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"
Exactly Caraboska #746
and BTW I emailed you to see if we can figure out your posting and PM ing problems on the other forums.
Caraboska, I mean exactly regarding #749. 🙂
Getting back to the original topic…..
I’m wondering about how this head pastor discussion equates with Deborah in the OT, when she led Israel, when Barak refused to? Wasn’t she the judge of Israel at the time? I’m sure someone above must have wondered that as well, but I simply don’t have the time to wade through all 753 comments.
#748 TUAD: “Does it bother you to know that there are egalitarians who don’t believe that same-sex behavior is a sin and that they believe that active homosexuals can be ordained to church leadership? Or it doesn’t bother you because you agree with these egalitarians and you’re one of them?”
#745 TUAD: “It’s merely to rebut EricW’s false and poor reasoning that if you affirm one part of another person/group’s statements, then you have to affirm all of them.”
This is merely to rebut false and poor reasoning that if you affirm one part of another person/group’s statements, then you have to affirm all of them.
mbaker,
Deborah was not only a judge, but a prophetess. Called by God. Evidently she was not called to be a military leader, however. That was supposed to be Barak’s job. And it was not one he wanted…
Comments nos. 13, 148, 378, 581-582 (one long comment in two segments) all mention Deborah.
I’m not avoiding your question; I’m ignoring it.
Thanks, Caraboska.
EricW,
In other words, not all of us even believe in ordination per se, or indeed, in any non-congregational form of church government 🙂
“According to scripture, we are to remain quiet. So a strictly literal reading would say ‘no’. But then we don’t do church entirely by the Book, then do we?”
mbaker,
Yes, and another one of the complimentarians numerous qualifications to their reading of Scripture, so once again their view dies the death of numerous qualifications.
Goes right a long with somehow finding “head pastor” in words that aren’t there. It’s beyond me, that they label egalitarians as the inconsistent ones.
OK, I’m going to be really rude here. Let’s just REALLY ignore the troll entity (as opposed to just writing about same) and get on with the discussion 🙂
caraboska:
Even though I changed my post (which you were replying to), you’re probably right in what you say – which was kind of what I was implying. I.e., TUAD’s question/inquisition contained some implications about how and what church should be such that a response to his/her/its question would tacitly imply agreement or disagreement with all the elements of the question, including his/her/its assumptions about things. Because the question is irrelevant to this thread as well as to the other posters here, I am ignoring his/her/its inquisition.
Peter,
I can tell the difference between you and others.
On 1 Cor 11, one needs to come up with a meaning for head that covers all the relationships mentioned. I agree it is a puzzle. In this case, I think head means source, like in head of a river. The man is the source of the woman is a ref. to the man and the woman in the garden, for example. And it is not in the form of a hierarchy, so one should not try to turn it into one by altering the inspired format given, so this is another clue for me that it is not a hierarchy.
Another point is that Bereans really need to study both sides of the gender question and study both sides in their own words, do not think if you read a non-egal paper that it will present the egal arguments correctly, as the author does not believe them and vice versa.
There is at least 1 non-egal that became egal after studying Payne’s new book. And there could be the reverse. But if you WANT to know how to understand any of the gender verses in an egal way, I can help.
“It’s disingenuous for ProtEvangel’s to appeal to Linsley to bolster a case for patriarchalism if they reject her views on the church and the priesthood.”
EricW,
You put it so delicately. Many people just call it what is – “Two-faced.”
Head to me also suggests the use of the brain. We are told to ‘use our heads’ in that sense of the word when we have judgement calls to make of any kind. I think when we do so in an objective rather than subjective way, as Don Johnson has suggested, we can see there would have been no use for women in the church after Eve’s sin, had the Lord actually meant there to be the end of any kind of female spiritual influence in his kingdom. Fortunately, Christ was the great equalizer, and still is regardless of what form modern day church leadership takes.
[quote]cherylu on 04 Jun 2010 at 1:32 pm #
TL,
Lisa is making exactly the same point as I have been trying to make. If the wife is to be subject to the husband “just as” the church is to the Christ, that can not mean a mutuality in submission to each other in the way you are saying that it does. Christ is not “mutually submissive to the Church”. He is Lord of the chuch.[/quote]
No, Christ doesn’t submit “to” the church, but “for” her sake.
