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"
/begin sarcasm
This just in – the majority of those individuals who support Trinitarianism also support the infallibility of the Pope (there are roughly 2.1 billion Christians and 1.1 Billion Catholics). Now I’m not saying that any of you are headed down this road, but I must warn of the danger of holding to Trinitarianism and the un-biblical heresies to which it leads.
/end sarcasm
For the record I fully affirm Trinitarianism and deny the infallibility of the Pope (I’m Baptist). TUAD please look up the meaning of “post hoc ergo propter hoc”.
(continued)
And while we are called, together, as all of you have pointed out, to love each other mutually and together to be one strong unit, I do not see anywhere where the same charge (to be the head of the husband…just as Christ is head…) is given to the wife. It’s just not in there, period. Lastly…and this is not insignificant: the husband is called to “love” his wife, and yes, Agape love…the best kind out there! Notice what the wife is called to do in Eph 5:33 — “respect” her husband. Again, in our culture, that word “respect” has a negative connotation…but it clearly isn’t meant to be and does not denote any lessening of value, worth, etc.
This all boils down, for me, to make one of the following three conclusions based on Scripture:
1. There are role differences for the husband and wife within marriage, and everything seems to point in the direction that as a man, I am to provide, protect, and love my wife, while my wife is called to respect me. We should do this in an atmosphere of love.
2. There are role differences for the husband and wife within marriage, and clearly, I am the head of my marriage and my wife is nothing, so I can walk over her all day and call of the shots, also meaning sh has to do my every bidding.
3. There are no role differences at all in marriage. Further, since Christ tells us to love one another, that’s what all of this really boils down to. The stuff about what and why the husband does this and the wife does this really, at the end of the day, equates to diddly-squat.
I subscribe to number 1. My wife is ok with me saying that I’m spiritual head of the house, or leader, or whatever…if she wasn’t, then that’s fine. I’d call myself the provider and protector if the word leader was offensive to her.
Words are important. If you don’t like the word leader, fine – go with something else. I’m okay with that. But our roles are different, and no amount of culture or…
anything else will change that…
Best—
Peter,
I have two questions.
1. If you’re wife refuses to do what you ask of her or follow you’re decision (it doesn’t matter how small or large the issue is) is she sinning because she is refusing to submit to you’re leadership??
2. Have you ever done something because you’re wife wanted to do even though it went against you’re desires and/or better judgment??
Me: “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.”
Michael T., I’m not committing the “post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy. I would be committing a logical fallacy if I had claimed that egalitarianism entails other biblically aberrant views (e.g. pro-homosexual, pro-abortion).
I’m merely noting an empirical trend or statistical correlation. This is not a claim that’s logically valid or invalid. Rather, this is a claim that’s either factually true or false.
I’m making a sociological observation, not a logical observation.
Peter,
On roles in marriage, first off, the term is not found in the Bible. It was used to describe what a person does in a play.
Also, all the cultures of the Bible were patriarchal, from VERY patriarchal with polygamy to paterfamilias patriarchal where the paterfamilias was like a mafia don. There was simply NO question about who was the boss, it was the husband, and this was enforced in law and included the husband telling his wife by letter to kill a baby. There was also slavery, enforced in law. It is in this type of what we today would call a monsterous culture that Paul wrote his words.
If you want to claim Eph 5 teaches roles about husband and wife, then you also need to claim that Eph 6 teaches roles about master and slave, at least if you wish to use a consistent hermeneutic, since it is the same pericope.
FWIIW, I do see some functions of husband and wife as different, only a wife can bear and suckle babies and only a husband can impregnate a wife. This is God’s design and I appreciate it and my wife. But that does not mean I get a trump card, even when the society tells me I do in a big or small way.
Even the claimed existence of a male trump card can distort the discussion process, even if it is never even used. A wife can just surrender to the inevitable, she has no say if the husband says she has no say. Where is the justice in that? Does this really sound like Jesus setting the captives free?
I am egal but I DO believe that egal does not trump every other consideration, love does. If my wife was actually “less than” me (say she had an accident that impaired her), it could be the loving thing to make decisions for her, but when she is not “less than” I cannot imagine why I would want to treat her as less than and make a final decision or however it is worded.
Another point is I want my wife to be my friend. But a hierarchy impacts a potential friendship is all kinds of negative ways. As I see it, to be a true friend, one must be a peer, an equal.
Even if society (whether 1st century or some churches) tells me I am the boss, I can choose to reject this and treat my wife as an equal and a friend. Since I love her I would be afraid of distorting the relationship.
