I don’t know of many more controversial issues in the church than issues regarding women in ministry. It is not controversial whether or not women can do ministry or be effective in ministry, but whether or not they can teach and preside in positions of authority over men. The most controversial issue aspect of this issue, of course, is whether or not women can hold the position of head pastor or elder in a local church.
There are two primary positions in this debate; those who believe that women can teach men and hold positions of authority over men in the church and those that do not. Those that do, normally go by the name “Egalitarians.” Those that do not, go by the name “Complementarians.” I am a complementarian but I understand and appreciate the egalitarian position. In fact, the church I serve at most often is an egalitarian church. (However, I don’t want you to think that my complementarianism is not important to me. There is much more to complementarianism than whether or not a woman can preach!)
There are a lot of passages of Scripture which contribute to the debate, but one stands out more than all the others. 1 Tim. 2:11-15:
“A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.”
I don’t want to debate whether or not this passage teaches either position. I am simply going to assume the complementarian position and attempt to deal with the sting of “I don’t allow a woman to teach.” It does have quite a bit of sting.
I like to make the Scripture pragmatically understandable. In other words, I want to not only understand what it says, but to rationally understand why it says what it says. Why does God give this instruction or that? What practical rationale might be behind the instruction of God? I know that we cannot always find it and our obligation to obey transcends our understanding but, in my experience, more often than not, our understanding of the command can accompany our obedience so that we are not so blind.
“I do not allow a woman to teach.” We think of this as coming from God. God says, “I do not allow a woman to teach.” Teaching is something that requires _________ therefore, women are not qualified. You fill in the blank:
1. Intelligence
2. Wisdom
3. Love
4. Concern
5. Rational
6. Persuasiveness
While I think the sting of this passage assumes that Paul is speaking about one of these, I don’t choose any of them. I think Paul (and God) has something different in mind.
The other night, at 3am there was a sound in our living room. Kristie woke up, but I did not. She was looking out there and saw the lights go on. She got scared.
Pop quiz: What did she do next?
a. Got a bat and quietly tip toed out there to see who it was.
b. Got a gun and peeked around the corner.
c. Woke me up and had me go out there.
Those of you who choose “c” are both right and wise. You are right because that is what happened. (It was my 2 year old Zach who decided it was time to get up.) You are wise because that is what normally happens and is typically, for those of you who have a man in the house, the best move. Why? Because men are better equipped to deal with these sort of situations. There is an aggression that men have, both physical and mental, that is more able to handle situations that might become combative. That is the way we are made.
Now, let me give my short and sweet answer as to why Paul did not allow women to teach:
Paul did not let women teach due to the often aggressive and combative nature that teaching must entail concerning the confrontation of false doctrine. Men must be the teachers when combating false teaching. However, because the role of a teacher in the church is so often to combat false doctrine, and because false doctrine is always a problem, generally speaking, the principles are always applicable. The “exercising of authority” is inherently tied to teaching and its necessary condemnation of false doctrine.
The combative nature of teaching is particularly relevant to a broader understanding of the characteristics of men and women.
The best illustration in the real world that I could use to help you understand what I am saying is that of a military commander in charge of leading troops into battle. Of course there might be an exception here and there, but do a study and you will find that no matter what the time or culture, men are always leading here. Why? Because men are simply better equipped and more followed. There are certian areas where men and women have a unique stature. I believe, like in military, the position of head pastor is the same. Not only are they better equipped for the issues that will arise, but they are followed more readily.
Let me give you another example: Two years ago, my wife was confronted by another couple who did not believe that she was doing what was right. She used to do princess parties where she would dress up as a princess (Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty) and go to little girls’ homes and entertain them for an hour or so. She was really good at this. After we moved from Frisco to Oklahoma, she still had one party on the schedule. She called her boss and let her know that she could not do it since we had already moved. Her boss became very angry and began to threaten her. She also said that she was going to bring in her husband (who was a lawyer) and sue Kristie. Kristie became very scared and did not know how to handle this situation, especially since her boss was now using her husband as part of the threat. She told me about this and I told her not to speak to her boss anymore, but to let me handle it. I did. I stepped in and confronted both her boss and her husband’s threats concerning the issue. In the end, they backed off.
