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 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.”
I don’t recollect any mention of female priests either. But now we are a priesthood of believers. IOW we are all priests.
I’m talking about the fact that there is no restriction against women leading men or teaching men in the entire OT. And women did indeed lead men and instruct them in the ways of the Law.
mbaker: “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.”
Moderator Lisa Robinson,
This is yet another personal attack by mbaker on me. She falsely claims that I have an “extreme patriarchal position.” I do not.
Lisa Robinson, this is the third personal attack by mbaker.
Lastly, mbaker, given that you “follow the scriptural admonition of women not teaching men in the church, which is a comp view”, I suggest that you are not really an egalitarian. It does not cohere with CBE’s statement on Men, Women, and Biblical Equality.
Get the man a binky!
TL,
Origen from the third century and Epiphanius, a church historian who died in AD 403 both evidently referred to Junia as a male.
And in three commentaries that I read, the large group of people that Paul talks about in Romans 16 were spoken of as people in Rome that Paul was sending his greetings too, not a large group going from where Paul was to Rome. So I still think my original idea is possible, although I may be wrong about that.
And maybe the word “rule” wasn’t the best choice for what I was trying to say. However, no matter how much you say that in the New Covenant we are free from rules, you can in no way get away from the fact the the NT is full of commands about how we are supposed to live personally and the way things are suppposed to be done when Christians come together as a church body.
And I have always wondered why, if men and women alike were truly allowed to be in all leadership positions in the church, does Paul, when giving instructions about their qualifications, always speak to them as men? He tells them they must be the husband of one wife. Why would that be a specific stipulation if there were women involved here too? He seems to be speaking to men to me. Or do you believe that was only stating that if the person in question was a man that he couldn’t be a polygamist?
TUAD,
If you look back at mbakers comments, she calls herself a comp/egal and says she shares beliefs from both sides.
Moderator Lisa Robinson,
Make that 4 personal attacks by mbaker.
cherylu: “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.”
That turned out to be false.
TUAD,
“That turned out to be false.”
You know why I came back? Because things had settled down and were no longer out of control. But you know what? They seem to be heading that way very quickly again. And that last comment to me that I quoted above is helping things on their way very quickly!
Recap.
#1. mbaker says that “I follow the scriptural admonition of women not teaching men in the church, which is a comp view, and one shared by some egals.”
#2. I ask: “Can you provide a link or some references to egals who follow the scriptural admonition of women *not* teaching men in the church?”
#3. She cites Roger Nicole and Gordon Fee.
#4. I ask if that’s really correct.
#5. TL says no, that’s incorrect.
#6. So I say that mbaker still hasn’t provided evidence.
#7. mbaker then says that she knows some “egals” personally who do.
#8. She attacks me with the false claim that I have an “extreme patriarchal position.”
#9. I also suggest that she’s not really an egalitarian given that her claim in #1 does not cohere with CBE’s statement on Men, Women, and Equality.
cherlyu,
Have you noticed that TUAD seems to pick only on the women on this thread? Specifically the way he accused Sue of possibly lying about her spousal abuse on the other thread?
Now I’ve been accused so far as teaching ‘doctrines of demons’ and being in need of deliverance by someone he agreed with, and even egged on.
I think anyone who doubts that should review the comments on this and the other thread. I have tried to stick with CMP’s original topic, but I am growing weary here with the obvious bullying. I am also done here if there isn’t going to be some real equality in enforcing the blog rules!
Cherylu
”Origen from the third century and Epiphanius, a church historian who died in AD 403 both evidently referred to Junia as a male.”
That would be incorrect. Origin referred to Junia as possibly the wife of Andronicus. I recommend an excellent book of research on this, Junia, the first woman apostle, by Eldon J. Epp. The chapter dealing with the writings of the early church fathers starts on pg. 32.
”the large group of people that Paul talks about in Romans 16 were spoken of as people in Rome that Paul was sending his greetings too”
I think you are likely correct about that. Had to go back and read it again. This however lend more merit to the fact that she must have been a very special person for Paul to have chosen her, since it would have been easier to send a man who would not need extra protection in traveling.
”However, no matter how much you say that in the New Covenant we are free from rules, you can in no way get away from the fact the the NT is full of commands about how we are supposed to live personally and the way things are suppposed to be done when Christians come together as a church body.”
Quite true. What we don’t have is a denial of freedom to serve God. Rather we have a greater responsibility to be without sin, a greater call to holiness.
