignorance that characterizes fundamentalists today.

     I enjoy reading what Paul wrote, but I’m not blind to the reality that he was a man of his time and not necessarily of our own.

     LikeLike

196. Allen, you are dealing on the level of application and implementation. And I agree that modern church organization blurs a lot of roles.

     However, I think we should start with good biblical theology and go from there.

     LikeLike

197. I do take this objection seriously, and in fact, find it to be one of the most persuasive against the view I take. However, in the end I am a Protestant, and base my final position on Scripture. Luther and the other reformers likewise bucked tradition in the matter of marriage for priests. There are also streams of tradition, though certainly not as strong as the majority consensus, which have supported women in various types of ministry, including preaching and teaching.

     LikeLike

198. This is an important theological debate with vast implications for ministry. The fact that biblically-grounded evangelical scholars have come to differing conclusions on this question doesn’t mean the differences don’t matter or shouldn’t be seriously engaged, but that there’s room for more than one position within the boundaries of historic Christian orthodoxy.

     My concern has to do with the rising phenomenon of “gospel-centered” church networks that appear to have elevated complementarianism to a core issue of Gospel adherence to the exclusion of egalitarians.

     http://thecommonloon.blogspot.com/2010/09/can-egalitarians-be-gospel-centered-too.html

     LikeLike

199. Given Paul’s recommendation that those who want to serve the Lord might well consider staying single (1Cor 7), I don’t think “husband of one wife” should be taken as a universal qualification for church leadership.

     LikeLike

200. I agree with JD. And what he says is basically how I would answer the question. The full implementation of the NT vision of a people of equality has not yet been seen. Note that Paul still addresses slaves as slaves too. This does not mean he would endorse slavery. The fact that he addresses men as potential church leaders in a patriarchal society doesn’t mean he would exclusively endorse that either.

     LikeLike

201. There does seem to be some inconsistency here in IM land. From my few weeks here, we seem to be good appealing to hundreds of years of tradition for upholding deliberate liturgy in service and hymns and not getting onto “the next big thing” program bandwagon.

     But then turn around and ignore the teaching and experience of the the church for most of history on this issue.

     Just saying, if you’re going to apply a hermenutic, do it consistantly.

     LikeLike

202. And just, you know, to give an example of the continuing institutional misogyny of the Roman Catholic Church, here’s a link to a report of one of Pope Benedict XVI’s recent General Audiences, where in his continuing series of talks on Great Saints, he discusses St. Hildegard of Bingen:

     http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2010/09/on-women-and-renewal.html

     ‘Cos you know, if women can’t be ordained, it means they are being oppressed and kept down, just like Hildegard was 😉

     LikeLike

203. No nastyness noted Pete. Just concerned that I hadn’t communicated effectively. While I disagree with your assertion, I also value the dialogue.

     LikeLike

204. My biggest confusion rests with the question “What is a priest/pastor/deacon/elder?” Especially in the evangelical world, the roles have changed so much, even during my lifetime, that I can not debate the gender role issue.

     So, for me, the gender role issue is a moot point until ordination reflects better historical Christianity.

     LikeLike

205. Not necessarily 🙂

     Clerical celibacy is a matter of discipline. There were married clergy in the early Church, and the current teaching (which I tend to agree with) is a rule, if you like, rather than a belief. There are also cases of married men who have been ordained to the priesthood after conversion to Catholicism, so there are legitimate exceptions.

     As also with the permanent diaconate, which is one of the three orders, where married men can be ordained.

     For the excerpt from St. Paul, my personal opinion on it is that it means what it says: one wife. No divorced and remarried while your spouse is still alive, no remarriage after death of spouse (although that one is debatable), no shacked up with your mistress (why, hello, St. Augustine, yes this means you!) and certainly no polygamy or hanging around with ladies of the night.

     Now, on women in the priesthood – which is one of the big sticks that Catholics get beaten with – I used to pout but accept the teaching when younger. Now that I’m older, I still accept it but have become more comfortable with it, for some reason. It’s not that I find some of the apologetics regarding it as all that convincing – the ‘priest as alter Christus means that the priest must be male’ but I trust the wisdom of Holy Mother Church to know better than me.

     LikeLike

206. Please don’t read any nastyness, only healthy debate.

     LikeLike

207. I don’t think Paul is addressing gender. He is addressing qualifications for leadership in the church. So anything taken from the text about gender would have to be inferred.

