How social media could swing the vote for women bishops [The Guardian]

Don’t have time for a long ‘biblically backed up’ comment!! Especially since most of the time it’s not the bible that’s under debate in these discussion anyway – if it were, we’d see a lot more women wearing headscarfs and people taking their skin diseases to the priest… 

But would make the observation that the role of women in ministry, and the role of women in marriage aren’t the same thing. The evangelical concern with headship brings the two together, but Christians from other traditions argue against women in ministry for reasons other than headship – essentially that Jesus had male disciples, and (for some denominations, especially Roman Catholic) ministerial authority has been passed down through the centuries, following Jesus’ charge to Peter that he would be the rock on which the church was built.

Martin Scott on the other hand, who is an evangelical theologian, similarly concluded from his reading of the original languages (which I can’t do) that there’s a difference between authority in church, and authority in the home, but he went the other way, so that women had authority in church (as they did in the earliest days of the church) but not at home!

This is an interesting issue which I’ve been thinking a lot about recently (as someone who is hoping to be ordained into the CofE once I’ve finished my theological training in three years, a hot potato topic such as this is one which is going to make a difference to me.)

There have been several things which have helped me on this issue. Firstly, there is a Grove booklet (which unfortunately you have to pay for – I can’t link you to it here) written by someone from St John’s College, Nottingham, on the subject of women’s ministry. Secondly, Cheryl Satz debated a complementarian called Mike Seaver – you can find the summary here (which links to all the previous parts of the debate).

This isn’t going to be a thoroughly biblically argued comment, but here are some general observations. I’ll try to make some more detailed comments later, if that would be helpful.

1. I honestly don’t think there is an Old Testament prohibition on women in leadership. As someone explained to me there is a “pattern”, but a pattern does not equal a command. And – as in the debate I linked above – there is no other command which is introduced in the NT which does not have a counterpart in the OT.

2. Headship in marriage is not the same as “women must never be leaders” (i.e. Ephesians 5 is talking about marriage, I don’t think it means a woman can never be a leader)

3. The situations talked about in e.g. 1 Timothy 2 *could* be referring to a specific situation. It seems there is enough doubt in my mind to ever exclude women from leadership positions. I think if God had wanted it to be crystal clear, it would have been crystal clear. And I just don’t think it is.

That’s all for now. Will check back later and try to post something more Biblical! :)

Will post a full on response later, but this is a huge topic with lots of people who love Jesus having different, even opposing opinions. Important we respect each others opinions even as we have a big discussion. Personally, I am egalitarian, as is my church. If a woman has a gift, let her use it – including leadership. In marriage I thunk it’s a partnership with each playing a role according to their gifts and loving and respecting one another. Apparently according to a talk by my pastor, the word ‘head’ as used by Paul means beginning or source of, rather than the meaning we attach to be in charge of. I think men are called to take responsibility within marriage in the same way Jesus took responsibility for our sin even though it was our sin. But marriage is a partnership of equals, working together, both with responsibilities and roles. Paul was revolutionary for his day in the role of women and promoting it, wives never discussed things with husbands or asked questions yet Paul said they should. The not speaking publicly was cultural, written to a culture where the only women who spoke publicly were thought to be – and usually were – temple prostitutes. The passage about women teaching or having authority over men was written to a culture where a cult was saying women were above men and this was being taught – the cult of Diana I think. He essentially was saying that it was wrong for uneducated people to teach, not women, and that it was wrong to teach that women were better than men. There are more to these passages than meets the eye – Paul was very pro women.

While I understand the sarcastic comments about headscarves, etc., it bothers me a bit when we bring out a passage, dismiss it as irrelevant and then extrapolate that interpretation of the rest of Scripture is just a matter of preference and power games.  
The truth is that there are sound principles of biblical interpretation.  For good reason, we don’t make women wear headscarves or greet one another with holy kisses or object to fabrics made of two kinds of material.  It is not strictly arbitrary.  
We do believe God has revealed Himself and His character in Scripture.  We also believe that God as creator understands us and our natures better than we do ourselves.  While tradition is important, and human philosophical value systems, etc. are valuable, ultimately, God is authoritative, and we have no better guide than Scripture.  The task of interpreting Scripture is difficult and fraught.  We need to be humble, remembering our own frailting, but ultimately, I don’t want to base this discussion purely on tradition or on modern conceptions of our anthropology.  Tradition and contemporary ideas can be helpful, but ultimately we have to do the hard work of interpreting Scripture in the power of the Spirit.  Where else are we going to go?   

