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"
Very late to this thread, and I’m not arguing the comp/egal issue, but the argument put forth here for why women do not command the respect men do (with regard to the teaching issue, etc.) is…a bit mystifying. It seems to be one man’s experience applied to the broader issue.
I am a woman, and I can assure you no man who crosses my path automatically “commands” my respect – or trust, unless he demonstrates by his own faithfulness to the Word of God that he has earned it. Doesn’t matter who he is. He can’t do it. I am not impressed by a man’s height, the tenor of his voice, his ability to be aggressive or combative, etc., – none of these things make him any more a man of God, and therefore entitled to my respect, than the guy down the street. Those characteristics – lent by testosterone – are simply differences, and taken to the extreme, become the hallmarks of a bully.
That said, women can be just as combative/confrontational as men…and are usually better at expressing themselves verbally in the heat of battle. So all of this, in itself, proves nothing.
So I guess I don’t get the OP argument.
A couple of random thoughts:
As a moderate comp, I do understand the Creation Order argument, but what I find frustrating in most male-dominated churches in that women are so often deprived of substantive or challenging opportunities to exercise/refine their gifts – so, most simply get on with it elsewhere.
And to whomever mentioned the persecutions under Nero, and the possibility that Paul was trying to protect women by not allowing them to teach…well, women have always been martyred for their faith, and untold numbers have refused to renounce Jesus, though it cost them their lives. We don’t talk about them as much as we talk about the men, but yeah, these women, nameless and faceless for the most part, absolutely command my respect. They are leaders.
John,
Michael isn’t arguing from what is to what ought to be. He is attempting to find one of the reasons why X might be true. In other words, he is saying that X is true, and perhaps, one of the reasons why X is true is that Y is true. I have simply disagreed that Y is true, but he is not arguing that X is true because Y is true, only that it is one possibly reason why X is true. As I said, I don’t think this reason is complementary to the passage, but you need to deal with it as an ad hoc argument, not a primary justification for the practice.
Sue,
“I searched this thread and I cannot find where I said that kurieuo was an abusive authority.”
Because you linked it to katakurieuo, both here and on another thread, which has to do with lording authority over someone (i.e., abusing authority). Now, if you believe that katakurieuo means “to have God’s authority over someone” then fine. We’ll work from there. In that view, no one can have authority over anyone else without sinning, since katakurieo is to be linked to kurieuo, athenteo, and exousia in your mind. Why are members of the local congregation commanded to obey their elders, and why are they commanded in the first place? Are the apostles sinning by doing so?
“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.”
The reason why people dispute this passage, and ironically it is usually cited as a support for the positive view of authenteo, is because kamna has to be added in order for it to have the connotation of coercion. I’m not sure why it’s translated “I domineer.” Is that your’s or Grudem’s or Payne’s? It should be “building authority.” In fact, I would translate it “building a rapport (lit. building authority) with him.”
I agree with Kostenberger concerning Philod, who you cite on your own blog: “Ought we not to consider that men who incur the enmity of those in authority (συν αυθεντουσιν) are villains, and hated by both gods and men”
Your argument that there is not enough of the fragment to consider a translation is, I think, stretching. The best part of the manuscript is around authenteo. But even if we dismiss these two (the only two references before our time period), then what are we left with Sue, but the Patristic period as secondary diachronic information (which supports my position, not yours) and the very text of 1 Timothy as primary synchronic information?
I agree with you, we ought to translate it as Jerome did dominari in virum “to have authority over a man,” as long as you don’t perform reverse lexicography and get your lexical meaning of dominari from the English concept of “domineer.” The Latin word bears out the same semantic range as authenteo “to have authority,” nuanced by its respective contexts.
BTW, haven’t you had this discussion a few times:
http://www.dennyburk.com/let%E2%80%99s-get-technical-the-meaning-of-authenteo/
And I don’t know how many times I have to say this, but 1 Tim 2:12 is the case of the positive meaning in our time period; and if you dismiss the other two above, it is the only case of the word in our time period. That in all likelihood means that Paul is using the word as he wishes in this context, so we ought to get our meaning from it. I think it is important to note that Paul did not use katakurieuo when it was more readily available and clearly understood in the light in which you are attempting to present authenteo. So let’s let Paul define for himself what he means by the term.
The reason these kinds of discussions are so difficult to resolve is that we begin with differing starting points/assumptions.
Is what Paul wrote in 1 Timothy inspired revelation or not? Is this just Paul speaking on his own initiative? Is his argument therefore culturally relative and not applicable to us today?
