Why Women Cannot Be Head Pastors

By the way, I have ten children….5 boys and 5 girls. I am told I am a very effective communicator. My husband is not so much. I could say something, my children listened with one ear. My husband could say the exact same thing and my children listened as if he was EF Hutton! The world stopped spinning. Maybe that is what you were trying to say Michael. I have to fight for it. My husband does not. If I were a military leader and I could be…I’d have respect but I’d have to fight for it in a way that a male counterpart would not. What is that? It’s something spiritual God has given man? It’s a gift? And he hasn’t honored it?

I like Webb a lot, but I see Spirit trajectory as being but yet another rationale to be egal; that is, even if Spirit trajectory is not accepted as Webb wrestles with it, it is not needed to be a Biblical egal, it justs adds to the pile of reasons. Besides his book, his CDs from recent CBE conferences are not to be missed.

Michael,

Well if I now understand you correctly, I am not in sin for correcting the doctrine of men, but I would be in sin if I took authority over any man. Well I guess I am guilty of that, so am I in sin?

Years back we have a very aggressive and independent minded JW come to the support group. His ultimate purpose was to bring all the ex-JW’s back to the fold and I was a bit of a bump in the road for him although he had a lot of curiosity about me. Ultimately as he was one that was “in the truth” he tried to take over the group. I stopped him. I asked him why he came to the group when he didn’t listen and wouldn’t stop talking. He said he came to hear what Cheryl had to say and I told him that if this was the case to sit down and be quiet so that he could listen to what I had to say. He sat down and listened. I never gave him opportunity after that to speak and in the end he met with me privately every other week for about a year as he pondered many of the things regarding Christian doctrine that he had not seen clearly before.

So was I in sin for taking authority over this man? I believe that all the “sons” of God have have been given the authority to use our gift. I was the one teaching and since I could not teach with the interruptions, I took authority over his ability to speak. He had to either remain silent and listen or leave. Without the authority to use my gift, I could not function as God intended.

Another time I had a disruptive ex-JW who thought that talking about Hitler’s skinning of Jews was appropriate and funny fodder for discussion. I reprimanded him privately on this one and he was offended that he couldn’t continue to talk in this coarse way, but he obeyed me and the issue was resolved. Was I also in sin for taking authority over this man’s ability to talk in a coarse manner in the group?

It seems to me that when God gifts a person, whether a man or a woman, they are also granted the authority to use their gift unhindered. It is the teacher’s responsibility to use that authority so that the church may learn. It is not their responsibility to use authority in any way that is self-serving.

Does this make sense? Or have I been in sin all along for taking authority over men?

Lets watch the movie 300 Leonidas and his wife both seem able to portray authority with power lol

I’m a male comp turned egal due to persuasion from the scriptures over a span of 20 years. I was not hot-headedly committed to either position before, and still am not though I will defend egal when asked. I’ve not read the comments, but I have read your “no debate” rider.

Yours is an interesting perspective, though it would not have been persuasive to me in my comp days, and is less so now. It’s extra-biblical and sets up a false dichotomy. Paul does not explain himself, so your attempt to explain his position for him must of necessity be extra-biblical. You may, of course, be right, but the argument lacks force when it lacks the foundation of scripture.

The false dichotomies are that leaders must be confrontational and that women cannot be spiritually gifted confronters. The briefest look at the success women in every area of society dissolves the argument here. To say leaders gifted in confrontation have one extra tool at hand is defensible. To say fewer women than men are gifted in confrontation is defensible. But to say confrontation is the defining gift of leadership and since all women lack that gift, that therefore no woman can be a leader is so manifestly false as to discredit the comp case.

I fail to see where this post should reduce the sting a woman feels when her gifts are silenced by a perceived misinterpretation of scripture.

And, since I’ve not read the comments I’m only guessing here, but I’d be shocked if a couple women didn’t feel a certain permission in your post to demonstrate in these comments that they’re quite comfortable confronting perceived error.

Rebecca, I too am troubled by the lack of male leaders. Frankly, think that there are many reasons, but one that is very important, in my opinion, is that men are not taught to be men anymore. They don’t know what it means.