26 ”You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” – Galatians 3:26-29
     These verses, in context, are Paul’s conclusion to an ongoing issue with Jewish Christians back in his day over whether Gentiles would essentially need to observe the Jewish covenantal, ceremonial law in order to be truly Christian. Paul was trying to get across to his readers that no, you do not have to convert to Judaism first to be considered part of the Abrahamic promise, that it is through Christ that both Jews and Gentiles (and expanding that thought to its greatest conclusion by including slave and free, male and female) are all on level ground. But again, the context here is inclusion into the Abrahamic promise. It has nothing at all to say about role in ministry, or even in marriage for that matter.

     I think the danger comes when we allow our thinking to be tainted by the mindset of this world (which ultimately comes from satan) that brings offense to the picture when talking about the distinction in roles between male and female. God created men and women with strengths that are specific to them and that is beautiful in His sight. TOGETHER, these strengths, I believe, serve to accomplish what God intended. One is not better or more necessary or more godly than the other. And if this is complimentarianism (I hate labeling things because different people have different definitions and emotions in their mind that they attach to the labels) then so be it.

     In marriage (totally different issue from ministry roles) I believe the main point is that it should be a picture of Christ and the church. That’s the point. Period. The husband should be “the head” of the wife in that he loves her and gives himself for her. The wife should submit herself under her husband’s headship (a positional idea) just as the church submits under Christ’s headship. It doesn’t mean the wife has no say, and it doesn’t mean that the husband should rule over his wife and just to what he wants. There should be oneness. Frankly, we here in the West just don’t really get this picture. It is a whole lot more pure and beautiful than we understand.

     The same can be said of position in ministry. I believe God’s ideal is a whole lot more pure and beautiful than we even understand. Our ways of seeing things, especially here in the West, are so distorted and convoluted that we immediately thing negatively whenever we see scriptures like 1 Timothy 2:12. And I’m not saying women cannot have leadership roles. My point is, I don’t think we really have a good, thorough understanding of God’s heart on the subject and therefore, all our debating will only split along traditional lines based on what we’ve been taught and what we seem to understand.

Nate

The flippancy was because I’m busy, I’m trying to write a sermon. All I was trying to do was point out that the two questions in Viccky’s opening question are distinct, they don’t necessarily relate to each other, especially if one is not evangelical. Also that much discussion in this area is not based on consistent or coherent interpretation of the bible. I certainly didn’t say the interpretation of scripture is  just a matter of preference or power games, although I don’t think it hurts to bear those things in mind.

I can’t see why so many kick off with this – whether it’s a cultural aspect, historical, institutional….
Surely the Bible is clear that the issue is about the role of ‘headship’??
The bible is very clear that women served in many varied ways within the church and fulfilled the call of God upon their life but not as head of the church.

I can’t see why so many kick off with this – whether it’s a cultural aspect, historical, institutional….
Surely the Bible is clear that the issue is about the role of ‘headship’??
The bible is very clear that women served in many varied ways within the church and fulfilled the call of God upon their life but not as head of the church.

You know what? I think Jesus is far more interested in furthering his kingdom and being loving to all.

Apolgies, I mean ‘in us furthering his kingdom…’

Apolgies, I mean ‘in us furthering his kingdom…’

Thanks Anthea! 
Great point on ministry and marriage being two different issues. 
Fascinating that Martin Scott decided it could apply to church but not to the home!
Hope your sermon prep goes well :)

Thanks James!
I agree that in Paul’s era it would have been unwise for most women to be given the chance to preach, as they were mainly uneducated. 
People seem able to apply the principles of ‘this was spoken for a specific time and place different to ours’ to numerous passages (like dietary commandments in the OT, or headscarves) so I don’t see why people are so adverse to considering this as a possible explanation of Paul’s passages on prohibiting women from speaking. 
Thanks for your helpful words!

Thanks Nate! Where do you stand on the matter? 

