Why Women Cannot Be Head Pastors

“It turns out that Gnostic (or proto-Gnostic) teaching said that Eve came before Adam and Eve had special knowledge. It is POSSIBLE that Paul in 1 Tim 2:13-14 is directly refuting this false teaching.”

I’d even go further and say that it is highly likely. But because we are not privy to the epistle that Timothy wrote to Paul, to which 1 Timothy is Paul’s response, we do not know for certain the full and exact problems Paul is responding to. And because we don’t know this, it is foolish to try to make any sort of NEW doctrine out of Paul’s admonitions to Timothy in how to handle an unknown specific problem.

TL,

And all the more so that the specific word in those verses upon which the argument ultimately hangs is one whose meaning we cannot be sure of, because it is very rare, appearing only once in the entire New Testament and perhaps in a mere half dozen secular texts, where its meaning apparently bears little relationship to the meaning being imputed to it in many Christian circles, as far as its use in the Biblical text is concerned. So that to determine its meaning, we have to go elsewhere in the Scriptures to see what God expects of women in the Church.

I too think it is probably no coincidence that Paul is mentioning the order of Creation, and that the gnostic view is different from the Biblical one. I mean, now it almost seems as if someone was trying to advocate an actual female-superior hierarchy in the Church on the basis of gnostic teachings – which are furthermore problematic for many reasons aside from this one.

So that just as the import of ‘ezer kenegdo’ in the Torah is not to tone down ‘ezer’ from equality to subordination, but rather from superiority to equality, what Paul would then be doing is not toning down ‘spiritual equality’ to subordination in function, but rather toning down this supposed ‘superiority’ to equality – and saying that until whoever it is gets the point, they need to keep quiet and learn.

Earlier in the posts on this page there was an extended discussion between Hodge and Sue concerning the meaning of “authenteo” in 1 Tim 2:12. I ultimately found Sue’s position more convincing then Hodge’s, but it is a very interesting discussion between two people who really know their Greek. It starts a post 78 and continues for quite some time.

The jist of the argument was whether or not “authenteo” is a inherently negative word, meaning something that neither men nor women should have over one another. It would appear that in nearly all contexts in which it is used outside of the Bible it is used in a negative context (save one that Hodge argues should be viewed as neutral or marginally positive, to which Sue disagrees). The argument then proceeds to a debate as to whether or not we should view it’s use in Tim 2:12 differently (this is the only use of the word in the Bible). Like I said I found Sue’s position more plausible, but it was a very enlightening discussion.

All,

It’s been a good, worthwhile discussion…I’ve appreciated the insights from all of you. In the end, we will just have to agree to disagree…what I would hope, at a minimum, is that you at least better understand where the “other” side comes from…and that as you grapple with these issues and others, you do your best to stay as true to the Word as you can. That’s all God asks of us.

My “final roll-up,” if you will, remains the same. What you’ve thrown out at me regarding the audience Paul was addressing i.e. combating gnostic teaching, describing Eve and only Eve, etc. remains plausible, sure…but too far outside the scope of Biblical plausibility for me to bite off and chew. When we get to heaven, we can ask Paul…we probably won’t care then, but if I remember, I’ll ask him what he meant.

Many of my dear, close friends who are Pastors have changed their ideas on the roles of men and women in the church and family over the years. They remain dear and close friends, whom I will cherish forever. I may disagree with them, but it doesn’t cause me to think ill of them as people.

That said, I couldn’t myself ever join a church where a woman was an ordained Pastor, overseer, elder, etc. Just couldn’t do it. Everything for women except what I’ve mentioned is not only permissible to me, but encouraged. Women do a better job than men, objectively, in a lot of things anyways. Nonetheless, when I take the entirety of the passages we’ve all discussed and do my best with them, my views remain the same: there is a created order, shown in Genesis, repeated by Paul that is applied not only to functions in a church, but within marriage and the family as well.

Best to all of you.

Pete

“That said, I couldn’t myself ever join a church where a woman was an ordained Pastor, overseer, elder, etc. Just couldn’t do it.”

So that would include teaching I’m guessing. So what about apostle, prophet, evangelist?

And your reason is that no one has convinced you other wise. Is that correct?

TL,

The Bible is full of women who were ministers, prophets, judges, even deacons, and certainly “evangelists,” in that the example of many women were used to bring many, others to Christ. So of course, I welcome women to do all of these things – as should all of us.

When I read Paul, in the original languages, and go back and forth between words like kephale (source) that are used, I admit – it’s not an easy issue. But in the end, I still come back to Paul and his direct linkage of why he makes the claims that he does to the original story of creation – the foundation for all of mankind.

When I say that no one has convinced me otherwise, I mean that I’ve studied this. For years, I didn’t know what I really believed on the issue. Unfortunately, I saw too many people – from both camps – shattered when churches took ‘this’ position, or ‘that’ position. And that’s when I really got into studying it. I’m not smarter than anyone…and certainly, this is a tough issue. An important one. But in the end, to me, the ‘preponderance’ of evidence still tells me that men and women are called to be different – within the family, within marriage, within the church.

