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"
From “Blog Rules”:
“4. In everything, be courteous and respectful. This does not mean that you agree, but take the extra time to write with tact, making the most of the opportunity”
Notice…courteousy, respect, and tact. Sometimes they have not been very evident in these threads on the comp/egal positions particularly.
I realize that sometimes they do get lost in a disucussion with all of us and I also believe there is a time for very forceful speaking. However, it has become more of the general tone here at times today.
Remember CMP just shut down another thread on this subject yesterday (or was it the day before?) because he was getting too many complaints about uncharitable comments. Do you want the same to happen to this one??
Mbaker,
One could teach an aberrant doctrine without intending to be a demon worshipper, yes?
Similar to the idea that one could teach a “name it and claim it” charismatic doctrine without intending to be a demon worshipper.
TUAD, you said to mbaker, One could teach an aberrant doctrine without intending to be a demon worshipper, yes?
Similar to the idea that one could teach a “name it and claim it” charismatic doctrine without intending to be a demon worshipper.
Try to be more careful in your thinking.
It seems to me that your comments have been implying in a rather dogmatic fashion that whoever believes in egalitarianism must be in league with the devil or a demon worshipper.
I myself am a complementarian but there are those here who may sincerely be wrestling with this issue.
Now I do agree that we ought to sound the alarm about certain inroads that false doctrines are making and have made into the church, since these lead many astray. But since theological understanding progresses and changes and can be corrected over time, shouldn’t we be charitable in a forum like this, where the people who write are mostly professing faith in Christ?
mbaker,
I think the fact that you are manifesting like this is an indicator that you need deliverance in this area. After all, deliverance is the children’s bread. I would be very happy to put you into contact with a deliverance worker in your area.
Roger,
“Manifesting like this”—what on earth are you talking about???
Cheryl,
I so agree. Thanks for the reminder.
Just a word here: I agree with God’s word on the authority of men in the church, as I have stated many times. However, I think some men (and they know who they are), deliberately try to make women seem like rebellious jerks because we won’t put up with being treated second class Christians because we ARE willing to submit.
I’ve personally observed that is only something very insecure men do, as well as very insecure women in our secular society( women’s lib). I don’t think Christ meant either extreme. That’s why I hold to the comp/egal point of view. I think it is more what Christ meant for both sexes, than for women to both have to submit and then be disrespected for it, while they are actually trying to honor the scriptures. I wonder if men really know what that takes from a Christian woman in a society who values women being in power instead.
I appreciate the males here who see that and agree.
Alexander M. Jordan,
It seems to me that you are misreading my comments.
TUAD,
Fair enough. So to clarify then, would you agree with the statement that those who believe the egalitarian model is one that is biblical are not necessarily demon worshippers, though perhaps they are mistaken in their reading of Scripture?
Roger, you wrote to mbaker,
I think the fact that you are manifesting like this is an indicator that you need deliverance in this area. After all, deliverance is the children’s bread. I would be very happy to put you into contact with a deliverance worker in your area.
Are you serious in saying this, or is this supposed to be humorous?
Alexander M. Jordan: “So to clarify then, would you agree with the statement that those who believe the egalitarian model is one that is biblical are not necessarily demon worshippers, though perhaps they are mistaken in their reading of Scripture?”
Yes, although I would remove the word “perhaps” in your question above.
Roger: “I think the fact that you are manifesting like this is an indicator that you need deliverance in this area. After all, deliverance is the children’s bread. I would be very happy to put you into contact with a deliverance worker in your area.”
Alexander: “Are you serious in saying this, or is this supposed to be humorous?”
Whether serious or humorous (or both), I do believe that Roger would do as he said he would if mbaker were to take him up on his kind and charitable offer.
Roger,
As a moderator for this site I am going to request that you be more gracious in your tone and not accusatory in your statements. Cheryl has pointed out a portion of the blog rules and violators do get banned. You may disagree with another’s position but do so without personal attacks.
TUAD, that goes for you too.
To all, please let’s keep things civil and recall the admonition of Colossians 4:6 – “let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person”
Thanks.
