Why Women Cannot Be Head Pastors

TuAD,

It is good to see that you are your own endearing self!

Suggesting that the biblical vision of masculinity has fallen prey to a foolish culture, Richard Phillips writes that his new book The Masculine Mandate “is written for Christian men who not only don’t want to lose that precious biblical understanding, but who want to live out the calling to true manliness God has given us. We need to be godly men, and the Bible presents a Masculine Mandate for us to follow and fulfill. But do we know what it is? My aim in writing this book is to help men to know and fulfill the Lord’s calling as it is presented so clearly to us in God’s Word.”

Looking to God’s command to the first man in the Garden of Eden, Phillips teaches that men have a dual calling before the Creator: they are to work and they are to keep. “To work it and to keep it: here is the how of biblical masculinity, the mandate of Scripture for males. It is my mandate in this book, therefore, to seek to specify, clarify, and apply these two verbs to the glorious, God-given, lifelong project of masculine living.” … Men are to be servants and lords under the authority of God. “This is the Masculine Mandate: to be spiritual men placed in real-world, God-defined relationships, as lords and servants under God, to bear God’s fruit by serving and leading.”

Through a short series of chapters Phillips provides the doctrinal underpinning for this mandate. He looks at a man’s sacred calling to work, to bear the image of God and to be a “Shepherd-Lord,” one who tends and cares for all the responsibilities God has placed him over. He looks both to calling and to character, showing how a man must live if he wishes to carry out his mandate in each area of life.

The book’s second part provides wisdom on living out that mandate. Since most men will find that a significant portion of their mandate involves the marriage relationship … Read it all at The Masculine Mandate.

“Men are to be servants and lords under the authority of God. “

The concept that men are to be lords is not found in Scripture. However, there is another masculinist movement called Five Aspects, which can be found online which supports men to be lords of the earth, while women are to be keepers of the men’s homes. You might be interested in them TUAD.

“He looks at a man’s sacred calling to work, to bear the image of God and to be a “Shepherd-Lord,” one who tends and cares for all the responsibilities God has placed him over.”

Alas, Adam failed and sinned in the Pre-Fall Design that God designed.

Adam was charged with working/tilling and keeping/guarding the garden. When he failed to guard it, he was expelled and stopped from returning. The Hebrew word used is the same for divorce, as Adam broke the covenant and God ended that covenant by expelling Adam.

The point is that covenant was terminated and a terminated covenant no longer applies.

“He looks at a man’s sacred calling to work, to bear the image of God and to be a “Shepherd-Lord,” one who tends and cares for all the responsibilities God has placed him over.”

The problem is that this is eisigesis. There is no statement that the male human is ‘called’ to bear the image of God. Both the man and the woman were created IN the image, not called to bear it. There is no Scripture that says that the man alone is called to do something that the woman will be restricted from doing. And there is no calling the man a ‘lord’. Both man and woman were given the responsibility to ‘shepherd’, guard, hold sway, influence and rule over the creation. Adam being created first simply got to start without the woman.

And the Edenic responsibilities they were given ended with their sin, as Don pointed out.

Well, I have read most of what was written here. I just wanted to make a point on your exegesis that women are not to teach based on Scriptures that you referenced. First of all, I believe the examples you gave of how your wife Kristie reacts or would react in certain circumstance is valid for Kristie alone. She may not be comfortable in teaching the Gospel. That certainly does not describe all women and of course, all women are not called to teach. I understand that you said that women could teach but not be in a position of authority. That isn’t what Paul said. ( Of course I love the example that Paul uses that it was Eve who gave in to the serpent, not Adam. I think it was a greater sign of weakness that Adam gave into Eve who gave into the Serpent!)

I just believe that it is God who qualifies and individual. If a woman is given the annointing, who can debate God? No one, man or woman, can successfully take authority or teach without the annointing of God.

Just a general and strange point of information – in the last, well forever, the number of women going to what we used to call the mission field has been very consistently about 2 to 1.

And it doesn’t reflect as far as I know either:

1. They only go because they were denied leadership roles at home. Even in countries where women’s ministry is not an issue, there’s the same figures.

2. All the men who might otherwise have gone overseas have stayed home as pastors. Doesn’t seem to be the case either, because in youth-oriented mission groups who take people short or long term long before they are old enough to go to college and become pastors, there’s this same inbalance.

Blessings

Tony

Tony,

The fact that there are more men who gravitate to the pastoral ministry doesn’t indicate that the women who also do, shouldn’t This is not a voting situation where the most votes wins.