I look at my daughters. I like to think I’ve raised them well, and certainly hope for them to be all that “they can be” for Christ in their lives, their future families, their careers. Nothing would make me happier than for them to marry solid Godly men and to serve Christ with all of their hearts, and to have an impact on the world in which we live. But…I would not support them becoming the ordained, head Pastor of ‘fill in the blank’ church. Doesn’t mean I’d stop loving them. I’ll always love them. Just means I don’t think God has that in mind for them.

Best-

“My “final roll-up,” if you will, remains the same. What you’ve thrown out at me regarding the audience Paul was addressing i.e. combating gnostic teaching, describing Eve and only Eve, etc. remains plausible, sure…but too far outside the scope of Biblical plausibility for me to bite off and chew. When we get to heaven, we can ask Paul…we probably won’t care then, but if I remember, I’ll ask him what he meant.”

PeterMc,
I’m sorry you’ve decided not to continue the dialog here a bit longer – just long enough to reply to my #899, would have been appreciated.

Being non-comp, obviously I find the evidence equally compelling in the other direction and when we get to heaven I would rather answer to God that I believed it was better to err on the side of having TOO MANY believers preach the Gospel than be trying to explain why I shut the mouths of so many willing to do it.

Kay,

I’ll stay a bit longer – I’m not getting frustrated; rather, this issue is clearly complex and well-argued from both sides…it will always be a “hot” topic.

As far as your 899, yes, Paul would have a problem with anyone teaching while deceived, regardless of gender. But I do not agree with the understanding of the passage in 1 Tim 2 laid out by TL in #900…both sides have and will argue this and other passages continually as to their original meaning, but I remain unconvinced that every Bible translation has gotten this wrong for such a long time.

I believe that Paul, citing Eve and the creation story and sin, really does several things. Sure, deception is a big part of it in that Eve sinned while deceived by the serpent, but to generalize that and say that ‘Females are deceived more easily’ does a great disservice. Every generalization, whether true or untrue, will always be fought with counterexamples…and so I don’t make that statement about females being more easily deceived than men. I don’t buy that.

What I think Paul’s intent was is to show that regarding Adam and Eve, Eve was in fact deceived, and for this reason, along with the fact that Adam and only Adam was charged with several key leadership functions early in the creation story (naming of the animals, first asked by God after the fall, ‘where are you?’), man and women are not to both take headship roles within the church/family. There is order within unique roles that is designed by a Holy God, evidenced in creation — and Paul exhorts us to keep this order in our marriages and churches as well.

So…is there a loophole for men to ‘teach’ that are deceived? Well, I don’t think so – Paul is showing that in one instance (but a very important instance, as it fell all of mankind for all of eternity), Adam and Eve both sinned — but that the types of sin were different in nature, and this held consequences in many, different ways.

“I do not agree with the understanding of the passage in 1 Tim 2 laid out by TL in #900…both sides have and will argue this and other passages continually as to their original meaning, but I remain unconvinced that every Bible translation has gotten this wrong for such a long”

PeterMc,
Thanks for replying. I’m not convinced that every translation has gotten this wrong either, but the whole reason there is so much controversy is the way we interpret what ‘is’ there.

Frankly, I have a problem with those (not you) who say dogmatically that they “know” without a doubt what verses 9-14 mean, but won’t touch verse 15 with a ten foot pole – when it’s obvious that verse 15
(“Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty”) is included in the the point Paul is making. I have a problem with building a major doctrine on such a questionable foundation and vilifying those who even question it.

I find it hard to believe that if Paul had meant “all women” instead of a singular woman, that he would choose not to write “women”.

I’m curious – Do you believe that marriage is fundamentally an institution or creation ordinance started in the Garden of Eden? Or that earthly marriage is a type – a picture of Christ and his bride? (the ekklesia Eph.5:31-32).

Plato wrote that Socrates said, “The unexamined life is not worth living.”

I would reword that to say, “The unexamined faith is not worth living.”

How much to examine and when to simply act on what we believe is always a balance. It is a truism that no one can be led to a place where they do not wish to go, to try to do so would be coercive.

But realizing that the heart is deceitful, I would ONLY be a non-egal if that was the only choice and it is far from being the only choice. Whether people take the trek to see the very good reasons to be egal is always up to them.

On 1 Tim 2-3, whole books have been written on this and the translation difficulties and challenges. Every single paper CBMW (and CBE and others) puts out on the subject belies the belief that these verses are straightforward to understand. With so much riding on it, one had better to sure to do the best job one can in discerning Paul’s intent.