I come from the point of view that this indeed is inspired text and that the argument Paul is making is one rooted in essential truths about the nature of man and woman as created by God. The fact that Paul writes as a man and that the society he came from was patriarchal is irrelevant. Paul is not speaking on his own here, he is speaking the inspired word of God.
The truths Paul emphasizes in his argument are the order of creation and the fact that Eve was deceived, not Adam. Paul’s argument does rest on differences between men and women. So Michael Patton’s original post speculates about which specific differences between men and women might be behind God’s command that women not teach in the church.
Paul states that the order of creation, with man being made first, has implications as to man’s authority over woman. I also see in Paul’s argument a strong implication that somehow woman is more prone to be spiritually deceived. Paul’s argument about who should teach in the church seems based on the Creator’s design of man and woman. They have been given different roles and tasks to accomplish, roles for which their God-assigned gender, and capacities related to their gender, play a critical part.
Now Michael’s arguments that behind this commandment is man’s tendency to be more combative, or that he is more respected by virtue of maleness, seems to me to be getting away from a more direct implication of Paul’s argument—that men are more fitted for the teaching role by nature because something about the way God created man makes him less prone to spiritual deception than woman.
Now of course, that is not to say that men are not prone to spiritual deception, but the text to me clearly implies that this is a greater weakness in woman than in man.
EricW, #198: “I believe egalitarianism re: church leadership will eventually win out….”
And I believe more people go through the wide gate than the narrow gate.
What’s your point?
P.S. The largest C/church in the world is the Roman Catholic Church. I’ll give you 10 to 1 odds and I’ll bet you $10K that they won’t ordain women to the role of priest or bishop in the next 10 years.
Bet?
Alex,
You draw huge inferences that are not warranted by the text.
Yes, there is a mention of the order of forming (NOT creation) of Adam and Eve but it is you that eisegetes authority into this verse, it is not there.
You want to read authenteo as normal authority, but there is NO evidence for this, but lots of negative authority of some kind. No man is told he can authenteo in the Bible.
TUAD:
I am largely referring to Protestant Evangelical churches. I should have clarified that. No, the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches won’t ordain women priests or bishops or cardinals or metropolitans or popes. Ain’t gonna happen in this life.
But being able to make the argument to Americans that women cannot preach to men or teach them, or be head pastors of churches simply because of their sex, is going to be more and more difficult to do, and will come to be viewed as more and more ridiculous in the years to come, including among Evangelical Protestants.
Let’s take this up in 25 years and see if I’m right.
It has nothing to do with gates, wide or narrow. It has to do with Truth. And this Truth will indeed divide.
Do you have ears to hear? 🙂
I think the resolution here is in not trying to explain why Paul didn’t permit this, but in trying to prove he was wrong in writing this without appointing yourself as editor in chief of the book.
The only way to overcome his very deliberate statement is to remove the section. I never heard it put the way it has been explained here, but don’t think it matters if Michael’s point of view is correct of not. God’s point of view as enscribed by Paul is the real issue, and without a re-write of the text, it is painfully clear.
Don,
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 1 Tim 2:12-14
Paul makes a statement in verse 12 that commands that in the church, women are not permitted to teach or exercise authority over a man. He follows that up by stating, “For Adam was formed first… etc”, which is very clearly his explanation of why he does not “permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man.”
I don’t see any huge inferences here.
I must admit, I couldn’t read all of the responses….some were way over my head. I understand how the text seems to scream men teach women, women are to be silent. But I still can’t bring myself to actually give complete assent to this view.
In fact, I believe that the authority of the church lies not with man vs women but plays out in a much easier scenario.
In most churches it is not the authority of elders or men that the ministry of the church operates on but the majority wish of its members. (Which are both men and women) Church members vote on important issues after hearing the information from all sources. If the female had no authority over a man then why not just let the men vote and be done with it?
Are all churches in sin, because we allow them a “say” in the functioning of a church. Is this not leadership, and could this not be in direct subbordiation of what certain men, including deacons/elders may have wished.
Are not all equal before God……if men have absolute authority over women for no othe reason than gender……Well…….. should we limit the number of women in churches because they might out number us…….
“Teaching is something that requires _________ therefore, women are not qualified. You fill in the blank:”
Add # 7: A superior knowledge of the subject.
– – –
“She was looking out there and saw the lights go on. She got scared. Pop quiz: What did she do next?”
Woke me up and had me go out there.
