The most common understanding of both Complementarianism and Egalitarianism goes something like this:
Complementarians: Do not let women be pastors over men.
Egalitarians: Do let women be pastors over men.
or…
Complementarians: The husband is the leader of the family.
Egalitarians: The husband and wife co-lead the family, with no priority.
or…
Complementarians: Wives submit to your husbands.
Egalitarians: Husbands and wives are to practice mutual submission.
While I think that these are characteristics of both groups, they are not foundational characteristics that define each group. In other words, I don’t think that they are helpful in defining what it means to be a complementarian or egalitarian and they serve to cause a great deal of misunderstanding that leads to emotional bias that is very difficult to overcome once set.
In fact, I am going to say something very radical here and then explain. Here it goes:
It is possible to be a complementarian and believe that a women can serve in the position of head pastor over men.
Did you get that? Reread it. Reread it again…
Complementarianism is not first defined by it view of the roles of men and women in the church, family, or society.
Here is what Complementarianism is:
Complementarianism is the belief that men and women have God given differences that are essential to their person. Men and women are ontologically (in their essential nature) equal, but often, functionally, take subordinate roles (like the Trinity). These differences complete or “complement” each other. Due to these differences, there will be some things that women are predisposed and purposed to do more than men. As well, there will be some things that men are predisposed and purposed to do more than women. Therefore, there are ideal roles for both men and women that should be celebrated, exemplified, typified, and promoted in the church, family, and society. To deny these differences is to deny the design of God and thwart his purpose.
Here is what Egalitarianism is:
The belief that God has created men and women equal in all things. Men and women are ontologically and functionally equal. The way the sexes function in the church, society, and the family is determined by individual giftedness, not role distinctions according to the sexes. Therefore, each person should be judged individually when being placed in a particular position. We should exemplify this reality by overcoming the stereotypical placement that has traditionally been a part of societies in human history, thereby giving freedom to individuals to follow the path that God has uniquely created them for, whatever that may be. In doing so, we should no longer educate or indoctrinate according to any of the former stereotypes, including those of basic masculinity and femininity.
These, in my opinion, are the foundational tenants of each position without giving examples on how this plays out in the family, the church, or society.
The case I am making here is that in order to be a consistent egalitarian, one must deny virtually all differences that typify men as men and women as women. It is not just about getting women behind the pulpit or the concept of mutual submission in the family. It is much more complex and, in my estimation, more difficult to defend with sensibility.
I had a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary who was an Egalitarian (he left because of this—I won’t mention his name). I loved this guy. Still do. Great teacher, thinker, and Christian. In fact, I had him come speak to our pastoral staff at Stonebriar to challenge us on why he became egalitarian and to defend his position. I wanted the staff to understand the “other side” from a very able defender. During his presentation, he painted himself into this very typical corner that I find most all egalitarians end up.
He was advocating a foundational principle of egalitarianism: there are no essential differences between men and women other than reproductive stuff. We were all quite taken aback. Every example we brought up, he shot down by giving a counter-example in the form of an exception. His basic argument turned on finding exceptions to everything. Whether it was that men were less emotional, more aggressive, more one tracked in their thinking, less tender, more competitive, unable to nurture as well as women, or even liked the color blue more, he brought up exceptions that he believed neutralized the “pattern”. Finally, I thought I had him. I said “What about physicality? Men are stronger than women.” He would have none of that. He then brought up examples of German women who were stronger than men! We could not stump the guy!
The problem is that in order to defend egalitarianism consistently, he had to deny all of the common sense distinctions that people have made about men and women since the dawn of time. I won’t get into the science or psychology of this issue as there are many very good resources that do this. To me, it is rather bizarre that one would actually be inclined to produce evidence to prove that men and women are different!
I am of the opinion that many egalitarians would have been appalled by Peter who said that women are the weaker of the sexes (1 Pet. 3:7) siting every exception to this rule and bemoaning this stereotype until Peter cried “uncle.”
Complementarianism says that men and women are different by design. We are different and God did it. It is that simple.
However, most people would not be willing to go as far as my former professor. They realize that sustaining a proposition that men and women have no essential differences is a battle that cannot really be sustained in real life (only theoretical ideology). Men and women are different. Even most egalitarians that I know would give me this. Hear this again. Most egalitarians that I know would admit, when push comes to shove, that there are some essential differences between men and women. Most would even say that there are essential differences that go beyond reproduction and physicality. But I would argue that these people are not really egalitarians, at least in the way I have defined it. They would be complementarians because they would have given up what I believe to be a central driving tenant of egalitarianism and embraced the central tenant of complementarianism: men and women are different by design and their differences complement each other.