TUAD,
For any of you to even think I would need ‘deliverance’ in light of my clarification in comment # 356 shows me that you have not fully embraced the grace of God, but continue to believe in the patriarchal,works of the OT Jewish view inaread,not to mention the Muslim model of women. Would you have us wearing burkas to prove our allegiance? Why can’t we get past this silliness in the church?
Lisa Robinson: “You may disagree with another’s position but do so without personal attacks.”
The following would be an example of disagreeing with another’s position without it being a personal attack, yes?
http://www.dennyburk.com/tommy-nelson-on-biblical-manhood-womanhood/
Citing Wayne Grudem’s book, [Pastor Tommy] Nelson said that egalitarianism is the “new path to liberalism” because it effectively sets aside the authority of the Bible.
He said that the egalitarian view must not be considered a viable evangelical option because it is a deadly “cancer” within the church.
Pastor Nelson says that egalitarianism is “Satan’s new ploy to get into the church.”
Moderator Lisa Robinson,
Isn’t mbaker’s comment in #362 a personal attack on me?
I wasn’t the one who wrote about mbaker’s deliverance. Yet she deliberately named me.
This is a personal attack. And I don’t appreciate it.
OK, thanks for that clarification, TUAD. Yet note that I was not alone in the impression I had from your comments, that you at first seemed to be saying all egalitarians are devil worshippers.
I also think that egalitarianism is biblically in error and thus can lead to serious dangers. Given the prevalence of the egalitarian view in modern society, I think it’s hard for Christians not to be somewhat influenced by it. Yet I give the benefit of doubt to the folks commenting here that they are Christians honestly thinking through this issue.
Again I want to stay on topic however I think that the following statement you made is also misguided.
With reference to Roger’s offer to mbaker you said,
Alexander: “Are you serious in saying this, or is this supposed to be humorous?”
Whether serious or humorous (or both), I do believe that Roger would do as he said he would if mbaker were to take him up on his kind and charitable offer.
I don’t think the offer sounds either kind or charitable nor funny– first it accuses mbaker of being demon possessed or demon influenced, based on no evidence at all, other than she made certain comments on this blog. And that’s not funny in the slightest.
Also this offer assumes Christians can be demon possessed or in need of a deliverance, an assumption far from established in Scripture, and certainly hotly debated.
Finally how do you know “Roger would do as he said”– didn’t you just meet him today on this blog? Do you think that it is right to imply that someone one barely knows is in need of spiritual deliverance, because we read a few of their comments on a blog? So his offer strikes me not as gracious, but as highly presumptuous.
Oh, TUAD, c’mon here. You have got to be kidding! I was simply quoting you and Roger. Your victim stance here is absolutely laughable considering your very pointed comments on this thread. I think we all see through that one.
I may not always agree with CMP, but I think we should respect him and this blog enough to try to at least not try to make this a surrogate for what we believe, but deal with the issue HE has raised instead.
Are you listening?
Moderator Lisa Robinson,
Another personal attack on me by mbaker in #366.
If you let that slide, then may I assume that if I were to write the same thing to her, then that’d be okay with you too?
Yes TUAD, we can all see through that one!
Know what, I am out of here. This thread is completely out of control and I don’t wish to be a part of it anymore.
“I also think that egalitarianism is biblically in error and thus can lead to serious dangers. Given the prevalence of the egalitarian view in modern society, I think it’s hard for Christians not to be somewhat influenced by it. Yet I give the benefit of doubt to the folks commenting here that they are Christians honestly thinking through this issue.”
On this I agree. I must admit to being disturbed by the hard line stance that equates egalitarianism with apostasy. This is not an issue that would fall within the essentials of salvation and maybe not even the significance of orthodoxy. There are wonderful servants of Christ that have come to conclusions of egalitarian through careful exegesis. The hermeneutic may be different, which accounts for the differing position. I think its grossly unfair to characterize every proponent of egalitarianism as dismissing the authority of scripture or succumbing to the spirit of this age. This may be true of some, but the extremes rest on both sides, lest we cast stones.
Most are approaching the issue reasonably and asking how everyone’s gift can be best utilized within the body of Christ. While I may not agree with their conclusion, I appreciate the heart of service and reasonableness with which the topic is considered.