– – –
“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.”
I always thought it was because men are typically “physically” stronger, and in that sense is the wiser choice.
Pop Quiz:
My wife is a paramedic. I trade futures. We see a woman (or man) collapse and is in need of medical help. Who is better equipped to handle the situation?
…and once again the answer is: ” Superior knowledge of the subject.”
I believe you would agree immediately if you were the person that collapsed!
Another Pop Quiz:
Who was the first person to be awarded TWO Nobel Prizes (and in different fields, no less)?
a. Albert Einstein
b. Willian Faulkner
c. Bertrand Russell
d. Marie Curie
e. Barbara McClintock
f. Elizabeth Blackburn
Answer: Marie Curie
Superior knowledge is not limited by gender. Application and ability to teach said knowledge should be the only criteria worth qualifying. And would a MALE paraplegic be even less qualified to teach doctrine than a healthy woman?
If you are right, Mr. Patton, “turn the other cheek” turns meaningful application into yet another platitude.
Alex,
What you quoted is an English translation, in that case, the translator’s interpretation and eisegesis already did the job you are supposed to do for yourself.
When one studies the Greek, one finds that what you quoted is FAR from being the preferred translation, it is just one of many possible ones, and in this case, one that has made most of the critical exegetical decisions for you.
In a letter from Paul to Timothy, who was Paul’s spiritual son, it would be expected for Paul to use terms Timothy knew, from their close association. And we are NOT Timothy.
It is arrogance to claim to know more than is possible to know about some text. It is better to be humble. This is a basic principle of protestant interpretation for 100’s of years.
Re 202. I disagree and continue to contend that CMP is arguing from is to ought, from the nature of men as we find them to what their rights, responsibilities and obligations should be. That is, from “is” to “ought”. Without any scriptural or logical support he assumes that the “is” that we find has a teleology that provides the “ought”, and thus providing an essential premise to his argument. I deny the truth of his undeclared assumption.
Here is Tarzan giving a sermon to his flock at First Jungle Baptist Church on why he must be the head pastor:
Tarzan: Me thumpa chest. Me leader.
Jane (one of the congregants): Huh? I don’t follow.
Tarzan: You no thumpa chest. No hurt boobies. Not leader you.
Jane: So you’re saying that biological differences between us give you the right to be the head pastor and to deny head pastorship to me?
Tarzan: Yes [thumps chest]. See?
Jane: See what? That your chimp has better reasoning powers than you?
Tarzan: Give respect [thumps chest].
[Lion enters the church, Tarzan attacks]
Tarzan: No. Fear. Jane. Tarzan attack lion.
[Jane pulls out her Colt .45 and lays out the lion in between the pews]
Tarzan: See. You no respect thumpa chest.
Jane: You mean I’ve advanced beyond primitive and pagan notions of authority and respect? No disrespect, Tarzan, but at least I can read my Bible.
Oh, I get it, men are less apt to be spiritually deceived than women:
Pelagius: woman
Arius: woman
Socinius: woman
Benny Hinn: woman
Joseph Smith: woman
etc.
Gee, I sure wish that men had been given more authority then we wouldn’t have had all these heresies and we wouldn’t have had all these church splits. We’d be drinking pure doctrine in a united church.
c michael,
In the past I’ve really enjoyed reading your posts. I found your postulation here surprising. How could it ever be reconciled with: “Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit,’ says the LORD Almighty,” “My grace is sufficient for you: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.” or “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world…”
Christians are in a spiritual battle, not a physical battle.
“Now Michael’s arguments that behind this commandment is man’s tendency to be more combative, or that he is more respected by virtue of maleness, seems to me to be getting away from a more direct implication of Paul’s argument—that men are more fitted for the teaching role by nature because something about the way God created man makes him less prone to spiritual deception than woman.”
So, then what is that “something”? If all men are created with that “something,” it breaks down on the fact that all men don’t naturally take the lead. That’s where your argument fails.
As c michael said earlier, “Men will still be wimps because we are still sinners. Adam still followed Eve.”
Kay, the same thot occurred to me.
Look at Saul, natural born leader, and acknowledged as such by God, Samuel, and the Israelites. God took away his leadership and gave it to the last and youngest of Jesse’s sons, David, who was not at that time seen as a leader. David became a leader because of God working through him, because he was a man after God’s own heart.
Seems to me the same principle works in the New Testament. God works through our weaknesses to display his strength and glory.
