I don’t know of many more controversial issues in the church than issues regarding women in ministry. It is not controversial whether or not women can do ministry or be effective in ministry, but whether or not they can teach and preside in positions of authority over men. The most controversial issue aspect of this issue, of course, is whether or not women can hold the position of head pastor or elder in a local church.
There are two primary positions in this debate; those who believe that women can teach men and hold positions of authority over men in the church and those that do not. Those that do, normally go by the name “Egalitarians.” Those that do not, go by the name “Complementarians.” I am a complementarian but I understand and appreciate the egalitarian position. In fact, the church I serve at most often is an egalitarian church. (However, I don’t want you to think that my complementarianism is not important to me. There is much more to complementarianism than whether or not a woman can preach!)
There are a lot of passages of Scripture which contribute to the debate, but one stands out more than all the others. 1 Tim. 2:11-15:
“A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.”
I don’t want to debate whether or not this passage teaches either position. I am simply going to assume the complementarian position and attempt to deal with the sting of “I don’t allow a woman to teach.” It does have quite a bit of sting.
I like to make the Scripture pragmatically understandable. In other words, I want to not only understand what it says, but to rationally understand why it says what it says. Why does God give this instruction or that? What practical rationale might be behind the instruction of God? I know that we cannot always find it and our obligation to obey transcends our understanding but, in my experience, more often than not, our understanding of the command can accompany our obedience so that we are not so blind.
“I do not allow a woman to teach.” We think of this as coming from God. God says, “I do not allow a woman to teach.” Teaching is something that requires _________ therefore, women are not qualified. You fill in the blank:
1. Intelligence
2. Wisdom
3. Love
4. Concern
5. Rational
6. Persuasiveness
While I think the sting of this passage assumes that Paul is speaking about one of these, I don’t choose any of them. I think Paul (and God) has something different in mind.
The other night, at 3am there was a sound in our living room. Kristie woke up, but I did not. She was looking out there and saw the lights go on. She got scared.
Pop quiz: What did she do next?
a. Got a bat and quietly tip toed out there to see who it was.
b. Got a gun and peeked around the corner.
c. Woke me up and had me go out there.
Those of you who choose “c” are both right and wise. You are right because that is what happened. (It was my 2 year old Zach who decided it was time to get up.) You are wise because that is what normally happens and is typically, for those of you who have a man in the house, the best move. Why? Because men are better equipped to deal with these sort of situations. There is an aggression that men have, both physical and mental, that is more able to handle situations that might become combative. That is the way we are made.
Now, let me give my short and sweet answer as to why Paul did not allow women to teach:
Paul did not let women teach due to the often aggressive and combative nature that teaching must entail concerning the confrontation of false doctrine. Men must be the teachers when combating false teaching. However, because the role of a teacher in the church is so often to combat false doctrine, and because false doctrine is always a problem, generally speaking, the principles are always applicable. The “exercising of authority” is inherently tied to teaching and its necessary condemnation of false doctrine.
The combative nature of teaching is particularly relevant to a broader understanding of the characteristics of men and women.
The best illustration in the real world that I could use to help you understand what I am saying is that of a military commander in charge of leading troops into battle. Of course there might be an exception here and there, but do a study and you will find that no matter what the time or culture, men are always leading here. Why? Because men are simply better equipped and more followed. There are certian areas where men and women have a unique stature. I believe, like in military, the position of head pastor is the same. Not only are they better equipped for the issues that will arise, but they are followed more readily.
Let me give you another example: Two years ago, my wife was confronted by another couple who did not believe that she was doing what was right. She used to do princess parties where she would dress up as a princess (Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty) and go to little girls’ homes and entertain them for an hour or so. She was really good at this. After we moved from Frisco to Oklahoma, she still had one party on the schedule. She called her boss and let her know that she could not do it since we had already moved. Her boss became very angry and began to threaten her. She also said that she was going to bring in her husband (who was a lawyer) and sue Kristie. Kristie became very scared and did not know how to handle this situation, especially since her boss was now using her husband as part of the threat. She told me about this and I told her not to speak to her boss anymore, but to let me handle it. I did. I stepped in and confronted both her boss and her husband’s threats concerning the issue. In the end, they backed off.
I felt that it was my duty and obligation to step in and be strong on behalf of my wife as the situation became confrontational. Kristie is both tender, gentle, and, in those situations, frightened. She was going to give in and travel back to Texas to perform this last party even though she would lose money in the gas it took to go there and back. Her boss refused to pay her mileage.
My point is that men are conditioned to handle confrontation better than women. It is not that Kristie could not have done the same thing as me, it is just that this was not her bent. Women, generally speaking, are not bent to deal with confrontation the same way as men. Teaching in the church involves, more often than not, confronting false understanding.
Can women teach? Absolutely! Can women understand and think as well as men? Most certainly. But the bent of a man is better able to handle the type of teaching that is always necessary in the church.
Would I let a woman teach from the pulpit from time to time? Yes. Paul is not restricting women teachers over men in the absolute sense. The infinitive here, “to teach” is in the present tense which suggests the perpetual role of teaching which exercises authority (confrontation).