As Marianne noted, it’s up to God, not us.

As well, I suspect that there are some who go after a pastoral ministry who were never really called into it but their personality fits well with the responsibilities of preaching and leading.

Michael, as usual, very thought provoking article, although I don’t agree based on your argument. I know plenty of women who are “tougher” than men. I’m not speaking from a physical standpoint, but from a mental standpoint. There are plenty of “tenacious” women who would have very effectively given their unreasonable former boss a piece of their mind. The way you describe the situation sounds very archaic…as if women *need* men to protect them because they can’t fend for themselves. Nowadays, there are more and more women in leadership positions (business executives, politicians, etc.) As usual, the Church lags behind in certain areas, because too many believers don’t take into account the cultural context in which the scriptures were written.

Hi Michael,

Your rationale for complementarianism above rests on the following syllogism.

1. False doctrine requires an aggressive and combative stance.
2. Aggression and combativeness are more natural to men.
3. Therefore, men are better suited to be lead pastors since they are better suited to refute false doctrines.

Here is my honest question: do you have any Scriptural references that encourage aggression and combativeness in response to false doctrine? Because what I read in 2 Tim. 2, in the context of very serious false eschatological doctrine, Paul admonishes Timothy “And the Lord’s servant MUST NOT QUARREL; instead, he must be KIND to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must GENTLY INSTRUCT in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.”

Thoughts?

[…] C. Michael Patton explains why women cannot teach in the church He explains why he thinks that the Bible teaches that women cannot teach in the church. […]

I admit that once in my life – and only once – did I ever ask a man for help.That was when I had a stalker whom I didn’t know habitually throwing stones at my window at 3 AM. Nowadays, it would never even cross my mind to ask for help. Especially not after the gentleman I called to help me with this stalker admitted to me later that, knowing what he does about me, he himself feels safer late at night with me around. And this was a man who was 6’1″, 220 pounds of solid muscle with a knowledge of judo. I probably would not scream if someone tried to rape me.

Sure, I might speak loudly, but it would be fighting words. I have physically thrown a man who paid me unwanted attention out of an Internet cafe – and that, while dressed in recognizably female clothing. I have also attained various other feats which I will not go into here. The point is that I am not speaking theoretically. I have the deeds to back up my words. And as far as false teaching is concerned, when I was younger, I was the one they had to warn if someone wanted to bring an inquirer to Bible study – so I wouldn’t jump down their throat (only in very recent years have I learned to speak, as you put it, more irenically). So to me, this view of why women are ‘unsuited to confrontation’ is totally incomprehensible, because I am in every detail living a very different sort of life.

Every time this topic is raised, it is puzzling. I tend to accept the culture that says only men can be pastors, but when I look in the Bible I do not see endorsement for ANY to be THE pastor. I see no place for ordination. As I read various books, they all are a hodge-podge of reading our culture and traditions back into the New Testament. I am amazed at how deftly some really good biblical writers can, on this topic, intrude their thoughts and piece-meal scripture to fit their church traditions. I think Strauch and Getz strongly imply this.

If we “translated” elder/pastor to more modern terminology we might well call them “spiritual leaders”. Are we to say that a woman cannot be a spiritual leader? Some of those who come down the most sternly against a women being a spiritual leader should maybe consider the log in their eye about the CEO style of “pastor” they likely follow.

Hurray, McRae!
And may I say: Touché!

If you’ve never seen a church split apart by this issue, hang on…because you likely will, or at least hear about it happening. And when it happens, you’ll be amazed by the fierceness of the debate on both sides…the quiet, unassuming people who have attended the church for many years WILL and DO speak up. The church has not always done everything right, we would all admit that, but not allowing woman as head pastors is the right thing based on scripture…and any person who replies with “well, that’s not culturally relevant anymore” is simply ignoring the truth. Why did God make Adam first? Why is there order in creation, and different roles set aside in marriage for a man and a woman? We may not understand why 100%, but the point is to attempt to say there is no order/roles lined out by God in scripture is simply not accurate. Like so many other things in this postmodern world, the truth is being ignored or “accomodated” to fit into a person’s desirable view…folks, this is happening all over, all of the time, and this is just one prime example.

*facepalm*

Of course you have to look at historical and cultural context when reading the bible. Is the view, “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters…” the right thing based on scripture? Are churches that recognize divorce wrong based on scripture? Things should be looked at intelligently and with common sense.