Now, having said this, I believe that it is theoretically possible to be a complementarian and yet not take a traditional complementarian stand on the issue of women in ministry. In other words, someone could believe that men and women are different by design yet not think that these differences have any bearing on women in leadership in the church. They may be convinced that the Bible does not really teach that women should not teach men, and yet be complementarian in other issues and, broadly, in their theology of the sexes.
I am interested and committed to complementarianism for more than just the women in ministry issue. This is just one application. But (and here is where I get in trouble with fellow complementarians), I don’t think that it is the most important issue in this debate. Neither do I think that it is the most “damaging” issue.
You see, when people are truly committed and consistent egalitarians, they have to defend their denial of essential differences. In doing so, they will advocate a education system in the home, church, and society which neutralizes any assumption of differences between the sexes. In doing so, men will not be trained to be “men” since there is really no such thing. Women will not be encouraged to be “women” since there is no such thing. The assumption of differences becomes a way to oppress society and marginalize, in their estimation, one sex for the benefit of the other. Once we neutralize these differences, we will have neutered society and the family due to a denial of God’s design in favor of some misguided attempt to promote a form of equality that is neither possible nor beneficial to either sex.
We will have troubled men and women groping to find their way and feeling pressured to repress their instincts and giftedness. We will no longer be able to train up men and women in the “way” they should go since there is no “way” they should go. Women can act masculine and men can be feminine. Men can retreat in the face of responsibility because, in truth, they don’t have any “responsibility” other than the one that they choose. This is to say nothing of the implications this has on the issues of homosexuality and gay marriage.
But in a complementarian worldview (even one that allows women to teach men in the church), men are taught to be men and women are taught to be women. They both have defining characteristics. Masculinity and femininity find their place and are exemplified and celebrated. Men protect women from physical danger and take their positions of leadership seriously, without trepidation or fear that they will be seen as power mongers. And women support this. Women take up their positions of nurturing and supporting the emotional well-being of the world. And men support it. No role distinction is seen as inferior because in a complementarian worldview both are seen as essential and of equal importance. Only in complementarianism do we not define the rule by the exceptions and bow to the least common denominator. Only in the complementarian worldview, in my opinion, can freedom to be who we are supposed to be find meaning.
The true spirit of complementarianism is that God has intentionally created men and women with differences and we are to celebrate this in every way. The true spirit of complementarianism is never domineering (that is a sinful corruption). The true spirit of complementarianism provides no shame only freedom. The true spirit of complementarianism speaks to God in appreciation.
When we attempt to neuter this design, we have lost much more than authority in the pulpit.
Complementarians, while I believe that the Bible teaches the ideal that women should not have authority over men in the church, let us promote the true spirit of complementarianism then simply defending its particular applications.
637 replies to "What Complementarianism is Really all About"
Michael:
Howdy Doody!!
My disagreement with Hodge isn’t regarding the meaning(s) of the verb(s), and I also concede/agree that epitrepô in 1 Tim 2:12 could be viewed as a 2nd-person command with a surface structure of an indicative verb that seems to simply make a statement. My primary problem is that I don’t think the examples he gives of comparable verses to support his statement are in fact truly comparable/equivalent examples.
Another possibility for the “for” clause is Paul is doing a mapping. He is mapping Adam to the 2 disfellowshipped men (as they all deliberately sinned), and himself, Eve and the woman/women at Ephesus together (as they were all decieved and sinned, yet could be redeemed by hearing the truth).
Don,
Those are two of the most innovative approaches to a passage of Scripture that I have ever read!
Michael, believe it or not, but my graduate work was in Greek. That is what I am most formally trained in. Studied with Dan Wallace and Hall Harris III. One of the things that I have found is that, while emmesily helpful sometimes, it can turn into a type of “over-exegesis” and wrangling about words. I used to get into such debates all the time, especially with syntatical nuances until I realized that one can push the author way too far and make him say just about anything with and sound like you know what you are talking about. Normally it does not really prove anything much.
(Not to say anything about the current conversation as I have not been watching. But that was the case, in my opinion, in the last post between some people…I think it was Sue.)
So, If I understand correctly…and I probably don’t but complementarians believe that women normally/generally are not qualified/gifted to lead…by design? Now, when there is a female with leadership gifts and talents, she is regarded as an exception, a sort of fluke and she is, being a qualified woman, allowed to lead in study, worship,etc? However, if there is a mediocre male leader available, the position falls to him and the more qualified female becomes an alternate….unless the church finds another mediocre male to be the alternate? Boy, I know I sound sarcastic but I am seriously asking. In other words, here she stands with all her intelligence and gift of biblical applications and interpretations and communicating and here he stands, terrible grammar and talks in circles with a monotone voice but he knows applications as well, is it a no brainer? Comps will go with this guy? Is it,”We’ll let her teach if we can’t find a guy to volunteer?
