Why Women Cannot Be Head Pastors

Michael,

I feel you brother. You were stating your position, not arguing it. But you had to have known that simply stating your position on a subject as violatile as this on a blog as popular as this would simply not satisify.

As I read through the myrid of comments and your occasional responses (a hand full at a time) the image of a lone soldier battling his bravest surrended by a multitude from over the tracks came to mind.

Keep blogging.

Hodge,

You told me to supply you with a text where authenteo was positive. I did. You said you would supply me with one where it was negative (even though most scholars argue that there isn’t one during the time period in question)

I missed your example of authenteo as positive. Honestly. This time I will check back more frequently.

And which scholars argue that there isn’t a negative example during the time period in question. There is even a negative example provided in Grudem’s Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth, where he agrees with Payne.

In the footnote of Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth, page 680, Dr. Grudem mentions an example which refers to a “hostile” relationship, and the meaning “compel” seems appropriate. If it is a hostile relationship, then one presumes it has a negative connotation.

I also argue that in Romans 14:9 it is acceptable for God, the Lord, to kurieuein, to have absolute control and power, but this is not ever said about church leaders that they are to kurieuein.

PS

I will respond to the other issues when this one is resolved. It is too confusing if they are not treated in a sequential fashion.

Derek, lol…thanks brother.

Hodge,

I have been checking back to your previous comments.

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.

This is what I have never seen. I have never seen any indication that Paul or Christ instruct men to kurieuein, katakuriuein, authenein, or even exousiazein over other people of any kind, except within the fully reciprocal relations of marriage.

Sue,

“There have been many articles in the last couple of years on how women are better at managing investments than men. This is one reason why it is so wrong to deprive women of equal say in money management in the home. Why should women, who are doomed to a slightly longer old age, not be able to plan for their own financial support into their own old age.”

That is out of left field. Do you keep company with only Muslims. The complementarianism that I advocate and that I find fellowship with would not have a problem with women managing finaces at all.

To be fair, I am sure there are some of the fundamentalist variety would would typlify what you are talking about, but not most that I know of at all.

Either way, that is far far off topic and has nothing to do with this present discussion. Lets agree to agree on that one. 🙂

Lisa, as I said before, you can study military and war throughout the ages and across cultures and you will find that 99.9 percent of the time, men are in command of the battles (even when they are not directly fighting).

In this, I find parallel to the spiritual battle that we are in and the position of a pastor. Exeptions do nothing to upset this norm and should not be used to neutralize what seems to be a clear intention of God.

There is simply no shame in saying that there are areas where men make better leaders and where women make better leaders. We should capitalize on it. But when opposition finds offense, in my opinion, it creates fallen potential and less effective societies and churches.

About the relationship between teaching and authority, I think you guys are entering into a classic case of “over-exegesis”! Semantic domains and relations and gramatical structures are certianly helpful, but the context is enough here. No need to jump into the type of diachronic lexical studies to understand that Paul see a relationship between the two. They are different aspect of the same thing: leadership in the church as Paul is talking about it.

OK, I have to add my 2 cents to this very heady discussion. Michael. you keep referring to “exceptions” when I’m not so sure they are exceptions. Men have predominately ruled society. We get that. But if that argument is OK, then what about the argument that men have caused more chaos than women? More men have been corrupt by power than women. I know, I know. I too have to assertion that the more you are in the limelight, the more you are a target. The more you lead, the odds go up that you will fail. So as the number of women in leadership goes up, so too the female white color crime and other failures.

Still, for whatever reason men are in a position of power, I don’t think that the corruption of their power and the failing institutions can be considered mere exceptions. It shows men to be pretty inadequate leaders. So I see this inadequacy more as the norm. Now I say this still believing in the interpretation of positions you have noted concerning 1 Tim. 2:11-15. I just feel your rationale has too many holes in it and want you to come up with something more realistic if these scriptures even really need explaining/defending. If we dissect this too much, are we not in danger of missing a greater lesson?

Michael,

I am sorry but I had no idea that you would take it this way.

I was just taking an example from my every day life, that women are now thought to be better at investing, but in many families the men make the final decisions in the area of investing. I don’t know any complementarian families where the wife does the investment and pension planning. just my luck.

I don’t even associate with any Muslims at all. I don’t know any in my area.