Kay,

What I find hard to grasp about the reasoning you give that Paul is speaking of only one woman in this teaching is that it is given in a context of teaching to men and women both. To me it therefore seems quite contrived to think that he all of a sudden starts giving instructions to just one woman istead of women in general. And with Peter, I think the reference to creation and the fall is very significant. I can’t see that just referring to one woman either. And I too believe Paul was laying out specific functions/roles here for men and women. But that doesn’t make one sex better then the other.

Don,

I tend to agree with Peter here. After following this conversation right from the start, I have certanly become much more aware of why those that are egals believe the way they do. And you/they certainly have some good points. However, I still think there are too many reasons to believe that the correct interpretation goes the other way for me to choose egalitarianism over complimentarianism. At least that is certainly how I see things at this point in time.

cherylu,

Do you believe that marriage is fundamentally an institution or creation ordinance started in the Garden of Eden? Or that earthly marriage is a type – a picture of Christ and his bride? (the ekklesia Eph.5:31-32).

cherylu,
Also, I’m wondering what is your view of 1 Tim.2:15?

Kay,

I don’t believe it is an either/or. I believe it is both. (See Mt. 19 and Mk. 10)

In the context of a church like the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Church where the priest is regarded as an icon of or stand-in for Christ as the Head of the Church, concurrent with the belief that via the priest’s actions or prayers the bread and wine of the Eucharist change into Christ’s body and blood so that He through the offering up of Himself through the priest may re-present Himself to the Father for the benefit of the communicants, an insistence that this be done exclusively by males can perhaps be maintained and sustained (assuming Christ’s maleness is a key factor, and not simply his humanness).

But it becomes a bit silly, IMO, for Evangelical Protestants who

1) reject all of the above and embrace the idea that ALL believers, whether male or female, can handle the Word of God – i.e., the Scriptures – and are to personally commune with Jesus via the reading and hearing of this same Word of God,

and

2) similarly reject the idea of the need for a human priest to stand between or over each believer, regardless of sex, with regard to the things of God or in terms of appropriating the gifts and blessings and charisms of God, since Jesus Himself (with whom each believer has a personal relationship) is the only Priest,

to limit the sacramental pulpit-to-the-congregation teaching and preaching of the Word of God, as well as the pastoring of such congregations, to males.

I.e., it seems to me that complementarianism is antithetical to true Evangelical Protestantism.

YMMV

Kay,

I Tim 2:15 has always puzzled me. However, I don’t see it as any more of a puzze for comps then it is for egals. Does it make any more sense to you that Paul said it of one woman then if he said it of all women?

cherylu,

If you don’t mind one more thing: much earlier in the comments concerning 1Cor. 7:3-4 you said (paraphrasing) they are speaking of only one area of marriage and you don’t think it probably works to make the command for mutual submission in that context carry over to every context of marriage. I have pondered over your comment – sexual physical intimacy is about as significant and emotionally laden of an area, if not the most, one can conceive in marriage. So, if spouses can work out this significant area with mutual submission, what makes you think that “tie breaker” authority would be necessary in other areas?

I look at this division of roles rather like a chicken running around with its head cut off. Some comps here are missing the real point. We are just not talking about ‘roles’ of men and women here, but men and women as God’s people, and how we are to represent the dual relationship between Christ and his church.

The one sided view of submission which puts most of burden upon females to obey men, does not fully present the mutuality of God’s expectations regarding both men and women, even though the modern day church defines it that way. Furthermore, no one talks about Paul’s admonishment to remain single to better serve the Lord.

Who is the ‘head’ of the single adult female? Her pastor? Her brother? Her father? Yet where this practice of ‘covering’ is in place we have seen the tragic consequences in denominations who go so far as to physically separate the sexes themselves, in defining of biblical roles.

The issue with Adam and Eve that is often missed is the Eve came directly from Adams flesh. She was bone of his bone. This was a hypostatic union designed by God Himself. Adam had no one to reproduce with obviously, so God made the first woman from a part of man, rather than creating another being out of dust. This should hold far more significance when we read the scriptures about where Paul talks about not treating women harshly, but the man is to treat the women as his own flesh.

If we going to define ‘headship’ merely as authority, (as has already been well argued to the contrary here) we have a boss and employee relationship defining modern day marriage, rather than divine authority defining the necessity of Christ being the head of a Christian marriage. A point that has also been missed in defining roles is that a head simply cannot function alone, or a body without a head. We can see that basic fact very readily in the natural, but seem to have a big, big problem seeing it scripturally.

To any and all egals,

Do you really believe that the only differenece between the sexes is the “plumbing”? Is that, in your understanding, the only reason that God made Eve the way He did?

Or are there other differences between the sexes too? Differences that might make different roles or functions inevitable in God’s eyes if not in the eyes of people?

If there are other “built in” differences between us, why is it so hard to accept that God may have created us with different functions/roles in mind? (Not differences of value or worth, but differences of role or function.)