PeterMC,
You asked:
“Why did God make Adam first?”

God made Adam first because it was God’s desire to create man as a one-flesh union. Adam was made first so that Eve could come from his body and not from the dirt beside him.

“Why is there order in creation, and different roles set aside in marriage for a man and a woman?”

There is order in creation because God is a God of purpose. God made man to rule over His creation and God created an orderly creation for the first man and woman to rule over.

There are no “roles” set up in marriage other than if you call being part of a one-flesh union a “role”. The only requirement for the pair was that they would become one-flesh. And in the union of that one-flesh only one can give birth to babies. Love and respect are mutual things and neither gender can live without either of these.

“We may not understand why 100%, but the point is to attempt to say there is no order/roles lined out by God in scripture is simply not accurate.”

What we should be able to understand quite clearly is that authority exists within God alone and to whomever He gives this authority to. God never gave authority for Adam to rule over his wife thusAdam taking dominion over her was illegal. When one takes authority from God without being given this authority, it is called usurping authority and it isn’t a good thing.

Cheryl,

You bring up some good points, no doubt…the questions I asked were largely rhetorical, as I personally believe that scripture lays out quite clearly – exactly as you mentioned – that God is a God of purpose. You’re right – God never gave Adam the authority to rule over his wife, if we define rule as a negative, domineering, style of autocratic rule. But I think that there is a very important part of the Adam and Eve story that really does have huge implications not just in the roles that men/women have based on scripture in the family, but also for the church….and these roles cannot be ignored. When we ignore them, alter them, or attempt to see them through historical context, I fear we’re getting it wrong…big time.

The bottom line: it’s not about chauvenism; it’s about order, roles, and design according to a Holy God. I agree with c micheal patton. Women are a blessing, I know tons of Godly women, far more Godly than I am….but to lead churches at the head, in mixed company….that’s a role reserved for men. Do I think some women have the personality to do it? Yes, I do….but God’s design and specific gender roles based on scripture lay out clearly that even as flawed as men are, it’s a duty reserved for men…only.

PeterMC,
You saId:

“The bottom line: it’s not about chauvenism; it’s about order, roles, and design according to a Holy God. ”

I have heard this said a lot that God created a “good” authority of Adam over his wife in the original creation so that he would have roles of “authority” that she would not. All I ask is for someone to show me this “good role of authority” given to the man over the woman in creation. I would like to see the evidence that is claimed began in Genesis by God’s design of Adam as the authority over Eve. Where is this evidence in Genesis?

“You’re right – God never gave Adam the authority to rule over his wife, if we define rule as a negative, domineering, style of autocratic rule.”

Peter Mc
In addition to Cheryl’s question of where in Genesis do we see God giving Adam authority over Eve I would like to see a definition from you of what kind of authority you believe that husbands have been given and how you conclude this. We see clearly in Genesis that humanity has been given a guardian type of authority over all the earth and it’s creatures. So, it should be evident somewhere that if any kind of authority was given to Adam over his ezer kenegdo woman, it would be seen in the sacred writings of Genesis.

PeteMC: “The church has not always done everything right, we would all admit that, but not allowing woman as head pastors is the right thing based on scripture…and any person who replies with “well, that’s not culturally relevant anymore” is simply ignoring the truth.”

Yes, quite right you are.

Here’s an article titled: “Fleeing Manhood” that you might like.

Excerpt: “Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife… (Genesis 3:17).

Every man who is a feminist is so because he desires to avoid the weight of glory God has placed on him.

A father doesn’t want to do the hard work of vetting his daughter’s choice of a husband, so he pays for her degrees and establishes her in a profession where she’ll be impervious to any husband’s future failures. A husband doesn’t want to do the hard work of silencing his wife in the church, so he argues that women need a place at the table, too, and that good churches will enfranchise women’s voices. Elders don’t want to do the hard work of training their daughters how to dress modestly and conduct themselves in a feminine manner, so they condemn all efforts to teach and encourage modesty or feminine deference within the church as legalism, patronization of women, and masculine insecurity.

Any interface between godliness and femininity is the precise place where our man-feminist stands proclaiming his righteousness and others’ sin. He is enlightened and others are antediluvian. He is tolerant and others are insecure. He is graceful and others legalistic. He is confident of his sexuality and others quivering in fear…

(cont.)

(cont.)