I mentioned this in order really to contrast it with the military. Who would be better at running an organization – a soldier or a business executive. In Plato’s Republic, the warriors were beneath the philosophers as leaders of state.

With my example of investing, I am trying to take something which we have read about, that women ARE better at managing investment funds, and then ask why this would not make them better leaders of families, and countries, – and churches. i am trying to get at your design argument.

Anyway, I will not be upset if you delete this particular post. I really was not trying to be either off topic or inaapropriate. And I most certainly did not intend this as inflammatory.

PS,

I like talking to Hodge. Where else can I meet someone who is willing to engage in a diachronic study of lexicons. 🙂

“I also argue that in Romans 14:9 it is acceptable for God, the Lord, to kurieuein, to have absolute control and power, but this is not ever said about church leaders that they are to kurieuein.”

Which contradicts your previous statements. If kurieuo is an abusive authority, then Christ should not have it either. If it is only speaking of authority in general, and must have its connotations determined by its respective contexts, and authenteo is parallel to it, then your argument that it carries a negative connotation within itself fails.

If your argument now is that the authority is positive when wielded by God, but negative if wielded by men, and therefore, it is never given to them, then I would ask from whence this presupp comes? Why are church members told to obey their elders? They are not all in a marital relationship with them. The authority to discipline in Christian theology is Christ’s authority, and according to the Lord Himself, he exercises that authority through humans. So I see no contradiction in saying that authenteo is ultimate authority, since that is the disciplinary authority about which we’re talking.

However, it is clear that authenteo is applied to lesser beings than God in a positive way, and hence, does not mean “ultimate authority.” It simply means “to have authority,” and context molds it as it will.

Grudem’s example is disputed by others, but my reference was more toward the analysis made by G. Knight, MM, etc. I don’t agree that none of them are negative contexts. My point was that it is not cut and dry that they are, and they do not negate the positive ones.

This whole thing for me, Sue, is about methodology. Your argument simply does not consider the context for the meaning of authenteo in this context. Instead, it attempts to transport the negative connotations of a foreign context onto the word and then use the word to argue against the flow of the text itself. That is not an appropriate methodology.

BTW, any discussion of authenteo that is beyond 1 Tim 2:12 is going to be diachronic by definition. That’s why an appeal to other contexts that are removed by genre, time period, culture, etc. is going to be the weaker side of the argument being made, which is why I want us to discuss the contrastive merism. It’s a hapax, so the only synchronic study that can be done is to stay within the letter.

CMP I have to agree with what some others have said here. With all due respect to you as a person this is one of the more poorly reasoned arguments you have put up here. You attempt to take what might be true for SOME women and make it true for ALL women. Furthermore, even if your assertions about women were true (though only based upon the anecdotes of your experiences with one women) this would not logically exclude them from being in leadership, but only indicate that there may be a greater percentage of males equipped for leadership then females (face it there are many males who are ill equipped for leadership in the arena you are concerned about).

P.S. Your analogy about military’s is becoming less true all the time. The Israeli Army for instance has women in all ranks of the military, even the special forces, and the U.S. military is slowly heading that direction. The Army just promoted the first female four star general and the Navy recently put a female in charge of a major group of warships (Expeditionary Strike Group 2).

Michael,

Once again. This is not an argument for complementarianism. This is a possible explanation of why, given that complemtarianism is correct (for the sake of argument) women are not able to teach and preside in positions of authority over men in the church. It is a very plausible explanation and makes quite a bit of sense to me. And exceptions do not make this argument any less forceful! Especially if the exceptions are not effective or ideal!

I don’t know what position that you end up with, but one thing that is lacking here in the comments is any alternative explanation from a complementarian. That is what I am looking for. Not charges of poor arguments from those don’t agree with the complementarian position. It is a given that this would not find favor to them.

Anyway, not only do I think it works, but it is very helpful to understand this way. I just don’t really know if this is the reason why God does not want women to preside in positions of authority. It is, however, the best explanation that I know of.

Hodge,

If kurieuo is an abusive authority, then Christ should not have it either.

I searched this thread and I cannot find where I said that kurieuo was an abusive authority.

I believe that authentein eventually might have been used with rerference to God, and I believe much later of supreme church leaders, in a later age when hierarchy in the church was compared to imperial power.