I felt that it was my duty and obligation to step in and be strong on behalf of my wife as the situation became confrontational. Kristie is both tender, gentle, and, in those situations, frightened. She was going to give in and travel back to Texas to perform this last party even though she would lose money in the gas it took to go there and back. Her boss refused to pay her mileage.
My point is that men are conditioned to handle confrontation better than women. It is not that Kristie could not have done the same thing as me, it is just that this was not her bent. Women, generally speaking, are not bent to deal with confrontation the same way as men. Teaching in the church involves, more often than not, confronting false understanding.
Can women teach? Absolutely! Can women understand and think as well as men? Most certainly. But the bent of a man is better able to handle the type of teaching that is always necessary in the church.
Would I let a woman teach from the pulpit from time to time? Yes. Paul is not restricting women teachers over men in the absolute sense. The infinitive here, “to teach” is in the present tense which suggests the perpetual role of teaching which exercises authority (confrontation).
The role of head pastor, I believe requires confrontation. That is not all there is, but it is there and it is very important. It is because of this, I believe, Paul said that women cannot teach or exercise authority over men.
See follow-up posts here and here.
Comments are open again. Be safe. Read the rules.
1,432 replies to "Why Women Cannot Be Head Pastors"
caraboska,
Thanks!
“One word of caution here – about the argument from silence. You know what I mean. ”
Yes, I know. But I also know that God never kept sin secret. And he never kept authority secret. So if there is no authority given and no sin identified, then we know that we are not held to invisible authority or unrevealed sin. In this case God’s silence is very important. So it is only in the case of a charge of sin that silence comes into play. In other cases silence is a really bad argument 😉
Cheryl,
Still need to be careful about the argument from silence. God only knows what minds intent on understanding things a certain way will do with verses like Romans 5:12-14:
12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command […]
But again – we do not need to argue from silence because we can argue from… non-silence 😀 (Didn’t someone write a book called something to the effect of ‘God is there and He is not silent’?)
Hey caraboska,
“But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. ”
But of course. God was not silent here as we well know that He spoke through the conscience. Then when the law came, the law confirmed the moral law which had already been given to mankind through the conscience.
The “safety” that God has given us is that sin has been listed and confirmed so that we are not ignorant what sin is and our conscience is also used by God.
So are women who are gifted as pastors and who do not have their conscience accuse them of sin for using that gift sinning against God when no Scripture lists gift of pastor as sinful when used by women? So we can be sure that God does not hold these women’s gifts as sin against them because God is not silent on sin even when there is no formal law.
Again a good point about silence. And good to know that God cares enough about us to clearly tell us what is sin so we stay away from it.
Cheryl,
Permit me to play my harp for a little longer 😉 My point was that people of a certain mentality will take those verses and focus on the idea that it is possible for something to be sinful even though God didn’t tell us about it, and that the punishment for sin (death) was still there even if there wasn’t a specific commandment. Mind you, I do not agree with the conclusions that would be reached by such a line of reasoning – or should I say, such a row of dots. For a row of dots a line doth not make 😛
But that having been said, I used to travel in some pretty strange circles – ones that probably even the most conservative among our commentators would find shockingly ‘fundamentalist’ (not to mention ‘literalist’ and a few other things as well). I have spent nearly 20 years recovering. So I am keenly aware of the need to guard against becoming set in our way of thinking, so that we retain the ability to see things from other points of view – so we can foresee what sort of interaction might ensue between our theses and the minds of adherents of other viewpoints and gauge our presentation accordingly.
caraboska,
Ah yes, I understand your point now. But I would say that no matter what we think is sin (I was taught that dancing and going to movies was a sin), if God doesn’t define it as a sin, then it is a man-made law that has no authority over us.
I guess that’s my point. God’s Word and His revealing of sin to us is rock solid and will bring a charge against us if we disobey. The man-made law the comes from connecting the dots, seeing dots, or just plain finding specks, spots, or flecks has no power over us. Agreed?
In Christ there is no male and female. 😐
Those who support/promote female subordination to males are anti-Christ(s). 😮
Q.E.D. Game, set, match. 😀
I see you too have traveled in some strange circles. Dancing and movies were not a major issue (they called for discernment and nothing more than that), but the role of women – another matter entirely. There were folks in the circles I traveled in who believed a wife must in principle obey her husband unconditionally – even if he demands that she commit sin, even if what he is demanding is putting her health in danger or even worse.