Thanks for commenting Rob!
Seems a bit harsh to say that people who don’t agree with Complementarianism are “tainted with the mindset of this world (which ultimately comes from satan)”.
I know lots of people who feel the reverse – that people who refuse to allow women to fullfil their God-given roles and ministry, are oppressive and thus way more in keeping with the “mindset of this world” which is one of domination and overpowering others?
I’s also love to hear more about why you’d feel comfortable having one set of views for ministry and another for marriage. Like I said above to Caryl, “it seems odd to me that we could divide life up into different boxes. The Greek mindset was to chop everything up into compartments, but the Hebrew mindset was that everything was ‘one’. So Jesus would have viewed life holistically, rather than seeing life as segmented into different realities. I think we need to have one approach to life, and one set of theological values, otherwise we become fragmented?” 

Thanks Crompo for your comment!
Like I’ve said to a few others commenting on here, it’s a bit dangerous to use phrases like “surely the Bible is very clear”. If it was, we wouldn’t need these discussions, as there are many different ways it can be interpreted.
What Biblical texts would you use to support the statement that women shouldn’t be head of a church? I’m hoping we can grapple with the Biblical text here rather than just sweeping statements. I think that’s when we actually help each other learn and grow. Would love to hear more of the Bible study that’s led you to hold your current view.

I’m pleased that this part of the vows is now optional. I agree with you. I believe in totally equal, mutual submission to each other. So if one partner is going to vow it, the I think either both should, or neither should.
Context is such a crucial element of Biblical exegesis – so thanks for bringing it up!
We apply principles of ‘context’ to all kinds of passages (headscarves, not eating pork, not wearing clothing from 2 different fabrics etc) yet in many handlings of key passages, people brush off the need to remember the context in which things were written were SO different to today. 

Personally I don’t have a problem with either genders doing anything in the church, but what I don’t understand is people who are fine with women leading worship, but seem to have a problem with women ‘preaching’. In my eyes, what’s the difference? A woman leading worship at the front of the church is as much declaring the word of the lord and teaching the congregation as much as a preacher.

I totally agree that we need to have one view, one set of values – I was quite shocked to read the  statistics of a recent evangelical poll – that most still hold to the view that the man is head in the family and marriage, and yet 70% now believe women can be  pastors – I don’t see how the man can be head in the home, but then the authority is transferred to his wife in the church, if she happens to be the pastor. That is just plain weird – no idea how that would work! I know my beliefs on this matter, and have already posted on facebook, but I’m really interested to read this discussion as it is something God has put on my heart recently. I am saddened by how nasty discussions about this can get as that really is not the point – so I’m glad you have asked for biblical references and an unpicking of them. I do think we have a tainted view of what some of the imagery means – for example, surely if a man was living in the way God intended, laying down his life in love for his wife, he would be fully submitting to God and his wife as a natural response to that? I think a lot of the historical interpretations have, in the past, really hemmed women in, and I know that bad personal experiences make this a very emotive subject. My hope is that we can come to a truly biblical understanding and both men and women alike can be all that God intended them to be.

Thanks for commenting Dan!
I think you make a great point… if we really value sung worship, and the choice of songs, then we are esteeming it as a position of authority, over both the men and women who are participating.
It’s my experience that most people on a Tuesday are WAY more likely to be humming the songs sung at church on Sunday, rather than rehearsing the words of the preaching.
On that basis, the lyrics that are chosen and sung at church, hold as much if not more power, in preaching, teaching and setting the doctrinal direction of a church, for any fellowship.
On that basis, a female worship leader would be having equal the impact of a male preacher.
So why do we people say it’s fine for a woman to sing/choose the songs, yet not to teach the Bible, as they may indeed be extremely similar/the same thing!?

Thanks Vicky for this discussion. To be honest, I forgot that it was still an issue for so many. I committed my life to following Jesus in the 80′s and was shocked to realized that to many, “freedom in Christ” excluded women serving in many ways that they felt called and were gifted for. I long ago settled my own questions with scripture and culture on the subject and have been privileged to serve with people that agree with Katie, that furthering the kingdom of God and loving God and neighbour includes us all. Far more studied and intelligent people that me have debated all sides of the discussion. I have come to my conclusions including more than just my own preferential “side” and I honour struggle of the sincere.