Women, as multi-taskers, are so quick to jump in and fill holes wherever a deficiency is noticed. We have embraced equality so much that we fail to see the beauty in our created uniqueness. There certainly are times when it is necessary for a woman to lead a man, but it should be in instances where a male spiritual leader is not to be found or is lacking in spiritual maturity. Years ago a friend of mine found herself pastoring new believers in China because there were no men to do this. But her goal was to disciple the men in order that they may step into their God appointed places of leadership in the newly formed churches. Her goal was not to remain a pastor/teacher of men, but to come along side and help build the men up, then step back.

There are many similar situations we could name. It is important to ask, “Lord, how will you be most glorified in this situation? And what would you have me do?”

I think the whole argument of “he’s more fit (here, “confrontational”), so he should lead” falls apart when we look at the overall pattern of Scripture– particularly in the New Testament.

The overall pattern is that the gifts and the callings of God are not according to the flesh. God doesn’t necessarily choose the oldest in the family, the largest, the strongest, etc. Why, then, has God apparently given the gift of universal leadership in every home and church, based purely on the flesh? He has apparently chosen the physically strong to have authority over those who are by nature physically weaker; the ones whom society already favors, has He chosen over the ones who are most often oppressed; the ones who naturally see themselves as privileged to take and hold power– these He has chosen to be in charge, and the lowly, He has chosen to submit.

Does this fit in with the overall pattern of Scripture? I don’t see it. I see the opposite. God calls whom He will; and He tends to like to overturn what looks right or natural to us. I think any reading of the Scriptures that results in leadership by divine right, given to the powerful over the unempowered, does not reflect the heart of God and thus, cannot be a correct interpretation.

[…] who writes the Parchment and Pen blog, has posted a rather brave piece on the issue entitled Why Women Cannot be Head Pastors.  His primary argument is that women should not be head pastors because women are not as capable […]

Michael, I usually stand in wholehearted agreement with just about everything you write. But I must admit I’ve having trouble following your logic here. If headship were tied to ability, then women would have no ability for the confrontational requirements of leadership outside of the church. You may argue that the business world is different but not according to the criteria that you are setting up. If women lack for authority in the church, they would lack for leadership in non-church sectors and practically, that simply isn’t the case.

It would also follow that women would not make good apologists, yet they exist. I’m thinking specifically of Mary Jo Sharpe and women like her whose chief ministry is debating highly educated and well versed individuals who hold to a non-christian worldview. The comparable position in a secular arena would be attorneys and other positions that require confrontational advocacy. According to your assertions, women would not be successful in this area but again, that is not the case.

I think the biblical support for this is wanting. I see no correlation of authority with supposed innate feminine qualities that would render a woman ineffective in a head position. In fact, in the case of Priscilla and Aquila confronting error in teaching, many speculate that Priscilla took the lead on this since her name appeared first. Rather, the issue of authority is tied to the creative order that promulgates headship and submission whereby the party that probably could run the show, yields the right to do so.

I never take this seriously because it naturally works that men are in positions of authority point blank period. Take no offense egad’s or women it is the way it is in society, especially in the business environment as plainly as can be seen from the perch down in all companies. Why that is, is beyond me I suppose there is a bit of confrontational aspect in all contacts between people especially men they have a tendency to bow up to one another, women on the other hand observe and rightly so since weakness can be accessed from the sidelines. Now none of this has any bearing on the text that is primarily used to support a complementarin view, however one thing has always been in view as can be ascertained from ancient cultures. Men have always been in positions of authoritarian leadership roles. For example of the 40 kings of Judah and Israel all are men. Even in other ANE cultures men are ruling the roost as far back as antiquity. The few exceptions I believe lay in the Egyptian monarchy which may have resulted by default i.e. assassination, assimilation or simply the male is a child, to young to rule.
Now fast-forward to Paul’s time, nothing probably has not changed in this mind-set of men being in authority, it is a rarity that women in general down through the ages are in positions of great authority, granted a queen here and there by default I believe because of no male successor. It has only becomes a litmus test since the introduction of dynamic equivalence back in the late 60’s early 70’s, as an example the NIV. I wouldn’t stick my neck out on the line, since I could be wrong here, but this does seem to a product of thought only in the last 30 or so years. So how does one justify beyond the 30 years back to antiquity for male leadership to be the predominant form of authority? History as governed by God’s Glory. I am not saying women are not part of this plan, just that the majority has been men. Perhaps Men are more accursed than women, since sin passes thru the genealogy of men, think Mary ladies

“Would you think a commander of an army going into battle should be a male or female? Who do you think would be more effective and why? Which is ideal? Who do you think that the troops would respond to more? Why?”