Now that said or asked, one of my pastors said something to me recently when I was talking about my church and the giftedness there and how I was concerned I might moan and groan if God called me to relocate to another church. He said,”Remember church is for worship. It’s not about how gifted the speaker is or how entertaining he is. We come together to worship.”
So maybe if we get stuck with a speaker that does not convey the message as well as a more qualified female, that’s OK. Because it’s about worshipping our Creator! Yes, no? Moses, he must have been a nightmare …like a broken record! And yet, God expected the people to listen to Moses. So qualifications mean nothing…perhaps? Other than knowing scripture and knowing God and being spirit led. But you can be boring and lead.
Forgive me Rebecca, but I need to correct a misunderstanding.
You said:
“So, If I understand correctly…and I probably don’t but complementarians believe that women normally/generally are not qualified/gifted to lead…by design?”
This is not my argument. I would say that complementarians are not innately qualified for certian types of leadership. The Bible does not exclude all types. There are many many things that a complementarian would believe that I women would be better, because in particular areas they are more skilled and able.
Again, complementarianism simply says that BOTH sexes are uniquely qualified for different things. As well, complementarians, more often than not, would say that individual giftedness is the guide. The two main areas that people have problems with women leadership is in the pastorate over men (btw: I do, like Dr. Harold Hoenher and Aubrey Malphers, believe that women can be pastors and ordained—just not over men) and in the home between husband and a wife.
That is why, in my last post, I was intent on illustrating how there are certian areas in which men will command more respect and a following. But this does not exend to all areas by any means.
That is what this blog post is about.
it can turn into a type of “over-exegesis” and wrangling about words.
Michael,
This appears to be a slur against me. I claim that there are no occurences of authenteo which can be construed as “to lead in church.” Nobody is prepared to offer one. Its that simple.
If you studied Greek with Dan Wallace you probably know this already and have long ago abandoned any attempt at defending the “women may not lead in church” from exegesis and have decided to “assume”it is correct anyway, and then you seek to focus the discussion elsewhere.
Instead you claim that men and women are “complementary”. As a linguist you know that complementary means “non-overlapping distribution.” There is only one way that humans are complementary, and that is in their reproductive capacity.
All other differences, although there are many, are not absolute or essential, since the sexes share all other abilities and attributes to a varying degree.
Name one thing that an individual woman can do other than bear a child, that an individual man could not do, or vice versa.
Men and women are not identical but our abilities overlap for the most part.
In seminary, what is it that women can do and men not, or vice versa?
Joe Horn: “When we look honestly at the evidence, it overwhelmingly favors the complementarian position. People may not like that or think that it makes them uncomfortable with what the Bible teaches. But isn’t at least part of the point of the Bible to cut cross-grain with our natural or cultural assumptions? Why should we in the West assume that our cultural presuppositions (about what biblical equality means, for example) will never be opposed by the biblical text?”
Well said, Joe!!
He who has ears to hear…
They who want their ears tickled… won’t like to hear what Joe’s saying.
I was speaking with regards to women leading and teaching men as well as other women. Guess I didn’t make that clear. So considering that, do I have the understanding of comps correct? They do not believe that even tho she might be the best qualified, only men should teach and lead other men? The exception is when there are no other men to lead? Then she may teach? Tryig to dumb it down here. I’m not blond but I am female…OK that was just a joke. Come on, have a sense of humor!
Sue, believe me. It is not just you.
I have ears and they’re not ticklish.
Rebbecca, not really. Some, yes. Me, no. I am what you might call a “soft-complementarian” or an “evangelical-complementarian.” I believe that there are times and cultures where all the men are drifting and don’t take responsibility (like in the book of Judges). At these times, I think that women must lead. As well, I do think that there are individual times when there are simply no able men available.
But when all things are ideal and we are functioning the way we are supposed to, I know that there will be plenty of men available and plenty of women available to do what they are meant to do. As well, they will be encouraged to do so.
They only time it is a sin for a women is when they are, out of personal ambition, attempting to usurp the the authority from men in these particular positions.
It is never a sin when there are simply no men available and women serve as the Deborahs of the world. As well, it is never a sin, in my opinion, when we have women educators, writers, teachers, bloggers in academic settings since the type of authority that Paul is exhorting in Tim is not directly related (i.e. a teacher-shepherd).
As you can see, I take somewhat of an idealic interpretation of Paul’s prohibition against women teaching in the church. In other words, I don’t think Paul is saying that there will never be exceptions. And I think the exceptions are well illustrated both in the Bible and in history.