“Citing Wayne Grudem’s book, [Pastor Tommy] Nelson said that egalitarianism is the “new path to liberalism” because it effectively sets aside the authority of the Bible.
He said that the egalitarian view must not be considered a viable evangelical option because it is a deadly “cancer” within the church.
Pastor Nelson says that egalitarianism is “Satan’s new ploy to get into the church.”
And let’s be fair here. He said the same thing of Irving Bible Church when they allowed the women’s pastor to occassionally preach a Sunday message. They made it clear that the governance structure of male eldership of the church had not or would not change as they were committed to male headship and the authority of scripture. They came to the conclusion that a after days of study and meeting as an elder board and determined that this did not violate the authoritative structure. To make an accusation of liberalism, as he did, is a HUGE leap.
Thank you, Lisa.
I completely agree. I really think there needs to be a post, by one of you on this blog at least, stating exactly where you are on what you have espoused, as the Christian ‘egalitarian’ model. Not based upon where the secular world is, and I want to go on record again as saying I am not there. Otherwise the rest of us are going to be categorically dismissed as being extra biblical.
I don’t think the all the nuances of egalitariarism, in the theological aspect of it at least have been properly addressed. I think instead a lot of it is has simply been assumed, as based upon the secular cultural model of women’s lib and the acceptance of the homosexual model. I am not there, and I don’t think a lot of egalitarians here are either.
FWIW, I attended Tommy Nelson’s church for 5 years and taught NT Greek classes there, both during that time and afterwards, and also visited Irving Bible Church the day Jackie Roese gave her first sermon:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/082308dnmetpreach.3ba3b5c.html
Really? Interesting. Don’t get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for Tommy Nelson but really disagreed with his public comments concerning IBC.
This shortly after I moved to Dallas. The really cool thing is I visited IBC during my church search, and it just happened to be right after that article came out. The senior pastor (whose name eludes me now) made a statement about the article and had nothing but good things to say about Tommy Nelson, although they disagreed. It showed a lot of class and diplomacy.
I agree with you Alexander, Roger was out of line. Some people do not seem to have the ability to disagree agreeably about the faith.
I am an egal, as I see Jesus and Paul etc. as egals and I try to follow Jesus and Paul as he follows Jesus, per Paul. I see the Kingdom increasing the more believers become egal, but that does not mean that those who disagree with me are demonized. Disagreeing about the gender issue is a secondary issue. It is quite possible to love the Lord and be mistaken about something, for a variety of reasons.
Hi Don,
Yes, I really do think it’s possible to disagree in a more constructive way…
How is Jesus an egal? Why then did He not appoint women as leaders of the church? Was He accommodating to the culture?
Also, I don’t think Paul was egal at all, as his argument is that as the very first Man and Woman were designed by God differently in accordance with His purpose, so their roles/functions in the church are to be distinct.
I realize you have said they are differing interpretations/exegesis of what Paul wrote. I think those interpretations are mistaken, not on the basis of an analysis of the Greek words Paul used, but on his argument using Adam & Eve.
I like John Piper’s answer to the question “Should women become pastors“, which in part reads,
Jesus was pro-woman to the max. But he did not choose women to be apostles. That wasn’t because he was enslaved to his times. It was because, in coherence with the rest of the Bible (Genesis 1-2, Ephesians 5, 1 Corinthians 11, and 1 Timothy 2), he believed that it would be healthy for the church and the family if men assumed the role of Christ-like, humble, caring, servant-leaders, and if the women came in alongside with their respective gifts to help carry his leadership through according to those gifts.
Piper also says that biblically it is not just any man who can become a leader in the church, merely by virtue of being male, but rather, the “office of leadership and teaching of men is preserved for spiritual and godly men.”
An interesting little observation about Jesus choosing only men as apostles: Judas, a male, was the one who betrayed Him. Jesus obviously already knew this, just as God knew Eve would be the one to take the forbidden fruit.
Not that it changes the exegesis of the scripture we are discussing any, but just think it was interesting that both sexes, when given responsibility by God managed to mess it up.
Just shows how much we all need Christ in our lives every day.
Sorry Mike, I think your reasoning and conclusion were somewhat tortured and forced.