The commander of an army should be the individual who is most knowledgeable and skilled. History has shown us that in most cases that is going to be a man since men are the ones who most often end up fighting. But that is not always the case.

It is not unusual that Christians like all people, choose to honor stereotypes, simply because we are human. Even today we have the best world class ski jumper in the entire world who is not permitted to be challenged by those who are almost as good, simply because she is a female. So, even though she is hands down the best and everyone knows it, men still don’t want to have to be bested by her and honor her skills.

In my estimation, that is what it’s all about.

Sorry, but “this is the way it has always been, so it must be God’s plan” doesn’t work for me– not in a fallen world.

As for the idea that people respond better to the authority of men– same issue. 50 years ago, people responded better to the authority of white men over that of black men. Did this support the right of whites to lead, or simply the prejudices of those being led?

I always thought that the Timothy passage on God not giving women the right to teach or have authority over men in the church was related to God’s order of creation, being that God created Adam first, and then Eve. And also, that Eve was deceived first. Just as there is a hierarchy of authority within the Trinity, and in marriage, there is a hierarchy of authority within the church.

Like you said Michael, it doesn’t mean that women aren’t as good at teaching as men are (I actually think that there are some women who are much better communicators of the Word than men…). But it does mean that God has not granted them authority or the right to teach over men. It’s by design…

So, in saying that, I don’t think the statement you made about women is a very good argument. There are some women who definitely gravitate to confrontation more than men do. So in that sense, I don’t think that argument holds ground.

On a webdesign related note, I think it would be helpful to have threaded comments, where people can reply to specific comments, and the visual of who’s commenting on who’s post is more organized and readable. I freelance design/develop websites on the side (including WordPress). So, if you need some help with that, I could definitely help you set it up.

Anyways, thanks again for your post…

#61 Bryant ~ Take no offense egad’s or women it is the way it is in society, especially in the business environment as plainly as can be seen from the perch down in all companies.

Except that studies have found that businesses which include women in their top leadership do better than businesses that are led exclusively by males.

Just further proof that if you want true complementarianism between the sexes, look to egalitarianism.

May I mildly suggest that your own experience teaches you that women are not lesser than men in the expertise of confrontation?

Perhaps there is a cultural context or local phenomena that is being addressed in the scripture, such as a personality that they couldn’t deal with very well and therefore had to pull rank?

I would add an example: Judith. You can’t get more confrontational than a beheading.

Michael,

I’m not debating the issue itself here, it’s the usefulness of the presentation that I’m going to question.

The anecdotal presentations are heavily culturally biased to a particular section of a particular culture. It can’t even be said that the ‘non-confrontational’ woman is the overwhelming norm even in US culture. There are sufficient exceptions to question the validity of the rule.

Move out of US culture and the picture is even more heavily weighted towards matriarchal societies and women whose bent is is towards argument and teaching.

What you seem to have done here is show that you are better suited to be a head pastor than your wife, perhaps choosing that as a typical representation of those you tend to meet in your sub-culture, and then extrapolate that, expecting it to help make sense of the passage for other cultures.

Most of the women I have met in contemporary Australian, Scottish, Greek, and those few I have met from Central African cultures are at the least equally conditioned to exercise authority in confrontational or aggressive situations. They are the norm in those cultures, not the picture you painted

Your stated aim was ‘I like to make the Scripture pragmatically understandable.’ To my experience, this post may pragmatically explain the position to a minority subculture in the US but runs counter intuitively to many other cultures and would actually bring further confusion to the passage in those cultures.

In light of this, I don’t see the point of the post.

I thank God that we only have one “head” pastor in all of the Church Jesus Christ, because as far as I can tell the greatest false teachers throughout all of human history have been men 8)

Although I cannot keep up with the comments any more on this post, I have edited the post to include the military illustration as I think it finds the closest parallel to what I am addressing here.

Hope it helps.

Read MAN AND WOMAN, ONE IN CHRIST: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters, by Philip B. Payne (Zondervan 2009).

I’d love to see how many complementarians continue to make their standard arguments after interacting with Payne’s book.

(Note: Some facility with NT Greek is expected of the reader, though non-Greek readers will still benefit from reading it.)

Hi Michael,

I agree with you that men generally men are more suited by God-given temperament to be confrontational, although of course there are exceptions to this. And I agree that confronting false teaching is a critical part of what those leading the church are called to do.