This is why we need to train people well and encourage them in a complementarian worldview. The more we fail, the more the society will suffer and mirror the situation in Judges.
Help me understand again, comps do what with women that are the exception and have the gifts to lead men? If it’s a no go, it’s a no go. As I previously said one of my pastors told me, it has nothing to do with gifts by either male or female…church is about worship. So if we leave gifts out of the equation, in the matter of leading and teaching males, male trumps female. Right?
Hodge –
“3. After the Fall, the woman will find her way back to redemption through childbirth, i.e., her role.”
What do you mean by “find her way back to redemption”?
A woman’s role redeems her? A woman’s role doesn’t redeem her, but she cannot be redeemed if she is not fulfilling a particular role?
I don’t understand.
Rebbecca, I don’t know how to explain it any better than I just did. I am sorry. 🙁
“I have ears and they’re not ticklish.”
Mine are 🙁 And Kristie does not care.
Sue, I actually have something else in mind when I speak about this. It was a big deal at one point in my training. We actually had a prof who continually warned against “over-exegesis” and how this become a danger of Greek (much more than Hebrew) since it has some many nuances that it can take.
I could give you some illustrations, but it would very much offend someone that I am very close to. All that to say, you would not serve as the primary illustration when I talk about this 🙂
Michael, really? Does that mean when I explain it my way, it’s wrong or you don’t get it? A counselor told me once I have the ability to simplify matters…or he said I was a simpleton…can’t remember which.
LOL Rebbecca. All it means is that to respond, all I know to do is repeat what I did in my last response.
Oh also, to all:
I remember reading a comment earlier today where someone thought I was speaking down to them when I said something like “Even though you are an egalitarian, you can respect the rules of this blog.” I may have forgot to place the 🙂 after it. It was tounge in cheek. Sorry I did not make that clear and if it offended you (whoever it was).
Well, Michael, if that’s all you can do, then that’s all you can do. It’s not like you won’t get to lead anymore!
Michael T.
I will frankly admit that I do not know what some of the Bible means. It was really driven home to me when we did a blog party on Psalm 68. There are 13 words in that psalm for which we have no meaning.
Regarding authenteo, the complementarian scholary position as I understand it from Kostenberger is this, —
1. There are only one or two other occurences of authenteo in the same time period as the NT. The one we are sure of occurs in a hostile environment.
2. Other time periods are ruled out.
3. Since there are so few occurences, we can assume that we don’t really know what the word means from lexical studies.
4. Therefore we are free to reconstruct the meaning of the word from syntactical or grammatical studies.
5. From context we know that it means that “women cannot lead in church,” so that is what it means. —
This, however, directly contradicts the only other two translation traditions.
Jerome translated it as dominari “to dominate” or “be the master.” And Erasmus translated it into Latin as “autoritatem usurpare” from which we get the KJV – to usurp authority and Tyndale got “to have authority.”
That’s about it. There are very few words which are doctrinally important that we know so little about. The only other one that comes to mind is in Gen. 3:16, that a woman shall ______ her husband.
So the meaning of these two verses 1 Tim. 2:12 and Gen. 3:16 is dependent on human interpretation.
Therefore, when women are told that they are not to lead in church, or that they desire to control their husband or whatever – this is the voice of a human speaking. I too am human. But I don’t want to indoctrinate anyone into their own subordination.
“I have never understood the part about her being redeemed through childbirth. There is certainly more to her role in life from the time of creation on then child bearing, after all. That is a statement that makes no sence to me at all. Not all women are even able to have children and no one is saved by something that they do–like have a baby.”
Well, Paul does couple it with faith, love and sobriety, so it’s not just motherhood alone. Not all women are able to have children, but all women can be mothers. I believe the fulfillment of this is both literal and spiritual, and can be spiritual alone if the physical is lacking due to a decision made by God.
Eric, I understand your point, but I think the construction here is unusual, so there aren’t any other exact parallels to it. Instead, since we know that Paul argues according to the pattern of his ministry and that he uses non-imperatival verbs to express volition, I wouldn’t take this as a possible expressive statement with no volition. Quinn and Wacker, who are no friends to the comp position, also note the uses of epitrepo as instructive in both the NT and early Patristic literature (200).
Actually, the text more likely says that the woman was deceived by/in transgression (i.e., the stepping over of boundaries set for her). So I would once again state that this does not refer to the postlapsarian condition or curse. However, my point wasn’t that she did not come into transgression, but that Paul’s argument begins before and stops at the point that she does. He does not make use of the curse of the Fall itself. The Fall instead is a result of the woman being deceived (and I would argue having stepped over the boundaries set for her).