The role of head pastor, I believe requires confrontation. That is not all there is, but it is there and it is very important. It is because of this, I believe, Paul said that women cannot teach or exercise authority over men.
See follow-up posts here and here.
Comments are open again. Be safe. Read the rules.
1,432 replies to "Why Women Cannot Be Head Pastors"
It baffles me that some believers see it as O.K. to study the Roman culture and history involved in better understanding the Gospels, but somehow put the epistles in a time bubble as though nothing there could have been because of the times/culture of the people they were addressed to. As though slavery, crucifiction and stoning is a perfectly natural part of our daily lives….????
It is another human tradition that the woman sinned first in the garden.
Adam was charged with tilling and keeping the garden, and the latter involves guarding and protecting it from any threats. This is exactly what Adam did NOT do in Gen 3, even tho he was there with her with the serpent. This was the first disobedience, which is seldom taught. Furthermore, he continues in his disobedience after getting caught.
The man in the garden is not much of a role model, except one to avoid; the woman in recognizing her deception and making faith statements afterwards in Gen 4 IS a role model for us.
Ask yourself, why does God say it is the woman’s seed that will bruise the serpent, if he was just talking about the physical, he could have said the man’s seed? If you look at the seed references in the OT, you will see that they were all people of faith, Eve, Abraham, David, etc.; that is, there was a physical aspect, but there was also a spiritual aspect.
Understanding the 3 origins accounts in Genesis is important because they are like the start of a moon shot, if you get even a little bit off at the start, you end up missing a lot over time.
“bruise the serpent’s seed”
Kay, Don, others:
In all of what you have been saying, here is where I find the biggest flaw in the evidence you have presented…
Don, nowhere are we told that Adam is a role model for any of us. I haven’t heard that from Paul and therefore haven’t even come close to saying anything remotely of the sort. What I have said is that God made Adam first; Eve sinned first; and that Paul explicitly cites these in 1 Tim 2 as reasons that he did not allow a woman to teach.
Kay, as far as culture goes, I tend to fall in the category that readily admits Paul was addressing cultural issues in his day as well as spiritual issues that are to stand for all of time. But the counterexamples that are used to support your stance are, to me, extremely lacking. I have admitted way up front that, for example, slavery is and always will be wrong…to me, slavery was/is a direct violation of God’s nature and commands to love one another based on Scripture. Culturally, it may have been practiced several hundred years ago – but it was never God-ordained and God-established.
Roles of men and women are a different animal to me, and here’s why: every time Paul instructs us in this matter, he always, always, always goes back to creation, or if not creation…the idea that there is order involved. If what Paul wrote about women is cultural only, then you need to be consistent in what you are saying – and if you are, then everything Paul writes about regarding communion and gifts as well…
Pete
Roles are in the eye of the beholder or they are not. The term certainly does not exist in the Bible, use of the term is a human tradition, which may or may not be true.
My take is that it is as if the non-egals wear blue lenses when looking at Scripture, it is a part of their worldview that males are to lead, so they see it even when it is not there, and which makes it so frustratiing to discuss. They see blue on a page when egals do not, and we talk past each other.
Adam was formed first. This does NOT imply he is to lead the woman UNLESS you already take that viewpoint into the verses, you cannot get it out of them.
Yes, Paul refers to Gen 2-3 in 1 Tim. But it is at most a POSSIBLE intepretation that he is referring to a gender ordering in Gen 2-3, there are many other possible interpretations about what Paul meant. So I can only conclude that a person that thinks Paul is referring to a gender ordering is CHOOSING to interpret it that way. And Gen 2-3 certainly does not make any gender ordering explicit, like it does between humans and animals for example.
Yes, there is a warning by God in Gen 3 to the woman that the man after the fall will be implementing a gender ordering. Why not reject such an ordering as part of our new birth in Christ?
“If you look at the seed references in the OT, you will see that they were all people of faith, Eve, Abraham, David, etc.; that is, there was a physical aspect, but there was also a spiritual aspect.”
Don,
Excellent observation. It isn’t about who is born first (we see this right from the beginning). It is about who has faith and makes attempts to live their faith. All through history we see the distinction made from who the firstborn was to who lived in faith toward God.
”Eve sinned first; and that Paul explicitly cites these in 1 Tim 2 as reasons that he did not allow a woman to teach.”
PeterMC,
Actually, Paul doesn’t mention anything about who sinned first.
”Roles of men and women are a different animal to me, and here’s why: every time Paul instructs us in this matter, he always, always, always goes back to creation, or if not creation…the idea that there is order involved.”
Every time? I can only offhand think of two instances when creation is mentioned. What Scriptures are you thinking of?
”I have admitted way up front that, for example, slavery is and always will be wrong…to me, slavery was/is a direct violation of God’s nature and commands to love one another based on Scripture.”