I think it is sound to infer, as you have, that since Scripture explicitly directs men to leadership roles in the church (elders/pastors/teachers), that there must be something within male temperament that is best suited to this task.

Some women have a gift of teaching, and some may be better able than certain men to confront, but nevertheless God has ordered it that in the church men are to teach and to lead.

This does not mean that all men are, by virtue of simply being men, qualified to teach– one must also be gifted by God. I believe that would include having a temperament that is willing and able to confront false teaching.

From the Genesis account of the fall of man and Paul’s comment on it in 1 Timothy 2, Eve’s fall was one of being deceived while the man both neglected his God-given responsibility to lead and protect his wife and also rebelliously ate the forbidden fruit. His sin seems not a problem of having been deceived as of being rebellious and shirking his responsibilities.

Since Paul uses this account to argue that men should be teachers and women refrain from teaching, I infer from this that there is something about the female temperament that is more prone to deception. And perhaps something in the male temperament is more prone to pure rebellion. But certainly Paul makes his argument based on the notion that there is something different in the way God has created man vs woman that leads to the different roles they are to assume.

Following this directive then has nothing to do with whether women are intelligent, gifted and able to teach. Yet in the church God has designed it that men assume teaching roles.

Similarly, in Scripture men are called to be the head of their household simply by virtue of the fact that they are men and this is their God-given role, not because they are necessarily intrinsically more qualified to be a leader. In some households the wife may be the intellectual, educational or spiritual superior, but nonetheless she is to submit to her husband.

Hi Michael,

I’m not arguing the content, I just think your argument is weak. I’d be very interested in hearing some strong support and exchange of ideas on what Paul’s motives could have been, and why he felt God was guiding this advice about women in pastoral leadership. But your argument seems to be that men are better suited to lead worship because. . .your wife is timid?

Michael interprets 1 Timothy 11-15,

“Paul did not let women teach due to the often aggressive and combative nature that teaching must entail concerning the confrontation of false doctrine.”

And then Paul wrote,

“Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.”

My guess is that Paul would have said that men needed to be combattive if that is what he intended. However, in direct contrast he implores men to stop fighting. If it is the aggressive nature of men which enables them to teach, then Paul is desguising his argument very well, by pointing out that it is the combative and aggressive nature of men that needs to be reprimanded in 1 Tim. 2.

hey Michael,

can you tie in the rest of the verse as a reason for Paul’s (God’s) explanation of why women shall not have authority over man? I agree you have a point of why, without bending or twisting scripture and I believe it has something to do with the responsibility God gave to man…something man failed to do when satan was deceiving Eve.

thankx
tj m

Michael, you said not to debate, so I won’t. Suffice it to say that I disagree with Alexander Jordan’s interpretation of Scripture on every level. I would ask you, Alexander, to consider re-examining such positions as reading “head of the household” within the description of the husband and wife (not the husband and the household) being in a head-body relationship. Thank you for your consideration.

Michael,

The problem is that this speculative rationale ignores Paul’s argument. I know you think you have supplied what is not there, but I would suggest that you have supplied what is not meant to be there or implied.

1. Paul doesn’t exclude from head pastor, he excludes from the functions of elder. Hence, it would not only exclude what is considered to be a head pastor today, but any woman who performed those functions over a man.

2. You said: “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 Greek verb is aspectual, not tense oriented, and the infinitive here certainly is not meant to convey the duration of the action, but further defines the verb. This idea would also contradict the absoluteness in which Paul castes his argument by rooting in the created order.

Would you argue that Paul just doesn’t want people to perpetually walk any longer as those without God walk in Eph 4:17 because it’s a present infinitive, and therefore, only refers to perpetually living like them. So it’s OK to sometimes live like a godless person according to Paul’s instructions?

3. I agree with those who have critiqued what you’ve said by only superficially considering Paul’s own reasons for his conclusion.

A. Men were made before women, so as to convey God’s desired order of their roles.

B. The woman was deceived and the man was not.

C. The woman’s role is found in motherhood rather than in fatherhood. Hence, her role is compared to the Christian/Jewish Haustafel, where the father is given reign over the household in general for discipline and instruction and the boys specifically.

Adam isn’t seen as combative in A, B, or C. The issue has to do with authority in the household. I agree that men are made for this, but not because they’re more aggressive than women. I think that observation is experiential and cultural in nature. Paul’s argument is a universal one from the created order, however, and experiential arguments that stem from the perceived psychological dynamic concerning gender and conflict I think falls short of the mark Paul intended.