I deal with the childbearing issue in my book. It is not likely, for a few reasons, that the childbearing refers to Christ.
Don,
“My reading is that there were men and women at Ephesus involved in the false teaching. 2 men were kicked out of church, some men were fighting and some women were showing off.”
Then why the prohibition of women over men? Once again, the definite article would be needed here. AND why in the world does he give the reasons that he does? Why not say, “Because this woman is teaching heresy and is deceived like Eve? And who is the “they” who will be saved if they continue in faith and love and sobriety? His argument is a priority argument, which means he intends it to be universal. Otherwise, there would not be an appeal to creation (Cf. the author of Jubilees, Jesus, Paul in 1 Cor 11, etc.).
The statement of childbearing is a connection to Gen 1-3 as well, not the pagan cult. Been reading Kroeger?
The problem with assigning a background to a text is that Ephesian culture is almost as diverse as American culture. If you want to bend a Scripture to your liking, you only need to pick which element in the culture you want to use in order to do it. The point is that if this were a cultural and specific command, the appeal to creation, a priority argument, would not have been made.
Sue, I answered this in 203 and 269 of the other thread. Maybe you missed it because it was pending authorization. 🙂
[…] Patton has taken it upon himself to define both complementarianism and egalitarianism and I think he gets it almost completely wrong. Now I must note that I really like reading Michael […]
Hodge wrote:
Actually, the text more likely says that the woman was deceived by/in transgression (i.e., the stepping over of boundaries set for her).
So, you would translate 2:14 as:
“And Adam was not deceived, but the woman has come to be deceived in transgression.”
Would it be normal to couple a perfect active indicative verb with an aorist passive participle to indicate a state? Wouldn’t it be more likely for him to have used the perfect passive participle of exapataô with a form of eimi instead of using an aorist passive in combination with gegonen?
If what you write is what Paul wanted to say, wouldn’t he instead have written:
kai Adam ouk êpatêthê, hê de gunê exêpatêthê en parabasei
“And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived in/by transgression”
and omitted the gegonen at the end?
Your suggestion seems awkward to me. Which commentators translate it that way, or which translations render it that way?
Hodge,
Please, as somebody said on another thread, telling us that you discuss an issue in your book is really no help to us here. It doesn’t give us a clue what you think about the issue. And I am sorry if this offends you, but it starts to sound like an advertisement for your book.
BTW, to comment on the over-exegeting: I do think that there are good linguistics that can be applied to grammatical and syntactical study. I too have had profs that find something in every grammatical detail, but I have been attempting to show what is what by how it is used. There are rules from usage. They may be able to go in three different ways, but not the fourth way, and that is when they become helpful. The same goes for lexicography. I really don’t know if authenteo is meant to mean “absolute authority” in order to contrast it with submission (i.e., no authority), or “to have authority,” or “to strive for authority” etc. But I do know what it does not mean in and of itself from its uses. So I agree with Michael to some degree, but obviously, as one who uses a lot of exegesis, I also think it’s more cut and dry than many may think. I remember thinking that the Greek could mean anything when I first started learning it and took my first exegesis class, but once I took Advanced Greek Grammar with Carson, and started really looking at uses, I realized it’s not so open. A little Greek gave me the illusion that it could mean numerous things. A lot of Greek and linguistics gave me the understanding that the context and other elements within a text bind the meaning more than I had previously thought. I guess that’s why profs always refer to those who know some Greek as those who know enough to be dangerous. 😉
Eric,
The construction is awkward as it is. Most translations, and commentators, don’t translate it as it stands.
I actually think mine is least awkward and closer to what is said:
Having been deceived by having been in transgression (if you want the old translation of the Perfect).
“Wouldn’t it be more likely for him to have used the perfect passive participle of exapataô with a form of eimi instead of using an aorist passive in combination with gegonen?”
No, because the perfect part. almost always conveys an antecedent, and my interpretation is that the deception follows the stepping over the boundaries. And a perfect part with an eimi verb is used often to create periphrastic part.
I would look at John 12:49 for an Aor Part and a Perfect Act Ind that shows the first action following the second. The Father sent (Aor Part) having given (Perf Act Ind) commandment. Now, this isn’t a passive, and it may be disputed that the commandment is given before the sending, but I think John 17:4 might offer a solution there.
To me, this makes sense. Eve’s stepping over the boundaries led to further chaos in deception, but she will be restored by returning to those boundaries in her submissive role as mother.