…..but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Php 2:7-8
This is the exact same example husbands are to told to do – to “give himself up” or “empty” himself for the sake of his wife.
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her…..Eph 5:25
The analogy in Ephesians of husbands (toward their wives) is the same self-sacrifice as that of Jesus (for the church.)
CMP Blog Topic: Women Cannot Be Head Pastors
There are no complementarians who affirm Scripture’s teaching that women cannot be head pastors who also believe that same-sex behavior is not a sin.
In contrast, there are certainly some egalitarians who not only believe that women can or should be head pastors, but they also believe that same-sex behavior is not a sin.
This is very telling. And it’s why some egalitarians don’t like the Light being shined on this aspect of egalitarianism.
Victorious,
You brought out a good point. Thanks.
I think it is important to realize how much Christ did give up for all of us, male and female, to really appreciate and value the church as He sees it through the eyes of someone who actually gave up His life as a normal man, and a husband, a father, and all the things He could have been here on earth. That should put any of our own puny attempts to have ‘authority’ ourselves into perspective, no matter who we are!
“There are no complementarians who affirm Scripture’s teaching that women cannot be head pastors who also believe that same-sex behavior is not a sin.”
Truth Unites….Divides,
LOL – you must really get around – having polled every complementarian in the world.
Hey Kohlberg,
I don’t know of any complementarians who believe that same-sex behavior isn’t a sin. Do you?
And you do know, don’t you, that there are some egalitarians who say that same-sex behavior isn’t a sin.
Are you one of the egalitarians who don’t believe that same-sex behavior is a sin?
Don,
I appreciate it — clearly, some on both sides take views to extremes…and I don’t want to fall into that category.
I think all that I’ve been trying to say is that it is possible to think women ought not to be head Pastors in a church, without believing there is any difference in worth and value. This is ultimately where I come down…that men ought to be leaders within the marriage, the family, and the church — but to view their leadership as God-designed, a calling to do one’s best. It is a Holy commission to try and do one’s best, knowing that the behavior to model is in fact Christ himself, the head of the Church, who led not by dominating, but by serving…
The very best leaders in history – even secular ones, such as military generals, heads of State, etc…were ones who put others’ needs above their own…who sacrificed for the betterment of a whole. Some of the worst, in my opinion, were ones who flaunted their rank, expected others to do every bidding, etc. The first lesson in being a humble, effective leader is being humble.
And for me, that’s what men are called to try and be. Do we always get it right? No…but like anything else in life, I believe we have to try…and I believe this not because I think it’s the right way…I believe it because I think through Scripture, God lays this out. To me, it’s not optional. I’m a man. I chose to get married. So now, I have to lead. Does my wife need to be led? No. Is she inferior to me? No. But ultimately, I think God will hold me accountable for the overall success/failure of my our marriage. That is why to me, this is an important subject. I can’t afford to get it wrong.
All best-
“Are you one of the egalitarians who don’t believe that same-sex behavior is a sin?”
No, of course not. I don’t know any egalitarians who don’t believe that same-sex behavior is a sin either.
How many do you know?
Hey Kohlberg,
I’m glad that, at least, you’re an egalitarian who will state that same-sex behavior is a sin.
Let me introduce you to one of many egalitarians who believes that same-sex behavior is not a sin:
Integrity USA President Susan Russell honored.
“The Reverend Susan Russell is one of my favorite bloggers at An Inch at a Time. Susan is an Episcopal priest in California and a lesbian in a relationship.”
” Susan is an Episcopal priest in California and a lesbian in a relationship.””
Nothing at all to do with whether or not a Christian woman should serve in leadership in the Body of Christ. And it really is best this vein of discussion is not entertained.
CMP Blog Topic: Women Cannot Be Head Pastors
There are no complementarians (that I’m aware of) who affirm Scripture’s teaching that women cannot be head pastors who also believe that same-sex behavior is not a sin.
In contrast, there are certainly some egalitarians who not only believe that women can or should be head pastors, but they also believe that same-sex behavior is not a sin.
This is a good light to shine on egalitarianism. Embrace the light, don’t run away from it.