I would also add: Do you not think there is conflict in women’s ministry? Women are still permitted to teach other women and children. I believe there is plenty of conflict involved there, as my wife would tell you.

Hi Hodge,

You write,

“The infinitive here, “to teach” is in the present tense which suggests the perpetual role of teaching which exercises authority (confrontation).””

You imply that the verb authenteo qualifies the verb didasko (to teach) . BDAG gives authenteo the meaning of “to assume a stance of independent authority, give orders to, dictate to.”

So would you, if you used a lexicon, agree that this phrase means, “to teach with a stance of independent authority, giving orders and dictating?”

My deepest apologies to Michael for this engagement.

However, if men here are going to claim some kind of teaching authority, they must be prepared to defend their statements. It is difficult for women to respect those who arbitrarily infuse the word of God with meanings which cannot be derived in a logical way.

First of all there is no example of “Head” pastors or “assistant” pastors or “youth” pastors in scripture. It’s just “pastor”. So, it’s out of order right from the start. Strictly man’s doing. The scriptures make it VERY clear regarding the qualifications for elders and overseers and they are “masculine” just like the Godhead.
Why would a woman want the title of pastor anyway? If you have gifts why not just serve? Well, we all know why. Recognition and power. Nothing new under the sun. One thing God hates with a passion and that is aggressive females who like to emasculate men by usurping authority over them (Ahab and Jezebel, oh and by the way be sure to tell the people that it was me who sicked the dogs on Jezebel). Give aggressive women an inch in this respect and the next thing you will have is a feminine Godhead. It’s all happened before. If the men would stand for truth instead of caving in because they will have to sleep on the couch the church might have a true revival. It amuses me to see how people will try to twist scripture to support their desires. You are playing a very dangerous game messing with the Lord’s order. Best to seek His face for a fresh dose of “the fear of the Lord” while there is still time. Are you so deceived that you really believe you can rebel against His known will to serve Him under your terms? You would be better off tieing a millstone around your neck and jumping into the sea. And I must add that all Christians are in “full time ministry”. Do not give up your day job to be a pastor. Paul set the example to follow regarding that issue.

Hi Sue,

authenteo is not qualified by didasko. They are two separate functions. They both limit the verb epitrepo “I permit.” This is seen by the meristic pattern that is created between didasko and esuchia mantheto and that created by en upotage and authenteo. V. 11 goes with v. 12. That’s important to note.

Having done an extensive study of authenteo, I do not agree with the view you hold that authenteo carries a negative connotation. That sort of lexicography has been discredited for some time. What you are reading in BDAG is a carry over from a poor methodology that once employed etymology as a determining factor in the definition of words. The context is clear that authenteo is in contrast to en esuchia, and it does not carry a negative connotation. Hence, permission is not granted to a woman to exercise any kind of authority over a man, but to remain in complete submission to the elders to handle disciplinary matters.

“It is difficult for women to respect those who arbitrarily infuse the word of God with meanings which cannot be derived in a logical way.”

Sue, can you explain to me your understanding of lexicographical methodology, both appropriate uses of diachronic and synchronic information? It’s easy to accuse, but not so easy to substantiate the claim you’re making.

Since authenteo and didasko have an overlapping semantic domain — namely that of directing/instructing — it is not impossible for it to be a hendiadys. Sorry Egals, but it is a possibility from the text.

If Paul does not give a rationale, as Michael says, then that is because it is assumed that the readers knew the rationale, whatever that may be.

I will admit that I skipped the last fifty comments, so maybe Michael clarified this already, but it seems to me that he is arguing that women in a head pastoral position are not the ideal, and he attempts to give a (partial) rationale as to why one may believe that.

Michael, your concept of the aggressiveness factor holds true the experience of many, but not all. You yourself note that. I would like to contribute to this by addressing the scenario of women as counselors.

If a woman is head pastor, and head pastors are (unfairly) expected to be marriage counselors/therapists, then what are the threats of counseling a male in a one-on-one setting? Generally, they are a danger to her. A male who objectifies women cannot successfully be cured of that by one-on-one time with a woman. He won’t take her seriously.

Now, the reverse situation is why a male counselor should always leave his door open a crack, just to avoid any rumors of immorality, since rumors happen and they hurt even without a shred of evidence.