I admit that it’s extremely difficult for everyone. It could be that I can’t do this with the Greek. Since I don’t have an exact parallel for you, it may be that I can’t. I can’t verify it right now, as I’ve not studied this particular clause in detail, and my Gramcord is not cooperating at the moment. 🙂 Of course, I’m not willing to die over it. My point is simply that the curse of the Fall is not apart of Paul’s argument. The deception that either is a result of the stepping over boundaries or resulted in stepping over boudaries. Either way the emphasis is on the woman being deceived, the man not being deceived, and the chaos that ensued because the woman took the lead and the man followed.
Hodge says:
“The Fall instead is a result of the woman being deceived (and I would argue having stepped over the boundaries set for her).”
But couldn’t have the Fall been immediately stopped had the man stepped up to the plate and done what he should have, and said to the woman “No, this is a total disobedience of God”?
Yet he did not, but blamed the woman instead. Did God accept that excuse? We all know that He didn’t. Seems to me that you want to fall upon NT exegesis using OT principles, saying that Adam had no choice when in fact he did.
That blows the whole complementarism argument right there as far I’m concerned, because as you are arguing it, it absolves the man completely.
But Cherylu, all of your problems would magically disappear if you would just read it. 🙂
mbaker,
I’m lost. I never said Adam didn’t have any choice. My point was that it’s primarily his fault for not taking the lead. He shunned his role. The woman stepped up to the plate. She was deceived. He wasn’t. But he followed her lead anyway. I don’t see where we disagree.
Hodge,
I guess those comments were held back. I did not see them. Let me address them,
1. “And I don’t know how many times I have to say this, but 1 Tim 2:12 is the case of the positive meaning in our time period;”
Okay, I don’t know what to say. I have never seen anyone make this argument before. Aren’t we trying to figure out what it means, rather than assuming what it means.
2. “The reason why people dispute this passage, and ironically it is usually cited as a support for the positive view of authenteo, is because kamna has to be added in order for it to have the connotation of coercion. I’m not sure why it’s translated “I domineer.” Is that your’s or Grudem’s or Payne’s? It should be “building authority.” In fact, I would translate it “building a rapport (lit. building authority) with him.”
I translated it “domineer”, but I think “force” makes more sense given the tone of the rest of the letter. I put in the question mark to indicate that it was just a filler word.
There was hostility, and the author of the letter made the other guy arrange for the transport of the cattle, within the hour! This does not sound like a rapport building exercise. Can you cite anyone at all that thinks that this letter is about building rapport, rather than about a disagreement between two men in a financial transaction.
Anyway, Payne and Grudem agree on “compel” on page 680 of Ev. Fem Biblical Faith. Can you cite someone who suggests “building rapport?”
I will proceed with Philodemus in my next comment.
Hodge to answer your question, you seem to be making it more a matter of what side we fall upon regarding the larparsian arguments. To wit:
“Actually, the text more likely says that the woman was deceived by/in transgression (i.e., the stepping over of boundaries set for her). So I would once again state that this does not refer to the postlapsarian condition or curse. However, my point wasn’t that she did not come into transgression, but that Paul’s argument begins before and stops at the point that she does. He does not make use of the curse of the Fall itself. The Fall instead is a result of the woman being deceived (and I would argue having stepped over the boundaries set for her).”
I’m not exactly clear on what you mean by that. Perhaps you could clarify it for the rest of us.
Hodge,
BGU 1208 is cited as a negative use of authenteo because it is followed by pros,
καὶ ἐμοῦ αὐθεντηκότος πρὸς αὐτὸν
So some people have ventured that maybe it is the use of “pros” that makes it negative. No one that I have ever heard of has suggested that it means something positive like “building rapport.” Have you read the letter?
Unless you cite someone on this, I will have to disregard it.
προς τους ἐπιφαν[εσ]τατους εχαστοτε διαμαχονται και συν αυθεντ[ου]σιν αν[αξιν]
“Ought we not to consider that men who incur the enmity of those in authority (συν αυθεντουσιν) are villains, and hated by both gods and men”
Hodge,
Here is the problem. You have somehow provided a translation for the citation which has nothing at all to do with the citation. The Greek that I have cited occurs in line 15 of the fragment, and the piece you refer to where it mentions “hated by both gods and men” occurs in line 35.
What it says is that “they fight every chance they get with authentousin lords.”
Who knows what the lords were like – but in any case we know they were lords only because we assume that the fragment can be reconstructed to say αναξιν. That is the word which is translated “lords.”
There does not seem to be any underlying Greek word which was translated as “those in authority.”
I really don’t think that this kind of citation can support a positive connotation.
Nowhere are church leaders to act as Greek or Roman lords. They are told not to lord it over their flock. They are told to be the servants, to be different from Greek lords, the opposite.