First of all your persistence in suggesting that the role of a head pastor primarily involves “confrontation”. Senior pastors are also required to plan, strategise, shepherd, evaluate, resolve conflicts, team building, teach, display grace etc etc. At best we may say that men are better at some of these things and women are better at others. I dont think we an conclude that men have an overall advantage over women. (It may also depend on where the chuch is located and the type of environment prevailing.)
But more importantly are you not stereotying women? maybe your wife (I am sure she is a really wonderful person) have been socialised and raised in a particular way. Her previous job of dressing up as a princess and entertaining litle girls, was perhaps reflective of her upbringing. So maybe she would not do well as a head pastor. fair enough. But there are other women who would. Would not an Esther, a Deborah, even a converted Rahab or the type of woman discribed in Proverbs 31 make for a good head pastor?
If we in the church make our women think that they cannot be a head pastor because: 1. We rig the job requirments to require things such as “confrontation” in order to exclude them. 2. We tell them that they are lacking in some vital and crititical attributes and 3. we teach tham to behave and act as though they are infact lacking in these atributes, then we mereley dealing them a dirty hand and engaging in self-fulfilling prophecy.
mbaker,
Yes, very good point– men and women both need God very badly!
We also really need each other.
Being a complementarian doesn’t imply that men are any less prone to sinful temptations or that to God, women are somehow less valuable than men.
Though obviously different in makeup physically and in many other respects, men and women are equally made in the image of God. Neither Man nor Woman standing alone fully reflects the image of God, but only together do they reflect His image.
So I think we ought to seek out and encourage the innate strengths each of the sexes has. Also complementarians must be careful not to elevate men above women in their thinking. The fact that man has been biblically given a role that involves leadership in the church in no way implies male superiority over woman.
I am so glad we agree, Alexander. What you have just stated is one of the comp/egal positions in a nutshell, at least mine, which is held by many theologians as well.
It saddens me that these discussions often only reflect the extremes of both beliefs, however, and that is unfortunate for everyone.
I look forward to seeing CMP’s promised post on all the various nuances of comp and egal beliefs. I think it will shed a lot more light on a very misunderstood and often controversial subject.
mbaker,
Thanks, I am very gratified that you agree with some of my conclusions, which I think are very much in line with the complementarian position. But when you say your position is both “comp/egal” I don’t really follow.
I suppose that comp and egal can agree that biblically men and women are both made in the image of God, & are of equal value to God, but the egal takes this to mean that women should also not be restricted from being leaders/teachers in the church. In contrast, the comp says that while men and women are equally heirs of God’s grace and have much to learn from each other, and furthermore men are not innately superior to women, yet Scripture nevertheless prescribes different roles in the church and the home for male and female, based on God’s design. So I’m not sure one can be a comp and an egal at the same time.
Citing Wayne Grudem’s book, [Pastor Tommy] Nelson said that egalitarianism is the “new path to liberalism” because it effectively sets aside the authority of the Bible.
He said that the egalitarian view must not be considered a viable evangelical option because it is a deadly “cancer” within the church.
Pastor Nelson says that egalitarianism is “Satan’s new ploy to get into the church.”
EricW: “FWIW, I attended Tommy Nelson’s church for 5 years and taught NT Greek classes there…”.
Did Pastor Tommy Nelson and you ever discuss the issue of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood? If so, how would you characterize it?
Would you consider Pastor Tommy Nelson’s church a complementarian church or, if you prefer, a biblical patriarchy church?
Is Pastor Tommy Nelson’s church thriving (in numerical terms)?
Hi Alexander,
The 12 mapped to the 12 patriarchs and the 12 tribes. When one failed, he was replaced so there would be 12. When one died, there is no mention of him being replaced, as there needed to be 12 for the mapping to take placce.
In the patriarchy of 1st century Judaism, women were not taught Torah very much, while men were from an early age. Before anyone can teach they need to learn and the women needed to learn a lot before they could teach at least in relation to the men. Later, Junia was an apostle of a church, but it is true that the 12 apostles of Jesus were men.
That is, which Jesus was an egal, there were other things that were higher on his priority list during his 3.5 year ministry and one does not make someone a teacher unless they have enought knowledge and acts about the faith. But he did start things so that women could become apostles, etc.