Feminist men are schemers hiding their rebellion against God. They abhor the weight of woman’s glory God has placed on them in their duties as pastors, elders, deacons, husbands, and fathers. But rather than following the time-honored pattern of cowards who turn their back on the battle and run, these men use their uniform as cover for attacking and killing their comrades. They betray every duty towards woman God has dignified their sex by, then claim they are faithful to that duty by their very betrayal.

Every man who is a feminist is so because he desires to avoid the weight of glory God has placed on him.

For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. (1 Corinthians 11:7)

And this strategy is as old as the hills. Adam had a choice between obeying the Father from Whom all fatherhood gets its name or listening to his Eve, and he chose listening to Eve.

That’s where it all started. And likely, where it will all end.

What did the first feminist give his wife?

Greatly increased pain in childbirth, followed by death.“

“”Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife… (Genesis 3:17).”

The only recorded “voice” of Adam’s wife was when she was talking with the serpent. Adam “listened” to her voice then and was silent while she was being deceived. This is why God called Adam’s act of listening to the deception and his wife being deceived and remaining silent thus allowing the deception to go unchallenged, as” treachery” Hosea 6:7.

So anyone who doesn’t agree with the view of, “Don’t talk back to me, woman!” is worse than a coward and more like a Benedict Arnold….real heavy thinking there. What horror that not every woman walks around with her head covered with no make up!

I would think it’s quite common for fathers to want their daughters to be well-educated and confident, not having to depend on the whims of a man who may not treat them with the respect they deserve.

It is possibly true that for some patriarchalists, the horror of college for a daughter is that she might learn to think for herself and establish such a close walk with God that she is able to discern God’s truth and error outside the control of her earthly father.

“In addition to Cheryl’s question of where in Genesis do we see God giving Adam authority over Eve I would like to see a definition from you of what kind of authority you believe that husbands have been given and how you conclude this.”

Well, let me try and show this…through the Scriptures and only through the Scriptures, I think the answers are there…but I will also say that if, up front, the Bible is full of time-relevant standards that change when we want them to, then what follows will hold no water. If on the other hand the Word of God means more than that to you and it is unchanging in its relevance, then read on…you might be surprised.

I would submit that in positions of authority (over someone else), the Bible is crystal clear – and it is so as revealed throughout Scripture in four parallel, supporting places: the created order, marriage, the Church, and Christ. In creation, Adam was created first – and Eve followed…to be Adam’s “helper.” In fact, she was to be called “woman” because she was taken out of man. Adam was given the charge to name all of the animals, and it was Adam who was first commanded by God, “from any tree of the garden you may eat, but from…” If we connect these dots, it is fair to say that primacy in stewardship was to man, at least in this instance. But let’s continue. In Genesis 3:16, we see that one of the many consequences of the fall was that Eve was told by God that “your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

Paul knew this when he wrote to the Ephesians regarding marriage – so much so that marriage between a man and a woman is compared to Christ and the Church. In Eph 5:24, “But as the Church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.” Clearly, there is a defined order here. And how does it relate back to creation? Look at Paul again writing to the Corinthians in 1 Cor 11. The creation story is brought back again…

(continued)

Finally, and most compelling to me, personally, is the fact that Jesus Christ, who was fully God, became a man…this is absolutely not insignificant, because through all of Scripture, every prophecy, every Name, every description about Jesus highlights him as he was while on this earth…fully God, and fully man. And, moreover, I await His return….to meet up with His bride (the Church).

So what am I to do with all of these verses? Well, again, that depends. Is there “the one verse” that clearly says, “And women shall not attain the role of head Pastor in the 21st century Church?” No…not exactly….but when I connect the dots – and to me, the dots are unmistakable, I see a very unmistakable role difference between man and woman – a role difference that originated at man and woman’s creation and fall, continued with clear guidance given for marriage and the family, mirrored with guidance given for Pastors and elders in Timothy, and all of these dots underlined with the persona of Jesus Christ himself.

Women are the same as men in terms of worth, value, and distinction. But these “dots” clearly reveal differences in terms of roles, authority, purpose….at least to me.

Pete

“The Messianic priesthood of Jesus Christ is the true and single Form of the Priesthood. Every priest, either living before Christ or after Christ’s appearing, stands as a sign to this one priesthood. The priesthood is unique (not to be confused with the office of shaman) and it is impossible to change it in any essential way.

All attempts to change the priesthood, such as developed out of Protestant theology or the ordination of women, corrupt the sign so that it no longer points to Messiah.