”And I have always wondered why, if men and women alike were truly allowed to be in all leadership positions in the church, does Paul, when giving instructions about their qualifications, always speak to them as men?”
He doesn’t. He speaks them to men and women. The problem is the English. It is unfortunate, but often when the Greek says ‘anyone’, the English says ‘men’, but meaning human. See: http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/1ti3.pdf
Cherylu,
”He tells them they must be the husband of one wife.”
Actually, not. Paul says to be a “one woman man”, which is an idiom meaning faithful in relationships. It still means the same thing today, when we say soandso is a one woman kind of guy, or she is a one man kind of woman. And Paul says the same thing further down when addressing female deacons.
mbaker: “Specifically the way he accused Sue of possibly lying about her spousal abuse on the other thread?”
Yet another demonstrably false and specious lie from mbaker.
That’s now 5 personal attacks.
“Now I’ve been accused so far as teaching ‘doctrines of demons’ and being in need of deliverance by someone he agreed with, and even egged on. “
I’m being abused by lies. I merely said that I believe that he would do what he said he would. I did not say that I agreed with him that you need deliverance.
That’s now 6 personal attacks upon me by mbaker.
TL,
“Actually, not. Paul says to be a “one woman man”, which is an idiom meaning faithful in relationships. It still means the same thing today, when we say soandso is a one woman kind of guy, or she is a one man kind of woman. And Paul says the same thing further down when addressing female deacons.”
If what you are saying is correct, all twelve of the translations of that verse in an online source I go to are incorrect. One says, “faithful to his wife”, with a footnote saying the Greek says, “the husband of one wife.” And one gave the possible alternate translation that you gave above. The Thayer’s lexicon gives the meanings of the words as being both man/husband and woman/wife. So from that either would be possible. Am I to believe that all of those translators have made a totally wrong choice? They include the KJV, NKJV, ASV, NASB, NIV, and RSV. Some pretty big names there!
Cherylu,
see: http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/1ti3.pdf
There are no words in Greek for husband or wife. The words for man and woman pinch hit for husband and wife, but that must be determined by the context. The more technical translations are the ones that have a footnote to explain these facts. Most Bible translations are not that technical assuming that the average reader doesn’t want to know all those details. But that is changing in our era.
Like, I said read all the foregoing comments in context, and then get this guy a binky!
Talking about TUAD, of course. And his new friend, Roger.
TUAD,
I have reviewed the alleged attacks and don’t see how they are personal attacks. Michael himself posted a spectrum of egal/comp positions including patriarchalism. A question of where you fall within that spectrum is an inquiry into your specific position concerning what has already been identified as a legitimate range.
As for the rest of your accusations, reciting what you had previously said is in no way a violation.
If you can’t play nice with these ladies, then perhaps the conversation is not worth having with them.
Thank you for your compliance.
TUAD,
While you may not have stated explicitly the things that mbaker is saying to or about Sue, you certainly implied them, unless I am remembering totally incorrectly. By saying we needed to hear from her exhusband to know his side of the story when she claimed abuse, you were certainly casting doubt on what she said. I see no other way to take it myself. And I would also say that the implications were there in the statement you made about her probable need of deliverance as stated by Roger. Maybe you didn’t mean it that way, but it certainly could, and did come across that way at least to me and obviously to mbaker too.
Cherylu and mbaker,
it’s possibly best to just ignore a person who refuses to dialogue in a respectful manner. Just a thought. 🙂
TL,
Well, then I guess twelve groups of translators got it wrong in context! And it seems to me that is a pretty big error to make. If it doesn’t mean husband and wife, it shouldn’t be translated husband and wife. Huge difference there and one that, at least in this case, can make a huge difference in how a whole doctrine is understood.
I’m sorry, but a conversation like this one doesn’t do much to give me confidence that we can rely on our Bibles to give us proper information. Or else it makes me wonder if certain groups at times, in this case egals but I have seen similar in other contexts, don’t just try to grab unto something and change the accepted translations down through many years of time to make it fit what they believe to be the truth. It seems to me that one of those scenarios has to be the case, and frankly, I don’t like to think of either one of them being true.
Thanks Lisa!
And TL, I think you are right.
Get mbaker a lot of binkies!!
Get Cherylu a lot of binkies too!!
TL,
You are so right. Let’s ignore the obviously personally biased opionions from now on and just attack the issue, instead of each other. Always my personal goal from the beginning! Good show.