The idea was that if she is willing to honor God in this way, then He will arrange for her not to have to sin after all – either through her husband’s repentance or through his being removed from this earth entirely if he fails to do so. Or if the problem is her health, He will guard her health if she obeys her husband.
The problem in our present discussion is that those who come down on the side of women not being pastors – or even, in extreme cases, speaking in the congregation at all, even to pray – believe they have verses to support their view. They say that God is not silent, and He has said that things are to be such-and-such a way.
to be continued…
I view the problem as one of very basic hermeneutics. Let’s say that if we proceed from the general case of how all persons are to relate to all persons, and assume that this must guide the more specific case of how males and females are to treat each other, we will come to very different conclusions than if we take the specific case and say that this must guide our interpretation of the more general case.
Because the general case sets forth obligations that are sufficiently similar to each other that by process of elimination, any ‘one-way authority structures’ which might appear to be advocated in the Scriptures can be based only in something temporal (such as the state of civil law). In other words, they are not prescriptive, but descriptive.
Not to mention that Jesus Himself tells us what role ‘how things were from the beginning’ (i.e. before the Fall) are to play in our interpretation. The exegetical example he gives is that of divorce (Matthew 19) – but the methodology is definitely one of applying a larger principle to this specific issue.
Which means we have to analyze how it was at the beginning in order to come to the proper conclusion. Much has already been said about this – and again, rightly so. And if we do that, we will read Ephesians 5:21 and see that we really have to get this right because showing proper honor to Christ is at stake.
And among other things, that means not allowing anyone or anything to usurp the place of Christ in our lives…
EricW,
Not to mention those who think it’s OK to rule over or lord it over *anyone* 😐
1Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. 4Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. 5For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands, 6like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.
7Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.
Apostle Peter in 1 Peter 3:1-7.
May God Bless the Reading of His Word and the obedience to His Word.
9″As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. 10If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commands and remain in his love. 11I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. 12My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. 14You are my friends if you do what I command. 15I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. 16You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. 17This is my command: Love each other.
John 15:9-17
to be continued
Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
(Ephesians 5:21)
35Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. “Teacher,” they said, “we want you to do for us whatever we ask.”
36″What do you want me to do for you?” he asked.
37They replied, “Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory.”
38″You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said. “Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?”
39″We can,” they answered. Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, 40but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared.”
41When the ten heard about this, they became indignant with James and John. 42Jesus called them together and said,
“You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 43Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 44and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. 45For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
(Mark 10:35-45)
May God bless the reading and application of His word addressed to all persons without exception.
Cheryl,
The fact is, as this blog proves with it’s so far 612 or so comments, you and I will never see the same way on this issue – and that’s ok. I respect your thoughts and opinions, will never “blast” you or them, but at the same time, will hold to my opinion – which for me, is based on scripture.
Could Eve have been in charge of naming and exploring the animals? Absolutely. But I didn’t write or inspire Genesis 2:18-20. And I certainly didn’t write any passages in Ephesians, 1 Corinthians, or any part of the Bible.
I have worked with a lot of great females in churches and other organization who, without a doubt, have done and currently are doing some amazing things for the kingdom of God. This is absolutely wonderful, and I pray that it continues for all of time…
I have met plenty of christian women who are tough, resilient, wonderful, hard-working and christian…and are absolutely used by God on a daily basis…of this there is no doubt….and in many cases, are “stronger” in almost every way than male counterparts….
But still – the “dots” – which to me are instances of Scripture describing the roles of men and women in creation, marriage, family, and church….I have yet to see anything that remotely suggests that men are not called to take the leadership role over women – and only that – not to dominate, not to beat up, not to degrade – in all of the Bible.
Am teachable here, but believe the Bible to be clear as well…show please show me somewhere, from a Bible, where I am mistaken, and I will gladly recant…
In the meantime, have enjoyed the discussion…
Pete
1Co 7:3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband.
1Co 7:4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
These are the ONLY verses that discuss authority in the marriage and they are mutual and symmetric.
Eph 5 says a husband is to love-agape his wife.
1 Cor 13 says that love-agape does not insist on its own way.
So as soon as you insist on your own way, you violate these verses.
Don Johnson—
Respectfully, NO…the verses you listed are NOT the only verses that discuss authority in marriage, and even more troubling, you have left out key verses from within those books that clearly reveal something.