PeteMC,
Although I still do not agree that ‘head’ pastor is biblical, I do appreciate your defining so well the role of a Godly man in both church leadership and marriage.
My husband is also such a man, fortunately. In fact, he said today the same thing that Victorious did, and you have. The role of a true leader in whatever position he (or she) is in is not one of dominance but of Godly humility and service. Such people lead by example, and are followed for that reason.
Well said.
“The role of a true leader in whatever position he (or she) is in is not one of dominance but of Godly humility and service. Such people lead by example, and are followed for that reason.”
And such people are leaders as a result of their godly behavior, not by reasons of the flesh. First comes godly behavior then comes acknowledgement as a person people are inspired by and want to follow.
Truth Unites….Divides,
Thanks for the offer to introduce me to your friend, Susan Russell, but I don’t have the means to travel all the way to California. If you ever get to Arkansas, let me know. Hospitality as evangelistic outreach is my ministry, and I would be glad to host you both.
Are you one of the complementarians who believes it’s not a sin to beat your children?
http://www.drmomma.org/2010/02/no-greater-joy-ministries-biblical.html
Hey Kohlberg,
Here’s another influential egalitarian who maintains that same-sex behavior is not a sin:
Virginia Mollenkott.
TUAD,
“In contrast, there are certainly some egalitarians who not only believe that women can or should be head pastors, but they also believe that same-sex behavior is not a sin.”
What is you’re point?? You are committing every logical fallacy in the book and you know it. Since you and me are Trinitarians we must also believe that the Pope is the infallible head of the church since Roman Catholics are Trinitarian’s and believe this.
Read all of #775. The point is pretty clear.
Here’s another egalitarian priestess who believes that same-sex behavior is not a sin:
Rev. Dr. Katherine Ragsdale.
Excerpt: “The new president of the Episcopal Divinity School is openly gay and an outspoken advocate of abortion and “LGBT” rights.”
[From her first sermon] “These are the two things I want you, please, to remember – abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Let me hear you say it: abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done.”
“What is you’re point?? You are committing every logical fallacy in the book and you know it. Since you and me are Trinitarians we must also believe that the Pope is the infallible head of the church since Roman Catholics are Trinitarian’s and believe this.”
Michael T.,
He has no point. He just gets his jollies insulting others and talking down to them – makes him feel all superior and special. It’s why he loves compism – it feeds his male ego…and his is apparently badly in need of nourishment. 😉
Michael T and Kohlberg,
For the sake of the excellent discussion at hand perhaps we can leave off following a destructive rabbit trail hosted by Unites & Divides, and continue with the topic at hand. Those who thirst for division will never be satisfied.
“Those who thirst for division will never be satisfied.”
That would be the egalitarians.
“After years of studying the question of women priests she [ex-TEc priestess Alice Linsley] is persuaded that this innovation [women’s ordination] is the root cause of the schism within Anglicanism.”
“Those who thirst for division will never be satisfied.”
That rather fits lesbian priestess Katherine Ragsdale who preached:
“These are the two things I want you, please, to remember –
abortion is a blessing and our work is not done.
Let me hear you say it:
abortion is a blessing and our work is not done.
Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done.
Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done.”
TL,
Awwww, shucks…I was just having fun with the little guy. Look at him go now – he’s probably about to blow a gasket!
Hey Kohlberg,
At least you’re one of the egalitarians who will declare that same-sex behavior is a sin.
May I remind all present to keep in mind that there may be people present on this blog who have homosexual inclinations but are celibate for Biblical reasons, for whom making light of this issue (‘having fun with the little guy’) is NOT AT ALL FUNNY. Let’s just shut up and get back to the discussion at hand, OK? It is getting to be DAMNED ANNOYING. Is my meaning clear?
Email this to churches that affirm women pastors and elders
Excerpt:
“Please understand that we believe women are under-appreciated and under-utilized in the Church. But we also believe that God’s word is supreme, that it is above our desires, above culture, and that we need to adhere to what God tells us and not substitute it with a feeling or even an experience. The health of God’s church is linked to its dependence on God’s word, and pastors and elders will be held responsible before God for what they teach.