Paul ditched John Mark because he didn’t stick it out, and so JM had to travel with Barnabas. Obviously not leadership material. But it was John Mark who ended up writing the Gospel of Mark and who is mentioned several times in the NT.
The greatest leaders of the church have not been the so called “natural” leaders, but those who depended on God and lived sanctified lives. So it is not the case that God made men into natural leaders so that they could naturally lead the church. Those are not the kind of leaders that God desires or needs. God would much rather be glorified by working through the weak so as to glorify himself.
Does this not then “pragmatically” qualify only women to be head pastors rather than men (assuming that it is true that they are naturally the “weaker” less “leaderly” sex)? Such is the useleness of so-called “pragmatic” arguments.
God works through the weak regardless of whether they are men or women.
And what is this “natural” aspect of men that commands respect? It is the lower tone in voice, the louder voice, the more frequent and longer direct eye contact, the frequency of conversation interruptions, and the larger size. Linguistic research has shown that change in dominance / submissive positions results in changes in voice tone, loudness and diction (e.g., a president of a company talking inside the office versus talking on the witness stand). Many of these aspects (e.g. language, eye contact) are learned.
loudness and lower tones are also why we fear a lions roar more than a mouse’s squeak, and why thunderstorms command attention.
And of course, all these traits are why men obviously “should” be given respect automatically.
On those pragmatic grounds we should respect thunderstorms and get insight from them.
As I’ve suggested before, I wonder if the idea that only men can be head pastors or deliver the Scriptures to the congregation is a holdover from the Catholic/Orthodox Church idea/role/position of the male priest?
Evangelical Protestants have largely rejected the sacraments and the concept of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, which in the aforementioned Churches has to be confected and administered by the priest.
But they have retained as a “sacrament” the reading of the Scriptures (which for many is also equated with, or a replacement for, the gift of prophecy; hence they’ve also dispensed with the gift and office of prophecy and prophet). Indeed, the reading of, and instruction/exhortation from, the Scriptures is considered to be, and has become, the primary purpose of the church meeting. “Worship” is often just a warm-up preparation for receiving “The Word.”
But though they retained this “sacrament,” they did not reject with the idea/position/role/function of the priest the idea that only a man is fit or proper or best suited to leading the church or administering this or any sacrament. Hence, they continue to invest these roles of head pastor/Scripture reader/teacher in men only.
Just some thots.
“My point is that men are conditioned to handle confrontation better than women.”
c michael,
I have to ask – by whom who are men conditioned to handle confrontation?
Also, if one must be “conditioned” to do it, then it is not an inherent quality of males.
Also, given the pragmatic criteria, hermaphrodites need not apply to be a head pastor, regardless of their chromosonal make-up.
Also also: Kay, very astute point regarding “conditioned” and “inherent”. Three cheers for you. Actually, only 2.5 cheers because only male leaders deserve the respect of 3 cheers.
I find it interesting that scripture says man was not deceived. So he knew what he was doing. He was not mesmerized as Eve must have been. And he chose to follow her in her deception, in her sin. So does this show one is weaker (woman) when it comes to being deceived and one (man) is weaker when it comes to lying and passivity? And where does that get us? Women are deceived easily? What do we do with all those women who have the gift of discernment? Consider them flukes, exceptions? Could it be as simple as because Eve …not her heirs…but because Eve was deceived and sinned, she lost her right to lead? Could it be because Adam turned a blind eye and was passive…not necessarily his heirs…but because of his sin and the nature that surrounded it, God forced the responsibility of leading on Adam? If God clearly defines who is in charge, who leads, then there can be no “passing the buck” as Adam did. And if we inherited “the sin”, then why would not have inherited this particular consequence as well? As anyone considered that being forced to lead is not all it’s cracked up to be? God always picks the weak to lead so we might know it can only be by His might. God could have taken Adam by the collar and said,”You whimp! You’ll never lead. You blew it!” Maybe it went more like,”I’ll make a man out of you, a real man if that’s the last thing I do….today! And if your wife gets lost or deceived ever again while on your watch, you will take the hit for her and have Me to answer to! ” Of course, we know God never ends a sentence with a preposition!
Great observation and question, EricW. Here is what BWIII has to say on the introduction of the Romish hierarchy:
And so it is that the author of 1 Peter is not saying something novel when he throws down the gauntlet and says to his Christian audience “but you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, so that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light” ( 1 Pet. 2.9). This friends is the Magna Carta of Christian identity and Christian freedom, and among other things it means we are all laity, and we are all priests. We will unpack the implications of this wonderful verse in a moment, but first we need to answer a question— if what I say is true, what went wrong with Christian religion, and when did it happen? Why do we continue to have a clergy club and laity conferences for non-clergy? I’m glad you asked.