Ephesians 5 – yes, the husband is called to love-agape his wife. And what a simultaneously awesome yet challenging call that is to all husbands. But in vv 22-24 of that chapter, wives are called to “be subject to” husbands in the same way that the Church “is subject to” Christ. When you dig into the original language, the greek word for “be subject to” is ‘Hupotasso,’ which closely is translated “to place in an orderly fashion under.” And why is this so? In vv 25-26, what a beautiful picture we are given why this is – “just as Christ gave Himself up for [the Church], that He might sanctify [the Church], having cleansed her by the washing of the water with the word…”
Are men called to love their wives with agape love? YES! But in the same chapter, they are also called to lead their wives within the marriage relationship…both are to be true, and rightfully so! What a challenge…what a clarion call for men, in the marriage relationship, to lead their wives in the same way that Christ leads the Church, loved it, and gave Himself up for it! This passage ought to inspire husbands not to dominate their wives or put them aside, but instead to love them with the purest and wholest of love possible….only possibly with the love of Christ!
So, sorry Don…I’m not insisting on my own way here…when you look at the passages you listed in their entirety, you see something very different from your above interpretation.
Pete
PeterMC,
You said:
“I respect your thoughts and opinions, will never “blast” you or them, but at the same time, will hold to my opinion – which for me, is based on scripture.”
Thanks for the respect. It is something that we should each have for the other.
“Could Eve have been in charge of naming and exploring the animals? Absolutely. But I didn’t write or inspire Genesis 2:18-20.”
She would have been ruling with Adam if she was alive. But it was God’s intention for Adam to learn about his own need for a mate. God’s plan is perfect.
“But still – the “dots” – which to me are instances of Scripture describing the roles of men and women in creation, marriage, family, and church….I have yet to see anything that remotely suggests that men are not called to take the leadership role over women…”
Those dreaded spots again! I fear they may have clouded your vision as I see nothing in the Scripture where a woman must be led as you say. God requires all to grow up to make their own mature decisions so He has not created women as “little immature people”. Praise God that we are able to stand shoulder to shoulder with our brothers in the spiritual battle field fighting for the souls of lost men.
Peter MC,
One last thing..you said:
“Am teachable here, but believe the Bible to be clear as well…show please show me somewhere, from a Bible, where I am mistaken, and I will gladly recant…”
Sure, glad to help. You said to Don:
“…they are also called to lead their wives within the marriage relationship.”
Men are not called to “lead” their wives. There is one leader – God. God never called Adam to “lead” his wife and there has been no commandment since then.
I can understand why God told husbands to love, sacrifice for and cling to their wives. But why do you think that husbands were supposed to lead their wives? What is it that makes you think women are a group that has to be led? And why does a single woman not have need of a man to lead her?
Cheryl,
These are good questions – and I think we both realize there isn’t the cookie-cutter answer that is going to satisfy both of us at the same time. But regarding your questions:
I don’t know how else to write, verbatim, what the Bible says in Ephesians 5:22-31. When the text says, “Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord, for the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is head of the Church, He himself being the Savior of the body, But as the Church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything…” If that does not equate to MEN ARE CALLED TO BE THE LEADERS WITHIN THE MARRIAGE RELATIONSHIP, then I don’t know what it means….one thing is clear: there is a difference, or at least there ought to be a difference between men and women within marriage…and that difference ought to be mirrored in the same way that Christ is the head of us, the Church. Period. I do not see how, in any language, that this passage can be construed as MEN AND WOMEN HAVE NO DEFINED ROLES WITHIN MARRIAGE.
You’re right—God did not literally tell Adam to lead himself over Eve. But is it not at all striking to you that God made Adam first, charged him with the responsibility of seeking out the animals and naming them? All this before the fall — and after the fall, God inquired of Adam first as to what happened and where he was? To me, this isn’t coincidence….it’s the affirmation that God designed men and women to be equal in worth and value, but very different in role and function.
You are right – there is one leader – God. And men had better try to keep this in mind when doing anything, whether it be in marriage, the Church, families, etc. But that still doesn’t excuse men from the responsibility they have to be the leaders of their families. If anything, it should challenge them to lead in the manner that God leads His church, sacrifices for her, and seeks out its best.