And there is no question that in some hierarchichal marriages the relationship gets distorted. I have counseled in some. After getting “trumped” a few times, the wife sees it as a raw deal and starts reading egal books and sees that a marriage does not need to be structured as a hierarchy and the husband asks how he can be faithful to the Bible and not be a hierarchicalist. And I can help in those cases.
Do you want a marriage like that in Songs of Songs?
Here is something that is lost in translation.
Son 4:9 You have taken away my heart, my sister, my bride; you have taken away my heart, with one look you have taken it, with one chain of your neck!
The Torah clearly teaches that one cannot marry your sister, so the use MUST be metaphorical. And what was the metaphorical meaning? It meant EQUAL, as can be seen in other verses where a fictive family relationship is used.
Don, why do you suppose that a complementarian model would preclude the marriage from enjoying a mutual friendship or exemplery of Song of songs? I think that is a gross misunderstanding of the complementarian model.
I find it interesting that we focus so much on submission when the bulk of the passage is focused on how the husband is supposed to love his wife sacrificially. That means he considers and respects her and treats her with the highest level of care. I just don’t understand why there is so much opposition to submission considering this instruction given to the husband. If the husband does his part, submission would indeed ensure a harmonious and mutually beneficial relationship.
“”And while we are called, together, as all of you have pointed out, to love each other mutually and together to be one strong unit, I do not see anywhere where the same charge (to be the head of the husband…just as Christ is head…) is given to the wife. It’s just not in there, period.”
Peter #803
It’s not given to the husband either! The husband is not charged with being the head of his wife.
Unites and divides….. #807
That is really disgusting stuff. It would be nice if you would respect the brethren here by not posting it in this thread.
TL: “That is really disgusting stuff.”
I agree with you that it’s disgusting stuff. Are you one of the egalitarians who affirm biblical teaching that same-sex behavior is a sin?
These three egalitarian women clergy don’t believe that same-sex behavior is a sin:
In a workshop called `Prophetic Voices of Lesbians in the Church,’ Nadean Bishop, the first `out’ lesbian minister called to an American Baptist church, claimed that Mary and Martha in the Bible were lesbian `fore- sisters.’ She said they were not sisters, but lesbian lovers.
Janie Spahr, a self-avowed lesbian clergywoman in the Presbyterian Church USA … claimed that her theology is first of all informed by `making love with Coni,’ her lesbian partner.
Judy Westerdorf, a United Methodist clergywoman from Minnesota, told the workshop that the church `has always been blessed by gays and lesbians … witches … shamans.’
”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.”
PeterMC, 801
To my knowledge there is no place in Scriptures where it is described as leading either. Although I’m fine with the idea that husbands lead wives by being a godly example to her. Of course, wives are to be godly examples also. And in fact wives also provide and protect for their husbands in differing ways. The point that I see Paul making regarding marriage is that they are to attach themselves to one another as one unit and he pictures this for them by using the metaphor of head of and body of. If either head or body detaches, the life is gone.
It is my understanding that Paul is not dividing jobs between husbands and wives. Paul is NOT saying that husbands love sacrificially and wives cannot do the same. Paul is NOT saying that husbands are to do anything that wives are forbidden to do. Paul was not writing a thesis. He was first speaking to all Christians to both love sacrificially and to honor, respect, support and attach themselves to one another (submit to one another) and then goes on to make some points about these attitudes addressing the interpersonal relationships. In other words, these attributes and attitudes are not to stop in our interpersonal relationships. They are to permeate all areas of our lives. By adding in an idea of leader and follower, we miss the metaphor of two becoming as one in a way similar to how a head and body comprise one life.
TL,
It’s not given to the husband either! The husband is not charged with being the head of his wife.
It is simply stated in Ephesians 5 and in the verses in I Cor that were discussed earlier as a given, an established fact!
Lisa,
I think comp marriages can be blessed by God and honor God, but it depends a whole lot on the spiritual maturity of the parties, mostly the husband to NOT use the trump card he is taught he has.
There are many marriages where the husband is not mature and plays his supposed trump card a lot and rarely loves his wife as Christ loved the church; I find this very sad. And when I contrast that with egal marriages, how can one abuse the egal principles of mutual love, mutual respect and mutual submission. “You submitted to me too much and I do not like it.”?
That is, an egal marriage is simply a safer marriage model for sinners to inhabit. Any one can abuse, but the risks of a non-egal marriage are simply higher, as an egal wife can more easily say No and it stick.