However, it is clear that authenteo is applied to lesser beings than God in a positive way

Is there an example of this?

Actually I am confused about how to proceed. Were you going to offer a use of authentein for humans that was positive in connotation? I have been looking for a citation and date.

Here is the example which Grudem and Payne agree applies to a hostile situation.

BGU 1208 (27 BCE): “I domineered(?) (Καμου αυθεντηκοτος) over him, and he consented to provide for Calatytis the Boatman on terms of full fare, within the hour.”

It’s a personal letter, not the journal of a judge or law giver. The control exerted may have been justified, but it was about a citizen coercing another citizen in a hostile way. I would be glad to link you to the entire letter in Greek if you wish.

The next argument is that context is enough. If it were, we would not have this interpretation history for Gen. 3:16b,

your recourse (return) will be to your husband (NETS from the LXX)

thou shalt be under thy husband’s power (Douay Rheims from the Vulgate)

thy lust shal pertayne vnto yi hußbande, (Coverdale)

thy desire shalbe subiect to thine husbande, (Geneva Bible)

thy desire shall be to thy husband (KJV)

You will want to control your husband, (NET Bible)

It is an interesting trajectory, isn’t it? I am not sure if you will argue for the early and traditional meaning because God allowed it to predominate for 1700 years, or for the Reformation meaning, or for Susan Foh’s translation because it depends the most on context.

Mr. Patton,

I think my comment above got lost in the shuffle of the debate over the underlying Greek.

I have offered, as you have requested, an “alternative explanation from a complementarian,” here: http://ps27-4.blogspot.com/2010/02/complementarianismwhy.html

Now, I posted it last night, and was unaware of the clarification that you are not, in fact, making an argument for complementarianism, but are rather speculating on God’s reasoning behind it. So you’ll notice that I do include, toward the beginning fo the post a “charge of poor arguments”.

However, ignoring that, I would be honored if you would look at and consider it. 🙂 I hope you find it useful.

In Christ,

Steve Allen

Sue,

I was not angry at all. Sorry you took it that way. I was just kidding about the Muslims. All I was saying is that the form of Complementarianism that you seem to be setting up is rare in my circles (and those, I believe, are representative of the better brand).

I do think that men hold positions of ultimate responsibility in the family before God. Whether that translates into them directing the finances or recognizing that the wife is better at that does not affect this. My sister and her husband are complementarian, but she does all the bills because she is more responsible in that area. This does not violate the complementarian position (as I hold to it).

Men and women hold positions in many many cases according to their gifts, but for those issues that give rise here (i.e. leading men and being the ultimate authority in church and home —and, I would add, government— is ideally suited for men.

However, I don’t see it as a sin when men don’t function properly in their roles and women have to take charge (like throughout the book of Judges). In other words, I don’t think women sin here. However, I think that such a situation is the product of a sinful corruption of society. I also believe this sinful corruption is fueled by the minimization of role distinctions, not appreciating and encouraging men to be men and women to be women.

My complementarian positions requires that the fullness of the position be promoted, not simply one of its components such as the proper place for men and women in the church.

Rebecca,

I don’t think that corruption of men in leadership is an exception. I don’t remember ever saying that or even addressing that issue. It is certainly the case that men will sinfully use their positions and lead contrary to God’s will. So will women. In every role there will me a high percentage of cases where men and women fulfill their role in a sinful way. Same thing with motherhood and fatherhood. So this has no bearing, as far as I can see on this conversation.

The exceptions have to do with those, such as in the case with women military leaders, who are put forward as illustrations that disprove my propositions.

For example, I could make the argument that God exists based upon the Moral argument for the existence of God. I would argue that God has placed within us a moral compass that tells us right from wrong. I would argue that this is evidenced in many ways such as the universal belief that lying is wrong.

The atheist may come and give exception after exception (and I have had this happen too many times to count) where there were people, and even small societies, that believed that lying was good. However, this does not detract from the general principle that God has created us with a moral compass that says lying is wrong. Romans 2 even promotes such even though there are going to be exceptions.

It is the same here in my opinion. There is a compass that God has placed within the sexes that is evidenced throughout history. You can call it repressive or cultural or whatever (and sometime I might agree depending on the issue). But when you have the rule established, illustrated in Scripture, and supported by propositional teaching in Scripture, I tend, like the case with lying (or homosexuality, murder, or whatever), to believe that the issue is very well established and that societal norms here are representative of God’s design, not sinful corruption or repression.