(continued)
(resumed)
When God instructs women to submit to their husbands within marriage, I don’t think He is instructing them to become lifeless, non-thinking servants that do every one of the Husband’s bidding. It doesn’t mean that women are not called to follow God first, or that now all of a sudden the husband becomes the sole source of spiritual growth for her. Instead, the submission directive means, I believe, to willingly place herself under the husband…but just like any subordinate, the idea is to help the whole part grow and become better.
For an excellent source on roles/responsibilities within marriage, see John Piper’s discourse below – read the whole thing, and see if it makes any sense to you. If it does, great…and if not, then hey, that’s great too.
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Seminars/1726_Sexual_Complementarity_Part_1/
Pete
”I don’t know how else to write, verbatim, what the Bible says in Ephesians 5:22-31. When the text says, “Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord, for the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is head of the Church, He himself being the Savior of the body, But as the Church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything…” If that does not equate to MEN ARE CALLED TO BE THE LEADERS WITHIN THE MARRIAGE RELATIONSHIP, then I don’t know what it means….”
PeterMC,
It doesn’t have anything to do with the husbands. This section of Scripture is only addressing the wives. It’s only about the wives attitudes toward the husbands.
If you want to see what the husband’s attitudes should be then you need to read down a little further.
”28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church—“
In this section is the behavior, character and attitudes of husbands. And as you can see, it has nothing whatsoever to do with a husband leading. Rather it has to do with a husband loving his wife as if she were his own body, nourishing, caring for, providing for, etc.
TL,
Respectfully…your interpretation is weak at best here, and exposition even weaker…
Wives are being addressed in how they are to relate to their husbands. There is an absolute and distinguishing way in which wives are to act reference their husbands. The inverse of a wive submitting is the husband leading. That’s about as clear to me as water is wet; I am not interpreting anything not stated.
The verses that follow offer more insight on how the husband is to lead…
Pete
TL,
How can you say this section in Ephesians has nothing to do with husbands and is only speaking of the wives attitudes? It says, “for the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is head of the Church…” That doesn’t say anything about husbands?
If they are to be, “head of the wife” as “Christ is head of the church,” does that not mean authority/leadership in some form? If you don’t believe so, what do you think it means for “Christ to be head of the church”?
”How can you say this section in Ephesians has nothing to do with husbands and is only speaking of the wives attitudes? It says, “for the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is head of the Church…” That doesn’t say anything about husbands?”
Cherylu,
Simple. It is saying “FOR” as a reason for her to attach herself to her husband in a trusting submissive manner. Paul is not addressing the husbands, only the wives. How the wives are to view their husbands has little to do with how the husbands are to behave. Further, the wives are to do so in the same way they as part of the church do so. How is that? Well, for starters, Christians in trusting adoration of the Lords laying down His life for those who will believe and accept His precious gift, yield to and attach their lives to Christ in response to His unspeakable gift.
This is a head and body metaphor in which both parts must attach themselves to the other in order to maintain life. How the wives are to behave has little to do with how the husbands are to behave. We should not get into trying to tell the other what to do, but concentrate on our own responsibilities. The husband’s responsibilities are clearly laid out in vs. 28-29. This is not a point by point thesis, but a general picture of how to achieve the unity of marriage (vs. 31), believed to have been written in response to the callousness of the privileged males of that era. Paul was speaking against the flow of life for those times.
TL,
One final point for me, as my life expectancy has reached an end on this blog…in the end, we agree to disagree.
Don’t confuse yourself in the Ephesians 5 passage –
There is a great, beautiful picture painted for how men and women are to govern themselves within marriage here…and it is the picture of Christ and the Church.
VV 28-29 call men to exhibit servanthood towards their wives…the same way that Christ serves His church. In that sense again, what a challenge that is for all men as they seek to lead within the construct of marriage…lead as Christ led…be a servant.
Christ, throughout the gospels, throughout the Bible…is painted and portrayed as our leader…and His primary method was servanthood. That’s what you see in vv 28-29 of Eph 5.
Pete
TL,
I don’t think your idea of the head and body metaphor works very well here or in the other places in the NT where Christ is spoken of as our “head”. Christ is the head of the church. What does that mean? Does Christ have to attach Himself to the church in order for Him to maintain His life? I don’t think so! We surely have to be attached to Him for our life, but He does not have to be attached to us for His. I think headship here has much more to do with leadership and authority.