What happened, already beginning in the 2nd or 3rd century A.D. is the same thing that happened to God’s people as recorded in 1 Samuel— they wanted to be like other nations, other peoples. They wanted a king and a kingdom–and of course you remember that God obliged them and gave them Saul, not exactly what they were hoping for. Be careful what you wish for, as God may let you have it–and then he will let you have it (in another sense), when you use it to distance people from God. Well the church, especially after it became a licit religion in the 4th century A.D. thanks to Constantine, the church longed to be like the other religions with priests, temples and sacrifices, and more to the point they longed to be like God’s OT people with priests, temples, and sacrifices, and they got what they wished for. The OT hermeneutic was applied to NT ministry and so it was that ministers became priests, churches became temples, the Lord’s Supper became a sacrifice, Sunday became the Sabbath sacrificial giving became tithing— all in defiance of what Peter says and means in 1 Pet. 2.9. And of course the ultimate irony happened when Peter who wrote 1 Peter was turned into the first Pope— and he is still surprised about that!!
Re Rebecca @#221
I have been thinking similar thoughts, though more along these lines: Adam, a man, knew he was doing wrong and jumped right into it anyway. Consequently, it’s much better, pragmatically speaking, to be led by men who dive right into things that they know are wrong or sinful and lead others after them, than it is to be led by a woman who gets deceived.
It’s all so eminently rational, logical and obvious. And, of course, pragmatic.
The point is both the man and the woman in the garden sinned, one did it while deceived, but lost her deception quickly as shown by her response, while the man was NOT deceived, he did it knowing it was a sin, and furthermore, continued to blame the woman and also God for his plight. What a leader to follow! He is an example of what NOT to do, while the woman is a good example in quickly realizing her mistake and honoring God in Gen 4.
I think the more one tries to defend and justify and explain patriarchal Christianity as being the right reading and understanding of Scripture, the deeper the hole one digs for one’s self.
It is clearly not the only way to read Paul or Genesis, or the “plain reading/meaning of the text(s).”
Re: #John 1453: Kind of like, if you’re going to go off of a cliff, you’d have more comfort and peace of mind knowing that at least your male driver did it on purpose (road rage…Pee Wee Herman,”I meant to do that!”) rather than some female because of trusting the wrong person for directions, made a wrong turn and over you go! I hate it when that happens!
Hodge,
Can I ask if you are still planning to provide a citation for an occurence of authenteo with a positive connotation. Otherwise, I think we should assume that there isn’t one.
This would mean that any interepretation of 1 Tim. 2:12 needs to take into account that giving authenteo a positive connotation is only a speculation and is not reflected in the majority translation history of that verse.
I acknowldge that you have several other arguments to bring in and some of them are quite worthy. However, I stress that they can only be speculative, and they do depart significantly from the traditional interpretation of that verse.
We need to ask if a doctrine of this importance to our church life should be decided on this one verse. Especially when it goes against the stated goals of organizations like World Vision which state that women MUST HAVE equal participation in decision-making at ALL levels, in the family, in the workplace and in the church.
The inferior position of women, in terms of physical abuse, povertly, health, education, etc. is a stake on global scale.
To #John1453, Kay and Don:
It is Paul who in 1 Tim 2 (v12) makes the argument that men ought to be the teachers in the church because (v 13), a) man was formed first and b) Eve was deceived, not Adam.
To me his statements strongly imply some quality that man not woman has, that makes the man more suited to this role. I don’t think Paul simply makes this statement and means nothing at all by it. So I inferred some things from the text that I think are validly implied.
Of course men can be spiritually deceived, and not all men are qualified to teach in the church simply because they are male. These verses also don’t address whether women have ability to teach. But they do say that, by design, God wants men to teach in the Church, not women, and that the reason for this is most certainly connected with how God created man and woman.
Don,
You accuse me of arrogance in my interpretation and yet your whole comment is not very humble in tone. First you say I’m allowing the translator to do the job I’m supposedly to do for myself. Why should I not rely upon a well-regarded translation when I don’t speak Greek?
You claim the translation I’ve quoted is far from being the preferred translation— I see, I guess you know this because you’re the world’s expert on Greek translation? In any case, you admit this translation is indeed a possible option. I agree and that’s why I’m using it.