Get mbaker even more binkies!!
TL,
I hope my last comment to you didn’t come across as disrespectful. And I not saying that is what you or any other egals are doing. I have a really hard time with the idea that our Bibles may have been giving us totally wrong information because the translators didn’t think it necessary to be that technical–that is a thought that I just don’t want to deal with at all. If they did it here, how many more times did they do it and where? I reckon it is a whole lot easier for me to think that men may be reading their own thoughts and presuppositions into the way they believe it should be translated then to think that the Book that we base our lives on for information about God and how to live as Christians has been seriously misleading us through sloppy translations and imprecise word usage!
mbaker, #403:: “Get the man a binky!”
Lisa Robinson, #418: “I have reviewed the alleged attacks and don’t see how they are personal attacks.”
You’re the moderator.
Then saying “Get a person some binkies” is not a personal attack according to what you’ve written.
Because mbaker started it. Didn’t she?
Pastor C. Michael Patton: “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.”
Moderator Lisa Robinson, you’re afraid to confront mbaker, aren’t you?
”Well, then I guess twelve groups of translators got it wrong in context! And it seems to me that is a pretty big error to make. If it doesn’t mean husband and wife, it shouldn’t be translated husband and wife.”
Hmmm. That’s not exactly what I’m saying here. The technical meaning is man and woman. In context, it is not saying that the person who desire the work of overseer must be a married man, but rather that the person who desires the work of overseer must be the type of person who is faithful in relationships if he or she is married. So, one can say it relates to a married status, but the idiomatic meaning (which has been missed for eons) is one of faithfulness. In some translations that comes through better than in others.
As for groups of translators getting things wrong, that happens all the time. This is why it’s good to look at several translations if you don’t have access to original language interlinears or aren’t too interested in original language research.
“I have a really hard time with the idea that our Bibles may have been giving us totally wrong information because the translators didn’t think it necessary to be that technical–that is a thought that I just don’t want to deal with at all. If they did it here, how many more times did they do it and where?”
Well, the deal is that groups of translators do get things wrong. But it’s usually in topics or Scriptures that are difficult. The basics about God and Jesus are quite clear. There are some sections of Scripture that elude clarity because some of the words were used only once in the whole NT, or only a couple times in the whole OT, or they were metaphors or idioms that were not immediately recognized as such. Translating is not duck soup. It’s tricky difficult work.
Cherylu,
I really recommend adding this link to your bookmarks….
http://www.scripture4all.org/
mbaker,
🙂
“As for groups of translators getting things wrong, that happens all the time. This is why it’s good to look at several translations”
That’s precisely why I looked at twelve translations and they all said the same thing. The only one that said anything different was, “faithful to your wife”.
How do you know that the idiomatic meaning is the correct one and that the way it was translated for hundreds of years and still is today with only one note of an alternate translation given in 12 versions is not the correct one?
Thanks for the link TL. I bookmarked it and will check it out later.
And thank you for your very courteous tone through out all of these conversations. It is much appreciated!
“How do you know that the idiomatic meaning is the correct one and that the way it was translated for hundreds of years and still is today with only one note of an alternate translation given in 12 versions is not the correct one?”
There are scholars who do that kind of research. And sometimes, someone is researching something else and they just find something they weren’t looking for.
“Familiar Leadership Heresies Uncovered” by Bruce C. E. Fleming has the pertinent information. He found it in a French Bible. A French scholar had found the phrase on the tomstones of both men and women as an appropriate praise of their faithfulness as spouses.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Familiar+Leadership+Heresies&x=0&y=0
An interesting point is that understanding it as a character trait causes it to fit in appropriately with the things in the rest of the list. They are all character traits, not physical requirements.
You can also get it here for less….
http://wipfandstock.com/store/Familiar_Leadership_Heresies_Uncovered
Fleming also has each section of his book sold in smaller booklets. They’re actually pretty big too.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=bruce+c.+e.+fleming+Kindle&x=0&y=0
Sorry about the problems here folks. I have not been involved in the threads for a while. I simply cannot. This blog is so large and so many comments come in from so many posts that it would take a full-time person just to keep up with all the comments! (Not to mention direct emails we get!). Me and my small band of mods are not enough.
I have taken some definite action here, however, because many of you have expressed concern to me privately about some of the posters here.
The thread is reopened.
Please keep it safe and read the rules.