     LikeLike

208. Again, what Paul says about GENDER seems rather explicit.

     LikeLike

209. That might pose quite a problem for our Catholic friends.

     LikeLike

210. If it is explicit, this would exclude a single man. Correct?

     LikeLike

211. Matt,

     What Paul says about gender seems rather explicit. I don’t see an inference, ridiculous or otherwise.

     Dave

     LikeLike

212. Matt,

     While Paul takes for granted perhaps that anyone aspiring to oversight would be a man, it would be quite ridiculous to infer that because Paul insists that a leader must be husband of one wife he was implying that only men could apply. It’s clear from the context that being ‘husband of one wife’ is a part of a general repertoire of moral virtues that the person must possess. It most naturally implies not being polygamous, i.e. being exclusively devoted to a single partner, which is representative of the exclusive commitment to one’s ministry in the church.

     Again, living in a patriarchal society as he was, it probably never occurred to Paul that women might desire the episcopacy, but I don’t see anything ‘clear as crystal’ about gender roles in this verse.

     LikeLike

213. “This”, not “his”
     sorry

     LikeLike

214. his translation of verse 11 is also more consistent with the NT examples provided by Chaplain Mike.

     LikeLike

215. +1

     Engage in the conversation at Equality Central:

     http://equalitycentral.com/forum/index.php

     Also, read Dr. Philip B. Payne’s recent scholarly book on the subject, MAN AND WOMAN, ONE IN CHRIST: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters at pbpayne dot com

     LikeLike

216. Here is some excellent reading on the subject.
     http://www.theologymatters.com/baileykenneth.cfm
     Dr. Baily’s books and articles are some of the best at reading scripture through a 1st century middle-eastern lens.

     LikeLike

217. It is addressing marriage. Specifically restricting plural marriage from leadership. Verse eleven says (in NIV) “In the same way, their wives…” A more literal translation is “the women” instead of “their wives. This is referring to women Deacons. If I remember correctly, the old RSV translated it this way. Don’t have one on hand.

     I know a guy that was restricted form leadership from his church purely because he had never married, therefore he was not “husband of one wife”.

     LikeLike

218. I don’t particularly have an opinion on this issue, to be honest. I personally have no problem (or at least very little problem) with women in ordained ministry. That said, with the possible exception of some vague statements in Paul’s greetings, the Great Tradition doesn’t seem to have ever ordained women to the episcopate or presbytery. That continued after the split of East and West at least until the time of the Reformation (though it should be noted that in the East women were ordained to the deaconate for the first 900 years or so).

     What do we do with that historic reality? I.e. what sort of weight does 1500+ years or so of Church practice have on this issue?

     Perhaps something that should be discussed as part of the issue is what we understand ordained ministry to be. I think for some traditions (e.g. Catholic & Orthodox) that’s a big part of their reasoning.

     My diocese does not ordain women to the priesthood and my Province of Anglicanism does not ordain women to the episcopacy. I honestly do not know their reasoning. My priest has explained his personal reasoning behind his opinion, however.

     LikeLike

219. Dave,

     The million dollar question. I hope to see a good answer. All I have ever gotten is hermeneutical gymnastics. It seems as crystal clear as Jesus is Lord- “Elders have to be husbands of one wife.” OR “a one woman man.”

     Clear as crystal, or is there something clearer than crystal?

     LikeLike

220. Really nice post, Chaplain Mike. I strongly second the vote for McKnight’s book.

     LikeLike

221. Thank you.

     I wish I had heard about this view of scripture when I first became a believer. Instead, I learned about the submission thing which conflicted with my personal beliefs and the leadership things I felt gifted by God and well suited to.

     The result was that I lived two lives: a secular one where I taught and led and was respected and had some authority, and a church one, where I was expected to be quiet, wait for a good man to want to marry me, so I could forgo my ambition and talents and exercise my authority over my children (until the boys became young men and then I couldn’t anymore).

     The position did not make any sense, but I bought it hook-line-and-sinker, and didn’t research it enough to know that there were alternative ways to look at Scripture that could reconcile all these things together.

     I so appreciate this community, where there are people who think like I always did, but was afraid to admit out loud, because nobody in my church seemed to think like me.

     LikeLike

222. Interesting take on this topic?

     What do you do with 1 Timothy 3 — “husband of one wife?”

     Dave

     LikeLike