Here is the definition of “head” from the old Thayer’s Lexicon:
1) the head, both of men and often of animals. Since the loss of the head destroys life, this word is used in the phrases relating to capital and extreme punishment.
2) metaph. anything supreme, chief, prominent
a) of persons, master lord: of a husband in relation to his wife
b) of Christ: the Lord of the husband and of the Church
c) of things: the corner stone
I agree that the husband’s responsibilites are laid out in the next verses. If husband’s carry out their responsibility as listed in those verses, it shouldn’t be so difficult for a wife to carry out what God tells her to do. Then there can be great unity in marriage.
“Christ, throughout the gospels, throughout the Bible…is painted and portrayed as our leader…and His primary method was servanthood. “
It seems the Jews wanted The Messiah to be their leader. But Jesus came instead as the suffering servant.
Isa. 61:1 “The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me,
Because the LORD has anointed Me
To preach good tidings to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives,
And the opening of the prison to those who are bound; “
It’s a fact of life that there will be irreconciliable differences between complementarians and egalitarians.
Sometimes, some complementarians become egalitarians. And sometimes some egalitarians become complementarians.
Complementarians wonder how egalitarians could read and understand Scripture the way they do. And Egalitarians wonder how complementarians could read and understand Scripture the way they do.
(a) Both are right (?)
(b) Both are wrong (?)
(c) One is right and one is wrong.
And the severity of the wrong, if any, will be known on the other side of heaven.
As should be apparent, I’m a Bible-believing Christian who happens to be a resolute complementarian who thinks it’s (c) above, and that at best, egalitarians have good intentions but end up doing significant damage to the Body of Christ.
Complementarians wonder how egalitarians could read and understand Scripture the way they do. And Egalitarians wonder how complementarians could read and understand Scripture the way they do.
How very true–about this issue and also a lot of others!
As should be apparent, I’m a Bible-believing Christian who happens to believe in Biblical equality who thinks it’s none of the above, and that at best, complementarians have good intentions but end up doing significant damage to the Body of Christ.
For my whole life I believed in and lived the traditional and patriarchal beliefs until I became a Christian and started reading the Bible — the whole Bible. (Complementarianism hadn’t been created yet) With lots of research and lots of prayer and struggling every step of the way, God changed my viewpoint and in it I found healing.
It is likely that every person has personal reasons that are affected as to why they choose to understand things in the paradigm they have chosen. God will use whatever He can to help us draw near to Him. For me it was the concepts of Biblical equality that drew me closest to the Lord and that closeness has been the high point of my life.
Pete,
You are taking verses out of context and ending up with whatever you wish.
The IMMEDIATE context is the pericope, which in this case is Eph 5:15-6:9.
It is ESSENTIAL to establish the correct ranges of the pericope, as there is ESSENTIAL teaching you are missing by truncating it as you do.
Some of that ESSENTIAL teaching is found in Eph 5:21. In fact, Eph 5:22 does not stand on its own as it has no verb. In Eph 5:21 you will find where ALL believers at to submit to ALL believers, it is mutual submission, just like ALL believers are to love ALL believers, forgive ALL believers, etc.
This means a believing husband is commanded to submit to his believing wife, in mutual submission. If a husband were commanded to LEAD his wife, we would see the corresponding verb of the wife needing to OBEY her husband, but we see nothing of the sort, altho it is true that slaves in the 1st century household and kids are to obey the parents.
And all the examples of Christ as head of the church are serving examples, simply serving, no leading example to be found in the list. Yes, Jesus is Lord, but that is NOT the mapping being done by Paul in Eph 5, the mapping is to Jesus as savior, a serving function. Do not go beyond the Biblical text like you are doing, this leads to all sorts of errors.
Of course, the husband is NOT the savior of the wife, only Jesus is that, but the call of Paul is for the husband to NOT look down on his call to serve his wife, after all Jesus serves all of us and it certainly does not diminish what Jesus is.
No one can be led to where they do not want to go, but know this, that you are choosing to go where you are going and have no Biblical warrant to go there. Traditions of men, yes; Biblical warrant no.
TL: “God will use whatever He can to help us draw near to Him. For me it was the concepts of Biblical equality that drew me closest to the Lord and that closeness has been the high point of my life.”