I have no idea what terms you’re speaking of that you claim Paul used for Timothy’s benefit alone, since you don’t specify.
Finally I don’t claim to know precisely what Paul means when he makes these statements. I do claim that my inferences are valid from the text and that Paul clearly argues for male teachers as God’s design.
“the “plain reading/meaning of the text(s).”
EricW,
In regards to the supposed “plain reading/meaning of the text(s),” I see this as one of the most midleading concepts being taught today. Practically, the slightest peek into the Hebrew and Greek quickly reveal the inadequacies of that idea. Yet, people buy into it.
Rebecca, I can see your point. With a woman driver you’d at least have the comfort of believing that you know where you’re going and you wouldn’t see the crash until it was happening. Whereas with a man you’d see the train wreck coming way before it actually happened and you’d have to live through the experience of knowing it’s inevitable and you can’t stop it. Option C might be the woman is driving and the man thinks he knows best and that the woman is lost and so he grabs the steering wheel to give it a crank to the left, and . . . over the cliff we go.
I like option A best.
Alexander:
You make some good points, and if the Greek, or the entire passage, were simple, one could argue from an English translation.
But I don’t think one should isolate 1 Tim 2:12 from 2:8-15.
And when one begins to translate and interpret the entire paragraph (as it’s formatted to be in NA-27), one is confronted with a myriad of perplexing issues of translation and interpretation and application and implication.
I would like those who debate the meaning of 2:12, whether from a complementarian perspective or an egalitarian one, to expand their discussion to deal with the entirety of 2:8-15, presenting a consistent argument and translation and hermeneutic that ties all that Paul says here together, and is not at variance with things he writes elsewhere.
Bon courage!
Correction:
I should have written 1 Tim 2:12-14 and not simply 2:12 with reference to the part that I think needs to be interpreted in light of all of 2:8-15. I.e.:
… I would like those who debate the meaning of 2:12-14, whether from a complementarian perspective or an egalitarian one, to expand their discussion to deal with the entirety of 2:8-15, presenting a consistent argument and translation and hermeneutic that ties all that Paul says here together, and is not at variance with things he writes elsewhere.
Also, pragmatically speaking, one shouldn’t forget the male-led African church, a bastion of doctrinal purity and service to women. Could you imagine how much worse poverty, rape, child abduction, prison visitation, interchurch warfare, incest, slavery, AIDS, starvation, etc. would be if women ran the church? It’s pragmatically obvious that men are the better leaders. And of course the problem of child rape and sodomy would be much worse if the RC church had women priests. And, don’t forget the obvious and pragmatic argument that the first step is women priests and bishops, and the second step is rampant homosexuality and gay pastors. Oh wait, the first gay Episcopalian bishop was a man, elected by men and not a lesbian elected by women. God obviously made men the natural church leaders to save us from all that. Lastly, there is the long line of disastrous female leaders that come quickly to mind like Ted Haggard, hmm no he’s a man, Todd Bentley, hmmm no he’s a real man ’cause he got tats. Gee, can’t think of any significant failed women leaders. Oh yeah, there’s Joan of Arc. She got burned at the stake for being a heretic. Wait a minute, she was actually burned at the stake for being successful and she got sold out to the English and thrown under the bus by . . . . (wait for it) . . . men. If Mrs. Calvin had been running Geneva instead of her hubby John, I’m sure Servetus would have had a lot more company in those flames. Golly, the track record of the natural church leaders (men) sure is impressive.
Has anybody gotten any of their answers…not speculations but answers they feel strongly are from the Holy Spirit? I’m wondering how many have spirit filled answers as opposed to educated answers?
Have not been able to keep up with any of the responses since yesterday. I am sorry. Just way too busy.
I expect everyone is going out of their way to be respectful here. The moderators are looking at this and they will take appropriate actions to any disrespect (on either side of the issue!)
Just to let you all know, I am doing a series on Theology Unplugged about this particular issue. Already finished a couple of broadcasts. They were a blast. Pretty soon, all of you will walk through the narrow gate with me! 😉
Keep it safe!
About 1 Tim 2 — why does Paul use the Adam and Eve illustration? I think it’s related to the controlling command in v. 12: “Let a woman learn!”
Why was Eve deceived? Could it be because being created later, she had less information and experience than Adam, and the problem was her lack of learning?
Why shouldn’t a woman in 1st-century Ephesus teach? Because Paul has commanded that first, she be permitted to learn.