I doubt anyone thinks otherwise. This isn’t about whether or not you think slavery is wrong, but the fact that Christians accepted it for so long, something like 1600 years. So when you claim that Christians have accepted something for a long time therefore we shouldn’t question it, we know history shows us that is bad advice. Christians are just human after all. 🙂
PeterMC,
A question for you: if complementarianism is about women and men’s roles merely complementing one another, then why the heirarchial step down for women in the church and marriage? A heirarchy, by it’s own definition is not complementary, but rather forced obedience or allegiance to something or someone higher than oneself. Therefore, true complementarianism should be about voluntary co-operation in our God given roles, yet the old jewish patriarchal model still stands 2000 years later. It has simply been redefined as complementarianism by the church to take the sting out of it.
In practice, however, it actually fosters more divisiveness in the church, and in marriage, so thus is misnamed. The way the church has interpreted and practiced it makes more like a gender based monarchy. So let’s just call what it really is: OT patriarchy.
The more things change the more they stay the same. Slavery has been abolished, and so has polygamy, but the strict male dominance in the Christian church stills remains a blot upon it.
Ask yourself, why does God say it is the woman’s seed that will bruise the serpent’s seed
Interestingly, the LXX translates the Hebrew word in Genesis 3:15 (shuph) (it’s also in Job 9:17 and Psalm 139:11) re: head and heel as “keep, guard, pay attention to” (têreô). Different Hebrew vorlage? Scribal error?
(It’s not the same Greek word used in Genesis 2:15 for the man’s duty to guard/keep the Garden.)
The LXX of Job 9:17 and Psalm 138 (Hebrew 139) uses crush/trample for shuph – i.e., two other Greek words, but ones that seem to be more in line with the traditional translation of Genesis 3:15 as “bruise.”
Another interesting observation about the seed: Scripture says the woman’s seed will bruise the serpent’s seed, so if male dominance was uppermost in God’s mind, why not have an earthly man impregnate Eve?
That would have been true complementarianism, would it not? Yet God chose to have the Holy Spirit perform that act. Once again we have a big question regarding male heirarchy, as it is interpreted by the church: An earthly male was not even involved in the conception of Jesus, the only begotten son of God, yet sinful woman was chosen to bear Him. Do we hear women lording it over men in the church for that reason? I for one never have.
MBaker and Don/TL,
Two huge points for your consideration. Take them for what it’s worth:
1. Your posts in particular, to me, seem to continue dwelling on male “dominance” and “hierarchy” as God’s plan in all of this. Be careful not to overemphasize something that I think is a human extension of my main points all along. The proper way to think about it is by roles and order. This is what I think is really called for when Paul urges men to be the ‘head’ of their wives, just as Christ is ‘head’ of the Church in Ephesians 5. It’s not about dominance…it’s about what is required in order to function properly according to God’s design. I go back to the fact that in just about for everything to function properly, different parts exist and perform certain roles – for efficiency, performance, and vision of the whole. This is true in business, in politics, you name it. I dare say that God told us this was true in marriage and the church as well! I don’t know if you’re married or not – but if you are, whether you know it or not, you and your spouse perform different roles at times! I would go even one step further and say that if you only did the same things equally all of the time, you’d be horribly more ineffecient and less productive!
2. God did not have male dominance in mind when he created the world. I have not taken this position, and I wouldn’t support it. He did, however, ordain men and women to be different and to take different roles within marriage and the church. Not worse or lesser roles, just different. This is the substance of Paul’s statements. Don, again…the fact that the word ‘roles’ isn’t in the Bible anywhere has zero relevance…neither are the words ‘Forensic Justification.’ But I argue that forensic justification is still described in the Bible quite clearly.
Pete
“If Eve was the one to blame why did God hold Adam responsible, and kick him out of the garden as well? Why not just get rid of her, and provide a new mate for him?”
If you look at the grammar, it is noted that only Adam (singular) was kicked out of the garden. He after all was the only threat since he was the one who ate out of rebellion. The one who was taken from the ground was kicked out as it reads, and that was the human. (The human was taken from the ground, but the woman was taken from the man). The woman didn’t rebel, she ate out of deception, and she had come out of her deception also, but Adam, he stayed a rebel. And was thus thrown out of the garden for being a threat to the tree of life.
Just came back for a visit and saw that the comments are opened back up. Thanks Michael.
Peter,
There is no mention of creation order in 1 Co 11. It’s only written in 1 Tim 2. I’ve noticed that it’s tradition to read 1 Co 11 as if “creation order” was something that Paul was writing about. Origin and creation order are two different things.
“Relating to Adam and Eve, Kay, my point was that both Adam and Eve sinned. God didn’t show favor to one or the other because one was worse than the other.”
PeterMC,
Only Adam was thrown out of the garden for his sin of rebellion.
“Relating to Adam and Eve, Kay, my point was that both Adam and Eve sinned. God didn’t show favor to one or the other because one was worse than the other. What he did show, however, was that Eve’s sin was of a different nature — not necessarily severity, but nature — in that she was DECEIVED — this fact is cited by Paul as a reason why he did not allow women to teach in the company of men in 1 Timothy 2.”