And besides, why can’t it be that the fall may have actually added to or even possibly have changed the way God declared things were going to work? Yes, we are a new creation in Christ. But that doesn’t mean that everything that happened in the fall has been completely wiped out at this point in time. We still sin–that will only change when the new creation is complete. The rest of the results of the fall are still with us even as Christians to one degree or another until that time. God hasn’t declared that once we come to Christ, the whole world that we personally inhabit will not be affected by it any longer in any way. So why do egals seem to think that the fall has no bearing on marriage now and that any consequences of what happened in the fall have all been removed? I simply do not understand that idea. And if I am misunderstanding what some of you have been saying on this subject of the new creation and marraige, I am sorry. This has been a very long discussion and I certainly may be remembering incorrectly at this time.

“If there are other “built in” differences between us, why is it so hard to accept that God may have created us with different functions/roles in mind? (Not differences of value or worth, but differences of role or function.)”

And why is so hard to believe that Christian marriage isn’t just a job description but a hypostatic union of body, mind and spirit designed by God Himself? To reduce it solely to the physical functions or roles here on earth is missing the divine point that God had in mind, a marriage that represents a complete union with Christ. This with the male and the female as one flesh, His church body, under his headship. And, yes, a church who does the same thing.

I don’t see how comps get by the fact that the church, both male and female are already one flesh in Christ’s eyes, and thus are collectively called His bride, if they can’t understand God’s original intent for the sexes was not to separate them but to unify them in Him.

”Sure, deception is a big part of it in that Eve sinned while deceived by the serpent, but to generalize that and say that ‘Females are deceived more easily’ does a great disservice. “

Thank you for noting this PeterMC. Following your line of reasoning it is also a great disservice to generalize and assume that it is better or more acceptable to sin deliberately as Adam did rather than sin while under deception as Eve did. And this is exactly what compism does. The assumption is made that because Eve was deceived but Adam wasn’t deceived when he sinned, then that makes all men more prone to do things with deliberation not under deception and therefore men are more worthy teachers. In taking this stance they generalize onto all men that men will be like Adam and sin deliberately.

The consequences of the fall ought to be attempted to be reversed as much as possible. We see no problem with machines allowing food production without perhaps a literal sweat of one’s nose/brow. Such machines are considered a blessing.

Only a woman can bear and nurse babies and only a man can impregnate a woman, these are functions beyond the plumbing, but obviously connected to it. And there can be things that then affect more things, like a male brain is less connected than a female brain, due to a massive die off of connection cells when the testosterone hits to form a male baby.

And then there are generalities, like the size of females is generally smaller than males, and muscle mass, etc. But these I see as just overlapping bell curves. A woman who is a great athelete is not necessarily less feminine than one who is not, there is a great range of ability.

Where I get concerned is where someone says a woman cannot do something where a man can, outside of the physical limitations, when she can do it. Women get told they cannot cross magic boundaries, which vary from church to church. And yet there does not need to be ANY such magic boundaries when one understands the verses in an egal way.

On 1 Tim 2:15, I see it as THE childbearing, refering to Jesus as the one who saves and that Paul is using unusual words as those were similar to what the Ephesians used with Artemis worship. He is showing how to use the words correctly. Also, since there is a switch from singular to plural, I emend “they” to “they [each]” as each is responsible from themselves.

cherlyu:

In Christ there is not “male and female.” While the Fall may affect some things, the church is a New Creation, in which all believers are part of the same One New Man into whose maturity/completeness they are all to grow. When they see Him, they will be like Him. My arguments for gender egalitarianism tend to focus more on what the New Creation in the assembled Body of Christ is to look like and how it is to function, a Body in which all the members, men and women, are a female Bride with respect to the Male Bridegroom Head, than on how a husband and wife are to relate to each other as male and female. While there are definite biological/plumbing roles/distinctions in the physical sexual/marriage and childbearing and nursing parenting relationships, I don’t see how these can be imported into or imposed upon the Church, where the relationships of the members are not the same as a marriage relationship between a man and a woman; if there is a marriage relationship in the church between/among the members – an Adam and Eve relationship – it’s between Christ and all the members. Or so I think.

“Do you really believe that the only differenece between the sexes is the “plumbing”? Is that, in your understanding, the only reason that God made Eve the way He did?”

The ‘plumbing'(which BTW is more than genitalia) is what makes us male and female. Everything else is what makes us human. Our spirits and souls are not ‘plumbed’. It is really enough.

How a person interacts in life is influenced by their bone structure and density, their muscle structure and density, their hormonal balances, their nerve and brain compositions, and so forth. All of these things are related to gender. None of the differences create a superior mode of interaction in life, just different ways of doing similar things and achieving similar goals.

cherylu,

Egalitarians and mutualists aren’t saying there are no differences between men and women. We just don’t think they point to a hierarchial set-up in the home and Church.