Women Leaders in the Church are Never Priests

In this essay we have discussed the origins and nature of the priesthood. Holy Tradition and Scripture reveal numerous women in positions of leadership; Deborah and Huldah among them. Daughters of priests are remembered as great women also, Asenath and Zipporah among them. However not a single women can be identified as a priest in Holy Tradition or the Bible. It is clear then that women have never been priests and that the nature of the priesthood from the beginning has been such that it pertains only to men.”

(cont.)

(cont.)

The above excerpts are by Alice C. Linsley and the article can be found: here.

A convert to Orthodoxy from being an Episcopalian priestess, Ms. Linsley renounced her priestly order in March 2004. She left the Episcopal ministry on the Sunday that Gene Robinson was consecrated and has not entered an Episcopal church since. After years of studying the question of women priests she is persuaded that this innovation is the root cause of the schism within Anglicanism. She is also the author of the excellent blog: Just Genesis.

PeteMC: “If you’ve never seen a church split apart by this issue, hang on…because you likely will, or at least hear about it happening. … The church has not always done everything right, we would all admit that, but not allowing woman as head pastors is the right thing based on scripture…and any person who replies with “well, that’s not culturally relevant anymore” is simply ignoring the truth.”

This observation that egalitarians are divisive church splitters is affirmed by Alice Linsley (who had the integrity to renounce being a TEc priestess):

“After years of studying the question of women priests she is persuaded that this innovation is the root cause of the schism within Anglicanism.”

Isn’t this a sweeping statement: This observation that egalitarians are divisive church splitters is affirmed by Alice Linsley.

There are solid, humble, gracious egalitarians that have no desire to cause split.

What I don’t think we are willing to recognise is that, whether we like it or not, we are moving towards a day when women in church leadership will not be a big deal. It might be another few decades to move totally towards this, but it is where we are headed. If not in my children’s generation, then in my grandchildren’s generation. I don’t want this to sound arrogant or as desirous to negate Scripture, but let me give other examples.

The greatest example is slavery. Two centuries ago, most western Christians would have based their theology of slavery in the Scripture. They could quote verses and wax eloquent that slavery was ok, even designed by God. They were convinced of their position. But now we know that we cannot read a few statements of black ink on white paper and conclude God is for something, lest we accept polygamy, genocide, etc (which many groups have done in the past).

Other examples are women’s clothing, loving to quote also from 1 Tim 2. Or head coverings from 1 Cor 11. Or saying that Sunday is God’s special Sabbath, when in all actuality, Christ is the Sabbath rest of God.

So, when it comes to women in church leadership, we will begin to see (as was with slavery and other issues) that quoting a handful of passages does not give precedence for a belief. It has to be considered within the progressive revelation of God, the culture it was written in, believing that God is still active and alive in the days and cultures we are a part of, etc. It doesn’t work that way. I don’t want to chuck out any of Scripture, but we must approach it as the newer Christians approached the verses on slavery in the 1800 and 1900’s, which led to a true and faithful view over & above the previous view

ScottL,

Your raise some good points – first of all, a church split is a horrible thing to endure or witness. The look on a family’s face having to find a new church after 25+ years of faithful participation and attendance is nothing short of devastating. People on both sides of this issue suffer when a church splits due to this issue.

And I agree with you that whether I like it or not, we are moving towards a day and age when women as pastors is becoming more and more “normal.” But theologically, it’s a crime for me to take the attitude, “well…things are heading that way, so it’s ok.” Again, beware the postmodern day in which we live – what is truth? Is there truth?

Slavery was and is despicable. I would argue that Scripture is very clear on this, and it was no surprise that the most ardent abolitionists in all parts of the world were men of deep theological conviction who correctly corrected the greater part of the western world that may have supported slavery using a “verse or two” as support from the Bible.

When we look at the Bible in all of its unity on the subject of the roles and responsibilities of men and women, we find what is in my opinion a very resounding, non-contradicting message governing duties/responsibilities of marriage, the church, and family. Genesis, to 1 and 2 Corinthians, to Ephesians, to 1 Timothy…it all says the same thing or at least supports the same thing.

I find it very hard for me to say that now, because it is 2010 and no longer 1910, that these parts of Scripture are no longer relevant, or that God must have had his intentions all wrong. If I even begin to go down that road, it’s scary to think what else I can apply that sort of thinking to. Notice here – I’m not talking about one verse written in a certain time period or whatever….I’m talking about a unified theme throughout the Bible that is discussed in many, many places. This issue, then, is definitely one that is important to…

God and therefore to me as well.

