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"
I’ll eschew reductio, humour and creative writing and go straight for the science:
T. William Altermatt, Ph.D., “The Chivalry Script and Stereotypes about Women”
In my research, I examine a cultural script that I have labeled “chivalry,” characterized by themes of men protecting and providing for women. Chivalry as a cultural phenomenon is unusual in that it is possible to pinpoint its origins with considerable accuracy. In the 11th century, the medieval knights who had once protected Europe against Viking invasion jeopardized the social order through continuous warfare among themselves. In an effort to control the knights, the Roman Catholic Church reconstructed the knight�s role to include the protection of women, the weak, and the oppressed. During the Crusades, the role of knight (who literally is chivalry, a word derived from the same root as cavalry) was transformed from brutal mercenary into, in the words of Pope Urban II, “the true soldiery of Christ.” Over the centuries, the military and equestrian aspects of chivalry faded and gave way to a script describing gallantry, bravery, and deference to women. Chivalry�s survival from the 11th to the 20th century can be seen in its employment as an explanation for sex differences in aggression (Eagly & Crowley, 1986), helping (Eagly & Steffen, 1986), and the sentences and conviction rates of criminal defendants (Steffensmeier & Kramer, 1982). Despite its invocation as a post-hoc explanation of sex differences, little research has been done to explore the chivalry script or to assess, quantitatively, its influence on behavior.
Chivalry: Discrimination or Respect?
The chivalry script leads men to behave toward women in a way that is different from the way they would treat other men � a pattern of behavior that fits the definition of discrimination. But does this discrimination have negative consequences for women? Perhaps chivalry is a gesture of respect that acknowledges the differences between men and women and affirms the positive traits associated with women. On the other hand, if chivalry is interpreted as assistance, then perhaps chivalry helps to perpetuate the stereotype that women are less competent and independent than men are.
Research that I have conducted indicates that the chivalry script is related to both of these beliefs, which I separate into two stereotypes about women, one negative and the other positive: the belief that women are less agentic (less able to effectively achieve goals and wield authority) than men; and the belief that women are more “virtuous” (morally responsible) than men.
The rest of the study, and the results, can be read at
http://vault.hanover.edu/~altermattw/research/overview.htm
John, I don’t think a proclamation of victory on your part is either helpful to the conversation nor true in the slightest.
“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.”
Who said I cannot present other evidence? This was one illustration and certainly not meant to be an exhaustive case for the complementation position. I have said this time and time again. Certainly I could give hundreds of lines of arguments, both physiological, psychological, biblical, cultural, social and the like. Anyone who has broached this subject even in the slightest (or even read “Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus!) has seen this. I have just give a unique glimpse through this illustration how men and women are different and responded to differently. All people have been able to do is give “evidence” to the contrary from an occasional exception or to demonstrate how men have lead sinfully in the past (which is the worst example that could be brought up as everyone knows that we are sinners and there are abuses of leadership!)
Let us not simply proclaim victory by fiat here 🙂
Sue has already given such a negative connotation example.
If you go back father, it means murder, which is about as negative as one can get.
So authenteo is a word that is NEVER told for anyone to do in Scripture. Making a claim that it is positive needs an example, Sue gave a negative.
It is odd these type of argument that are being made. Besides the corner you have to paint yourself into when many of you act as if there are not essential differences other than reproductive and physical between men and women by God’s design, but you really have to call any type of proclamation of essential differences as stereotypes and, therefore, wrong. And you proclaim that the exceptions somehow neutralize the norms and cause us to no longer draw data from the norms. If science did this, then there would be no advances and we would always be bowing to the least common denominator among ALL.
However, what do you do when Peter stereotypes women in such a way?
“Husbands, in the same way, treat your wives with consideration as the weaker partners and show them honor as fellow heirs of the grace of life. In this way nothing will hinder your prayers.” (1Pe 3:7 NET)
Is this a stereotype? I have the feeling that I could make the exact same claim in a different context and you would be jumping all over me bringing up the exceptions of women who are NOT weak. In this, you would nullify quite a bit of God’s word.
Example of a woman who is not weak: Xena. 😉
John,
Just engage the arguments and don’t belittle them through emotional fiats. Your tone, while it might be effective (which is your argument) does not make it proper on this blog. There are rules and you have repeatedly broke them in the past. I am just addressing a typical way that you begin to respond which I, as the owner of this blog, must moderate. If I, as the teacher, do not think it is productive to the conversation, whether or or against my position (which I am obviously NOT moderating—nor have I ever—good arguments against my positions), I call the shots as I am responsible to keep people’s time from being wasted. I don’t always do this and I leave it up to others, but I am involved in this thread, have noticed it, and have given the warning. You might not agree, but let this be the end of it, agree or not.
Don’t get sidetracked on this issue, just follow the rules.