Man I am staying in this thread a long time. You guys are great. And what a civil tone everyone is keeping. I have not deleted a comment at all today! (And that is saying a lot!)

Anyway, thanks.

CMP,
Here is the reason I think your arguments is faulty in more detail, and then what I think the solution is.

1. It assumes something to be true which just isn’t true. I would hardly call the women I know the “exception”. The vast majority of women I know in my Church groups, in my education, and in my professional life are just as willing to vigorously defend the Truth as I am, and are in some cases more zealous in doing so then me (I don’t typically pick fights on these issues). My law school class (a profession which is all about arguing) was over 50% women who were almost without fail willing to argue tooth and nail for whatever position it was they supported. To me your assertion in this matter would only lend fuel to the fire of those who argue that the commands of Paul in this regard are purely cultural. Maybe something has happened in the 15 years between you and me, but your description of women just doesn’t seem to fit with reality as I have experienced it. Thus your statements from my perspective are almost an argument against complementarianism.

2. There is a vast qualitative difference between a physical fight and a intellectual one. Using this as an analogy is ridiculous. No one would deny that females are typically smaller in stature and thus less equipped (barring some self-defense training) to handle a large aggressor. Are you going to also argue that their brains are smaller and unable to process that which a man can? I just don’t think there is a relation between being willing to engage in a physical fight and being able to engage in a intellectual one. There really is no argument here to speak of for or against since the reasoning is non-sequitar.

So what are the better explanations??? I think if I were a complementarian (which I’m obviously not) I would just say that God by is sovereign decree created women to be subservient to men and any attempt to be other than this is a sinful act of rebellion which is a result of the fall (or whatever a kinder and gentler complementarian would say here). Now of course I don’t agree with this and find it shamefully ugly, but it is a better argument then what you gave. “God made it that way” is a much easier position to defend (and harder to attack).

Michael.

Of course, most men want their wives to handle the bills. LOL What a nasty job!

I was refering to overall strategic financial planning for one’s later years. Due to studies which demonstrate that women have a slight edge on portefolio management, are much more risk averse, and so on, I sincerely believe that women are more suited for being the leaders in the home with regard to the overall financial picture. They are also more connected to the concerns of the individual members of the household at any one time.

So, I was offering this in contrast to your position that women should not lead in church because they don’t have enough innate combativeness and aggression. I am arguing that on this basis, women ought to be the natural and recognized leaders in the home, where risk aversion is significant, and aggression is not very helpful. I would also argue that women should be political leaders also.

And I find it odd that aggression would be the most necessary requirement for leadership in the church, when it is not mentioned in the scripture as an attribute of an elder.

societal norms here are representative of God’s design,

Michael,

Whoa! Wait a minute. I thought that complementarians were supposed to be counter cultural and it was the egalitarians who had caved to societal norms.

Sue, once again you show your stereotype! 🙂

Hence the word “here”

Sue,

“I was offering this in contrast to your position that women should not lead in church because they don’t have enough innate combativeness and aggression.”

It is not simply aggression, but also the respect that is afforded to men in this situations that women have to struggle to find (and often cannot). I hope that this is clear because it is very very important to my illustrations.

Also, I still would not have a problem with the financial stuff. If the women is better at handling it, then that is the responsible thing for the man to do…let her handle it.

CMP,
“It is not simply aggression, but also the respect that is afforded to men in this situations that women have to struggle to find”

Is that a cultural thing, a reflection of the fall, or the way God made things??? I don’t see how this is an argument for your position since by this argument African-American men shouldn’t be pastors either. You certainly aren’t suggesting that are you?

Michael, your response does not assume the complementation position, which my entire post does! Therefore, I don’t think we are going to find common enough ground to move forward… at least with the way I have intended for this post.

My illustration does work. Just because women are able to be aggressive in certain things does not mean that it is representative of their abilities in others. I fully grant that women can defend the faith in general and can be aggressive in general. But one thing that the positions of pastor (over a congregation) assumes to Paul is personal confrontation, oversight, sometimes aggression (in a biblical way), and MOST IMPORTANTLY, the ability to command a respect. There is a certain amount of this that some women can attain (AND YES, there are exceptions), but, the rule here is the men are much more suited for this type of position. Hence, in my opinion, Paul did not allow women to be in leadership position of this type.