Alexander,
RE # 381: That’s one of the common misunderstandings I think arise about those of us who share some beliefs of both camps.
I follow the scriptural admonition of women not teaching men in the church, which is a comp view, and one shared by some egals. I have never had a problem with that, until it becomes a male versus female issue in that women are then assumed (by some of the more extreme comps) to be second class citizens in the eyes of God, and the church. I also see it unfairly applied, in that women are allowed to teach Sunday School and Children’s Church in most congregations who hold the strictly comp view. I find that a bit hypocritical if it is not going to be equally applied. So even comp views are prone to exceptions when it comes to women teaching.
I also think all egals are mistakenly identified with the women’s lib movement and same sex marriage folks, as I have said before. This is unfair, in my opinion, as I have also stated on several occasions, because it does not address all the egal theological camps in the church itself. There is definitely more than one. I also think egals are thrown in with the emergents, another common fallacy. To be sure there are egals who do hold a secular view of women’s lib, and who are very liberal in their beliefs about abortion as well. However, I certainly don’t speak for them, and don’t want to give the impression that I do.
I am just stating where my beliefs from both camps come from. Hope that clarifies it a little better for you.
Don,
It seems to me that you are assuming a lot in your last post about why you believe that Jesus was an egal. What you have said there only works if you believe that the only reason Paul said women could not teach men is that they did not have a complete enough knowledge to do so. For those of us that look at Paul’s statements and include the fact of the creation order there and Eve’s deception as the reasons Paul said what he did, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that Jesus was an egal. He treated women fairly and as equals with men in their status as humans. But there is no evidence that I can see that he started the ball rolling for women to have the exact same roles in the church that men have.
mbaker: “I follow the scriptural admonition of women not teaching men in the church, which is a comp view, and one shared by some egals.”
Excellent!
First, you rightly note that it’s a SCRIPTURAL admonition.
Second, you follow it.
Question: I don’t know of any egals who share this view. Can you provide a link or some references to egals who follow the scriptural admonition of women *not* teaching men in the church?
How do we know that if women aren’t allowed to lead that it is discrimination toward women rather than men? If I give one of my son’s greater responsibility than another,one might look at it that I think more highly of the one I give so much responsibility to & less of the child I give little responsibility to. Well, I can tell you that the complaint I often heard was “Why me? Why do I get stuck with all the responsibility? It’s not fair.” That child did not consider it a right, a priviledge or reward.In all probability,I gave that kid the job to train him. Maybe it was obvious to me that his brother already was skilled.Yes,often I was tempted to save time & wanted to give it to the one trained.But I knew you don’t learn on the bench! I think about how many times as children we complained about what we didn’t have & our selfishness kept us from seeing what we did have, therefore, unable to appreciate it or share it. Often, the ones that protest the most by comparing what they have & don’t have over what they’re neighbor has (coveting), can’t see the blessings God intended. You know, the idea that God dreams bigger dreams for us than we do? If the verbage was that men are called to have more responsibility & accountability and nothing said about authority or power or best suited for, wired for, what then? Would it be more men protesting about the lack of fairness then? I wonder. Before you try to decide if I’m a egal or comp, you can’t know because I don’t know. But I question, is being submissive that terrible when it’s exercised in a Godly way? I’ve had to submit to others before that I felt were not qualified to lead. I didn’t like it. But now I am older and wiser & know that it’s my place to allow it to shape me for His glory, not mine. The closer I get to Jesus, the more I am willing to say,”Hey, you want it? If it means that much to you, you be in charge.” Be careful what you ask for! Whoever is in charge cannot take away from what I have…
”What you have said there only works if you believe that the only reason Paul said women could not teach men is that they did not have a complete enough knowledge to do so. For those of us that look at Paul’s statements and include the fact of the creation order there and Eve’s deception as the reasons Paul said what he did, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that Jesus was an egal. He treated women fairly and as equals with men in their status as humans. But there is no evidence that I can see that he started the ball rolling for women to have the exact same roles in the church that men have.”
Cherylu,
1. Paul said that he did not now allow A woman to teach & dominate A man, but she is to learn quietly (in a manner befitting of students). The point was that this woman or women were teaching error, which Paul mentions in chapter one . 1:3: remain in Ephesus that you may charge SOME that they teach no other doctrine, 4 nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith.