Hi EricW,
If you’re still following this thread, I made an inquiry in #382. I’d be interested in your thoughts.
Thanks.
440. Truth Unites… and Divides on 26 Feb 2010 at 1:08 pm #
1. Did Pastor Tommy Nelson and you ever discuss the issue of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood? If so, how would you characterize it?
2. Would you consider Pastor Tommy Nelson’s church a complementarian church or, if you prefer, a biblical patriarchy church?
3. Is Pastor Tommy Nelson’s church thriving (in numerical terms)?
1. No.
2. Probably.
3. I have no idea.
Hi TL,
Since I have a Kindle, I bought the booklet that discusses the I Timothy passage that has been talked about so much on this thread.
I read part of it last night. I see that the authors take a totally different approach to the whole book then any I have ever read or heard any where before. They have a different interpretation of the purpose of the book, of the sections they believe it is organized into and how they relate to each other, and therefore interpret many of the individual verses in a totally different way. The “Theological paraphrase” of I Timothy 2:8–3:7 is very different to me.
Frankly, I really don’t think I will ever be able to go there.
Thanks EricW for your brief thoughts.
Still struggling over whether we mean in this thread a women can’t teach over a man , or are we implying a woman can’t hold any authoritian position over a man in a church setting.
Let me paraphrase: Do other men hold authority over my wife within our local church(not even mentioning the world-wide church structure….universal body of believers)
If every man in a leadership position holds position over every woman , then my wife , who is suppose to be submissive to me( just speculative) could be disobedient by obeying another male leader.) who disagrees with me. I hope this makes some sense!!!(LOL)
Not trying to play on words, just curious as to what extent this authority/position would adhere to.
In Christ,
PS Welcome back Michael, it’s been interesting to say the least.
cherylu,
which book are you talking about. Is it the Think Again books? or the Discovering Biblical Equality?
TL,
The “Think Again” booklets that you referenced in your last post yesterday.
Cherylu,
OK I see what you are talking about. The Theological Paraphrase is the author’s interpretive paraphrase about 1 Tim. 2:8-3:7. 🙂
It is interesting that he is taking the view that “the men” in verse 8 is not only referring to the “some” in chapt. one, but he also speculates that they could be overseer’s. I’m not convinced that they could have been overseers.
What part about interpretive paraphrase bothered you.
Cherylu, did you read chapter 2, beginning on page 15?
TL,
I don’t remember how far I got. It was late last night when I was reading it. Probably quit before I got that far though.
Part of what bothered me was the item you mentioned–that chapter 2, verse 8 and following was referring to overseers, both men and women. In fact his whole premise that the main point of the book was all about Timothy staying in Ephesus to direct some folks to not bring false teachings and restore them to ministry is questionable, IMO. That is certainly a point, but I am not at all convinced that it is THE point. And from that he draws that the men and women addressed in chapter two and verse 8 and onward were all overseers that were in error and he sets out to correct them and restore them to ministry. I don’t think they were likely overseers and I don’t get at all from Pauls reminding him to stay there and correct false teaching that this is the case. I also have never heard the interpretation he gives us of Paul’s statement, “This is a faithful saying.” I have never read any translations before that renders that as, “Jesus the Logos is faithful.”
There were several other points he made about his understanding of the whole book that were not right either, IMO.
It seemed to me that his interpretation and understanding of the book as a whole was highly questionable. Why hasn’t any other traslator that I have heard of down through the years ever had such a take on things? He drastically changed the understanding of the purpose of the book and the meaning of several verses in the last half of chapter 2 and the first half of chapter 3 in particular.
Considering all of that, I will have a very hard time taking anything he says about Scripture interpretation too seriously unless it is a point of proven, undisputable historical facts.
This booklet is part of his, “Think Again” about the Bible series. He has certainly succeeded in thinking again enough to come up with a solution that he believes eliminates the problem from what he calls the “problem” verses that we have been discussing.
I said in my last comment: “Why hasn’t any other traslator that I have heard of down through the years ever had such a take on things?”
I realized I asked the wrong question here. This was after all, a paraphrase, not a translation. I think my question should of been, “Why have we never in all of these years ever before heard this interpretation of this passage of Scripture?” Why did it take one man “rethinking” this to come to this conclusion at this point in time after all of these years? If it has been put forth before, I am certainly not aware of it–which could certainly be the case! But it is certainly vastly different than any mainstream interpretation that I have ever heard before.