“This observation that egalitarians are divisive church splitters is affirmed by Alice Linsley (who had the integrity to renounce being a TEc priestess):

“After years of studying the question of women priests she is persuaded that this innovation is the root cause of the schism within Anglicanism.”

It is not the egalitarians that cause the splits when they happen. It is the inability for Christians of differing viewpoints on non salvic issues to love one another with the love of Christ.

And for all those claims that it is a surefire issue all through Scripture, that is Swiss Cheese thinking and helicopter theology. Christians need to learn to read Scripture the way they did eons ago, in context and in big chunks. It’s much more difficult to read sentences out of context (but not impossible) when it is required to read and memorize the whole chapter. Christians have become great snip and paste doctrine creators. Most of us don’t even know what a whole chapter is about or why the author was writing the verse they’re reading. It’s a sad state of affairs and its no wonder we’re snapping, back biting and slashing at each other.

As for Alice Linsley I understand why she did that. Women have been trained that things are their fault. Women have been blamed for other people’s problems (particularly men’s problems) since the beginning of time. It is regrettable that so many women have believed it. Alice is no more responsible for her churches schism than a black woman that fought for the right to sit anywhere in the bus is to blame for the fighting that broke out over the issue.

583. TUaD wrote:

“After years of studying the question of women priests she is persuaded that this innovation is the root cause of the schism within Anglicanism.”

Yeah, and after years of studying the question, she became Eastern Orthodox, and also has some rather unique ideas about Genesis and the patriarchs based on her many years of study – neither of which (i.e., her pick of the EOC as “the church” and her conclusions about the Genesis narrative) I would expect you to embrace or affirm:

http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/

Paul was a “divisive church splitter,” too, as was Jesus, if one uses the term “church” (assembly/congregation) to mean 1st-century Judaism.

TL: “It is not the egalitarians that cause the splits when they happen.”

Sure it is. Alice Linsley’s observation stands as a prime example: “After years of studying the question of women priests she is persuaded that this innovation is the root cause of the schism within Anglicanism.”

“It is the inability for Christians of differing viewpoints on non salvic issues to love one another with the love of Christ.”

It’s the inability of egalitarians to let go of their aberrant and divisive doctrine and practice which reflects their inability to obey Scripture that has caused splits such as the schism within Anglicanism (as ex-TEc priestess Alice Linsley has noted).

It’s the inability of XXX to let go of their aberrant and divisive doctrine and practice which reflects their inability to obey Scripture

Case in point. The above reflect the thought processes of a divisive personality.

You may go ahead and flame attack TUAD. I won’t be responding.

The above reflects the thought processes of a passive-aggressive egalitarian personality seeking the high ground by claiming false victimhood.

I’ve seen that rhetorical move before.

Pete MC –

Thanks for the gracious interaction and comment. I am not arguing that we just ‘go with the flow’ for the sake of it. But what I am pointing out is that we are headed that way and I believe we are headed that way because 1) we had been reading the Scriptures through the wrong lens of our culture and 2) we are beginning to see that Scripture does not communicate what we had first thought it communicated.

Do you remember the day when it was even wrong (‘sinful’) for women to consider having a job outside the home? I wasn’t alive, but I’m sure people loved to quote Scripture to back such up. And it was because they were reading it through the cultural lens of such events like the industrial revolution.

So it’s not about something being relevant in 1910 and not in 2010. It’s what kind of lenses do we have on to filter Scripture through. I got some pretty bad ones, and we all do. I want to read the Scripture as best I can through the intent of the bigger redemptive picture of God and His revelation.

So I think, as we finally moved on from believing slavery was good or that women must stay in the home, we are finally moving away from an overly unhealthy view that prevents women from leadership within the church. Again, not because of unfaithfulness to Scripture, but because we are seeing Scripture through better lenses.

A book that might interest you about this kind of reading of Scripture is Scot McKnight’s The Blue Parakeet. And if you would like, you can read this PDF file here where I look at the 9 major passages usually used to show how women should not be in church leadership.