You have a lot of good things to say very often, but this is not a typical web-forum. Go out of your way to be respectful please.
Thanks!
I hope that all readers are clear that I’m not JohnO.
The point of the negative examples is to indicate that there is no evidence that men are consistently better leaders than women because of alleged natural gifts. The evidence is in fact all the other way, that men have consistently not been good leaders at all, or at best they present a bag of mixed results. There are no historical evidentiary grounds upon which we can make any useful comparison between men and women as leaders. At best it might come out a wash.
Second, the point of the examples of current women is that women who do get leadership opportunities do shine. Any one in the fields of law, medicine, the military, business, etc. will attest to that. There is no contemporary evidence that the inherent biological differences between men and women pragmatically enable men to naturally be superior leaders, or to handle or demonstrate leadership better than women.
Third, the examples of cultural conditioning indicate that all of the historical leadership differences between men and women can be accounted for by discriminatory stereotypes, modelling, archetypes, and social stratification, etc.
Fourth, Gray, the author of “Men are from Mars . . .”, does not have any degrees from recognized insitutions and his book has been thoroughly discredited for over a decade.
I could go on, but I have a meeting to go to.
John, that is not evidence for anything. They are simply assertions that have already been discussed. You are begging the question a great deal here.
This issue of bad leaders (which is the only one that is not question begging) who are men does not say anything for or against either position. Everyone agrees that the fall has brought about an abuse of authority and everything is tainted by sin. It would be like saying that since there are sinful teachers (men or women) who abuse authority, this is an argument against the institution of teaching itself!
We are working to redeem the world here and looking for God’s ideals. God’s ideals is that men and women don’t sin at all, no matter what they do. We don’t disqualify these ideal simply because there are billions of examples where sin is ruling. We still proclaim the truth and teach God’s principles even though there are abuses.
Bringing up positive example (of men or women teaching) does nothing either. It is simply the same thing in reverse.
My post is about finding characteristic behaviors in men and women that typlify the sexes and give us indications of essential and God given differences.
Do you really want to argue that there are no essential God-given differences between men and women? Really?
BTW: Couple of things John:
That post was very good and expressed the same type of thoughts in a different manner. If you would have done that and then provided those examples from earlier, it would have been just find. Either way, thanks for the adjusting even if you don’t agree with the rules and how they are applied to you.
Everyone (and John):
I am writing a follow-up post to this which carries on this line of thought. If you all wish to wait until later tonight to continue to engage in this, that would be wonderful. 99% of the readers do not read comments this far down anyway. But they will read some on the new thread and I think that this discussion is too helpful (and time consuming for me!) to let it get lost. We need to put it back in the light some. So I hope you wait.
(It will also allow the conversation to be broadened a little.
I don’t want to proclaim victory, but I sense that there will be no further discussion of authenteo. IMO, we don’t know exactly what was intended and this cannot be proven for sure by any method.
Michael,
Regarding the robber – the highest risk of injury to all women worldwide is their intimate partner. This is a fact.
Therefore, the woman without an intimate partner to “protect” her, is less likely to be beaten up by a man than the woman who has a partner to “protect” her.
Therefore, if women do not want to be beaten up, they should not live in the same house with a man.
In addition, the police would not recommend that any householder, male or female, confront a robber if there is even the slightest chance that the robber was armed in any way. In fact, the police would not recommend any confrontation, and a bank teller that I know was severely reprimanded when he made the assumption that the robber was not armed and challenged him. The robber was not armed but the teller was still reprimanded.
I find this discussion appallingly dangerous.
Rebecca,
I was able to argue intellectually that authenteo does not mean “to lead in church” for many years before I finally opened my mind up to God and listened to him telling me to do the thing that was morally correct and reject gender-based morality for the rest of my life. May God forgive me for not doing this earlier.
Cheryl,
You know that that is a complete diversion to another issue all-together. Come on… 🙂
Wow, why do discussions like this all always turn into someone making someone else feel badly? Like Sue, I consider that appalling among Christians of either sex. God says He is no respecter of persons, so why do we insist upon doing that? I actually thought #John brought up some very good points.
There is a big difference in absolute authority, which belongs to Christ and Him alone, as the head of the church, and true Godly leadership in my opinion., which is supposed to serve Him, not be an excuse to have power over anyone. As sinners, saved by His grace, none of us has that right!
I think the church as a whole in our culture is missing that part entirely.
EricW, #206: “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.”
No need. There’s increasing apostasy and heresy within the Western Church or churches. Egalitarianism is a large part of that.
BTW, your argument is with God and His Word. Biblical patriarchalists are obeying Scripture and egalitarians are persecuting them for their obedience to Scripture.
Rebecca, your response in comment #234 suggests that the spirit was not involved in the writing of the text. But he most certainly was but operated through the human author writing instructive information for the church and was doing so using standard means of communication. What he writes in 1 Timothy 2, which is the centerpiece of this discussion must be deciphered according to what Paul intended to write. This does warrant some investigation but does not negate relying on the Holy Spirit to open our hearts.