Any talk about marriage, isolated from the typology of Jesus and His church is to miss the Christ-centered perspective. Marriage is given real meaning and significance only when connected to its purpose as an earthly picture of Christ and his people.
Once we begin to see marriage as an earthly pointer to the ultimate marriage of the Lamb with His church, it puts the issues in a completely new light. The emphasis in Genesis 1-2 is not on differentiated roles but on the one-flesh relationship. The issue is not “Who’s in charge?” but “How can we in our relationship enhance our love and service to God?” It’s not about the “creation order” of marriage. It’s about a passionate relationship – “bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh!”

”I Tim 2:15 has always puzzled me. However, I don’t see it as any more of a puzze for comps then it is for egals. Does it make any more sense to you that Paul said it of one woman then if he said it of all women?”

Cherylu,
Yes, this verse has been problematic for everyone throughout the years. Don’s response in 925 covers some of it. Some of the other problems are that this “verse” (remember no verses in the original epistle) is part of the two verses before. Paul said them as a whole. For a proper understanding all three must relate.

Here’s another problem I have with the modern interpretation of some churches theology about the Pauline scriptures. We have to remember that Paul was a single man, and spoke as one. Thus, he admitted that he chose to remain single.

Now let us look at the role of the single female in the church. In some churches single women are expected to have a covering, i/e. not a head dress, but a male ‘covering’.

I agree with someone else who said above that putting such a male authority figure between the woman and God, would seem to be idolatry. Question for comps: Why then would a married woman need a ‘head’ between her and Christ?

“Once we begin to see marriage as an earthly pointer to the ultimate marriage of the Lamb with His church, it puts the issues in a completely new light. The emphasis in Genesis 1-2 is not on differentiated roles but on the one-flesh relationship. The issue is not “Who’s in charge?” but “How can we in our relationship enhance our love and service to God?” It’s not about the “creation order” of marriage. It’s about a passionate relationship – “bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh!””

Kay,

I appreciate how you presented this. It is more accurate than the concepts that a husband is supposed to represent Christ to his wife and the wife is supposed to represent the church to her ‘christ-represented-husband’.

I certainly don’t believe that headship means merely authority. But I believe that idea is certainly included.

And I don’t think any one is going to argue that in the relationship between Christ and the Church, Him being the head and the church being the body, there is not a difference of role. We are united with Him in this relationship, but Head and Body do have different roles. Trying to make them be identical simply does not work. So why argue that roles have to be the same when the same analogy is used of marriage?

And as I have said before, I believe that if the husband is truly carrying out the very specific commands God gave him for the marriage relationship, there wouldn’t be any huge problem for the wife in being submissive to him. Each person in the marriage needs to be faithful to the particular area that God has emphasized for them, and then things will will smoothly it seems to me.

Sorry folks,

My day is getting away from me very quickly here. Have to go for now. Is no way for one person to keep up with the comments of 5 of you at a time anyway!

cherylu,

From the historical background to the N.T. world I’ve read, I see the fact that Timothy was in Ephesus as crucial to understanding the letter. Ephesus was the world center of paganism governed spiritually by the female deity Artemis. The cult of Artemis taught the superiority of the female and advocated female domination of the male. It espoused a doctrine of feminine procreation teaching that this goddess was able to bring forth offspring without male involvement. The cult was characterized by sexual perversion, fertility rites, endless myths, and elaborate genealogies traced through female rather than male bloodlines.
Jewish Gnostics were also in Ephesus. A prevalent Gnostic version of the story, Eve was the ‘illuminator’ of mankind because she was the first to receive ‘true knowledge’ from the Serpent, whom Gnostics saw as the ‘savior’ and revealer of truth. Gnostics believed that Eve taught this new revelation to Adam, and being the mother of all, was the progenitor of the human race. Adam, they said, was Eve’s son rather than her husband. This belief reflected the Gnostic doctrine that a female deity could bring forth children without male involvement.
So, I see a great probability that when Paul writes’Adam was formed first, then Eve.’ he says this to militate against the doctrine of Eve as progenitor. He also says, ‘Adam was not deceived, but the woman was! And sinned!’ This statement directly contradicts the notion that Eve was the ‘illuminator,’ and carrier of new revelation.”

Because of this I think that Paul was likely addressing a situation that Timothy was dealing with concerning new converts coming out of the temple of Artemis who needed to learn the truth first before leading anyone astray or perverting the Gospel.

Cheryl,

You are correct when you say:

“And as I have said before, I believe that if the husband is truly carrying out the very specific commands God gave him for the marriage relationship, there wouldn’t be any huge problem for the wife in being submissive to him. Each person in the marriage needs to be faithful to the particular area that God has emphasized for them, and then things will will smoothly it seems to me.”

But here again, the idea of Christian marriage is not just an earthly one, which we pattern the church after. This would leave out single folks and children entirely. If we are new creations in Christ, and the old has passed away, as scripture says, why are we defining marital and leadership roles in the church as more significant than the divine purpose of Christ redeeming ALL equally who believe in Him?