Because, in the eyes of sinful men, women are sex objects, and head pastors will at times need to address male sexual deviancy, there is a special case in which it is very difficult for a female pastor to do so.

Of course, one could also look to Genesis 1 and simply say that “God created in a hierarchy even in Genesis 1, and there was neither coercion nor force, but neither was there distrust and a demand of egalitarianism among the cosmic elements.” From there one could say that perfect peace does not necessitate egalitarianism.

My understanding is that although context does play an important part in determining the meaning of a word, it can only help the reader decide among a range of all the possible meanings of the word. A word has a distinct range of meanings and cannot be taken to mean something outside of that range.

If this were not so, we could never communicate unexpected information to anyone. We would always have to assume the most expected meaning out of all word meanings for the context. But this is not the case. People can communicate meaning outside of what is expected because words do have meaning, although this meaning is represented by a semantic range.

This puts the onus on complementarians to demonstrate that “to exercise authority in an appropriate way” as to lead in church, is one possible meaning of the word authenteo. The question is fairly simple. Does “to lead” as in lead in church fall within the semantic range of authenteo? Is there any evidence for this?

I know that Michael does not want this discussion. I feel always as if there is an attempt to simply assume the meaning of this word, and not use the scholarly tools that we have.

Gary,

You write,

“it is not impossible for it to be a hendiadys. Sorry Egals, but it is a possibility from the text.”

But Dr. Koestenberger, who is a complementarian, has spilled endless ink demonstrating that it is not a hendiadys, because he believes a hendiadys is favourable to the egal position.

I personally don’t have an opinion on this. It is like watching ping pong.

Hi Mr. Patton.

First, I am also a complementarian.

I usually enjoy reading your thoughts; and this was no exception. However, this time I enjoyed reading this post, not because it was right, but because it was not. It got me thinking, though. (I can’t fault you for not taking it seriously, as so many writers don’t. Thank you for that.)

My response is way too long to include in a comment. Instead, I have posted it on my own blog: http://ps27-4.blogspot.com/2010/02/complementarianismwhy.html

(Thanks for providing a topic on which to write: I had run dry, and you broke my writer’s block. :))

I would be curious to know your thoughts in response to the argument presented there.

Comments on my blog are also moderated, but feel free to respond: I’ll be sure your comments get through, even if it takes a while.

Or you could email me directly (I’ll see it a lot faster.)

In Christ,

Steve Allen

Hodge,

I also have to challenge this statement.

“What you are reading in BDAG is a carry over from a poor methodology that once employed etymology as a determining factor in the definition of words.”

In fact, BDAG does not use etymology as a determining factor in its entry on authenteo. It does not make any mention at all of the etymology of authenteo. Thayers, however, provides an etymological analysis of authenteo.

BDAG uses other occurences of authenteo to determine its range of meaning. This is accepted lexicography.

Gary,

There is no way it is an hendiadys. If Paul wanted to associated the terms then he would have, at the very least, placed the terms in proximity to one another. Instead, didaskein appears at the very beginning of the clause and authentein andros as far away as possible from it. It is clear from the context that the functions of the elder are in view: teaching and exercising disciplinary authority. They are two distinct functions.

“In fact, BDAG does not use etymology as a determining factor in its entry on authenteo. It does not make any mention at all of the etymology of authenteo.”

No, BDAG does not mention where it’s getting it’s negative definition. It is clear, however, from whence it stems. It is from the old view that authenteo carries negative authority because it was thought to be somehow connected to autos-thentes “murderer” it had the negative connotation to assert oneself over the life of another. MM states that it is really from autos-entes “master.” Either way, the meaning “to domineer” (as BAGD originally had it) or “to assume a stance of independent authority, give orders to, to dictate to” comes from the comparison of the word used by Thomas Magister “autodikein,” which can be split up as “self directed,” or “assuming a stance of independent authority.” I would simply say that we ought not chop words up in order to gain access to their semantic range, but to view them in context. The most important context for us, of course, is 1 Timothy (the only place in the NT where it is used).
Now, one could use the phrase “to have authority” in both positive and negative contexts, so the word cannot carry its context, which seems to be what you want it to do. I still have not seen a context where it is used as an abusive authority, but this still would not bind the semantic range of the word. Since it is also contrasted with kureuein “to have authority” in positive contexts, and in the present context refers to the authority that an elder has, there is no sense in taking it as negative. Hence, it’s semantic range speaks of authority, and what kind of authority must be established by the context, since words to do not carry their contexts with them.
Furthermore, it would be absurd to suggest that this is a negative authority because Paul limits it to men. Are women, therefore, allowed to assert themselves negatively over other women and children? Why limit this to men? If it were truly negative, which it clearly is not, the instructions would have been universally applied to both genders.
Finally, since didasko is not combined with authenteo in meaning, and there is no negative connotation to didasko, the case you seem to want to argue cannot be made.
The pattern is clear, authenteo contrasts en upotage and creates a merism. Submission vs. authority, not good authority vs. bad authority. The context just does not bear out the negative view. And since we gain our understanding of the word from context, this is the primary one cited in the Lexicons with which we have to grapple.