PeterMC,
In verse 14 of 1 Timothy 2 the person who is deceived is the person of vv11 & 12 – “the woman”. Paul switched from using proper names “Adam and Eve” back to speaking of the woman who he was stopping from false teaching. Eve had COME OUT of her deception. God had approached her and when he did she was not deceved any longer.
Besides that Adam stayed a rebel (!) and Eve came out of her deception (!) being grounds for all women not being able to teach makes no sense.
“Rather it is the state of still being in rebellion against God never having repented and surrendered which separates us.”
*Adam*
And we are all born of Adam. He is how we got our sin nature. He continued in his rebellion, unlike Eve.
That was suppose to be “unlike Eve who did not stay deceived”. She didn’t rebel like Adam.
Pinklight,
I wholeheartedly would have to disagree with all of your comments above.
In my opinion, you’ve greatly distorted the Genesis narrative…this does great harm towards having an intelligent conversation.
You are correct when you say that Adam was addressed first following the first sin. I believe this is because, as I’ve argued, God gave Adam the instructions reference the tree of life first. However, both Adam and Eve were punished and sent out of the garden, together, as they were ‘one flesh’ at that point (see Gen 3:24 and 4:1).
Secondly, in 1 Corinthians 11: 3-10, there is order addressed by Paul reference creation, in what I believe are 2 places: first in verse 3 (‘headship’ issue, again) and even more importantly, in v10. In this passage (v3-10), Paul is addressing the wearing of head coverings for women – which I believe to have been a cultural instruction based on the fact that women were in fact dressing provocatively at the church in Corinth. But the reasons Paul lays out as to why … include a phrase in v10 ‘Because of the Angels.’ This is a very overlooked phrase but is of extreme importance, and I think it boils down to the fact that the Angels are watching all of this unfold on earth! They are watching the created order as God designed it, and as such, the Angels should see a difference between men and women in the church at Corinth! Culture may have changed regarding head coverings (how), but the exhortation ‘because of the Angels’ (why) still exists!
Pete
Peter,
Yes, and most egals think non-egals have distorted the Genesis narrative, by seeing it with blue lenses and seeing things that are simply not there.
It is CRITICAL to see that the 3 agents in the garden acted differently and were treated differently. To not see that makes me think one simply refuses to see what is there, and it makes it very frustrating to discuss. Not seeing this leads to all sorts of errors.
All egals I know agree that the body is made up of diverse people, it is just that God does not tag 1 gender for special priviledges or responsibilities that are not associated with their plumbing.
Also, you should read the slaveholders arguments for slavery, they sound very similar to yours. Separate but equal has been seen to be a canard.
It can be challenging for those that interpret a verse to the advantage of a group that they themselves are in to see that they just might be distorting things. Today we recognize that Jews did this, kings did this, and slaveholders did this also. And the debate is whether some men are now doing this, and I think they are.
I have conferred with women who are becoming egals when the husbands are still non-egal; you can imagine the stresses this causes. The husbands wonder if they can be faithful to the Bible and be egal and I assure them they can; but only if they WANT to.
ONE way to view things is thru the power lens, it gets rid of all the flak and justifications and sees things just in terms of power. And then one can wonder WHY the power is as it is.
My wife is my equal, but she is skilled in things I am not and vice versa. We are a team and I would not have it any other way.
In 1 Cor 11, there is an order, but it is a order in time, not a hierarchy. It is not in the form of a hierarchy and one should not change the verses to imply such. The inspired order of the words does not imply a hierarchy.
And to figure out what aggelos/messengers are meant is a bit of a challenge, and there are various options. But earlier in 1 Cor it mentions that believers will judge angels, so CERTAINLY a woman can decide what to wear on her head, which is what 1 Cor 11:10 says in the Greek without being changed by some translations.
—Also, you should read the slaveholders arguments for slavery, they sound very similar to yours. Separate but equal has been seen to be a canard.—
http://www.fether.net/2009/11/02/sound-familiar/
Don and Pinklight,
Maybe I have lost something here in this very long discussion. But you keep saying the woman repented and Adam didn’t. How do you know Eve repented? Yes she admitted she was decieved. Does that mean she really repented for what she did?
And you keep saying only Adam was driven out of the garden. Obviously they both left–she certainly did not stay behind. And it sounds like you think that maybe only Adam was really punished for what he did? Is that really what you are saying here or am I understanding you wrongly? Like I said, this has been a long discussion.
God certainly placed punishment upon Eve too. Someone of the egals has said that the statement that Adam would rule over her was simply a statement of fact of how things would be from then on and not a pronouncement by God. What makes you think that is correct? God had already made the pronouncement He would increase her pain and grief in childbearing. He doesn’t use the word curse when refering to the woman, but there is certianly punishment involved for her actions.
You talk about comps looking at things through a “blue” lens. I don’t know what color of lens you guys are looking at things through, but from our perspective it is certainly not a clear one! That idea about the interpretation of the other group certainly works both ways.