And you are right when you say that the Head and body, as far as Christ is concerned, do have different roles in the salvation process itself. All humans who believe in Him are in a relationship with Christ via the standpoint of what He did on the cross, redeem ALL of us as sinners by faith, not by the definition of our behavior as men and women in the church, or in a marital relationship.

“After following this conversation right from the start, I have certanly become much more aware of why those that are egals believe the way they do. And you/they certainly have some good points. However, I still think there are too many reasons to believe that the correct interpretation goes the other way for me to choose egalitarianism over complimentarianism. At least that is certainly how I see things at this point in time.”

Cherylu,

Actually no one is asking you to ‘become an egalitarian’. We are simply discussing issues that are crucial to each of us.

Though I remain egalitarian when it comes to men and women’s relationships in Christ, I am Christian above all.

Cheryl,
For the most part only extremists would claim that there are no differences outside of plumbing between men and women. Yet I tend to see these differences as a statistical thing rather than hard and fast rules. For instance I agree with CMP as stated in this post that women are often physically not as strong as men. However, I know more then one woman I wouldn’t want to run into in a dark alley. Now CMP says this is using the “exceptions” to prove the rule, to which I ask if there are so many exceptions why do we need a rule?? Why can’t we judge each individuals abilities according to their own unique giftedness?

I consider myself on the complementarian fringe of egalitarianism, because I believe that by the statistical differences between men and women more men will be drawn to be senior pastors and will be gifted so then women. However, in the case of a women who is gifted and feels called to be a senior pastor (and I’ve met a few) I am not going to stand in the way simply because she is a women. The role of senior pastor is from everyone I’ve ever talked to a stressful and taxing role. If you aren’t cut out for the role it will become brutally apparent in a short period of time.

“I consider myself on the complementarian fringe of egalitarianism, because I believe that by the statistical differences between men and women more men will be drawn to be senior pastors and will be gifted so then women. However, in the case of a women who is gifted and feels called to be a senior pastor (and I’ve met a few) I am not going to stand in the way simply because she is a women”

I believe the same way MichaelT. But I consider myself just plain egal minded. 🙂 In the long run, God will choose whomsoever He wills. Not all men who say they are called are truly called. Not all women who are called have the opportunity to fulfill their calling.

Comments here, concerning #937 in particular:

http://caraboska.livejournal.com/10026.html

Looks like this will break 1000 comments, or at least come pretty darn close…

As I read these comments written today, all good comments – regardless of what “side” you come down on. And, I think it was Don who said it – entire books have been written about all of this, to include single verses or two.

For me, it again, will always come down to how Paul relates these passages to creation – the foundation of the world. So much happened there, and even though Adam and Eve were only two people, they were the first – and I choose to believe that Paul had this in mind when writing. As I hear the possible meanings of “well, maybe he meant this, because he was writing to the Ephesians, who were struggling with this and that,” I don’t discount that – these cultural considerations must be considered when we ask ourselves, “What do the Scriptures say?” The thing that will always make me believe what I do reference this issue is that either all of Paul’s writings about men and women mean what we have them translated as…and if they do, then they still stand, even when accounting for cultural awareness, or we’ve gotten it all wrong over the years. Every passage, every anecdote, every illustration…and I just can’t see that, even when I try to…

Some very conservative churches (what I would call extreme) hardly allow women to do anything – I flat out reject this, as the Bible clearly urges men and women alike to partner in the gospel for the Kingdom of God, and is full of examples of such who were…

But I still hold to that while we partner together for the gospel, we are to do so differently…towards the same objective, yet through different ways…where is ‘the line?’ Well that’s the million dollar question. I tend to think from what I know that women can be everything…save ordained elders, pastors, etc. in the Church. This is what I think Paul would say – citing God’s design, based on Scripture. Nothing more, nothing less.

Best.

I would like to add one more thing on here…and this is not meant to set people off, so I hope it comes across as if I am explaining this well…it may not, and so I apologize for this in advance.

One thing that increases the ‘touchiness’ of this subject are the ramifications of your beliefs, depending on what side you come down on. This is especially true in local churches…and not so much the big-time academics, scholars, etc.

For example, I attended a church a number of years ago that began introducing the idea of ordaining women to be elders, to be eventually included in the ‘Sunday-morning’ teaching schedule. When the elder team presented the idea, they also said that even if you are not in favor of this and see Scripture differently, that unity must be kept above all else, and that their desire would be that those who disagree would still continue to worship there at the church.

The long-story short is that a split ensued. I was part of the near 50% that left. Those that pleaded with us to stay could not understand how an issue like this would cause us to leave. Those that left couldn’t understand how those who wanted us to stay didn’t see it as a big deal. This only complicated things and made things even more painful.