Some have said it doesn’t matter why he writes he will not allow a woman to have authority or teach a man. I disagree. I think it is tremendously important as it has a bearing on contemporary expectations. While I think Hodge and Sue have teetered on the brink of debating the issue, I appreciate the rigor in which they have investigated what Paul was intending with authentein (to have authority). What may seem like a highly academic argument (and therefore seem devoid of spirit) is really getting to the heart of the issue that divides the 2 camps.
We can certainly feel like the Spirit is providing conviction concerning an interpretation but cannot use that as any kind of proof to override an examination of what the author intended to say.
mbaker: “Wow, why do discussions like this all always turn into someone making someone else feel badly?”
You make it sound like that’s *always* a bad thing.
Repentance often occurs because someone “feels badly” about what they have done or thought or should have done.
Why women cannot be head pastors
Thankfully, some women have repented of being pastors because they wisely allowed Scripture to overrule their feelings (which were initially hurt when they finally realized what Scripture taught.)
Truth Unites… and Divides on 17 Feb 2010 at 7:00 pm #
EricW, #206: … BTW, your argument is with God and His Word. Biblical patriarchalists are obeying Scripture and egalitarians are persecuting them for their obedience to Scripture.
TU… AD:
I believe Christ restored man and woman, not to the post-fall or even pre-fall conditions, but to a New Creation. I.e., He made them both, as well as Jew and Gentile, into One New Man, a New Creation.
I think a lot of the arguments of the “Biblical patriarchalists” are based on viewing Christ as having restored man/woman to Genesis 2 or Genesis 3 relations between the sexes.
But I think the New Creation goes beyond that, and the trajectory and implications and outworkings of the Resurrection and the sending of the Spirit haven’t been fully understood or appreciated by many.
Do you have ears to hear?
YMMV
May I request that “Truth Unites and Divides” not make blanket statements assuming a moral high ground on his/her part, and apostacy on ours?
From my point of view, complementarianism can easily be equated with “divine right of males” or “male supremacy,” and is just plain wrong. I don’t see where Truth Unites has the moral high ground here.
TUAD,
I am not questioning God’s word on it. Only how it is twisted to make women feel less than in His kingdom, or not as good as men because of Eve’s transgression. If we all can’t agree that Christ ended that part of it then we all do need to need to question whether we have repented of the old ideas or not. And if not, then women shouldn’t be involved in the church at all.
Just saying that true repentance is definitely a two way street.
Sue,
No matter how many times I’ve said it, you don’t seem to want to hear it, Sue. It’s almost as if you click your heels and say “there’s no authenteo, but bad authenteo when applied to men” it will somehow make it true. There is a host of evidence that it is not simply negative. The word is neutral. The context molds it to be either positive or negative, just like the word desire, or love, eat, or drink, or worship, or most other words that exist in language. As said before, your methodology is utterly misguided. You are attempting to carry the context of a few texts in which authenteo appears and use it to negate the context of 1 Tim. As I also said before, even if it you were successful at transferring a referential/contextual nuance over to a foreign context, it would not negate the complementarian interpretation of this text, since everyone sees the woman “authenteo-ing” over a man as a bad thing. I do think it creates an absurd suggestion, since “over a man,” along with the argument of order, deception, and motherly role, becomes a ridiculous and unnecessarily limiting qualification to a generic sin that should trascend genders.
Both Philod. and BGU 1208 are most likely positive uses. We disagree on that. You cannot use these as negative in my mind, whether Grudem agrees with you or not.
The only other uses we have are 1 Tim 2:12, which is in contrast to complete submission in a merism that tells us that this not domineering vs. godly authority, and later uses of the term in both secular and Patristic Greek. It is used positively of the sun governing the earth in a Mithraic text, as I quoted before and of God and men (in fact the bulk of the uses are men).
I don’t know what more you want. The uses of it with God stem from the third to fourth centuries (the same time period from which you quoted me your negative context). So they’re not any later than what you gave me. Epiphanius, Eusebius, Chrysostom, etc. all use it in reference to God.
As for the uses with men: they take up almost a page an half in Lampe’s lexicon, which is pretty substantial. He notes that the word is neutral, positive and negative, in his entries and his examples. I’m sure you have access to his lexicon. It’s pp. 262-63. You can look at both authenteo and authentia.
The noun is used in Clement of Alexandria and Justin to refer to divine authority.
The verb is used by Chrysostom in the 4th Cent to refer to the authority a person has over a child in the act of discipline, which fits my interpretation of the 1 Tim text as well.
Hieronymus uses it in the 5th Cent to describe Peter’s authority that is recognized by others.