I agree that reading according to the “plain text” means that we often read all kinds of assumptions of our own into the text. But surely we can glean some information from the fact that the only item put in actual imperative (command) tense here is “Let a woman learn.” As such, it must exercise some control over the rest of the section.
OK, I did read a couple of the responses.
Listen folks (and there are not really many that I am talking about here—just one): this is a theology blog that is for mature adults. Belittling and being downright childish wastes people’s time and has no place here. It is fine for those who “hit-and-run” but this is coming from a very consistant user of this blog. You probably know who you are. You have been warned many times. Your arguments are not mature nor profitable in this environment. You probably ought to go to a forum where this is more typical. Continue with this and you will be banned.
“I don’t think Paul simply makes this statement and means nothing at all by it.”
Alexander,
I’m not saying that Paul means nothing at all by it. Some conclude that the mentioning of Adam and Eve and the created order is dealing with men and women in general. But if Paul’s mention of Adam and Eve along with created order and deception was about ALL men and ALL women in general, then should we conclude that all men are not deceived and all women are deceived like Eve?
Which we obviously know is not the case.
There is more to see in the context of this passage that brings out the importance of Paul’s mention of creation, deception and Adam and Eve. Paul’s meaning has to be about something other than all generic man and woman. What readers miss is that the subject here is deception, not authority. Paul does not say that “the man is to have authority over women”, but that Adam was not deceived, while Eve was deceived.
Paul does not say that “the man is to have authority over women”, but that Adam “was not deceived.” You would have to ignore the context in order to make Adam’s authority the subject.
If all women are still prone to be deceived, why would Paul ever have instructed them to teach women younger than themselves? (Titus 2) – Instead of the blind leading the blind, we’d have the deceived leading the deceived. Or even worse in many cases deceiving the most easily deceived – the children.
Michael,
The somewhat tongue-in-cheek posts have been very entertaining and, quite frankly, serve to highlight the ludicrousness of the original assertions. Your attempt at a justification for Paul’s reasoning has been shown to be seriously flawed in many ways and, to be honest, you could put an end to it by accepting that your initial assertions are indeed flawed and that another method of justification would need to be found. You have been unable to counter, effectively, any of the ‘nature’ arguments.
Alex,
Your translation is an admitted masculinist translation, I use it myself along with many others, but I know its bias, the translators believe that males are to lead the church and home, this affects their translation choices.
By your choosing this translation, you let the translators make many many decisions for you, similar to when one chooses to be Catholic and one lets the pope and church councils make many decisions for you.
For example, it is possible that Paul is opposing a pre-Gnostic teaching at Ephesus that claimed Eve came before Adam and Eve was not deceived. So 1 Tim 2:13-14 are DIRECTLY opposing the false teaching. However, I am not sure of this, it is just a possibility.
As another possibility, it is entirely allowed by the Greek to understand that Paul is setting up a temporary prohibition for a woman at Ephesus, that is in effect while she is learning.
So you see that you are CHOOSING to make a universal prohibition out of something that may not be that at all. And it is something that affects about half the believers, limiting them from serving God.
Think about it, do something a woman teach somehow become wrong simply because she is a woman or because it is true or not. That is, suppose it would be correct for a man to teach it. If a woman teaches it, is God dishonored? How can this be?
John,
Certianly I would agree that the majority here have seen my illustration as flawed, but there are many notable exceptions! (Sorry, could not help it).
My illustration is certianly not a bad one and no one has shown this with any degree of satisfaction. Both my “robber” and the military illustration are very strong.
I would ask you this about my middle of the night illustration:
If you were to hear a simular story and in this story there really was a robber, but in this story the man made the women go check and she was hurt while he hid and called the police, what would you think of the man? What would 99% of the world think of the man? You would think that he did not do “his job” and was not acting like a man.
However, if the reverse were true and the man was the one who went and got hurt, it would be tragic, but there would not be any complaints.
This serves to help people understand that there are stereotypical differences that people accept that are justified in people’s minds, even if they cannot express, philosophically, exactly why.
The same is true with the military illustration. There are essential differences between men and women. These play out in expectations (even with night invaders) and in leadership areas (such as pastoral roles). If this is true, complementarianism is correct, even without the Bible’s testimony.
But that is not my point. My point is that the illustration serves as but one way that we can see this playing out in real life.
As a side note, there have been many emails from many people who do agree with the illustration and find it helpful. BUT, there are a significant number of complementarians on this blog who don’t like the illustration.
Either way, we don’t have time for immaturity here, no matter whether the belittling effect are affecting you or not!