Cherylu,
The husband IS the head, he is not called to ACT LIKE a head, or be a HEAD OVER, or similar. He IS the head and the wife IS the body and the question is what does this metaphor mean? I think it means a head/body metaphor of unity in diversity.
A lot of this discussion seems to have the idea behind it that Don just mentioned of an egal marriage being a lot safer for a wife because husbands can more easily abuse a spouse if a comp model is accepted. That may be true and no one wants to be an abused spouse or give license to a spouse to be an abuser.
But is that really a Scriptural reason to think that God doesn’t have comp marriages in mind? I’m thinking back to the I Peter 2-3 discussions again. There Christians were told to submit to the government and wives were told to submit to husbands “in the same way.” How many governments have given untold suffering and abuse to the people that they govern? A good share of them down through the history of mankind I believe. But did that stop God from telling people to submit to the ruling authorities? No. So why are we sometimes so sure that God can’t mean a wife is to be submissive to a husband because it might put her in a place where she can be abused in some way? It seems to me that God’s commands often end up putting people in places where they can be hurt or abused. We are also told to turn the other cheek and go the extra mile, to not revile when we are reviled, to not sue a fellow Christian but rather suffer wrong instead, and that suffering for doing right is the example Jesus has called us to follow.
Patton,
It is really disheartening to see you condoning the mean-spirited personal attacks of Truth Unites..Divides by allowing them to continue.
How can we condone the use of cutting sarcasm, when the Bible says, “If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other?”
Kay,
I don’t think Michael is probably reading this thread. He doesn’t usually have time to keep up with them after a certain point.
“I’m thinking back to the I Peter 2-3 discussions again.”
Context, context, context. In 1 Peter, the discussion is about suffering and dealing with non believers, in an era when there were no laws to protect people from abuses.
Kay and Cherylu,
You are both correct. Likely such actions are in hopes of shutting down discussion. Best thing to do is to ignore.
Kay,
Please note that I have alerted Michael to the situation regarding inappropriate and offensive comments here. He is probably very busy. I will send another reminder.
TL,
I don’t think I follow your reasoning about context here. There are still, for instance, many governments on earth today that seriously abuse their people. God’s commands haven’t changed because of that. He has said that the government is meant to be an agent of good, (as the husband is to the wife–not in the same way of course–but they sometimes abuse that terribly. That doesn’t mean he has eliminated any authority in government. So I just don’t follow.
Lisa,
Thank you for contacting Michael.
Re: #820: Kay, Are you by any chance in the habit of being too polite for your own good? I wouldn’t have been so nice 😉
Re: #813: Yes, I too had noticed that some quite frankly pornographic materials have been posted today. Some things are not fit to be spoken of. The fact that they are being spoken of, particularly on a thread which is not about sexual morality, bespeaks a degenerate mind. There are certain types of people with whom we should not even be eating. Is my meaning clear?
cherylu,
Perhaps you are correct, but I would then have to question the wisdom of having my name on a blog where the comments are left to run amuck like an unchained pit bull. It doesn’t seem to be good stewardship of one’s web space – at least to me.
Re: #819: This sounds like an argument that, if taken to its logical conclusion, would require us to just accept slavery and not try to change it, remove it from society as an ungodly element. I do not see that we are required to tolerate ungodly behavior if it is in our power to prevent it. Furthermore, there are people on this list for whom complementarianism is not just unsafe, given fallen human nature. It is a veiled (or sometimes not so veiled) attempt to place husbands in between God and their wives – idolatry, in other words.
Even if we define headship as ‘just providing for and protecting’, the problem still doesn’t go away – because it aims to produce a one-way dependency relationship between men and women. And men just love that and will do anything to hold onto it. And women just love it too because it means they don’t have to take responsibility for their lives. Which is all very nice except that at the Pearly Gates, it will all come out in the wash and all will be held responsible only for their own lives. All the idolatry will be seen clear as day.
God only knows whether people guilty of idolatry can even be considered believers. If by some miracle they can be, for example because of genuine ignorance (if indeed such a thing is possible, since God’s eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen in what has been made, so that men (and women) are without excuse), then they will be saved – as those escaping through the flames. If not, then… they will spend eternity in the flames.
The issue under discussion is one of the more important ones, because it is one of the most common places where idolatry appears, if it is going to appear. At any rate, I intend to spend my life calling people to worship the one true God and let nothing come between them and God.