Since we’re going to discuss the weaker diachronic data, then we should include the substantive form authentia, which clearly means “one who holds authority,” or “complete authority,” as is an official of the state or the top leader of a group.
Both the context, our only synchronic data, and the diachronic uses, fail to support your idea.
Full disclosure: I am an egalitarian.
That being said, I have tried to read through all of the posts. If I have missed any, and I repeat what someone else has said, I am sorry.
What I find most disturbing about the OP is that Michael uses a poor example from the start:
I’d like to substitute what I believe is the correct example for this discussion:
There’s a knock at your front door, your wife answers the door (you are sleeping on the couch) it is person from a cult passing out literature what does he do?
A. Slams the door in his face.
B. Engages him in a discussion of her Christian faith
C. Tells him to wait, goes and wakes you up to share your faith.
This is, I believe, the correct example. There’s a large difference between a physical confrontation and an intellectual/spiritual confrontation. Someone who may be comfortable with a physical confrontation may not be comfortable with an intellectual confrontation.
Ooops, should be what does SHE do…
Sorry
Don,
I gave numerous positive examples. Do you know Greek and how to do lexicography? Can you share with me your research into the area? I already commented that the view that authenteo stems from the constituent parts that mean “self murder” is mistaken as was discredited as far back as MM. Even if you held that discredited etymology, the word authenteo would imply murder as much as butterfly implies a stick of butter that you chuck at someone.
Sue gave me an example from Hippolytus in the 3d Cent. What about the examples from the 4th Cent that I gave? How about the ones that use the substantive in the 2d Cent.?
Sue, I had to laugh at this one:
“I don’t want to proclaim victory, but I sense that there will be no further discussion of authenteo. IMO, we don’t know exactly what was intended and this cannot be proven for sure by any method.”
Because you didn’t read what I wrote or because I actually did something else today beside hang out at the keyboard as I normally do. 🙂
If we’re include all of the diachronic info from Patristic use, from whence your example came, then I’m going to be the one proclaiming victory. 😉
On what characterizes men and women, the only disjoint things deal with bearing or nursing kids. All else are overlapping bell curves and culture and, yes, prejudice. As an egal, whomever is best at somethings is the first candidate to do it in my family.
The real question is not who can teach, as Paul says everyone can, but who will listen to another. Some will choose to be impoverished by their choice to not listen.
Eric,
I think you’ve unknowingly espoused a cultic position here:
“I believe Christ restored man and woman, not to the post-fall or even pre-fall conditions, but to a New Creation. I.e., He made them both, as well as Jew and Gentile, into One New Man, a New Creation.
I think a lot of the arguments of the “Biblical patriarchalists” are based on viewing Christ as having restored man/woman to Genesis 2 or Genesis 3 relations between the sexes.
But I think the New Creation goes beyond that, and the trajectory and implications and outworkings of the Resurrection and the sending of the Spirit haven’t been fully understood or appreciated by many.”
Hence, it was argued that there is no more reason to be married. Gender roles are from Gen 1-3, Jesus argues from those passages concerning the relationship in marriage, Paul argues for appropriate sexual acts to be practiced based on those passages, etc. The roles are connected to all of that. Wipe that out. Wipe marriage out. I know you probably don’t see the connection because it doesn’t sound like you’ve thought deeply about those connections, but you’re not arguing from a Christian perspective here when the Lord, the Apostles, the Fathers, the Reformers, the Puritans, etc. all argue from those passages to the whole ball of wax that contains marriage, sex, gender roles, etc.
“The real question is not who can teach, as Paul says everyone can, but who will listen to another. Some will choose to be impoverished by their choice to not listen.”
Why did Paul tell women to learn in silence when it came to men then? Why be in all submission? Submission to whom? Shouldn’t he be telling everyone to be in submission then, not just women?
Hodge:
I know there are implications to what I’ve expressed that may require more thorough thinking through.
But part of it depends on how much of the eschaton is to be manifested or seen or expressed in this age, and how much must await the age to come.
I think there is sufficient overlap in some of the things the Lord says and the Apostles teach that there is danger in both going too far (which I may in fact be doing) and in not going far enough.
After all, in Christ there is not male and female, Paul says. And he quotes the LXX of Genesis 1:27 in saying so, switching his conjunction in the process.
Anyway, I’ve been playing around with this perspective for awhile to examine the implications and how it affects reading the NT and the comp/egal discussion. I may ultimately go back to a more “conservative/traditional” view or I may find that this is indeed the proper perspective of what it means to experience the New Creation in the here and now.
But thanks for your concern. I’ll consider what you say.
Steve D,
You said:
“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.”
c michael,
I would hope that 99% of the world might take into consideration that all men are not physically able to do such a thing. Your illustration does a great injustice to our disabled, elderly or ill brothers in Christ. I can never imagine God setting up such a paradigm for failure for the men in that position. Imagine being a wheelchair bound husband hearing that as a sermon illustration? What if he were you, how would that work for you?