Finally, research shows that the majority of churches and denominations that affirm women pastors and elders often then adopt pro-homosexual and pro-abortion positions. We are not suggesting you are doing this, but it is important to note that when compromise occurs in one area of scripture, it is easier to compromise in another.”
Of note, there are no complementarian churches or denominations (which I’m aware of) that are pro-homosexual or pro-abortion. The only churches and denominations that are pro-homosexual and/or pro-abortion are also egalitarian.
TUAD,
I am speaking this as a complimentarian as everyone who has been following this thread for the last several days would surely know.
However, I don’t think throwing this quote in people’s face, Finally, research shows that the majority of churches and denominations that affirm women pastors and elders often then adopt pro-homosexual and pro-abortion positions. We are not suggesting you are doing this, but it is important to note that when compromise occurs in one area of scripture, it is easier to compromise in another.” is going to get you very far.
It seems to me that it is quite apparent that the folks who are egalatarians here–of whatever degree or “flavor”–believe what they do because they believe that this is the correct way of interpreting the Bible and NOT because they are compromising Scripture.
It has gotten to seem like a rabbit trail to this complimentarian that you keep on and on with this, and frankly, that last quote could be and probably will be, considered quite insulting to the egalitarians commenting here.
Cherylu,
First, now the egalitarians get to see that they are compromising Scripture and the resulting effects of compromising Scripture.
Second, in the New Testament there are quite a bit of passages about false teachers. Those false teachers felt quite insulted for being called false teachers. The fact that they felt insulted did not stop the Holy Spirit from inspiring the NT writers to call the false teachers… false teachers.
Pax.
I agree that the Bible has a lot to say about false teachers. However, in this case the egalitarians are just as convinced that the complimentarians are the ones teaching falsehood as you are that they are the ones wrong.
Sooo…..Are we just going to sit here and hurl accusations back and forth??
Gotta go. Are going out to dinner tonight.
Peter,
If you want to claim that head means leader and therefore you are a leader in serviing your wife and also follow 1 Cor 13 where love does not insist on its own way, I have no concerns with your formulation.
If you alter the above, I would ask why and also how you might not be falling into interpreting Scripture for your own advantage, which is a temptation for all of us sinners.
MT:
“You are committing every logical fallacy in the book and you know it.”
LOL!
Am sick so am here to mostly read. And I got a kick out of MT’s statement. Glad someone voiced what I’ve been observing.
Don,
In a nutshell, what you described is what I believe the passages in Ephesians 5 and 1 Corinthians mean. I’m content to leave it at that.
For practical purposes — and I don’t know what you or anyone else does for a living on this blog, nor do I really care (I mean that out of love and a little bit of humor) — everything needs a head, a leader, something to steer the ship. This is true in business, in politics, in the Army, and it’s also true in our church’s, families, and marriages. When there are no leaders, there is no vision…and things tend not to function properly.
While leadership takes on a variety of forms in everything I mentioned above, to singular people, to groups, associations, etc., I believe that through Scripture, God calls the man to lead within the marriage. To do so humbly, reverently, through being a Servant — and looking out for the needs of his wife, his family, etc. To love my wife the way Christ loved the church. If I am to have an example of who to replicate in my life as well as within my marriage, that’s it — Christ. That isn’t something I came up with to put on a Hallmark card….that’s what Ephesians says, literally, to me, anyways.
To see through the highs as well as the lows, in good times and bad…both the husband and wife are committed to each other. And the husband can’t be responsible for everything the wife does or doesn’t do…this is not realistic. However…I do think God will hold me, as the husband, overall responsible for all that my marriage does or fails to do…
Best—
Peter,
I agree that the Bible teaches that authority and responsibility are coupled.
I do think leaders are necessary. In a family, the parents are the co-equal leaders. In a church, the elders/overseers plural are the co-equal leaders. I recommend checking the relevant verses to see that plurality of elders of a congregation is the norm in the NT.
Since they are co-equal in authority, they are also co-equal in responsibility.
Also, there is a principle in Scripture that one is NOT responsible for what one does not have control over/authority over.
So I teach full responsible for parents and elders.
Don—
In the end, I agree what you say about elders/overseers, plurality, and authority.