I’m intentionally using reductio absurdum to point out the absurdity of the original argument. I’m also making rational points and using logical argument to demonstrate the errors. I’d hardly call it childish or wasteful of people’s time. It would be disrespectful to simply dismiss an argument and engage in name calling, which is not what I’m doing. I’m engaging the argument and showing where it leads and revealing its true grounds, and thus demonstrating its fallaciousness. I believe that the assertions in the original post are extremely offensive, and wrong, not because I am egalitarian (I’m not), but because they based on an entirely wrong form of argument. I don’t see that any of the posters have have found my reductio or other arguments to be childish or wasteful of their time. I also don’t find that anyone has been able to come up with counter arguments that demonstrate that my arguments fail.
Don,
“but lots of negative authority of some kind.”
Would you like to cite us one indisputable example within the time period of 1 Timothy. Or are you referring to Patristic evidence, which displays both positive and negative uses–hence, a neutral use of the term is the only valid conclusion for the term.
Michael,
You say yourself, these are stereotypical situations you are presenting. They are as much a product of culture and context as anything. They certainly cannot (and have not) been shown to derive in any effective way from God’s order of things (however you view it).
Your assertions cannot be supported by exceptions – because there are as many on either side.
Kay made the point that you are convinced there is ‘something’ that makes male and female different, yet you cannot define what that is other than by anecdotal evidence; which has been shown to be flawed.
Furthermore, your ‘middle-of-the-night’ and military illustrations merely serve to underscore cultural stereotyping and have only the most tenuous connection to church leadership.
Sorry, but I think you’ve lost this one and accept defeat graciously.
Michael, your illustration: did the first man protect his wife because he was big and strong or because he was brave. My husband is 5’9 1/2″. He thinks he’s 10 feet tall…until he gets around someone that’s 10 feet tall and very angry! He admits that he knows when to retreat. Coward or wisdom? I do think he’d try to protect me by finding an equalizer…maybe ME!
Eric,
This is completely irrelevant to the truth of an issue.
“But being able to make the argument to Americans that women cannot preach to men or teach them, or be head pastors of churches simply because of their sex, is going to be more and more difficult to do, and will come to be viewed as more and more ridiculous in the years to come, including among Evangelical Protestants.”
So will making the argument that homosexuality is wrong and homosexuals shouldn’t be ordained as ministers. Evangelicalism goes with the flow of the culture. Your statement itself is indicative of modern culture. So what? The culture’s (and that includes the evangelical culture’s) view of what is normative vs. what is ridiculous and abnormal is not relevant to Christianity. God determines the norms through the Scripture and His historic Church, not the sensibilities of the blind.
“It is arrogance to claim to know more than is possible to know about some text. It is better to be humble. This is a basic principle of protestant interpretation for 100’s of years.”
In order to say what is possible to know about a text, one would have to know what was not known and impossible to know. This is the conundrum of agnosticism. Ironically, what is impossible to know is impossible to know. Yet, if you know what is impossible to know then you are claiming to know more than is possible about a text. Arrogance is not hidden by deflection.
Rebecca,
If you heard a noise in the middle of the night and your husband made you go check, there are many issues there. He needs to protect you no matter how small he might be or how large you might be.
It is just my opinion, but I believe this is true. Those who deny such are normally letting their philosophical ideaology get in the way of the way God has created the world and blaming it on cultural relativism.
John,
I understand why you don’t get the difference because it is subtle. But the point is that everyone would already accept Tarzan’s authority in the jungle. The conversation would flow from one of the apes wondering if he had authority because he can thump his chest louder. There is a difference. The former assumes that he does in fact have authority, and the latter simply wonders why. Again, I don’t agree with the reasoning, but they are two different issues. If you wiped out the latter, the former would still exist.
“Oh, I get it, men are less apt to be spiritually deceived than women:
Pelagius: woman
Arius: woman
Socinius: woman
Benny Hinn: woman
Joseph Smith: woman
etc.
Gee, I sure wish that men had been given more authority then we wouldn’t have had all these heresies and we wouldn’t have had all these church splits. We’d be drinking pure doctrine in a united church.”
I think Paul is arguing from the fact that the woman was deceived because the man didn’t do his job in shepherding through right teaching and authority. He said nothing, even though she misunderstood the command and was deceived by the serpent. There is nothing in Paul’s argument to suggest that men are not also deceived, but that when each does not do his or her proper role, it provides an avenue for the devil to come into the community and throw it off it track.