CMP,
Is there any possible way in your mind that one could falsify your position and reasoning short of producing the Apostle Paul to tell you your wrong?? Many here, both complementarian’s and egalitarians have pointed on the numerous missteps in logic in your reasoning. No offense but in any of my law school classes your reasoning would get an “F” because it contains so many errors in logic that it isn’t funny. Yet you won’t even admit that at the very least the argument you gave is a weak argument. I find this amusing and quite frankly deserving on John1453’s ridicule.
Another thing I find is that you keep accusing people of raising the “exception”, yet there are so many exceptions on this matter as to make the rule non-existent.
Hodge,
I will have to appeal to the forum as a whole.
Please, if anyone reading this thread has read or can cite any occurence of authentein which Hodge has supplied as a citation, providing an author and date, please make a comment and give me Hodge’s comment with the # and if you would put it in upper case also that would be very helpful.
I too am busy, presented at a conference on Monday, several meetings yesterday, appt. today etc. etc.
Perhaps, Hodge, you can help me out by placing your citation in caps. I know that I am somewhat shortsighted, and actually last night I wasted precious time reviewing every one of your comments and I just could not find a citation. I have provided two so far and I am prepared to cite more.
One of my citations was within a century of the NT. It is generally agreed on that it is negative.
I do appreciate your familiarity with much of the literature, but at this point I feel that I cannot proceed without your goodwill in supplying your example or examples once more. Perhaps you could preface the comment with “Hey. SUE, here are my examples!!” Thanks so much!
To Kay, Don, #John1453 and mbaker
Kay, you wrote:
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.
I am not ignoring the context, but I’m not sure how you find that the subject in these verses is deception. The context is that Paul is giving instructions to the church on how it should function. The translation I am using, though some claim it is biased, puts 1 Tim 2:12 this way:
“I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.”
This verse speaks both about teaching and authority; also we know in Scripture there is a link, or relationship, between authority and teaching. Paul goes on to ground his prohibition of women teaching in the church by making a statement that is not culturally dependent, but goes back to the creation of the very first Man and Woman. V 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but s the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
Now is Paul saying that men are not ever deceived? Obviously not, since in many other places he argues that all are deceived by sin. But when Paul makes the statement in verse 13 that it was Eve who was deceived, he makes that one of the bases of his Apostolic prohibition of why women are not to teach men in the church. Maybe, as others have commented, in the garden Adam was to have protected his wife from deception and failed to do so. Now the Spirit-indwelt man, a new creation in Christ, is challenged by Paul (not fully here, but elsewhere) to take up this task again, this time aided by the Spirit.
Again, Paul states “I do not permit I woman to exercise authority over a man (in the church)”. Now others on this thread have taken up the argument about the meaning of Greek words used here, and I admit I’m not qualified to comment on that. But assuming that the translation I have is a valid one, Paul makes the prohibition against women teaching and having authority over men one based on design.
Don writes, “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.” Oh how terrible I am, putting limits on women to serve! But of course I am doing nothing of the kind, I am only agreeing with what Scriptures seem to teach about how men and women are to serve. Scripture states that there is a difference in their respective roles, both in the husband and wife relationship, and in the Church.
Also Don said, “Think about it, do[es] 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?
This is a red herring and not relevant to Paul’s prohibition. Paul is not saying that women cannot teach anywhere, but only that they should not be teaching/having authority over men in the church.
Kay said, “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.”
Another red herring. But both men and women are prone to being deceived, since we are fallen creatures and still sinful. Again, this objection is not relevant to Paul’s prohibition, which specifically prohibits women from teaching men in the church, but does not prohibit women from teaching their children.
John #1453 wrote,
“The point of the negative examples is to indicate that there is no evidence that men are consistently better leaders than women because of alleged natural gifts. The evidence is in fact all the other way, that men have consistently not been good leaders at all, or at best they present a bag of mixed results.”
Again, this is irrelevant to whether or not men are called to be teachers in the church, while women are prohibited from it. If only women were teachers in the church it is certain that there would be good and bad female teachers, since women are sinners just as men are. The question is has God so designed the church to have a certain role for women and a different role for men? I think yes. Does women not being allowed to teach prevent them from serving God? No, since teaching is only one way to serve God.
mbaker contributed,
“Wow, why do discussions like this all always turn into someone making someone else feel badly? Like Sue, I consider that appalling among Christians of either sex. God says He is no respecter of persons, so why do we insist upon doing that? I actually thought #John brought up some very good points.
There is a big difference in absolute authority, which belongs to Christ and Him alone, as the head of the church, and true Godly leadership in my opinion., which is supposed to serve Him, not be an excuse to have power over anyone. As sinners, saved by His grace, none of us has that right!”