Assuming complementarianism we have Paul saying women are not to teach because:

it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Paul is giving 2 reasons. The first is grounded in creation (pre-Fall) and presumably is related to the roles God intends for men and women. The second is grounded in the Fall. I can see at least 2 ways that the Fall could have relevance,

1. Generic distinct characteristics of men and women that tempt them in various ways;
2. The curse that resulted from the fall.

Your argument Michael is addressing the first of these two: a characteristic of men or women which you identify as: the ability of men to confront people who teach falsely; ie. not just false teaching.

The problem I have with this is that while the beginning of your argument is found in this passage, the specifics of the characteristic (confrontational) is not. We may not be given the actual characteristic and your suggestion may be as good as any other, though a search thru the qualities of eldership that follow this passage may be warranted.

Further, I am not certain that men are more confrontational. Your example suggests men may be more willing to face potential threat, or physically defend their family, but this is not completely the same as confrontation.

But if you wish to retain the theory of confrontation (I am not saying I agree with this) it may be possible to find it in second way the Fall may speak to this: ie. the curse.

One could argue about the effect of the curse on the woman, and that may be relevant, though Christians are to fight the effects of the curse and this may be argued for a Christian woman teaching. But what of the effect of the curse on those being corrected? It is possible that errant men (and women) are more receptive to men because of the Fall. Then it would not be the corrector that is the reason, rather the correctee.

(I concede that the mention of deception rather than curse in Timothy may argue against this proposal)

Somewhat tied to the topic at hand is what I believe is an unhelpful understanding of the biblical teaching on elders and shepherds (pastors). We have kind of done unjustice to these roles, creating titles like senior pastor, worship pastor, associate pastor, administrative pastor, etc, all the while having the elders as the more hidden group behind the scenes that no one knows.

Pastor is a gift and function, not a position or title. They are gifted in specifically caring for and overseeing sheep. I would say elder is more the ‘position’ (though I am not a fan of that word with all its ideas), and the elders are given many functions, one of them mainly being to shepherd the flock, though a particular elder might have the stronger measure of gifiting as shepherd. So, the elders really are the pastors, but there is room for other pastoral gifts and that person not necessarily function as an elder-overseer in the local congregation.

I can’t see any of the gifts being gender oriented. Hence, why Philip could have four daughters who were prophetesses (Acts 21:9) and women prophetesses in the OT. Hence, why Priscilla could be a teacher (could she have had a teaching gift seeing her role with Apollos?). Hence, why we have tons of women shepherds, whether or not we want to recognise them in our midst.

So, I would hope we all agree women can be gifted as shepherds, since it is a gift. But, as I mentioned, I would also say that it is possible that not all shepherds function as elders in the church. Thus, it is possible for a women to function as a pastor, but not function as an overseer-ruler-elder in the church. But, the question is, can women serve-function as elders?

I am quite open to the option of women functioning as elders, but I think we must allow women to function in their gifts no matter if one is complementarian or egalitarian, whether the woman’s gift is as shepherd, evangelist, teacher, prophet (prophetess), etc, etc.

People will get on with their gifts and ministries whether or not an official body recognises them. I believe in recognising official leadership within the church, since the Scripture points out the importance. So I’m not up for a loosy-goosy view. But, there have been many not ‘recognised’ (men as well), but have got on with the gifts and ministries God has given them.

But I think we need to get back into the teaching of Scripture and study what really are elders and overseers-bishops (they are synonyms in the NT) and shepherds.