Lisa,
Sorry, I hadn’t seen your note – thanks!
#824: Not to mention they do nothing to promote the cause of the original subject of the topic, but rather show a very clear picture here of what others are objecting to when those scriptures are used indiscriminately.
Despite that obvious attempt at sabotage, however, (which went on before in this thread) this has been an enlightening and respectful discussion on a very sensitive subject in the church. I hope Michael will not shut it down. There are some excellent comments here on both sides.
1 Peter 2:13-3:7 is the pericope/teaching unit on submission. The advice to the husband ALSO begins with a “likewise”.
TUAD, your references to gay/lesbian adherence and egalitarianism is unwarranted on this thread and offensive to the commenters here striving to have a civil discussion on complementarianism vs. egalitarianism. You may discuss the merits of complementarianism but any further offensive comments will be deleted, including #807 which is now going bye-bye
Re: #831 – Praise the Lord! How about #813 while we’re at it?
“How about #813 while we’re at it?”
LOL! Yeah, don’t forget to censor that one either!
Lisa Robinson, I’m glad that you’re a complementarian and have decided not to become a head pastor.
😉
Lisa, thank you for deleting the obviously offensive in content comments. 🙂
Well, you know how it is with some of those who repeatedly rail against homosexuality/lesbianism – see, e.g., Ted Haggard or George Alan Rekers.
Are you one of those, TUAD? 😮
EricW: “Well, you know how it is with some of those who repeatedly rail against homosexuality/lesbianism – see, e.g., Ted Haggard or George Alan Rekers.
Are you one of those, TUAD?”
I’ll be happy to answer your question after you answer this question:
Are you one of the egalitarians who believes that same-sex behavior is a sin?
Kohlberg is an egalitarian who affirms Scripture’s teaching that same-sex behavior is a sin.
EricW,
Please. Did you really have to add that last question? I know you are trying to be funny, but as I already pointed out before, this is not a laughing matter. There is at least one person on this blog who does have homosexual inclinations but is celibate for Biblical reasons. This has cost an awful lot, and I will not permit anyone to make light of it and just say nothing. It is incredibly disrespectful, and it is becoming clear that everyone who has ignored repeated injunctions to stop talking about this matter and get back to the discussion at hand has no idea what they are talking about from any personal experience of living the Scripture about this matter at great cost to themselves. I have paid the price, I have walked the walk for decades, I will not permit people to be disrespectful without a response. God sees every word that is being written. God will call everyone to account for every word that has been said. Do people here not fear God?
“To the angel of the church in Thyatira write:
These are the words of the Son of God, whose eyes are like blazing fire and whose feet are like burnished bronze. I know your deeds, your love and faith, your service and perseverance, and that you are now doing more than you did at first.
Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols.
I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead.” (Revelations 2)
I wonder if the toleration of that prophetess Jezebel was done out of a dominant concern for “civility”?
Please everyone, can we just ignore the baits. I don’t think anyone means any harm by their responses. But the baits are meant to distract.
Also, everyone note that the comment numbers are all off since some comments needed to be removed, so can only be used of an estimation of where an original comment was taken from.
Whew! Now back to respectful dialogue ….
Carabooska: “There is at least one person on this blog who does have homosexual inclinations but is celibate for Biblical reasons.”
May God bless this person who is celibate for biblical reasons because the biblical reasons are that same-sex behavior is a sin.
TUAD:
I can’t answer your question as you’ve worded it because it’s too vague. If one is going to define or declare or affirm as “a sin” what Scripture says is “a sin” – and I don’t think most here would have a problem doing that – then one must first be clear about what Scripture says is “a sin” and what it says is “a sin” when it comes to “same-sex behavior.” “Same-sex behavior” is so vague as to be able to cover anything and everything from two girls or two boys playing together to a group of guys or girls playing softball or bowling to two men or two women shopping together to a group of men or women going to a bar together (even if it’s to pick up members of the opposite sex) to two men or two women having mutual physical genital stimulation or intercourse.
But that’s not the subject of this thread. And for that reason, as well as the vagueness of your question, I won’t answer it.
And caraboska: I meant and gave no disrespect to homosexuals by my comment, whether meant to be funny or not. It’s the Ted Haggards and George Rekers who disrespect homosexuals by their hypocrisy.
“I do not see that we are required to tolerate ungodly behavior if it is in our power to prevent it. Furthermore, there are people on this list for whom complementarianism is not just unsafe, given fallen human nature. It is a veiled (or sometimes not so veiled) attempt to place husbands in between God and their wives – idolatry, in other words.”