I can not honestly see why egals are so convinced that in I Tim. 2 Paul is only speaking to one woman when giving the instructions not to teach. It simply does not fit the context of the rest of the chapter which is giving instructions to men and women in general. It would seem like a very odd switch to me that he is all of a sudden speaking of only one person here with no clue given as to why he is making that switch. It seems from what I have read in comments here before that egals are assuming that Paul must of received a letter from Timothy earlier about this one woman and so Timothy would know what he was talking about. Wouldn’t that be assuming a lot? Wouldn’t that in fact be what is known as eisegesis?
Yes, Paul uses the singular here when he has been using the plural. However, in that notoriously difficult verse 15 which I have not heard any egal explain here either, I notice the pronoun switches back and forth from singular to plural. That doesn’t make any sence either if only one woman is being addressed here.
Don,
You know what you’re talking about, and I appreciate this. But still, something to me is severely lost here in this discussion when it comes to ‘reading’ verses with ‘lenses.’
I agree, no doubt about it – the way in which one reads Scripture has profound implications i.e. what hermeneutic one holds to. And I agree – if it is a cultural hermeneutic, it will be different to a literal one (which I hold to).
In non-theological terms – the reason I don’t see things as an ‘egal’ is because every single argument I have read on you and others’ behalf is in one way or form this: “well, what if that verse really means this, and what if this verse really means that?” In other words, I feel like there is a significantly less-clear ‘lens’ being worn when you and others reach to make such a strong argument against why certain verses do not mean what they are literally translated as. And yes, I understand scholars debate this…but I am sorry…if there is “reaching” to make a meaning “fit” – I don’t see how it can be to anything I have said or supported or argued for.
Several of you continue to mention the similarity between this reasoning and reasoning that was used to support slavery. I continue and will continue to reject this as any sound basis for your argument. To me, it’s as if you’re pointing to a flawed reasoning to find flaws in another. That may work, except it’s an entirely different issue. Period. I have heard these arguments before – but they do little to persuade me that as I’ve laid things out, I am inherently wrong.
(continued)
Just in case any one isn’t aware here, I am indeed a female. So it can’t be the case that I am taking advantage of an interpretation that would put me at an advantage as you alluded to above, Don. If that was the case, wouldn’t I be arguing for the egalitarian view? From my perspective, even as a woman here, the complimentarian view is simply a more accurate interpretation of Scripture.
One other huge problem that continues to surface in egal reasoning, to me, is this: words are important. Stick to words and phrases found in Scripture without interpolating – you continue to exhort me to do that, but yet again and again the reasoning above starts to take in special meanings that are nowhere to be found. This inherently begins to denote negative inferences about everything.
I believe the husband is to be overall responsible within the marriage, and that men only are called to be ordained as elders and overseers within the church, citing Paul’s call to Adam and Eve in creation and his extensive parallels between man and wife to Christ and the church. Call me old school. Call me archaic. I welcome these…because everything I’ve laid out so far has been in direct reference to Scripture. You may not agree with my exegesis, I can live with that. But there are just too many “what ifs” and not enough “look at the Bible verses” to support your position to me. And, when you do point to the verses, I feel like there are a lot of “what ifs” and not enough “stick to the passage” to give credibility to your arguments.
All of this out of respect and love, but nonetheless disagreement.
Cherylu,
There is something given to women in non-egal thinking that some women might want and that is less responsibility, for those that wish to be less than fully responsible. It is taught that “just give in to the husband’s wishes and God will cover you. Even if it was wrong, it will work out OK.” This can be very seductive to someone who does not want to accept full responsibility for something that they are fully responsible for.
Some mothers do not protect their kids or themselves from abusive acts because of this thinking, for example. Or they can just surrender early since they know they will lose any decision in the end.
Peter,
Egals DO look at Bible verses, we point things out again and again and often the response is, the non-egal does not believe it, just like you yourself say.
We get into the meaning of Hebrew and Greek words and grammar, get into the cultural aspects of verses at the time it was written and it can simply be ignored if one wishes to ignore it.
It is a paradigm shift, which takes more than 1 or 2 anomalies to make, I needed a handful of things myself. If you just see one anomaly, you discard it as a non-fit to the general trend and keep going; this is what everyone does.
Just a familiar example, what does ezer mean? In the Bible it means a strong help, such as what God gives, and a saving help, someone the one(s) being helped really really need. But when it is translated as helper it does not sound so strong, it sounds like assistant, a wife is her husband’s assistant. So I protest over this diluting of what the Bible actually teaches. And this is just one example of hundreds.
I have spent how much time here speaking only in terms of Scripture says this, Scripture says that, Scripture says the other thing – from the original no less – and Peter has the temerity to claim that egalitarians are all engaging in ‘what ifs’? Maybe he doesn’t really read my posts because I’m a woman? Maybe I am just wasting my time here?
I’ve given the Scriptural proof for my view. Evidently Scriptural proof isn’t enough. Why do you *really* want to be a complementarian? It evidently does not have to do with Scripture. Is there any point in discussing anything with someone who *really wants* to put himself in an exclusive leadership position and will do anything to keep it?