Christ is the head of the church yes, and the husband is head of the wife (Eph 5:23). Having authority in the church is not about one sex lording it over the other. Now of course there has been much abuse of power by men in the church. Even so, Christ Himself was a man. He shows that it is possible to be a man and to serve others and to lead and to have authority, and all the while to be loving and respectful towards women.
Though authority can always be abused by sinful people, it is a given in the church and God uses it to bring about the purposes He wants to accomplish in and through the church.
CMP,
As you know I am the first agree with you when i think you are right on, biblically that is.
However, in this post I think you have raised a much deeper question. Are women really valuable to the church other to than merely support men? This is what I think our modern church culture portrays, unfortunately, not how men in the church, without our practical support would be able to minister.
While you and others here have given lip service to our service to the Lord, please tell us those of us who already believe Gods word on teaching should be continued to be subjected to these kinds of arguments? Don’t you think you we already get it, and support you guys anyway, so what is the problem? Why you don’t appreciate the sacrifice for us it means to do that?
To Kay, Don, #John1453 and mbaker
Kay, you wrote:
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.
I am not ignoring the context, but I’m not sure how you find that the subject in these verses is deception. The context is that Paul is giving instructions to the church on how it should function. The translation I am using, though some claim it is biased, puts 1 Tim 2:12 this way:
“I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.”
This verse speaks both about teaching and authority; also we know in Scripture there is a link, or relationship, between authority and teaching. Paul goes on to ground his prohibition of women teaching in the church by making a statement that is not culturally dependent, but goes back to the creation of the very first Man and Woman. V 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but s the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
Now is Paul saying that men are not ever deceived? Obviously not, since in many other places he argues that all are deceived by sin. But when Paul makes the statement in verse 13 that it was Eve who was deceived, he makes that one of the bases of his Apostolic prohibition of why women are not to teach men in the church. Maybe, as others have commented, in the garden Adam was to have protected his wife from deception and failed to do so. Now the Spirit-indwelt man, a new creation in Christ, is challenged by Paul (not fully here, but elsewhere) to take up this task again, this time aided by the Spirit.
Again, Paul states “I do not permit I woman to exercise authority over a man (in the church)”. Now others on this thread have taken up the argument about the meaning of Greek words used here, and I admit I’m not qualified to comment on that. But assuming that the translation I have is a valid one, Paul makes the prohibition against women teaching and having authority over men one based on design.
Don writes, “ 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.” Oh how terrible I am, putting limits on women to serve! But of course I am doing nothing of the kind, I am only agreeing with what Scriptures seem to teach about how men and women are to serve. Scripture states that there is a difference in their respective roles, both in the husband and wife relationship, and in the Church .
Also Don said, “Think about it, do[es] 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?
This is a red herring and not relevant to Paul’s prohibition. Paul is not saying that women cannot teach anywhere, but only that they should not be teaching/having authority over men in the church.
Kay said, “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.”
Another red herring. But both men and women are prone to being deceived, since we are fallen creatures and still sinful. Again, this objection is not relevant to Paul’s prohibition, which specifically prohibits women from teaching men in the church, but does not prohibit women from teaching their children.
John #1453 wrote,
“ The point of the negative examples is to indicate that there is no evidence that men are consistently better leaders than women because of alleged natural gifts. The evidence is in fact all the other way, that men have consistently not been good leaders at all, or at best they present a bag of mixed results.”
Again, this is irrelevant to whether or not men are called to be teachers in the church, while women are prohibited from it. If only women were teachers in the church it is certain that there would be good and bad female teachers, since women are sinners just as men are. The question is has God so designed the church to have a certain role for women and a different role for men? I think yes. Does women not being allowed to teach prevent them from serving God? No, since teaching is only one way to serve God.
mbaker contributed,
“ Wow, why do discussions like this all always turn into someone making someone else feel badly? Like Sue, I consider that appalling among Christians of either sex. God says He is no respecter of persons, so why do we insist upon doing that? I actually thought #John brought up some very good points.
There is a big difference in absolute authority, which belongs to Christ and Him alone, as the head of the church, and true Godly leadership in my opinion., which is supposed to serve Him, not be an excuse to have power over anyone. As sinners, saved by His grace, none of us has that right!”
Christ is the head of the church yes, and the husband is head of the wife (Eph 5:23). Having authority in the church is not about one sex lording it over the other. Now of course there has been much abuse of power by men in the church. Even so, Christ Himself was a man. He shows that it is possible to be a man and to serve others and to lead and to have authority, and all the while to be loving and respectful towards women.
Though authority can always be abused by sinful people, it is a given in the church and God uses it to bring about the purposes He wants to accomplish in and through the church.