My point is: ‘egalitarians’ generally can listen to male and female pastors alike with little to no problems (generalization). ‘Complimentarians’ generally will not tolerate women pastors. In other words…it’s not a “deal-breaker” for all, but for some…and generally, for ‘complimentarians.’ To them, simply put – women can’t be Pastors.

All of you know all of this…but I wanted to illustrate an example of how all of the debate, depending on the side you take, plays out…and yet, it’s not an issue that would determine your Salvation.

Nonetheless, your theology matters!

PeterMC,

With all due respect, is it the intepretation you have been traditionally taught that there is a chaste system in Christianity as in other religions, like Islam, which does represent an extremely step down view of women’s roles or rights, as compared to men’s ?

Would yo.u biblically speaking. disagree with a woman’s right to own property, (which is stated in Proverbs 31) or advocate returning to the right not to have women vote? As you know, lots of men objected on the right to have them not vote, to be strictly scriptually correct. But if we are to go by a strictly literal translation, harking back to Eve and the creation, instead of all of us being a new creation in Christ, we would have to question Paul himself when he spoke about it being about Christ crucified and nothing else, and then that seeming dichotomy in his talking about the roles of men and women being still skewed, because of what Eve did.

I. for one, do not see it as a human type authority in Christ, but strictly as an example of how not to follow either the example of Adam and Eve regarding our post conduct as Christians. Otherwise Paul is contradicting what he himself said about Christianity in favor of both sexes being dependent upon gender roles instead. That’s about works.

MBaker,

I think that’s my point – you’d have to go back and read all of my posts – there is absolutely nothing that makes what I’ve supported even close to a caste system! Women can do it all (except be ordained as elders/overseers/Pastors)!

I have noticed in a few posts, and some of the ones you’ve made recently, that you have to be careful not to conduct “selective exegesis!” By that I simply mean that the verses you mention from Paul about being a ‘new creature in Christ, ‘ and ‘In Christ there is No male or female, ‘ are absolutely correct. But – those don’t shatter anything Paul is tying together with regards to the Old Testament and what happened in Genesis!

If the Bible is really inerrant…then the themes have to be consistent. They have to be, even when accounting for cultural considerations. When you read the passages of Paul, and how he connects the dots on why he differentiates the functions of men and women within marriage and the church…and how he relates the creation story – it only supports this idea. That, in my opinion, is why this is such an important issue. Paul ties all of these things over and over again – they are woven into passages on marriage, women, and the Church…

None of this, whatsoever, implements any kind of class system between men and women. That’s the beauty of it. If we see it right, what Paul says only exhorts women to be all they can for Christ! But within God-ordained roles nonetheless.

“For me, it again, will always come down to how Paul relates these passages to creation – the foundation of the world.”

Can you please explain to me what in creation account, what is it that God said about the creation account, do you think Paul is relating his instruction to Timothy about whatever woman or women Timothy was having trouble with.

I can assume you think that because Paul stated that Adam was created first that that somehow has something to do with why all women (in your estimation) are not to teach or lead. The problem is that Paul who was very knowledgeable of the Scriptures would have to be able to have a concrete handle in Scripture itself for that concept. No one has yet pointed to one in Genesis.

PeterMC,

You speak of selective exegesis. I call it proof texting. We can all use that to our advantage to prove a pet agenda on both sides. However, that is not what I’m about when i speak of egaltarianism
My first and only point point about egalitarianism, as least. as I see it from scripture. Either we are all saved by grace (both men and women) and survive by that fact, or we believe in a works type of select gender selective gospel. as the Mormons and Islamists do. I thought Christ came to end that archaic patriarchal view. Not that I don’t believe in certain obvious things , like men being generally physically stronger and bigger than women. And women only being able to have babies. That’s certainly apparent, and applicable to all. But, spirtually, in some way how that that gives men and only them the right to be what the church calls head pastors, a role that is not even supported in the Bible in the first place is beyond me. Sorry, talk about selective exegesis, that’s certainly it if I”ve ever heard it.

MBaker, and then TL,

DO NOT, even for one second, confuse this issue with anything remotely related to justification/saving faith. This is not anything related to that. I do take a little bit of offense when one even remotely tries to tie this into Justification…my thoughts on women/men roles bear nothing on saving faith.

Head Pastors are not found in the Bible, you are correct. In the Bible, what would closely align to what today’s Head Pastors are would be overseer/elder. Some argue that these are used interchangeably (I am one of them). Some don’t. In any way, these two terms would most-closely align (not perfectly) to what would be our elders/pastors in today’s church.

I say it out of love when I say that I don’t care if you agree with me or not, as we’re not all going to on this issue. But understand, at a minimum, where I claim Paul is coming from and why it is hugely significant.