Keep in mind: I actually tried to live as a complementarian – and found that it was only leading me into idolatry. What I mean by that is ‘placing a mere human being in a place in my life which is meant to be occupied only by God’. So for the sake of pure worship of God, I abandoned my idolatry and became an egalitarian.
Sure, it is in some way a return to my egalitarian upbringing, but let no one say that I am a dog returning to my own vomit. My family also raised me to be agnostic/atheist, and I have in no way returned to that – no doubt much to the chagrin of my family. My reasoning for being egalitarian is completely different from what it was in my youth.
The ultimate question in every part of life, the ultimate question we will be asked at the Pearly Gates, is: ‘Whom are you *really* worshiping?’ or ‘Whom did you *really* worship?’ God knows all things. We can swear up and down that we are basing our views on Scripture, that we are doing what we do for the sake of God, but what goes around comes around. Does anyone here fear God?
Don,
There is something given to women in non-egal thinking that some women might want and that is less responsibility, for those that wish to be less than fully responsible.
And I would think it very possible to be equally true that there is something given to egal women–a great temptation for their own “power trip”. The power to be in places in the church for instance that have heen held by men in the past and that now gives them that place over men. (For instance a head pastor postion). I certainly don’t claim that all egal women are guilty of this–but is it not something that is inherently there and may have to be dealt with?
And some would argue that an egal man is giving in to the temptation to give up his full responsibility in the marriage as they understand it to be given to him by God. (By that I am not saying that the wife would not be responsible for making a sinful choice as you talked about above).
In other words, I don’t think either side of the issue is immune from pitfalls to human nature. They may be different pitfalls, but I can see them there on both sides.
Caraboska,
You have given the Scriptural basis for your view…
And I disagree with it. Respectfully, and I told you why…
You are entitled to view this as you wish; I was simply letting you and others know where I feel you lack. I didn’t think this would be a problem, as you and others let me know where you feel I lack.
My point here is simply that I think people on both sides still don’t understand the issue here. To me, the terms we have thrown out – such as ‘headship,’ ‘teach,’ ‘love,’ ‘submit,’ ‘respect,’ and others from Scripture – are still not adequately defined and understood.
You and others have brought out a lot of good points, and I appreciate that. We will still agree to disagree.
Cherylu,
I am egal and I can certainly sin in many ways. The way to avoid sin is to follow the Spirit.
Perhaps someone can be egal for wrong reasons, I have seen this sometimes, as they water down the Bible.
But we are all taught to reject self-seeking behavior, and this is exactly what the males who teach males on top can be suspected of doing. This is why I think one should only draw non-egal conclusions from verses if that is the ONLY way it can be understood. There are a few that are that way, but not many, and they can be understood in cultural context to be speaking about the way things are in a specific culture. Clothes and hairdos speak a language, but it depends on the culture about what they mean. One should not wear clothes or hairdos that deny the faith, but this depends on the culture, as it is the culture that says what these things mean.
Caraboska,
That is quite a charge/question you asked there.
Do you not think that for a complimentarian who truly believes that she is to submit to and/or obey her husband because this is God’s command to her that she is not fearing God when she does so? No, precisely the opposite is true, she is showing her fear of God by obeying what she understands to be His very direct commandment to her.
Remember, we are also told several times in Scripture as Christians to submit to our governements and rulers. If we obey that commandement, are we therefore not “fearing God”??
Don,
Great point about the word “ezer.” I would personally never translate this as “assistant.” And that’s my point – we don’t define the terms correctly!
Just so you know – I think that “ezer,” “helper,” – the kind one really, really needs – is exactly what God had in mind when creating Eve for Adam. He really, really needed help! And in my marriage, that’s what my wife is to me – not my assistant, not my “#2″…but my helper, whom without, I would not be the same! There is no dominance here – no beating up, no usurping! And trust me – my wife is not weaker than I am in any way whatsoever!
Said another way…even though my wife and I see are roles within our marriage as different and ordained by God to be that way, there is no violation in any way of her femininity nor my masculinity.
These are all mysterious and glorious things – femininity and masculinity – and my short posts can’t adequately do the topic justice.
Still – thankfully – I do believe God provided hints at what it is supposed to look like. It still remains a mystery how it all comes together, but thank God! for providing at least some clues as to this all!
”o me, the terms we have thrown out – such as ‘headship,’ ‘teach,’ ‘love,’ ’submit,’ ‘respect,’ and others from Scripture – are still not adequately defined and understood.”
This is an excellent point. The words teach, love and submit are important words to understand from the Greek, and also important to understand how they are used in context. The word ‘headship’ and the concept are not found in Greek or in Scripture. Words for ruling and leading are found in Hebrew and Greek and we should pay attention to where and how they are used.
Headship = –noun
the position of head or chief; chief authority; leadership; supremacy.