A couple of thoughts…I personally wonder how much of this “issue” gets heated because of our definitions of leadership and position in the church and home. If we didn’t attach “power” to roles, would this even be a discussion? It’s a false economy though. As one of my female profs…head of a department in a denominationally based school…put it 25 years ago, “I am not allowed to ‘lead’ men as a pastor in our churches, but I am allowed to influence the minds of those who will lead by teaching them.” One could argue the same about mothers. Who influences a young man’s mind more than a mother? So certainly the question can not be around influence.So what is really behind the debate? The other discussion you and a few others have raised that may actually give more clarity is on our definition of the authority of scripture. As you mention, it is not “clear” on many issues and we speak out of both sides of our mouths when we affirm some things as clear and ignore other directives that are equally “clear” if we use a modern, Western understanding as our literal definition. Although even a cursory study of the history of Western Christian thought makes it evident that our take on scripture is far from stagnant we fear that the admission that things are not clear somehow negates the value of the Book in our faith journey.

I’m so grateful for the women of faith who have followed their God-given passion and served their God with courage throughout the centuries. They challenge women like me to do the same. I am awestruck by their tenacity of spirit and simplicity of faith and I can only hope that my own life somehow makes way for the women that follow me to serve with greater freedom. I’m also grateful for the myriad men who serve along with us and have at times, wilfully used or even put aside their own “positions” in order to make room for their sisters and wives to express their Image-bearing gifts and callings. My prayer is that the goal of all of our debating and our differing views is to accomplish the same.

Thanks for taking the time to comment, Nick!
Yes, I totally agree that we all come with bias. That’s impossible to change, as we all have our own opinions.
But my phrase ”let’s engage with scripture, not just repeat what we’ve been told” wasn’t intended to favor any particular perspective. Isn’t that just the right principle for anyone to adhere to? I hope so!
I totally agree about being humble and aware that we could be wrong. That’s my basic starting point for all theology. The aim of this post is to allow anyone and everyone to speak out and be heard. I’m only being honest in my replies, as people specifically asked me to on this one issue.
“Secondly, if none of us see the whole picture, then isn’t it better if we hear as many voices as possible, and listen to every point of view, then we can correct each other’s mistakes?” – isn’t that exactly what we are doing here? I’m a bit confused!

With this topic, it is impossible to sum up in a few short paragraphs.  In a religious culture that puts so much emphasis on “leadership development,” it’s very difficult to see what Christ desires of the church in that context.  A friend of mine once said, “the church needs more fathers and mothers than leaders.”  To me, this is so TRUE!  Husbands and wives should be setting the example of what Christ intends with the church instead of staying so hard focused on how to “be a good leader.”  Instead, we should be “good parents” to the church.  Jesus said in Matthew 12:50 (while hanging on the cross), “For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”  The gospel is all about our closeness as sinful people with a Holy God!

(Note: One may say “well, parents are considered leaders.”  This is true, but there is a difference.  Leaders do not get deeply involved with the matters of those they lead; like a master/servant relationship.  Parents are highly involved in the matters of their children.)

Marriage is the best example of God’s relationship with man.  Our heavenly Father desperately desires that kind of intimacy with us.  The word “worship” in the Greek is proskyneo which means “to kiss forward.”  WOW!  That’s the kind of intimacy God desires with us.  When we worship God, we are kissing him.  Remember the woman in Luke 7 who anointed Jesus’ feet with oil and could not stop kissing them?  We can learn a lot from that woman!

With that said, I don’t think we should separate roles between the family and the church.  Scripturally, they are the same.  The church IS the family of God!  The church IS the bride of Christ!  How we lead our children is how we should lead the church, like parents.  How much more would we see Christ’s example if we saw more husbands and wives growing the church rather than a hierarchical structure?

Of course, there is always more to add.  My main point is, let’s “parent” the church NOT manage them like a business.  The debate with women in ministry is more about human position than pleasing the heart of God – it creates division rather than unites the body.  I challenge the structure of the church more than I do the issue of women in leadership.  Let’s focus more on pleasing God, living in the fullness of His Spirit (cultivating the spiritual gifts), and allow Him to soften the hard hearts among us.

As always, to GOD be the glory forever and ever!!!!!

Hi Monique,
Thanks for commenting!
I was hoping someone would bring up the key issue of women being allowed to teach in Sunday school (ie. to men who are children, shaping them into who they will become as adults) or teaching in schools (again, shaping men into who they will become) and teaching at theological institutes (shaping male ministers and teaching them what to teach). It’s bizarre that all of that could be ‘ok’ and yet preaching from the church pulpit is not. I don’t see how that argument can stand. Thanks for raising it!