Peter MC,
You said:

“I would submit that in positions of authority (over someone else), the Bible is crystal clear – and it is so as revealed throughout Scripture in four parallel, supporting places: the created order, marriage, the Church, and Christ. In creation, Adam was created first – and Eve followed…to be Adam’s “helper.” ”

Authority belongs to God alone and to whomever He chooses to give it to. But authority cannot be assumed without God gifting it. Adam was never “gifted” an authority over Eve. When Adam was first created, God called it “not good” and so God created one whose existence would make it “good”. The term for “helper” in the Hebrew is not a secondary assistant but a full blown ruler with the power to bring aid. God is the one most often called a “helper” in the Scripture.

Also we know that Adam’s first creation was necessary for God to create the woman from his body. She was made to be his one-flesh partner, not his subordinate whom he would rule over. Again no complementarian has ever shown where God granted Adam a rule over Eve. God had to grant a rule to make it legitimate. In the original creation both the male and the female were given rulership over all of God’s earthly creation. If God had added a rule of the male over the female it would be recorded just like every other God-given rule is record in the Scriptures.

Peter MC,
You said:

“In fact, she was to be called “woman” because she was taken out of man. Adam was given the charge to name all of the animals, and it was Adam who was first commanded by God, “from any tree of the garden you may eat, but from…” If we connect these dots, it is fair to say that primacy in stewardship was to man, at least in this instance.”

We do not need to “connect the dots” when God speaks and when He gives authority. The fact is that God never said that the woman was a secondary ruler or that the man was to have authority over her.

The fact that she is “woman” shows her connection with the man. She literally is his flesh and bone and her coming into existence at the identification of Adam alone being “not good” is a key point.

Adam named the animals, but rulership over the animals was not withheld from Eve. According to Genesis 1, both were given rule over the animals. The only reason why Eve did not participate in the naming of the animals is because she didn’t exist at the time.

It was Adam who was first commanded by God what he could eat and what he could not eat. But God did not withhold His instructions from the woman. The instructions regarding what she was allowed to eat (the fruit from trees that are seed bearing) and what she was not allowed to eat (fruit from any tree that was not seed bearing) is listed in Genesis 1.

There is no indication that God withheld instruction from Eve on what she could eat or not eat. There is no indication that her rule was lessened over the earth or the animals because she came into existence second.

Peter MC,

You said:
“In Genesis 3:16, we see that one of the many consequences of the fall was that Eve was told by God that “your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.””

Note that God only talked to Eve about what Adam would do. God never gave permission for Adam to take this rule and God never “gifted” a rulership to Adam that would place his wife under his own authority.

Rather God spoke to Eve about the future and what the man will do. He said “he shall rule over you”. This is what the man will do, not what God assigned to the man. God did not say “I will make Him ruler over you”. This would be an authority given. But God did not give out authority here like He did elsewhere. God never said “Let Adam rule over his wife”. So complementarians have to always try to “connect the dots” because there is nothing concrete that they can hang their authority onto. If God was forward enough to state the rulership over the earth and the animals clearly and directly, how could there be an authority of the husband over the wife without a clear and direct gifting of that authority by God?

It is clear that authority was never spoken about of man over woman until after the fall and then only then does God predict what will happen in the future with Eve’s children, her pain and the man taking authority for himself. How sad that we follow Adam in that usurping of God’s authority and hold up the sinful rule of the first Adam to authorize all subsequent men born in sin to also set themselves up as an authority over their joint-heir one-flesh wife.

Peter MC,

You said:

“Paul knew this when he wrote to the Ephesians regarding marriage – so much so that marriage between a man and a woman is compared to Christ and the Church. In Eph 5:24, “But as the Church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.” Clearly, there is a defined order here. And how does it relate back to creation? Look at Paul again writing to the Corinthians in 1 Cor 11. The creation story is brought back again…”

One thing that we can know for sure – Paul did not “know” that Adam had an authority over his wife given to him from God for God did not give Adam an authority over his wife like God gave both of them authority over the earth and the animals. It is a serious offense to God to take authority when it has not been given by God.

In Ephesians 5:24, it doesn’t say that wives are to be subject to their husband’s authority. Paul has not added authority into the mix. Just as all are to be subject to each other (Eph 5:21) so even wives are to be subject to their husbands. In Christ they have freedom from man made law, but they are to do good with this freedom and not evil. It was man’s law that made the woman under the authority of her husband with his authority that could remove her as his wife and he had the power of life or death over her. Now that she is free in Christ, she is not to seek freedom from doing good to her husband. What was demanded of her before, should now be freely given. What was a rulership over her before in the world system, is now a joint-heir “sonship” beside her husband. As a joint-heir she should desire to lift her husband up and serve him as Jesus served, not out of compulsion but out of her freedom in Christ.