You mention that church members were told to obey. There is a good argument that πείθω (passive) means to trust in Hebrews 13:17.
PS The two citations above for authenteo can be googled by writing
– philodemus fragment suzanne’s bookshelf
– bgu 1208 suzanne’s bookshelf
CMP–
My comment with regard to your POV is this: If we simply train INDIVIDUALS in the way the individual should go without first trying to figure out how a man VS how a woman “should go” we would end up, if YOU are correct, with women behaving like women SHOULD and men behaving like men SHOULD. But, if my POV is correct yet we FUNCTION as though your POV is correct we end up with all sorts of contrived ways men VS women “should go” that are in reality based on prejudice, culture, habit, and tradition. If we function according to my POV all the “exceptions” to the rule are covered and all the non-exceptions to the rule are covered because we take the time to look at individuals rather than stereo-types or some person’s best guess.
To answer directly the questions you said this post was meant to deal with:
“Do you believe that there are essential differences between men and women?”
Yes, I believe there are differences between men and women.
“Do you believe we should nurture and celebrate these essential differences or remain neutral to them?”
I believe we should nurture and celebrate these differences only to the degree that the individual reveals those differences.
“Do you believe that, many times, these essential differences will predispose one sex to be more qualified than another for certain jobs (and I am not saying “roles” here YET)?”
No, I do not think that these differences will predispose one sex to be more qualified than the other. I do believe one sex may bring certain qualifications while the other might bring other qualifications and that these differences when used together will get the job done at a higher quality.
Hodge:
While I think I now better understand your translation of 1 Tim 2:14, a problem I have with it is 2:15. Paul has said about the woman that:
2:13
she was formed after Adam,
2:14
a. she was deceived in/by her transgression (your translation), or
b. she is in a state of transgression after having been (or because she had been) deceived, and
2:15
she will be saved through childbirth or the birth of a/the child.
I think 2:15 best follows from 2:14 option b. – i.e., the customary translation – rather than your translation, for:
Woman does not need to be saved from being formed after Adam.
Woman does not need to be saved from having been deceived.
BUT…woman does need to be saved from being in a state of transgression, since the salvation procured by Christ is most often related to saving a person from their sins or trespasses or transgressions. Since I think most commentators reject treating “will be saved” as speaking strictly of the physical protection of being preserved or kept whole during the act of childbirth, then the salvation spoken of here refers to Christian salvation – which, as I said, is the remedy for persons who are lost or dead because of sins/trespasses/transgressions.
Minnow, so you are assuming some sort of gender neutrality from the part of the mentors? That is fine, but even most Christian Egals would not go there. You are being consistent though.
No more men’s conferences maybe to? Or womens? Because they assume too much about the masculinity and femininity which cannot assumed?
Peter’s statement about how men should treat women as the “weaker” sex is presumptive on his part?
I guess you can see where I am going with this and why your thoughts would seem very off to so many Christians. In a real sense it would seem to neuter society.
Whereas my proposal presumes that God created the sexes with unique gifts and abilities that must be recognized and nurtured preemptively. Not out of fear that they won’t eventually become boys or girls, but because we have a responsibility to disciple them in such a way as leaders.
Boy is this relevant in my house. We have two boys and two girls. If we did not presuppose and help shape their bents uniquely, we would be way behind. So would their school system, Sunday School class, and the like. We prepare them for the UNIQUE challenges that they will face as older teenage boys and girls. We prepare them for the unique opportunities that they will have as boys and girls. That is how a complementarian worldview leads.
We don’t force them into a mold, but we guide them down the path of wisdom where they will be able find their most potential.
However, I assume that you do many of the same things in practice.
“BUT…woman does need to be saved from being in a state of transgression, since the salvation procured by Christ is most often related to saving a person from their sins or trespasses or transgressions. Since I think most commentators reject treating “will be saved” as speaking strictly of the physical protection of being preserved or kept whole during the act of childbirth, then the salvation spoken of here refers to Christian salvation – which, as I said, is the remedy for persons who are lost or dead because of sins/trespasses/transgressions.”
Yeah, I think the contrast is with the transgression as well. I just see it differently. My point there is that the transgression is the stepping over the boundaries set in the roles. She will be saved (I think it is better here to take this as sanctification, which is the act of restoration) by taking up her role again. The woman being formed after the man is Argument 1. Argument 2 is in v. 14 and remedied in v. 15 when accompanied by faith, love and sobriety.
bethyada a problem that arises from your position is that if it can be shown that a particular woman has the specific qualifications that a man needs to teach, then she can teach.