2. You assume the reason that Paul mentions Adam being created first to be something to do with privileges for the one created first. Yet Scripture does not indicate such. It is more likely that it had something to do with the fact that Adam had some knowledge in being created first that the woman missed by coming on the scene later, YET Adam still deliberately choose to sin. Eve was deceived due to the cleverness of the serpent coupled with missing knowledge. Remember Adam got to intimately view each of God’s creations in order to name them. There was a wealth of information about God that he had to have gained in the experience. THUS, the connection is that just like Eve was deceived because she had missing knowledge, so women (and of course men) today who are unlearned need to study Scripture before they attempt to teach others.
continued………..
3. Around the same time that Paul wrote this he also wrote and praised Priscilla for teaching. And he commissioned Phoebe to carry his letter to Rome, which means he must have considered Phoebe the best person to answer questions and explain what he said and why he said it. Paul also praised Junia as an apostle, which includes teaching responsibilities. It is not likely that Paul would completely reverse his view on women in ministry with a couple words and no recanting of other statements and no explanations. This only leaves the explanation that Paul did NOT make a new rule never before stated in all of Biblical history, but was only confirming that women needed to learn before they hoped to teach or perform other ministries.
TUAD,
“I don’t know of any egals who share this view.”
You probably don’t hang with too many, I would gather from your previous comments, lol.
However, two people come to mind here who are respected theologians. We don’t share all the same views, but they are excellent Bible exegetes:
Roger Nicole, a Baptist and very well respected theolgian is an comp/egal: He has written an excellent book called:
“Hermeneutics and the gender debate” in Discovering biblical equality: complementarity without hierarchy.” Edited by Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis. InterVarsity Press, 2005
Gordon Fee, whom you have heard both Lisa and I mention as an expert on hermeneutics, also contributed to this book. He helped translate the NIV and is a professor emeritus at Regents Bible Seminary. He is also an ordained Pentecostal minster. He is more egal though.
I think these men give a good picture of how biblical egalitarianism is meant to work.
mbaker: “I follow the scriptural admonition of women not teaching men in the church, which is a comp view, and one shared by some egals.”
Me: “Can you provide a link or some references to egals who follow the scriptural admonition of women *not* teaching men in the church?”
mbaker: “However, two people come to mind here who are respected theologians. [Roger Nicole and Gordon Fee]”
So you’re telling me that egals Roger Nicole and Gordon Fee teach and believe “the scriptural admonition of women not teaching men in the church”, is that right?
” and furthermore men are not innately superior to women, yet Scripture nevertheless prescribes different roles in the church and the home for male and female, based on God’s design.”
And in this statement you display a deep contradiction. Scripture does indeed state that men and women are equal:
26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all[b] the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
There are no exceptions to their equality. But you make one that is lifelong. The belief that because a person is female, they are to be restricted from certain privileges that men are allowed, does portray the male as superior.
Equally interesting is that this restriction upon females was never stated or observed in the entire OT. Thus, God did not exercise this distinction. Instead, God used women to teach and lead men, without offering any explanations. Yet, now that we have been freed from the restrictions of the law hierarchalists raise up a law for women only that is more restrictive and holds no promise of blessing from God.
“So you’re telling me that egals Roger Nicole and Gordon Fee teach and believe “the scriptural admonition of women not teaching men in the church”, is that right?”
That would be incorrect.
TUAD,
I said:
“We don’t share all the same views, but they are excellent Bible exegetes”
I suggest you read the book.
So the question to mbaker still stands: “Can you provide a link or some references to egals who follow the scriptural admonition of women *not* teaching men in the church?”
For she has made the claim “I follow the scriptural admonition of women not teaching men in the church, which is a comp view, and one shared by some egals.”
I’m merely asking her to provide evidence to warrant her claim that there are some egals who follow the scriptural admonition of women not teaching men in the church.
So far she hasn’t.