Is Paul speaking idealistically? In other words (as the “idealistic complementarian” argument goes), does Paul exhort to the ideal here, yet, we, as Christian, understand there there will be exceptions in individuals and, even, cultures, that we must tolerate and do the greatest good with what we have? Maybe. I am willing to entertain this and find some biblical warrant for it (e.g. the Book of Judges). However, does this mean we adjust or compromise our position based on the fact that the ideals cannot be met? No. Why would we. We don’t do this in any other area. We don’t say “Well, God calls us to be holy, but we all know we are sinners, so it ain’t gonna happen. So let us not exhort people to do what they cannot (i.e. be holy).

CMP,
See post 177 about “R-E-S-P-E-C-T”

Your argument about commanding respect in order to be in leadership of a church is not one I think you want to push too hard.

I am not using “command” in a way you think. I am saying that men, in certian positions are more inclined to receive respect. Same thing with women. I am not sure you really want to argue that this is not the case. That is when this type of discussion loses all common sense in favor of an agenda. I have been there way too much to enter the ring with such again. 🙂 There are some things that are simply beyond obvious.

Michael,

Why can’t women command respect? Some Christians do not think of women as those who function as equals, so they diminish women’s ability to command equal respect.

Does aggression command respect anyway? Or is it the physical ability to take someone on? Should only tall, strong, aggressive men be leaders? Would this favour some races over others?

Bother. I feel like Winnie the Pooh or Humpty Dumpty. I can’t decide which.

I think your meaning eludes me.

CMP,
I’m not trying to push an agenda. Simply pointing out logical steps to which your thinking leads. And on the contrary I think I understand perfectly what your getting at. I just think it logically leads down a path that is not one anyone (for the most part) wants to take You write “I am saying that men, in certian [sic] positions are more inclined to receive respect.”

Couldn’t one just as easily write “I am saying that white people, in certain positions, are more inclined to receive respect [then black people]”??? I mean if it is about respect there are many white people who (out of fallen racism) would not respect a black pastor. I have personally seen this. Not saying anything about Mr. Obama’s policies (I voted against him because of them) but there was a sizable portion of the American public who voted against him and wouldn’t have voted for him if he was a Tea-Party Republican. Your arguments could apply to them just as easily as women.

Well, Sue, I do think women can command respect in certain areas and men can in certain areas. I simply think that it is natural that it is much more natural for men in these types of positions of authority. Can I put my finger on exactly what it is? No. There are probably many many factors that are involved, but I don’t think any of them are cultural seeing as how it has universally been the case (like with the military illustration). It is just the way we are built. Why is it that, universally, women are seen as the more ascetically pleasing of the sexes and they represent beauty more? Are there cases where women are not? Certainly, but …. You know what I am going to say!

It does have to do with aggression. But, more broadly, it has to do with masculinity in general. Bigger, deeper, voice, stronger, more aggressive, less fear, more one tracked in their mind, less emotional, on and on we could go with the possibilities.

It is the case the smaller, high voiced, fearful men will be less effective in positions of leadership. Certainly, when it comes to some types of leadership. Does this mean that God cannot use them in this area? Not at all. But this takes nothing away from the direction I am going here.

In these type of areas, it is hard to argue against the reality that men, thoughout history, have been the commanders of more respect.

This alone does not make it right, but I am not making any sort of case on this ALONE. I am assuming my position and simply trying to explain the “why” question.

By the way, you are certianly one whom I have a lot of respect for. Expecially based on our conversation here. 🙂

Michael,

“”I am saying that white people, in certain positions, are more inclined to receive respect [then black people]”???”

Yes, but it would be for completely different reasons and would only be able to prove its case culturally. There would not be a theological basis to back it up or any type of essential distinctives that would justify such. Therefore, when this is the case (when we are talking about pastorate, military, and the like) it would lack all warrant.

If you are talking about with certian sports, the distinctions (stereotypes) might apply, but even then, they would most certianly be individualistic.

One of the biggest problems (other than the obvious biblical) that I have in the corner egalitarians seem to paint themselves into (and one that I think you all are close to) is the idea that you have to say that there are no distinctions between men and women other than physical/reproductive. I have had egalitarians understand this and actually attempt to defend this fort explicitly. This is where it gets outside of common sense and begins to look more like flat earth arguments to me.