Patton No, not really. The reason is because I would say that ideally the Bible teaches that men are always more qualified than women. See my last post about how men are more inclined toward the type of leadership that the pastorate/eldership requires and people respond better to men.
However, in situations where this is not the case (i.e. there are no qualified men or men simply are not stepping up), yes, a woman would have to step up. This is the case, I believe, in the book of Judges, where men are not doing their job.
I don’t think you quite addressed my point. I can cope with your example of Deborah. Rather I was addressing the claim that because you see characteristics first and role secondary, one could argue that even if qualified men are available, a woman could still claim she has particular characteristics that allow her to also fill the the role of elder; ie. she could acknowledge gender differences in general, but claim that she is confrontational (or whatever trait).
Bethyada Christ protects the church (or Yahweh protects Israel), men are therefore to protect their wives, therefore God gives protection qualities to men.
Kay You fail to take into consideration that all men are not physically able to do such a thing. Your illustration does a great injustice to our disabled, elderly or ill brothers in Christ. I can never imagine God setting up such a paradigm for failure for the men in that position. Imagine being a wheelchair bound husband hearing that as a sermon illustration?
It would be more accurate to say that God gives protection abilities to some men.
I was showing how role is primary. And this antedates the fall (God’s decision on what masculinity means). A broken world does not refute this.
But I think much still holds in a broken world: many men who are unable to protect may still have a desire to do so, which may make the disability harder to bear. But the desire is a large part of the characteristic.
Beth, no, this is not the case because in these circumstances when you have one qualified woman and one qualified man, the man will always be more qualified because of his innate characteristics which are a primary determining factor in the qualification process. Again, this is the point of my first post.
In other roles that lend themselves to females, although men CAN do what women can do, women are de facto much more qualified all things equal.
“And I don’t know how many times I have to say this, but 1 Tim 2:12 is the case of the positive meaning in our time period”
Alright I’m no Greek scholar but this is just erroneous reasoning. I had to laugh when I read this.
“Okay, I don’t know what to say. I have never seen anyone make this argument before. Aren’t we trying to figure out what it means, rather than assuming what it means.”
Yes, we are . . . through the context rather than through a foreign context, which will not give you the nuance here.
Sue, this is Kostenberger’s summary translation off or your website. I realize it isn’t a direct translation, but it sums up what is most likely in the passage. So I got it from you in the first place. I wasn’t quoting the Greek, which does not negate summary translation in my mind. Something bad is clearly being said about those who contend with those in authority, whether it says they are worthless men or not. The argument I was also making was against what you said on your site, i.e., that authenteo was not visible enough here to come to know if it was really used. It is clear enough to know that. It is also most likely a positive use, but as I said, if we don’t agree, that’s fine. What else do we have to work with? 1 Timothy or Patristic data.
You can translate peitho as “trust” as long as you understand that it means “to entrust yourself” or “be persuaded by,” which in conjunction with the word hupeikete “submit,” “yield to,” “do not resist” conveys an even stronger idea of “obey” than akouete would. The Auctor then is describing authority and submission to us without using the word authority. I think this text is difficult to get around for anyone who believes that people are never given authority over other people.
BGU 1208: I realize Grudem agrees with you. I acknowledged such. My point is that there are others who don’t. I don’t necessarily agree that a negative is warranted here. But as said many times before, I have already provided positive uses of the word, and hence, if it can be used positively or negatively, then it is neither inherently positive or negative in its base meaning. The context must mold it one way or the other…
Hodge,
Are you suggesting that women who reject “traditional” gender roles are unsaved??
“Alright I’m no Greek scholar but this is just erroneous reasoning. I had to laugh when I read this.”
I’m sorry, Michael, I don’t understand what you’re saying. Let me try and figure it out through foreign contexts.
“Alright” has an etymology of all and right. It is used in medical terminology to define the condition of a sick patient that is now better. So what you seem to be saying here is that you’ve been ill and now you’re better.
“Greek” is often used to refer to fraternities in college and therefore you must be saying that you do not belong to a fraternity.
The word “laugh” is associated with comedy clubs, which means you must be at a comedy club as you write this.
How is it erroneous reasoning to say that context determines the meaning of a word? We know that authenteo has something to do with authority. If that is the case, then what kind is going to be determined by the context. We have three texts, two in dispute, that contain the word before the Patristic era. So that leaves us with one text, positive or negative, to determine the meaning. That’s 1 Tim itself. It is in contrast to its polar opposite “complete submission,” it precedes a discussion concerning the election of elders, and it is part of an argument that defines why a woman cannot be an elder. It is further in a context of a text delineating ecclesiastical authority and the various authoritative duties that correspond to it. I think the last laugh is mine. 🙂