TL, I’m a little surprised – you are MISSING what I am saying about interpreting Paul’s statements. It’s not a specific example you are looking for in Genesis and creation…it’s the story of creation itself, in my opinion, that Paul relates. In other words, Paul is not saying, “Look at this instance from the creation story.” He is saying, “Look at the creation story.” I can’t give you a specific example that shows Adam to be “first” and Eve to have sinned “first while deceived” other than telling you to look at Genesis – you will see that Adam was made first and that Eve sinned first while deceived. That’s the whole point that I think Paul is driving home as to why he didn’t allow women teach over men…that’s why to him, and therefore to me, it transcends any kind of counterexample you may find in a specific person…it’s deeper than that. It’s inherent in the order of creation, and it can’t be violated.

Whether or not you agree with me, fine…but you should at least be able to acknowledge WHY this is a profound thing.

We’ve already talked about ‘ezer kenegdo’. We’ve already talked about there being no difference at all noted except plumbing in Genesis 1 (the words used for ‘male’ and ‘female’ there are explicit references to the shape of the respective plumbing fixtures). We’ve already talked about how Jesus exegetes Genesis 2:24 – that he is obviously assuming that the standard for male-female relationships is ‘how it was at the beginning’, i.e. before the Fall. What more can you want? I have to conclude from all this that the pre-Fall data have to be normative, and everything else has to be interpreted in a way consistent with them – not vice versa. And for what it’s worth, there is the matter that Paul talks about both parties having *the same* authority over each other’s bodies. It is clear that both parties are to regard their spouse as their highest authority – occupying the place once occupied by their parents. I really do not see any other way to interpret Genesis 1 and 2 – it seems to me that it can only be interpreted as hierarchical if someone *really wants* it to have that meaning.

Among other things, while I think of it, the egalitarian import of Genesis 1 and 2, which Jesus shows to be normative in his teaching, shows that the inequalities mentioned in Genesis 3 are the result of sin, evidence of sin at work in human beings. They are anti-normative phenomena which are to be actively avoided by the believing person. All of this and more leads me to believe that any mention of inequalities in the New Testament has to have its foundation in something other than divine norms. It must be temporal in nature. And I have in mind here, above all, civil law. Which as we know enshrined a huge inequality of a type not to be found anywhere in the Bible, even in the Torah. Not even given the most conservative interpretation possible. But we could also include this matter of the Artemisian religion that has been mentioned recently. It is as temporal as slavery, which is regulated in the Torah – which assumes that slavery will take place. And none of us are advocating slavery. Slavery, like feminine submission, pertains exclusively to the period after the Fall. But I have been up all night and must get to bed. Will have to continue this tomorrow evening (my time).

But PeterMC it is tied with saving faith. Because Eve sinned first has nothing to do with how God views men and women after Christ, as carboska explained.

Like many egal theologians, I believe Paul spoke in his own authority as an apostle as to what he personally allowed in teaching. In this instance I do believe the culture of his time had something to do with it. As we have already discussed women were not even allowed in the inner sanctums of the temples, so why not not just continue that practice in the church if the patriarchal rule was in still in place after Christ? No, the church since Jesus is a new creation. Men and women are one flesh as his body and He alone is the Head of the body. Elders or pastors, male or female serve him, not as authority figures, but as servants who give themselves up for the church just as He did, and as we all are.

“is that either all of Paul’s writings about men and women mean what we have them translated as…and if they do, then they still stand, even when accounting for cultural awareness, or we’ve gotten it all wrong over the years. Every passage, every anecdote, every illustration…and I just can’t see that, even when I try to…”

PeterMc,
I’m not trying to sound rude, but your argument here was one used by “Christian” slave owners and sympathizers to justify their stand (this far in the conversation it almost seems silly to have to point this out), yet somehow you’ve lost sight of the ugly side of Church history which turned a blind eye to slavery for over 1,000 years and once also condoned burning at the stake for heretics.

Also your illustration about it being a deal breaker/split maker for congregations applies equally to what happened in the church when slavery was the “hot button” topic.

The Church has been wrong about practices and interpretations in the past and for LOOOOOONG periods of time – hence the above cited and also the reason for the Reformation.

“God created the woman after man…that’s all that I was saying.

These things in Genesis are absolutely important, and although there may be questions regarding exactly what they mean and why it is so, I submit to you that Paul and Peter both mention the creation story in many of the parallels found in Genesis that are in places discussing marriage such as 1 Tim, 1 Peter, 1 Corinthians, and Ephesians. Read these passages….you will see over and over again, “Just as ……, so is …..” The fact that Genesis and the story there regarding Adam and Eve meant something to Paul and to Peter ought to mean that it is something to us as well, yes, even now in the 21st century in which we live, where truth is under so much scrutiny…”

PeterMc,
I agree with the fact that their usage points to the Genesis narrative being vital. However, I believe the reason they had to reiterate the true order of the story was because the pagan converts had it backwards. It is of utmost importance to get the rudiments of the Beginnings correct.

Just food for thought: Have you ever witnessed to a person who didn’t know what crucifiction is and didn’t know why Romans would have any involvment in Jesus’ death? I have.