It’s probably more likely that the high point of your life is a low point for true God since you’ve distorted God and His Word to create your image of egalitarian God instead of God as He truly is.
You’ve merely drawn closer to your false and distorted image of God.
Don,
You wrote, And all the examples of Christ as head of the church are serving examples, simply serving, no leading example to be found in the list.
After rereading all of the verses in the Bible where Jesus is spoken of as the “head”, I just can not see that statement as being correct. A couple of times they are in a context that speaks of serving, but it is also used in a context that speaks of His power and authority.
And you say Paul says nothing about the wife “obeying” the husband. But Peter certainly does. He speaks of her submitting as Sarah “obeyed Abraham and called him lord.” I Peter 3:4-6
“It’s probably more likely that the high point of your life is a low point for true God since you’ve distorted God and His Word to create your image of egalitarian God instead of God as He truly is.
You’ve merely drawn closer to your false and distorted image of God.”
This is not true and is a lie of the accuser of Christians. I know in whom I have believed.
How sad that this site allows this sort of attack on a fellow Christian’s relationship with The Messiah.
In Eph 5, where Paul makes the mapping of the husband/wife to Christ/church, all the examples of Christ as head are serving examples. The husband certainly has Scriptural warrant to serve his wife, but there are ZERO leading examples in Eph 5. Jesus is certainly Lord, rabbi, THE Prophet and many other fulfillments of Scripture, but in the Eph 5 mapping, the husband is mapped to Jesus as savior. It is a mistake to take even that mapping too far, but it is a bigger mistake to make the verses say something they do not even say.
Submission at times MIGHT mean obeying another. Sarah obeyed Abraham AND Abraham obeyed Sarah. However, submission and obedience are not the same thing. Daniel was in submission to the king, but he did not always obey the king.
In any case, Peter NEVER explicitly comes out and says a wife must obey her husband, he uses Sarah as an example of someone who did obey her husband (and we need to see that the (sometimes) obedience was symmetrical to see the full picture) and that God protected her.
Would love to know when Don Johnson is going to start his own blog 😀
Don,
Before the verse that speaks of the husband being the head, there is this verse (5:22):
“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.” It seems to me you are leaving this verse out of the equation here.
Again, from the old Thayer’s Lexicon the definition of “lord”:
1) he to whom a person or thing belongs, about which he has power of deciding; master, lord
a) the possessor and disposer of a thing
1) the owner; one who has control of the person, the master
2) in the state: the sovereign, prince, chief, the Roman emperor
b) is a title of honour expressive of respect and reverence, with which servants greet their master
c) this title is given to: God, the Messiah
Why in the world would Paul tell wives to submit themselves to their husbands as “unto the Lord” (considering the definitons of Lord given above) if the husband has absolutely no similar functions in the marriage whatsoever? Would that make any sense?
You may say that “head” in these verses refers to only servanthood. (I would argue that in the greater context of Scripture it refers to a whole lot more then that.) But surely submitting as to the Lord holds a different idea then just servanthood.
cheyrlu,
You ask good questions.
Eph 5 (and all the rest of Scripture for that matter) needs to be read in its historical context.
Aristotle taught that a husband RULED his wife, kids, and household slaves and that the latter 3 obeyed the paterfamilias (family father). This was codified in the laws of the lands around the Med., Ephesus was under Roman law at this time, for example. It was not even possible for a wife to take her husband to court, it was just assumed that the husband spoke for all the members in the household. In other words, there was a definite skew towards patriarchy, altho there was a trend towards more and more women’s liberation over time.
So the pagan culture taught and enforced that the husband had all the control, this included deciding whether to abandon (kill) a newborn baby or not and similar things; the closest idea today is like a mafia godfather in terms of the control a husband had over the household.
Here is my translation of the relevant text.
My translation of Eph 5:21-22 … mutually submitting in the fear of Messiah; wives (mutually submitting) to your husbands as to the Lord.
The verb does not exist in Eph 5:22 and so in brought down from Eph 5:21. Eph 5:21 is where Paul takes the closest Greek word he has in Greek and refines it to make it mutual.