ALSO:
1. The position or office of a head or leader; primacy or command.
2. Chiefly British The position of a headmaster or headmistress.
Origin:
1575–85; head + -ship
IMO it is unfortunate that this concept has been promoted because it is not found in Scriptural references to marriage. Even those who believe in “headship” in marriage do not view it as the meaning of the English word describes.
” I think that “ezer,” “helper,” – the kind one really, really needs – is exactly what God had in mind when creating Eve for Adam. He really, really needed help! “
It is more than that. God defined the type of ‘help’ the woman was to bring the man. It was not good that the human should be alone. That was the only aspect of creation left that was not good. And the not good aspect was the aloneness of the human. The woman’s ‘help’ was to allay the aloneness of the human and to be his equal. She was the strong help that would stand facing him. There is much food in that statement ezer kenegdo. When another your equal is facing you, the help that brings is multi-fold. They can mirror who you are, what you are doing, etc. so that you can see yourself more clearly.
We all need someone whom we can trust who will help us to be better people.
TL,
Great point. We agree here. And that word, “headship” is important.
I don’t buy the english definition either.
But I do argue that “headship” or “head,” even if one takes it to mean “source” (not sure if thats the best word, but it is acceptable) still denotes A RESPONSIBILITY – at least a responsibility in terms of watching over and being responsible for.
It is absolutely not one of dominance. However, as part of a practical concern – which my point here all along has been – in order to be responsible for something, one has to do certain things/play a part differently than if one had no responsibility whatsoever. And, further, since this word is used in Eph 5 directly towards husbands in parallel with Christ and the Church, one by extension can, I think, draw out differing roles between a husband and wife.
”I can not honestly see why egals are so convinced that in I Tim. 2 Paul is only speaking to one woman when giving the instructions not to teach.i>
Cherylu,975
The problem here is that Paul deliberately shifted from speaking in plural to speaking in singular. For that reason, many believe that Paul has shifted from speaking to men in general and women in general to a specific incidence that was likely discussed in Timothy’s letter TO Paul of which there is no record. So Timothy knew who was being discussed and possible even the members of the groups involved knew, but not those who were not there. All we can do is note the obvious shift and understand that there had to be a reason for it.
”But you keep saying the woman repented and Adam didn’t. How do you know Eve repented? Yes she admitted she was decieved. Does that mean she really repented for what she did?”
Cherylu 974
When the woman acknowledge her error in being deceived it is evidence at least of remorse. If she had not been deceived she may not have done what she did. We don’t know for certain, but very likely she wouldn’t have. Even today admitting deception says that we wouldn’t have done that had we not been deceived.
”And you keep saying only Adam was driven out of the garden. Obviously they both left–she certainly did not stay behind.
True. The problem is in the language. The human, in the singular, was driven out. It was not the human and the woman, or ‘they’. Whatever we choose to interpret this, the facts are that God said : the human, he became, and he is sending him (not them) away from the garden. Check the wording on scripture4all.org
”Someone of the egals has said that the statement that Adam would rule over her was simply a statement of fact of how things would be from then on and not a pronouncement by God. What makes you think that is correct?”
1. God is ONLY speaking to the woman.
2. God is not even telling the woman HOW to respond.
3. God is only describing to the woman what will now happen in her relationship
I agree with TL. The word headship implies something quite different in human terms. As we have talked about before, it means that Christ is not only spiritual head and physical head of His body of believers, as God, but He himself connotes no separate authority of men over women, under that banner. All humans are guilty of sin and all are redeemed equally by belief in His work on the cross. That is why is it called saving faith.
Actually Paul’s comparison of man as the head of the marriage is meant to be one of service to her, as Christ served the church, not gender supremacy over her. Some comps keep arguing that, but then they say it’s ‘okay’ for him to be her boss in final decisions. (?) No, that is not a relationship, but an anarchy. In the church, it is the same. We are meant to be one body serving the Lord, using our different giftings, not promoting an extra-biblical concept of ‘head’ pastor’ as a strawman, then try to give a biblical argument of why women can’t serve in that position! Does anyone else here see how ridiculous that is?
I am not a role in marriage, and neither is my husband. We are complete human beings, in our own right, who have CHOSEN to join together in a love relationship to use our different giftings and strengths. Why is marriage or joining a church a choice in the beginning, but then becomes a one sided relationship only after it is entered into?
TL,
All we can do is note the obvious shift and understand that there had to be a reason for it.
That being the case, your explanation is a possibility. However, I still think that is conjecture that can not be proven. And it doesn’t at all explain why he switches back to the plural in verse 15: If they continue…
Besides that, we still have the instruction in I Cor. 14:34: The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. NASB Of course, it can be argued, as it has been, that that instruction in purely cultural. Again, however, there is no way to prove that is indeed a fact.
So, it seems to me that there are indeed a lot of if’s in what you are saying. A lot of conjecture that this is what was actually happening in these cases. Whereas instead, the complimentarian view takes these verses literally at face value.
Which view is correct? Obviously you believe the one and we believe the other.