Men are from Mars, women are from Venus. They simply think differently. Respond differently. Carry themselves differently. Have different nuances about their character. Have different emotional make-ups. Use their brain differently. On and on we could go.

To say that these differences do not predispose them, as a sex, toward one area of gifteness above another is, to me, impossible to defend and lacks a great deal of common sense.

All I am saying here is that the pastorate is one of those distinctive places where these distinctions find application. It is not about who is smarter, who is more rational, or, even, who is more apt to come up with correct answers.

CMP,
Last post I promise. Only wanted to say that some may disagree with you (those who use the Bible to support slavery for instance) about the thing about African American’s only being cultural. On the other hand many would argue that the issue of women and respect is purely cultural and is in fact slowly being overcome.

I guess at the end of the day if I were to say that in order to be a complementarian I would need a reason underlying what Paul said which explains why things are that way, the reason you gave would fall woefully short of providing such a reason. Maybe it just is my experience, but my experience has been that women are increasingly being given authority and commanding respect in those positions of authority. As such I tend to see the issue of women and respect as cultural rather than inherent in the order of the universe. I also think the men of my generation are much more accustomed to having women in power and seeing women as equals then perhaps the generations before me. We shall see how things play out in the next few decades.

more one tracked in their mind

Michael, NOBODY is more one tracked then I am!!

But you have clearly grounded your argument on the physical differences between men and women. Egalitarians agree with this. What other differenndes are there that we could agree on. You claim they are obvious.

I could see a big difference in connectedness and risk taking. Men are much more willing to take life threatening risks. I don’t think men should be in charge of any endeavor where muman life is not dispensible.

Actually I am kidding. There is more difference between any two indivituals than between men and women in general.

Sue,

“Michael, NOBODY is more one tracked then I am”

Touche.

If you really mean that, don’t you think that these differences lend themselves to certian areas more than others? Come on…you can follow me here!

You seem to be very close to a complementarian for that (not women in ministry) is its primary driving factor.

If so, then we may be just a hairs breath apart. I would just advocate that we educate and encourage the sexes to capitalize on these differences.

It is the case the smaller, high voiced, fearful men will be less effective in positions of leadership.

That’s funny. I have list of complementarian theologians that I would love to sent this too.

They may be short and squeaky voiced, but they don’t seem to be fearful.

Michael, you could be right. Lots of very good people on both sides of the issue here. I certianly would not say that this is an essential.

Given that leaders in Christ’s kingdom are to serve and submit to others, and given that women are much better at that than men, it is therefore the case that only women should be leaders in the church.

Given that leaders in the church are not to commit sexual sin and to be faithful to one wife, and given that women are by far more faithful in marriage and far far less likely to rape or sexually assault minors, it is therefore the case that only women should be leaders in the church.

Given that women are far better at listening and taking into account the opinions of others, and given that a key aspect of leadership is listening to and engaging followers, it is therefore the case that only women should be leaders in the church.

Given that women in America are the primary conveyors of spiritual teaching to the next generation, and given that men generally do a pathetic job of same, it is the case that only women should be leaders in the church.

Given the commands in the Bible to honour God’s name and to live with nonChristians in such a way that Christ is known and respected, and given that it is almost always men that bring disrespect upon Christ (Swaggart, etc.), it is the case that only women should be leaders in the church.

If we are to base church leadership on inherent natural statistically predominant characteristics and stereotypes, then I submit that it is patently obvious that only women should be leaders in the church.

Plus, no woman would be “lame” enough to write a post like the one that started this thread; that fact alone is enough to support a women leaders only policy.
(Fill “**” with your own adjective; women of course will fill it with nice encouraging adjectives, while men will insert blunt rude ones).

#John1453, you make some good points.

Were one to list what qualities/characteristics/requirements are necessary for the extra-Scriptural role/position of “head pastor,” I think one could find Scriptures and readings/interpretations of Scripture that would favor women over men as well as those that would favor men over women. It all depends on what qualities one considers to be necessary or ideal or best or mandatory for such a role/position.