The creation story is always to be one of a “not good” situation made “good” by a equal ruler and equal heir. Just as we are made to be joint heirs with Christ, so the woman is a joint heir with her husband. One joint-heir has never been given an…

Peter MC,

You said:

“Finally, and most compelling to me, personally, is the fact that Jesus Christ, who was fully God, became a man…this is absolutely not insignificant, because through all of Scripture, every prophecy, every Name, every description about Jesus highlights him as he was while on this earth…fully God, and fully man.”

Jesus had to be a male as the “last Adam” because it was a male who brought sin into the world. Jesus as the “last Adam” died for all so that what Adam lost, Jesus bought back.

” Is there “the one verse” that clearly says, “And women shall not attain the role of head Pastor in the 21st century Church?” No…not exactly….but when I connect the dots ”

In issues of authority and sin we don’t need to “connect the dots”. God is always clear where authority is given and He is clear when something is a sin. A women being a pastor is never listed in the Scripture as a sin. That is clear. And there is no prohibition that says that women are not allowed to be a pastor.

In every other instance God identifies sin so that we can stay away from it. God has not identified a sin called the sin of a woman pastor. We cannot just “connect the dots” and make something a sin when God has not identified it that way.

Peter MC,

You said:

” I see a very unmistakable role difference between man and woman – a role difference that originated at man and woman’s creation and fall,”

While you are busy “connecting the dots”, Scripture is silent on any “role” difference between Adam as ruler of the world and Eve as ruler of the world. Both were listed in Genesis 1 as having been given the rule over the world and the animals. To place a difference there when God spoke of one rule for both would be seeing dots and more dots when there are no dots. God spoke. He identified rule. He did not identify a role difference. There were no dots.

You said:

“…continued with clear guidance given for marriage and the family, mirrored with guidance given for Pastors and elders in Timothy, and all of these dots underlined with the persona of Jesus Christ himself.”

There is no “clear guidance” that gives a husband God’s gifting of authority to take authority over his wife. There is also no “clear guidance” that would make a woman that is gifted by God as a pastor as being in sin that must be repented of. Again the dots are not there and the greatest authority that came to earth did not set aside the woman as an invalid heir of all things. She too is a legitimate heir and a full fledged “son” of God. No one should be charging her with sin without a word from God no matter how many spots they see before their eyes.

Peter MC,

Lastly you said:

“Women are the same as men in terms of worth, value, and distinction. But these “dots” clearly reveal differences in terms of roles, authority, purpose….at least to me.”

Once again Scripture never identifies any “roles” that God originally set up for the man that would make him a type 1 ruler of the earth with an authority over a type 2 ruler of the earth. Their rulership had one purpose, not two.

The biggest “hint” that you give of your own bias that you bring to the Scriptures is when you say “at least to me”. I agree that it is you that sees a difference in roles, authority and purpose, but I would encourage you to see what God sees before you try to connect complementarian “dots”. The reason is that it is God who is Sovereign. He is the one who can clearly give instruction on different “roles” if they existed in the beginning. But He did not make their rule different.

There is not a single word that God said about Adam naming the animals, that should cause us to believe that if the woman had been alive at the time that she would have been forbidden from exercising her rulership along with her husband. She too was ruler over the animals.

When we read into the Scripture differences where differences are not identified by God Himself (as some list man as the superior authority), then are we not guilty of attempting to lift up our own gender by peering under every rock for a “dot” so we can have God’s authority?

God doesn’t have to “hint” or “wink, wink” if he wanted us know that He gave the man an authority over the woman. It wouldn’t be a secret. We wouldn’t need to hunt for dots to know it if it is God’s truth and God’s special gift of rulership to the man. But God’s silence says a lot. God never gave authority to the man to take over his wife.

For me, I would rather take God’s word at face value, then be hunting around looking for “dots”.

Cheryl Schatz,

Had to laugh about that business of ‘seeing spots before one’s eyes’ 😛 One word of caution here – about the argument from silence. You know what I mean. But fortunately – let me remind all present – we don’t have to argue from silence because not only did God give the same blessing of rulership over creation to both male and female, but He also very plainly stated what Eve’s relationship to Adam was to be: ‘ezer kenegdo’ (Genesis 2). And just in case we didn’t get the point, He strictly forbade us to ‘katakurieuein’ or ‘katexousiazein’ *anyone* – stating that this is the behavior of pagans and unbelievers (Matthew 20).