Another apsect is that a husband is NOT called to act like a head, or (even worse) fulfill the role of head in a marriage, he IS a head, and the wife IS a body and the head/body metaphor can simply be seen as one of unity and mutual serving, there is no need to go beyond that meaning. When one goes beyond that meaning I ask why?
Peter, 989
I agree that the husband has a responsibility toward his wife. Specifically, the husband is to sacrificially love his wife daily setting aside his personal or selfish goals for the benefit of his wife. And this includes treating her as if she were his life. Body is often used to infer the whole of or the life of. Husbands are also to treat their wives more considerately acknowledging that she is more vulnerable than he is in many areas. Because human males are somewhat different than human females, then doing these things will show itself differently. But I would not go so far as to use the French term of ‘roles’ to describe this, simply because the term carries other connotations that do not fit what Scripture is saying. That is the same reason I would not use the term ‘headship’. Using these terms IMO tweeks the understanding and carries us away from the intent of the Scriptures, adding in concepts not inherent in Scripture.
As for the concept of a husband being responsible for the wife, it doesn’t actually say that either. That word isn’t used in Scripture relevant to marriage. And although I take that from you as meaning something positive, I still do not suggest using that word either. However, I will agree that husbands are responsible TO behave in certain ways toward their wives. That is different than being responsible FOR something as a parent is responsible FOR the life and behavior of the child. And I don’t think you mean that.
continued…..
continued fr. above to Peter MC
So, yes how a husband lives out sacrificial love, nurturing care, provision and protection will look different than how the wife lives out attaching herself to her husband, supporting, respecting, etc. but in the end all, I wouldn’t get too excited about it. I firmly believe that husband and wife are to be more concerned about being and living as if one flesh than they are to give mega zoom attention micro managing their individual differences in how they relate. Look at what is produced. What is the end result. Are both being challenged to grow into the fullness of the Man Christ Jesus?
(2000 characters is pretty small after all 🙂 )
Mbaker,
I would submit to you two things for your consideration:
First – if what Paul says about marriage in the sense that it is a picture that parallels Christ as the head of the church (the husband is head of the wife) and that in marriage, wives are to be subject to husbands, as to the Lord (Eph 5), how would you recommend a young engaged couple to interpret that? I’m not asking as a wise-guy. I’m asking as an honest question. Tell me what that means. Note: I don’t disagree, but rather agree – that in the same passage, husbands are exhorted to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, that He might present to Himself the church in all of her glory (through service, protection, nourishment).
Second – let’s assume for argument’s sake that in 1 TIM 2:12, Paul is in fact addressing the singular ‘woman’ when he says “I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man.” Let’s assume I agree with you on that. But my next question – if that is so, why the reference back to Adam and Eve in vv.13-15? In other words…walk me through this, please. Again – I ask not as a wise guy. I would like to know, genuinely, how you interpret this.
Pete
TL,
Same challenge for you:
Describe to me, through Ephesians 5, how I, if I were a young engaged couple sitting in your office and about to be married in 1 month, what I ought to know before getting married. Give the wife some advice – and give the husband some advice, from Eph 5. Paraphrase welcome.
Pete
My own walk through 1 Tim.:
http://bible.fether.net/commentary.php?booky=1Tim
“That being the case, your explanation is a possibility. However, I still think that is conjecture that can not be proven. And it doesn’t at all explain why he switches back to the plural in verse 15: If they continue…”
Cherylu, 993
We need to fully understand the author’s intent in one section of Scripture before we can properly carry it to another. The description of God expelling the man from the garden really doesn’t have anything to do with what Paul was talking about in 1 Tim. 2:15. Verse 15 in 1 Tim. 2 needs to be understood first in relationship to verses 13 and 14, because that is where the context is. And your question is astute, as scholars for centuries have made various attempts to logic all that through.
Regarding 1 Cor. 14, that is an entirely different setting and reasoning going on. Paul was writing to a church (Corinth) that had a lot of major relational problems. They let a man have a relationship with his mother in law (I think that was it). They were gluttons, argumentative troublemakers, elevating one group over another, dividing between Jew and Gentile, and so forth. Go look at a summary of the Corinthian church. They were a mess. As well, 1 Cor. 14:34-35 has a lot of questions surrounding it.
The problem with reading Scripture at ‘face value’ is that often that turns out to mean taking a piece of a sentence out of it’s contextual home and ascribing a meaning to it that makes sense in the time and culture we live in. The NT epistles do not describe life as we now live it. We can horribly mess up the intent of Scriptures if we do not take into consideration the times they were written in and the life that the readers and the writers were relating in.
TL,
I will grant you that technically only the man may be the one kicked out of the garden.
So I still ask, where did that leave the woman? Are you saying that the things, including pain in childbirth are not punishments to her for what she did? But are simply the result of the way Adam will decide to treat her from now on?
And if she was not technically kicked out of the garden and away from the tree of life for what she did, in fact if she was not punished at all, then I must ask, why does Adam’s sin to this day affect women as well as men? If she was not punished then for what she did, why are women punished now in the sense of being born with the same sin nature as man has? I just don’t understand your line of thinking here.