I do agree that parents are co-equal authorities within the family.
And I (though not you and many others) would take it one step further—and say that not only are the above true, but one more thing is true — the husband is called to be the head within the marriage leadership.
I end it right there. I don’t add that ‘clearly, this means that the wife is worthless and has no say.’ I don’t add that ‘well, since the husband is the head, he runs the show totally by himself and with no input and help from his wife.’ I certainly don’t extrapolate any kind of difference in value between men and women. This has everything to do with roles/responsibilities, not worth…
On the contrary, I would revert to the first two points we agree on….and simply add that to me, the third point can be true without violating the first two. In the end, if we don’t see the same on that third point, then that’s fine…I can live with that, and I’m pretty sure you can too.
Best—
”I believe that through Scripture, God calls the man to lead within the marriage. To do so humbly, reverently, through being a Servant — and looking out for the needs of his wife, his family, etc. To love my wife the way Christ loved the church.”
Peter MC,
What this describes is providing and protecting, not leading. The Scriptures also call it providing and protecting…. If we all just stuck to what the Scriptures actually are saying instead of having to categorize it into words that carry extra meanings, we’d likely be in pretty close agreement.
“28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church.”NKJV
“ 28So ought men also to love their own wives as their own bodies: he that loves his own wife loves himself.29For no one has ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, even as also the Christ the assembly:” Darby Version
“28So husbands should love their wives as they love their own bodies. The man who loves his wife loves himself.29No one ever hated his own body. But he feeds it and takes care of it.” WE
“…the husband is called to be the head within the marriage leadership.”
I’ve a question(s) for you Peter, what specificaly in the scriptures defines “head” for you. In other words what context says to you whether it’s in Eph 5 or 1 Co 11, that “head” means “authority over”? Or where and how exactly do the scriptures themselves define kephale to you? If we had to allow only the scriptures to define kephale, what is said that defines it for you when it is used to refer to husbands? (Also I note that kephale is not in 1 Tim 2, therefore there is no context in 1 Tim 2 to define kephale and neither is it in 1 Co 14, but Genesis 2 is in Eph 5 where kephale is used and it is also in 1 Co 11)
I’d like to have a better idea of where you are coming from exactly in how/why you take “head” to mean “authority over” when used to refer to husbands or “the man” (1 Co 11) if you have the time. Thanks.
Peter,
FWIIW, I see Eph 5 discussing a head/husband/Christ and body/wife/church as a head/body metaphor of unity. In the husband/wife case it is a one flesh unity in diversity.
Notice that it is not “head over” just “head of”. And previously in Eph, Christ the head acts like a source of life to his body the church.
I agree that this metaphor is not used much if at all today, but we need to strive to do our best to understand it as they would have back then.
Don, Pinklight, TL, and others—
I maintain, as I have before, that no amount of Scripture will cause all of us to see things in exactly the same manner. We understand that…but the points you raise are good ones…and this is a healthy discussion, and a friendly one…
TL, you said yourself that the Scriptures call it (what I’ve called leading) as providing and protecting. Ok. I’m fine with that. You may not see that as leading; I do. If I am to provide for my wife, protect her, and do all of the implied tasks that come with those two verbs, then I would argue by simple extension that I have to maintain some sort of leadership role within the marriage. Again, I am not equating ‘leadership’ to ‘domination’. There is a huge difference. And I also say that if I’m the one called to provide and protect and serve, then I’m the one also called to know what right is supposed to look like. Essentially, that’s how I get “leadership” out of those passages. If you don’t agree, I would submit to you that the word you really have the problem with is leadership…probably because so many leaders you and I know are not good leaders. There is a negative connection with that word. I argue that the way God lays it out and the way Christ demonstrated it, that there isn’t.
As far as the head/body comments go in these Scriptures, I agree with what all of you are saying, but yes…I don’t see it the same way. If I am called to be the ‘head of’ my wife, as Christ also is the head of the church,’ and to ‘love my wife, just as Christ also loved the Church and gave himself up for her,’ then in addition to having one heck of a tall order to follow, I also have got to realize that this is something I am the male, exclusively, am charged with doing. This doesn’t make me better; but it does make my charge unique.
(continued)