But since the role/position of “head pastor” is an extra-Biblical one, and more one of practice and custom and tradition than something that is explicitly described and prescribed in Scripture for the churches, the very fact that one envisions there being such a role colors one’s ability to determine what the Scriptures teach about the nature of such a role/position. By seeing in one’s mind such a role/position, one already has a vision of what that role/position – and hence what that person – looks like or should look like.

The very fact that Christ compared His church and instructed His disciples against the way the gentiles ruled their people suggests that the nature of church “leadership” should be something other than the typical hierarchal and patriarchal structure that most of the “nations” have.

” it is hard to argue against the reality that men, thoughout history, have been the commanders of more respect. ”

Given that men throughout history have used their physical strength, money, and power to take and demand respect rather than earn it, that proposition fails to prove anything other than men can beat up women if they don’t get the respect they demand.

The position of women in places of lesser respect is primarily a function of socially structured inequality, not lack of ability. Our society, and basically all others, are fundamentally misogynistic and biased towards men. So, gee whiz, why is it surprising that men turn up more often in positions of power and respect?

So, if we are going to use these sorts of criteria for leadership, then I’m all for testing like they do for fire department applicants: hence phsyical strength, fitness and stamina tests for pastors with minimums to be obtained before ordination. Also, we’ll have to start lion breeding farms, because no shepherd of God’s people worth his salt should be put in a position of leadership without first killing a lion in the act of attacking a sheep. No sissy chess players need apply.

In addition, psych evaluations indicating minimum leadership scores will be mandatory.

Really, its not surprising that since men are deciding who gets to be a leader in church, that they choose criteria that favour men.

And since no one else has raised the obivious, in these obviously biased against women criteria, I’ll do it: men are much better at flatulation than women, so that should also be a criterion for a good leader, as should be shoe size and type of underwear (only humans who wear boxers can be a leader–that should get rid of most women and all the sissy men).

The most obviously bestest reason for excluding women from leadership are vague ambiguous reasons that are impossible to prove, favour men, are based on culturally ingrained from childhood stereotypes, and only make sense for men, such as the following: “I simply think that it is natural that it is much more natural for men in these types of positions of authority. Can I put my finger on exactly what it is? No.”

Woman to ordination committee: “Why can’t I be ordained as a head pastor?”

Ordination committee to woman: “We can’t put our finger on it, but you just shouldn’t be, that’s all. We don’t know why you won’t get respect, but you won’t, so just leave it at that, OK? Now behave yourself and go get pregnant”.

(cont’d and modified/corrected from my comment 192.)

…

The very fact that Christ compared His church and instructed His disciples against the way the gentiles ruled their people or the Pharisees and scribes ran things suggests that the nature of church “leadership” should be something other than the typical hierarchal and patriarchal structure that most of the “nations” and religious institutions have.

Yet, again and again and over and over in church history we have churches set up with men at the top being called the equivalent of rabbi/teacher/father/leader, being authoritarian and against women, etc.

The Lord says Ουαι to all such persons.

Comment 185–We absolutely are different which is why excluding one or the other from a certain “role” within a given group seems so rediculous to me. In essence you are saying I am unable to gain any new, different, valuable perspective from you because you are not me but because I am me and you are not you should be able to gain everything you need from me. I would never say we are not different I do say our differences make ALL the various roles we have richer and more effective when we allow one another access.

Good points EricW. Here’s what Ben W III has to say in the same vein: “Almost all forms of ancient religion were all about priests, temples, and sacrifices. This was as true of Greek religion and Roman religion, as true of Babylonian religion as Assyrian religion, and it was true of Biblical religion as well— just read the book of Leviticus for example. In Jesus’ day Jewish religion focused on Torah, Temple, and territory— the three Ts. But something radical happened in the Christ event, and it was a game changer.”

One can read the rest at: http://blog.beliefnet.com/bibleandculture/

in the blog entry for Thursday, February 11th.

regards,
#John

#John1453:

I believe egalitarianism re: church leadership will eventually win out, not because the church will have caved in to the culture, but because the complementarian arguments for “nature” and “roles” will no longer be tenable based on both reading and understanding the Scriptures in light of and in view of their culture and history and language, and because of what we know about women vis-a-vis men in ways that are uncluttered by past or ancient prejudices and presuppositions which can no longer be held with a straight face by those who live in non-agrarian or non-militaristic/imperialistic cultures where the production of large families is not a civil or national or economic requirement or necessity.