Michael, lol. I think you are making a bit of an overstatement and it really makes it hard to take it too seriously. Conversation stoppers don’t work in law and not here either 😉
I think the problem with you is that you are thinking I am trying to accomplish something I am not. There is certainly no contradiction or logical fallacies in my “argument.” Formal fallacies anyway. Maybe your position is a bit subjectively conceived due to your presumption, but my illustration fits well with what I am trying to accomplish.
Other than that, we will just be going around in circles.
I am going to close this thread and let the new thread take up this subject and carry on in a different way. This conversation is too good to let others miss it. I am getting dozens of personal emails about this and people want to see more about it. It looks like this post is accomplishing its purpose in more ways than one.
Thanks for being involved.
I’m a bit late to the party.
This is my understanding.
Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Moshiach ‘Y-sha.
As a “woman” you cannot teach or have authority over a man, but as a new creature in the Messiah you can.
2 Cor 5:17
Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
You are a Bondservant anyway, you are not your own, but taking on this authority ALSO makes you MORE accountable to the Lord.
Now in the TRUE BODY there is not a tussling for authority or teaching, but a mutual desire to edify everyone with what the Spirit of Truth has shown us to further our walk together with the Lord.
By the way, the battle is a Spiritual one and winning depends more on faith than male or female.
Queen Esther was never in front of a group of men and teaching, but she did more by just having faith in LORD during a huge crisis.
And sat next to the King and helped rule all of Persia.
Purim coming up this Adar 14.
Cindy,
Please try to understand Galatians 3:28 in context of Paul’s argument to the Galatians. He was opposing the insistence of the judaizers that believers had to uphold a portion of the Law in order to be Christian. Under the Law, not all had access and were excluded from being a covenant people of God. But because Christ broke down the barriers that separate Jew from Gentile (see also Eph 2:11-15), these barriers no longer exist. Please read the flow of thought in chapter 3 that lead up to this verse you cite and you will find the issue is one of access not function. After all, did the slave cease to be a slave or a male cease to be a male, etc? No. It has nothing to do with function and furthermore must be correlated to other passages where Paul does address different roles.
Also, I don’t think we can use the narrative of Esther to provide a prescription for practice under the new covenant. The fact that Esther was positioned so that the Jews could be freed does not really have any bearing upon the topic.
If you discriminate against women, you aren’t being loving and respectful to women toward them. It means you look down on them as inferior, no matter how much you try to deny it.
Paulf,
Does following Paul’s admonition that women must not teach men in the church constitute discrimination? Did Paul give this command under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, or was Paul just speaking on his own and presenting his own bias?
Or would you say that Paul was addressing a particular problem within the Ephesian church only, and not making a universal command? Why then did he base his argument for women not teaching on the particulars regarding the first man and woman, Adam and Eve?
There is nothing unfair or prejudiced towards women in following the Bible’s directives. On the contrary, following God’s way leads to real freedom for the man and the woman.
Almost all theological debate comes back to what we believe about the Bible. In this case, is the Bible written by men and therefore reflecting a bias against women? Or is it the inspired revelation from God, or as Peter describes it, “men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:20)?
If it is the latter, then to imply that someone is discriminating against women and looking down at them as inferior because they hold to Paul’s teaching is a very wrong and unfair charge. One can only make this argument by by following a worldly line of thought that says men and women, although obviously different, must always have equal access and opportunities. But this ignores the teaching of Scripture that men and women were created differently by God for a reason, and that the differences connect with differing functions and roles in this life for men and women.
Despite the fact that Paul is addressing Christians– heirs of grace and participants in the New Covenant blessings of Christ, Paul nevertheless argues that the roles of men and women continue to be different. Becoming a Christian does not mean that husbands and wives are now interchangeable roles, or that male leadership in the church has been made obsolete, giving way to some new ideal.
Perhaps not. But let us not forget that Christ died for all. To say that we are still in the patriarchal model patterned on the OT Jewish model is to disregard what Paul said in I Corinthinians 11-12.
Like I said in a previous comment, there is no mention of pastor at all except in one place, and no mention at all of head pastor. Back in my day, it was about ministering, and folks in leadership positions referred to themselves as ministers rather than leaders. Therefore, I wonder why is this such a big issue to the church nowadays? A knee jerk response to women’s lib o or an ego thing?
It seems to me that stressing Christ’s role, which he Himself defined as a servant in regard to others, even though He is head of the church as the only begotten Son of God, should be the deciding factor here, not who is humanly in charge.
mbaker,
In 1 Corinthians 11:12 Paul points to an interdependency between man and woman. The fact that there exists this interdependency shows that God designed the sexes to work together and to need one another. It also implies that one sex is not more valuable than the other.
Yet Paul is describing in chapter 11 distinctions between men and women, or more specifically, between the husband and wife. These distinctions lead Paul to give different directives to each of the sexes.
I agree with you that Christ models for us a different type of leadership, one that serves others sacrificially. We should also serve like that. But this doesn’t negate the teaching of the New Testament that by design, men and women, husbands and wives, are called to serve God differently than each other.