If a woman has a God given gift to lead, who are we to prevent that gift from being used for God. I would argue, to do so would be a sin. I have seen and heard many effective Spirit filled woman lead many to God. 

People seem to think that revelation of God is finished with the ending of the Bible. However, if we read the bible we see revelation of God as a journey, one that is not finished and is ongoing. God’s name Yahweh ‘I am who I am’ demonstrates that we can’t box God up like this issue often tries to do. Only by journeying with God will we discover who He is. As we discover who He is we will develop a much greater understanding of these issues. The God i know is a God of equality and is not limited by someones gender. Lets not limit God.I do also find it strange that many who aren’t happy with women leading in their own Church are more than happy to see women lead on a missionary trip. 

If a woman has a God given gift to lead, who are we to prevent that gift from being used for God. I would argue, to do so would be a sin. I have seen and heard many effective Spirit filled woman lead many to God. 

People seem to think that revelation of God is finished with the ending of the Bible. However, if we read the bible we see revelation of God as a journey, one that is not finished and is ongoing. God’s name Yahweh ‘I am who I am’ demonstrates that we can’t box God up like this issue often tries to do. Only by journeying with God will we discover who He is. As we discover who He is we will develop a much greater understanding of these issues. The God i know is a God of equality and is not limited by someones gender. Lets not limit God.I do also find it strange that many who aren’t happy with women leading in their own Church are more than happy to see women lead on a missionary trip. 

Thanks for taking the time to comment Sam!

tweeted months ago that there should be a church where women only should be in leadership  !! .why not there are  Enough churches for Men like this  !! Church has devalued 50% of the population for generations , we need to stop being patriarchal and move forward before its too late . Thanks Vicky , keep shaking the pot

Thanks Melanie!

“I don’t think we should separate roles between the family and the church.  Scripturally, they are the same.  The church IS the family of God!  The church IS the bride of Christ! ”  - Agreed :)

You’re right – it was a rushed response.
Firstly God’s women make a vital contribution to the kingdom of Christ on earth. Whether they are continuing steadfastly in prayer (Acts 1:14), doing good works and almsdeeds (Acts 9:36), showing hospitality (Acts 12:12; 16:14; 1 Timothy 5:10), teaching the word in harmony with divine authority (Acts 18:26; Titus 2:3, 4), being good wives (Proverbs 31:10ff), rearing godly children (2 Timothy 1:5; 3:14, 15) – plus there are other examples littered throughout scripture and history.

Regarding male headship – then intially I belive it goes back to Adam as being given inital responsibility in the Garden and through Adam sin entered the world.
Timothy reinforces male headship here: 1 Timothy 2:12-13

By adhering to gender roles within the Church I am not promoting inequality. Society seems determined to define equality by eradicating gender differences; the challenge for the Church is to model equality and diversity at the same time. It is perfectly possible to be equal but have different functions.

Bias isn’t bad, it’s inevitable. So if I say, “Vicky, you’re biased” it may sound like an insult but I really don’t mean it as such. But it’s still hard for us not to feel insulted when we hear that our viewpoint is skewed. 
My comment was partly a reaction to the tendency we often have to say what we believe without thinking, and partly to say how I struggle with being sure that I’ve heard from God. So – no disagreement with you at all, just a bit of confusion and rambling on my part!!

When he wrote to the Christians in Corinth (1 Cor 12:7-11) Paul (yes, the same one who wrote to Timothy!) said this:
“Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of services, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who activates all of them in everyone.To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the discernment of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are activated by one and the same Spirit, who allots to each one individually just as the Spirit chooses.”
No distinction there – or anywhere else in any of his discussion about use of gifts in the church, e.g. Romans 12 – did Paul distinguish between male and female. Wisdom, knowledge, prophecy, teaching – all are open to both sexes. 
I have to admit, I get really wound up about people who would probably gladly have a woman operate on their brains as a surgeon, but refuse to admit that same woman might have something to offer their brains in church…

Let me begin by stating, I surrender to the Authority of God’s Word on all things.  Now, after that, I have spent my life seeking to understand the Words of God in a way that I can be assured that I am being obedient to the true message He has for me. 