The question is not “if,” but “when” – i.e., will it be sooner or later?

CMP, allow me to clarify what I was trying to say about exceptions. I was not saying that it was you who suggested that corruption of men in leadership is an exception. But it seems to me that you have used “exceptions” plenty in your defense of “why” some women are qualified to be in a position of authority According to you, if any are, they are the exception. I was taking my “exception” cue from you. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander? My position is that the corruption by men is NOT an exception. That was my assertion, not yours. I believe it is more the norm. Therefore, if it is the norm rather than the exception that men are inadequate leaders, then it’s back to the drawing board. All the physical and emotional and spiritual reasons you have stated won’t work. But if you believe that strong, assertive women are the exception and I don’t and I believe that men have a history of being inadequate leaders and you don’t, then you lose me and I lose you. Your reasons seem to me to be the challenge here for you. It’s not enough for either one of us to say that we think men or women are more fit because we just think that’s the way it is or that’s been our personal experience. I’m 60 years old. Do my life experiences trump yours? I raised 5 sons and 5 daughters. Does that mean my experience is superior? It seems originally your attempt what to expain why. And maybe to get this discussion going? But what now. You have a theory as to why and so do others. Personally, I love it when I can find a male leader than is stronger than myself. You have no idea how encouraging that can be. And you have no idea how few and far between it is either. Yes, men have been emasculated. I suggest that they (men) “gave it up”. Where was their strength in fighting for their maleness? Adam blamed Eve. Nothing has changed. Now you are blaming society and other reasons. It is what it is. Men forfeited it! As far as women go, after all the years in a “man’s world” and all the years of suppression, just what kind of strength, determination, agressiveness, boldness, courage did it take for women to forge through those barriers? Was that not a battle?

So I can accept God’s order. I don’t even have to understand it. I just don’t find your reasons valid and as this blog goes on, they get weaker to me. I mean that with the greatest respect. I think there is a risk that some will unnecessarily be rubbed the wrong way and miss the benefits.

Because men are more naturally inclined to be leaders, it of course follows that women should not be allowed to vote, as indicated in 2001 by a woman senator:

“TOPEKA, Kan. — A female state senator says if women’s suffrage were being voted on today she would not support it, because the 19th Amendment was the start of a decades-long erosion of family values.

“I’m an old-fashioned woman, Senator. Kay O’Connor told The Kansas City Star. “Men should take care of women, and if men were taking care of women (today) ‘we wouldn’t have to vote.”

Delores Furtado, co-president of the Johnson County League of Women Voters, had asked the 59 year-old Republican to the league’s “Celebrate the Right to Vote” luncheon, and O’Connor responded: “You probably wouldn’t want me there because of what I would have to say.”

Furtado said she was shocked by O’Connor’s view. As a state senator, Furtado said, “she is the beneficiary of a system she doesn’t support.”

O’Connor said she does vote. But she said she believes that if men had been protecting the best interests of women, then women would not be forced to cast ballots and serve in the Legislature. Instead, they could stay home, raise families and tend to domestic duties, she said. The 19th amendment giving all U.S. women the right to vote was ratified in 1920. O’Connor said the amendment began a societal shift that eventually, encouraged women to trade homemaker roles for careers.”

As Helen Kendrick Johnson, anti-suffragette argued in 1913: ” As men threw off the yoke, the sex relations began to assume their natural position. Man was the protector, woman the protected. In the natural relations, the protector is at the service of the protected, and that is the state of things to-day. I order to be preserved in bodily, mental, and spiritual freedom, woman must yield with grace to the hand that serves her. In order to protect, man must see to it that this freedom he has won is kept sacred and inviolable. He cannot be at once a tyrant and a guard. This freedom removes from woman all disabilities save those of sex.”

Let natural inclinations determine our decisions! If a gay person has natural inclinations for the same sex, why surely we must follow natural inclinations! Men are naturally inclined to receive respect and be leaders!! Gay men are naturally inclined to be intimate with other men!! Let us hear a resounding round of applause for natural inclinations!! Because of course we all know that it is logical and reasoned to derive “ought” from “is”. Men are natural leaders in fact, therefore they ought to be leaders. “Is” to “ought” that should be the rallying cry from our pulpits. Natural inclinations to binding obligation and deference. Who could be so bind as to deny that?