TL,
A couple of thoughts here. Because Paul wanted Timothy to stay in Ephesus and keep some from teaching false doctrine in no way proves that they were the women that were spoken of later in the verses in question. Seems to me that is a bit of eisegesis there. The “some” he was referring to could just as well have been some unnamed men as some unnamed women. I would suggest also that it is assumption that says Phoebe was the best one to explain the letter to the Romans. Could it not just as well have been that she was simply the one carrying it–maybe already making the journey? Paul certainly doesn’t tell them that they are to listen to her explain what he says. Again, it seem to me that is assumption–eisegesis–on your part.
And if some information I have recently read is correct, there was disagreement among some of the church father’s regarding Junia’s gender. Some referred to Junia as a man and others as a woman. So I am not so sure that is a cut and dried issue either.
That leaves the issue of Priscilla and her teaching. Two thoughts come to my mind here. First of all, this was not in a church setting, but rather a private one, so that could possibly of made a difference. Also, Paul merely makes a statement that Aquilla and Priscialla did this teaching. Is this one of those descriptive passages that simply says what happened or is it a prescriptive passage? And I don’t see that Paul either commends or rebukes Priscilla for what she did–he simply says that they taught accurately. We also know there are sometimes “exceptions to the rule.” So even if Paul was commending her, that doesn’t mean that this is the rule.
And as far as the mention of creation goes, you say I assumed my take on it. Well, I can certainly say your take is an assumed one as well.
TUAD,
I have already explained my position as best I can. I said I know egals who believe the same as me, meaning personally acquainted, and I’m sure you know comps who share your extreme patriarchal position, although most comp theologians don’t.
I really don’t care to interact with you on this any longer. You can think what you want to think about me personally. I am simply asking others here who are more interested in having a discussion than submitting to a cross-examination, and obviously don’t understand some of the well exegeted THEOLOGICAL opinions on egalitarianism, to investigate it. To argue a case without good information is like folks wanting to argue with Christians about the Bible when they haven’t ever read it.
TL,
“Equally interesting is that this restriction upon females was never stated or observed in the entire OT.”
I don’t recall reading about any female priests or levites serving in the tabernacle or the temple, do you? The restriction was there in the Old Testament.
”The “some” he was referring to could just as well have been some unnamed men as some unnamed women.”
The word translated some, is tisin, a form of tis, and means anyone, or a group of mixed people. If Paul were speaking specifically of men, he would have use aner. Tis is an inclusive word, and when used includes both men and women. Chapter divisions are an invention of non Greek speakers. The letter Paul wrote did not have chapter divisions. What Paul said in our chapter division one, is part of Paul’s thought processes in chapter two.
”Phoebe was the best one to explain the letter to the Romans. Could it not just as well have been that she was simply the one carrying it–maybe already making the journey?”
If you will do some research on the people Paul commissioned to deliver his epistles, you will find them to be much much more than postal carriers of today. For one thing women had to be protected. It was a bigger concern giving something to a woman than a man, unless she was going to be in a big group of people, which she was since the letter introduced quite a company of influential Christians. And then you still have the question of why Phoebe.
”And if some information I have recently read is correct, there was disagreement among some of the church father’s regarding Junia’s gender. Some referred to Junia as a man and others as a woman. So I am not so sure that is a cut and dried issue either.”
Junia’s gender was never disputed until the 12th century. Chrysostom, one who wasn’t too keen on women, spoke a beautiful commendation of Junia.
See http://www.womenpriests.org/classic/brooten.asp
”That leaves the issue of Priscilla and her teaching. Two thoughts come to my mind here. First of all, this was not in a church setting, but rather a private one, so that could possibly of made a difference.”
Paul makes no note about where A woman is to do her learning and no teaching. Where isn’t an issue.
”I don’t see that Paul either commends or rebukes Priscilla for what she did–he simply says that they taught accurately. We also know there are sometimes “exceptions to the rule.”
His mentioning her at all (and he does more than once) is a commendation. In the Romans mention, the whole chapter 16 was a commendation for everyone mentioned.
If it were a rule, there would be no exceptions in God’s economy of holiness and righteousness. When you see exceptions (many in this case) then we need to rethink our understanding of the “rule”. Also, the New Covenant isn’t about new rules. It is about freedom (freed from the bondages of sin) to draw near to God and freedom for all to become righteous in the manner of Christ’s maturity. He is the example for all of us, not just the men.