I’m a male in the egalitarian fellowship of churches since 1993. We have had many female pastors and leaders in various ministries. However, I agree with Michael. There are an exceptions, but please, don’t turn it into a rule. It wasn’t very good here.

I’m coming in late and have not read all the comments but I did read about 2/3’s of them.
I think that women are not allowed to teach or have authority over man has little to do with whether a women has the ability to do those things, or if she is engineered to handle the task..it’s not about a woman’s capabilities, it is about both men and women submitting to God and each other. God has designated and required this of the male. Just because I am capable to take out the neighbor’s trash does not mean that I am held responsible to do so or that when it piles up the sanitation police will require an answer from me.
As a woman I could probably out teach some men I could probably lay a beating physically on some men but that is not the issue..the issue is submitting to God and each other in trust and love. God has designated the role of pastor to the male and he is responsible and will give answer to God for that position. God has required it of him.

Here’s a good read on the subject: http://www.intervarsity.org/mx/item/4175/download/

I am with Lisa R –

CMP – your argument is a fail, but your conclusion is correct.

I think it is an excellent post, Micheal. A missing element, however, is the reason Paul gives this dictate… (1) The Creation Order and (2) The Fall… These truths transcend time and culture. In order to justify women as pastor/preachers you have to play loose with the plain sense of the text.

Michael,

I appreciate your post. But, one question I have involves the “Would I let a woman teach from the pulpit from time to time? Yes.” comment. If, in your own words, “Because men are simply better equipped and more followed.”, then why allow a woman to speak “from time to time”? And how often could that be; once a month, once a quarter, once a year? My interpretation of your second comment means a man will always be more effective. That, its open door or closed door, not “from time to time”; one or the other. If you would, please elaborate for my understanding. Thank you.

Brian

RE: authentein, and whether it’s negative or the phrase is or is not a hendiadys, etc. – Read what Philip B. Payne writes about it in his aforementioned (by me) book, Man and Woman, One in Christ. I suspect the chapter in the book is largely based on this NTS-published paper of his:

http://www.pbpayne.com/wp-admin/Payne2008NTS-oude1Tim2_12.pdf

Why should a woman “not teach or exercise authority over a man?”

Michael, if I understand you correctly, you state that:
1) the arguments for complimentarianism is based on 1 Timothy 2 and
(2) upon the logic of “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 say that we can fill in the blank. Your argument is that those who hold your view have filled in that blank with the wrong item. Rather it is agressiveness of males that must be in that blank.

Correct?

This seems fraught with problems. Why is it that we need to come up with some “reason” for this?

I would reject absolutely anything that would go in that blank. Women are absolutely great at ministry, teaching, and handling tough challenges (at least as great as most men.) No, the reason for women not exercising authority over man within the church, Paul said, is tied to the Creative order.

Personally, I believe a woman CAN teach in the Church, as long as she is doing so under the authority of the leadership of the church. Like you, I see a fundamental difference between teaching on occasion or in a SS or with Children, etc, and teaching as full time head pastor.

Even in the most conservative churches that I have been in, I have seen women teaching from the pulpit nearly every week. How so? They sing. Singing is certainly teaching. And it is probably MORE effective teaching than a sermon. But clearly, this singing is under the authority of the pastoral staff (or should be). And that is the distinction.

What a great discussion! Thanks!
JJ

And let’s not forget that there are wimpy men as well who couldn’t confront their way out of a paper bag.

Brother Patton,

No exegesis you presented, only an assumption of the rightness of your position. That is a flawed way to do theology. I was held to your view about women, then went to seminary. There were a few women in my preaching classes. At first I was a little stunned, but then I heard a first rate sermon by a young woman. I then thought the only difference here is the gender issue, not the content or her sermon. I do not think Jesus or Paul would have a problem with her preaching NOW. I think a woman can be part of a pastoral team.

Hodge,

I will post an example of authenteo used with a negative connotation and then you can post an example of it used with a positive connotation. Fair?

“Wherefore all shall walk after their own will. And the children will lay hands on their parents. The wife will give up her own husband to death, and the husband will bring his own wife to judgment like a criminal. Savage masters will authentein their servants, and servants will assume an unruly demeanour toward their masters.”

(3 cent. AD) Hippolytus (d. AD 235) On the End of the World. De consummatione mundi, in Hippolyt’s kleinere exegetische und homiletische Schrften, ed. H. Achelis in De griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller, 1.2 (Leipzig: Himrichs, 1897), 239-309.