Agreed. As long as slaves were willing to remain slaves without complaint, there was no inspiration for others to help abolish slavery.
Women must speak up for themselves, before good men will seek to use their social powers to help them. Men are not good mind readers. Women really need to tell men what male dominance does to a woman’s life. Male dominance is not a blessing for women under it.
May this blessing not come from a forked tongue, but from one which is also willing to bless this person by ceasing this off-topic, disrespectful, pornographic discussion, and may the owner of that tongue repent and produce fruit in keeping with that repentance – starting with an abject apology for the harm done. Or if the person in question really does not understand what harm has been done, let them keep quiet and pray until the tears of sorrow unto repentance come to their eyes. It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
I’m sorry that I previously wrote “Carabooska” instead of “Caraboska”. I mistakenly thought there was two “o’s”.
To inject some much needed levity here: My husband, reading the comment regarding Jezebel, and such other pointed comments by the same person said, “You couldn’t be Jezebel, because you’re married to King David (his name) so therefore you’re the queen of my kingdom.”
God bless guys that really get it.
Re: #846: We’ll know hubby really got it when he says ‘You’re the queen of OUR kingdom’ 😉 Seriously, I am all for humor, but some things just aren’t funny and somebody has to be the ‘bad guy’ and say something. And I’ve never been noted for telling people what they want to hear. Even if, for example, I’m trying to convince them to marry me. My idea of the right way to propose marriage to a man is:
‘Given what we’ve been talking about lately, you have the right to know a bunch of things about me which you will never find out unless I tell you, so I’m going to impart them to you now. I am not going to fool myself that you will be happy to hear any of these things. Indeed, I am well aware that the only way you will consider me is if, by some miracle, you are just so happy to have an honest woman, who would actually tell you all of this voluntarily, that you are willing to overlook all the inconveniences…’
(Yes, this really did happen :P) So I guess the ‘bad guy’ job falls to me…
TUAD,
You commit the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc whenever you seek to infer causation from correlation. You have over and over again posted examples of individuals who believe in egalitarianism and also believe that homosexuality is O.K. The only inference a reasonable person can draw from these examples and you’re behavior is that you are trying to imply that compromising the Biblical teachings on gender roles (as you interpret them) leads to compromising the Biblical teachings on homosexuality. This is a prime example of the logical fallacy of inferring causation from correlation. The fact that almost all of those who support homosexuality are egalitarian’s does not imply egalitarianism leads to support of homosexuality. It could in fact be the other way around (someone comes to the conclusion that homosexuality is OK and as a result of that comes to be egalitarian) or that they have arrived at conclusions on both issues through a completely unrelated processes.
In other words causation could be reversed or non-existent. Thus you commit the logical fallacy of implying causation from correlation.
Caraboska,
Hopefully you know my ironic comment was designed to take the sting out of some of the nasty insinuations, which seemed to be aimed primarily at the women here, and those men who refuse to believe that any female with any spunk at all is unbiblical. Yet, at the same time we’re told we’re not confrontational enough! Yikes.
I think some of the uncalled for (and ungodly) comments here against egals and comp/egals are an illustration of the real discrimination we are fighting as women in the church. Such personally demeaning attitudes don’t come from God but frail egos. So, if you doubt you’re the only bad ‘guy’ on this thread, go read the middle of the thread where I was told I was in need of deliverance because of my own firmly held views!
Thought that situation had been taken care of once with this instigating commenter, but apparently it was either not heeded, or strong enough to be effective. I agree with Kay that it sure does take away credibiility from an otherwise excellent blog to allow these personal insults to continue unabated, while the rest of us are trying to discuss the issue of the post respectfully – whether we agree or not.
God bless.
Me: “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.”
Michael T, this is a sociological observation. It’s a claim that’s either factually true or false.
To recast it into the terms you used previously:
Of note, there are no Protestant churches or denominations (which I’m aware of) that support the infallibility of the Pope. The only churches and denominations that support the infallibility of the Pope are also the various Catholic rites.
Again, a sociological observation that’s either factually true or false.
To all of the egalitarians (of whatever degree) that contributed to this conversation:
I would like to say that this discussion has done a lot to show me more fully why egalitarians believe the way you do and your Biblical reasoning for it. And while I may not agree with all of your interpretations and all of the conclusions you draw, it has truly been helpful to me to know the reasonings behind your understandings. I want to thank all of you for this discussion.