Peter Kirk posted on this subject 2/22/2010:
http://www.gentlewisdom.org.uk/?p=1678
In 2006 he tackled this issue in 6 posts:
http://www.gentlewisdom.org.uk/?p=51 (Part 1 of 6)
“Peter lives in Chelmsford, Essex, UK. He started in life by studying Physics at the University of Cambridge, and worked for several years in the electronics and software industry. He studied theology to MA level at London Bible College, now London School of Theology. Then he joined Wycliffe Bible Translators UK, and after training in linguistics he served for seven years in the Caucasus region, coordinating a Bible translation project. In 2002 he left WBT, but until 2008 continued to work part time as an exegetical adviser to the same translation project.”
Alexander,
The phrasing of your questions assumes your exegesis is correct. Exegesis is exactly what this discussion is all about. Unless and until you have studied both sides, you will be missing important pieces of information to make an informed conclusion.
292.Alexander M Jordan on 23 Feb 2010 at 9:59 pm #
I’m not so sure about that.
I can’t recall Jesus giving one set of instructions or commands to men or husbands who wanted to follow Him and serve Him and be His disciples, and a different set of instructions or commands to women or wives who wanted to follow Him and serve Him and be His disciples.
E.g., Mary Magdalene seems to fit right in with all the others who were following Jesus. (I loved the way that recent movie of The Gospel of John showed her with them all at the Last Supper and during His garden discourse.)
Alexander:
Is the discussion about women teaching men or more about who has more authority in the church?
If it is about authority then consider that the church is a body of believers( all equal) In most churches final decisions on really important matters is taken before the general congregation and ALL members share their views and vote accordlingly. Thus, in essence women do participate to the same degree in the operation of a church and well they should.
If it is about women teaching men……….I see this as a issue Paul was dealing with at that time….as for why mentioning ADam and Eve , I just don’t know…….I can just go with what I feel convicted of…….. I have no problem with a women teaching a man within the church…..
blessing…
I just want to add a word here about where I am noticing the head pastor role seems to have gone in recent years in many churches. This is not a specific denominational thing, or a condemnation of anyone personally, but simply an across the board observation based upon the many churches I have ministered in.
In a growing number of churches, the head pastor is no longer considered a minister to others but someone to be ministered to himself, not only by his staff, but this seems to be expected of the congregation as well. What it has done, IMO, is to make the head pastor into more of a CEO head of a corporation type of figure than a fellow servant of God.
While some churches may desire this type of leadership, I have heard countless complaints from church members saying they feel as they are treated like employees in the church nowadays, rather than fellow participants in the body of Christ. Everything in the church revolves around the head pastor’s wishes, be it his latest idea, a new program or a new building. These churches, as a result, are going more inward in both service and leadership, rather than expanding Christianity like the early church.
I am wondering if anyone else out there is observing this type of near monarch status some churches have given the head pastor’s role nowadays? Is this an authority issue gone overboard or a scripture carried too far afield from the Bible’s original intention of Godly leadership?
mbaker,
I think your observation in correct. I have experienced it myself and seen it in other churches. I have also read about it from folks posting on other blogs out there. It is, IMO, certainly an authority issue gone overboard.
I agree with the folks on these threads that have stated that the term/role “head pastor” doesn’t even seem to be a Scriptural one and that the Bible mostly speaks of a plurality of leadership in elders.
Mbaker, I second what Cheryl said, although I’ll disagree slightly about the senior position. I do believe that scripture points to a plurality of elders that governs the affairs of the church. However, I do believe there is precedent for an overseer/bishop that may be included in the eldership. That doesn’t mean person sets all the rules.
I agree that we’ve turned our churches into corporate centers, making the top dog the CEO. Leadership is about service.
cherylu:
We’ve been in “head pastor” churches before, one medium-sized, one small. In the first, the “head pastor” played funny with the money and was improperly giving it to his mother-in-law (this was discovered by the elders when he was out of the country on a mission trip). Later the married assistant pastor had an affair with the married worship leader. In the second, the married “head pastor” not only controlled all the money/property, but was engaging in improper conduct with the girls/young women in the Bible school. But no one would deal with it because, after all, he was the “head pastor” and the one who had laid down his life for the sheep, “do not touch God’s anointed,” etc.
Now the latest church scandal involves a well-known “head pastor” over a big church here:
http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/Prominent-Pastor-Linked-to-Luxury-83600192.html
When we were in the Orthodox Church, the Metropolitan of the OCA was at the top of a financial scandal until finally he was forced out or something (financial mess still ongoing). And the Metropolitan of the Antiochian Church is involved in a scandal involving abuse of authority and power, etc.
Putting one man as “head pastor” is a recipe for disaster like building the Titanic with low-quality rivets/bolts and sending it on its way to an iceberg.