Don,
I would not say Paul ‘refines’ this word. He uses a middle-voice form of ‘hupotasso’ – ‘hupotassomenoi’, so it is neither passive nor active – it is an action we perform on ourselves. This concept could escape the notice of an English-speaker, since we do not have a middle voice in English. The closest thing would be a reflexive – ‘submit yourselves’ or ‘subordinate yourselves’. So that in this sense, you were very right to say that it has nothing to do with anyone ruling over us. The whole point is that we are not doing things because someone is forcing us to, but completely voluntarily. And then, yes, he uses the word ‘allelois’ – ‘to one another’. And the verb from 5:21 is indeed carried over to 5:22.
Don,
It seems to me that verse 21 is speaking to the body of Christ as a whole–just people to people–and then verse 22 gets into the particulars of the marriage relationship.
And according to Thayer’s again, the word translated “one to another” in verse 21 is a “reciprocal plural pronoun”. A different word altogether is used in verse 22 where it says wives are to submit to their husbands. So why do you think verse 22 means “mutually submitting”?
(I know the Thayer’s Lexicon is outdated. However, I don’t have easy access to any other lexicon like I do to it. That is why I keep referring to it.)
cherylu,
Actually, it’s three words – ‘tois idiois andrasin’ (‘to their own husbands’). I think that where Don is getting this mutuality thing is from the middle voice – which could be confused with the reflexive we have in English, but is in fact not the same thing. I don’t have Thayer’s lexicon, but it seems to me it hasn’t given you any false information in the matter we are discussing.
caraboska,
My point was that the phrase “one to another” in verse 21 shows mutuality (according to Thayer’s) while the pronoun in verse 22 where it speaks of submitting to their husbands does not.
So it seems to me that there is a basic difference in grammatical structure here between the verses here.
I don’t understand the point about mutuality being from the middle voice in this circumstance. Can you explain more?
I have been loosely following the resurgence of this post so I might be repeating something that has been said already. The lexical meaning of the word is supported by the context. Regardless if the verb has the middle voice or not, you have to examine the parallel that is being drawn between the husband and wife AND Christ and the church. Are Christ and the church mutually submissive to one another? no. The body submits to Christ – the wife submits to the husband. Christ loves his church sacrificially – the husband loves his wife sacrificially. There is a mutual submission in the sense that each submits to their responsibility toward the other but that should not be construed for mutual submission that negates that responsibility.
I should also note that the force of the middle voice would emphasize the subject’s participation (Wallace, pg 414) but does not suggest a mutuality of responsibility.
Thanks Lisa. Well said I think.
Lisa, the mutuality is introduced in verse 21.
huptassomenoi allElois en phobO theou.
TL, I realize it says that but what does it mean? To say that it means an obliteration of roles would be to negate the parallels of Christ and his church in vv 23-33. Rather, it is a mutual submission that involves submitting to the responsibility towards the other person as defined by these verses. Otherwise, why go into a description of what this mutual submission looks like?
To draw on the parallel, did Christ submit to a painful death on the cross for his church? yes. Does that obliterate his role as head of the church? no
TL,
But I don’t understand how you believe that mutuality continues to verse 22. Can you explain further please?
“To draw on the parallel, did Christ submit to a painful death on the cross for his church? yes. Does that obliterate his role as head of the church? no”
Problem here is that there is a tad bit of circular reasoning going on. Christ being God in the flesh has all “roles” or responsibilities in his hands. Husbands do not, nor are they admonished to take on all the responsibilities of Christ. So, one needs to first establish according to Scripture what responsibilities a husband has toward his wife. Those responsibilities are spelled out in verses 28-29.
You might keep in mind, that no one on any ‘side’ of the discussion wants to obliterate those responsibilities.
“But I don’t understand how you believe that mutuality continues to verse 22. Can you explain further please?”
In verse 22 there is no verb. Thus the verb in vs. 21 along with it’s meaning is carried forward to verse 22. Remember, that in the original language there were no verses. Verse 21 and 22 are part of the same ‘sentence’ if properly interpreted into English.
You are correct, that the discussion should ponder a bit more on “submitting to one another” before trying to decipher the rest.
Allelon = 1) one another, reciprocally, mutually
In NET: one another 78, each other 6, one another’s 3, themselves 2, to one another 2, another 2, of one another 1, other 1, to each other 1, toward one another 1
In AV: one another 76, themselves 12, yourselves 3, misc 9