Our church has recently taken stands on the roles of women in the church.  While we are exploring proper authority in our lives in the home, at church and elsewhere, I have to confess that I do not see where the bible clearly says that women cannot teach or lead in the church. 

If I understand correctly, I have to agree with VB in that if we take this stance regarding women in the church then we will find our church body half paralyzed when it comes to realizing the collective gifts of the entire body. 

If I am to believe that women cannot have the authority to teach and lead in the church then I am going to need clear understanding about a lot of things:  1)  What do we do with the large numbers of evangelical churches that do NOT practice this?  2)  What do we do with all of the teachings that have been passed along via Godly and Wise women over the years?  3)  What do we do with the teachings of Great Women over the years?  Does this mean as a man, I cannot subject myself to their teaching via book, video, etc?  4)  What about school teachers?  5)  What of home schooling scenarios where the mother is the primary teacher and there are male children?  6)  What of the mother-son relationship?  Does this mean that the mother does absolutley NO teaching to male children in the home?  7) (This one comes with apologies.)  How can we say that this is the absolute truth about Paul’s teachings without addressing what he said about the submission of slaves, women’s clothing in church, and other similar directives of Paul?  8)  Where does this put the church (the church that I have grown up in for the past 40+ years) if we muzzle women from teaching and leading based on this interpretation of God’s Word?

Personally, I am working through and frankly, struggling with a lot of historical context when it comes to the teachings of Paul on the issues of the woman’s role in the church, the family and the community.  I cannot see where these are scriptures that we just take a literal commandments for the roles of women. 

49 years of exposure to church leadership, participation in minisitry leadership, leading bible studies etc make me wary of situations where people are led to believe that another person’s literal interpretation of scripture is all we need.  I have grown very cautious in taking the Word of God and pointing at a person or group of people and saying that MY interpretation makes their interpretation wrong. 

Until I can get answers and understanding for the questions I have, I will have to stand by my convictions that some of the greatest teachers in our churches will be women, for child and adult alike.  And some of the greatest, innovative and strong leadership our churches have ever seen will be out of the spiritual gifts of women. 

Thanks Stephen.
Really appreciate you drawing from a Biblical text. That’s what I’m aiming for in this discussion! Not just opinion, but exegesis of the Bible. Thanks for modeling that!
Anyone got any thoughts on how they view that passage?

I think Acts 2.17-18, as well as 1 Cor 11.3-4, show clearly that women are prophesying in the church. So, clearly the passages about silence must be interpreted in the light of these texts.  There seems to be something contextual going on in those situations. 
Also, in Philippians 4.2-4, Paul calls Euodia and Syntiche his ‘fellow-workers’ in the Gospel.  Of course, there is Priscilla who partners with Aquila in ministry as well.  

So, clearly women are involved in ministry, prophesying and leadership in the church.  

At the same time, it seems difficult to completely get away from the fact that Paul appears to prioritize male leadership in the family (and the church).  He roots his arguments in Christ’s relationship with the church (Eph 5.25) and in Creation (1 Cor 4.1-56), not just cultural norms.  While women are not to be excluded from leadership, there does seem to be some sort of preference for male headship overall.  But I would take C. S. Lewis’ term for the leadership that has been given to men in the family (Eph 5.25).  They are to take a ‘crown of thorns’.  They are to lead the way in serving more, sacrificing more and seeking to promote the fruitfulness of their wives and children.  It is not a hierarchical, self-serving love.  The man is to serve the wife.  She is not there to serve him. 

If a man exercises servant leadership, I don’t see much of a problem occurring.  I have a hard time seeing any woman respect a man that expected his wife to suffer more and work harder during tough times (though it has often happened!).  As much as is possible, the man is to “take the hit” and shoulder the bulk of the load in sacrificing and caring for his family.  
 
Anyway, my view is that women and men alike are called to share in ministry and leadership (preaching, teaching, etc.), but that there is some sort of priority/preference for male leadership as a general rule.  I would have serious problems with theological positions that exclude women from participating in leadership.  I also think it’s difficult to support biblically a position that says that all that matters is ‘gifting of the Holy Spirit’ and gender differences are completely irrelevant.  If it can be done, I’d like to see it.  

There are caveats and nuances that would need more time and space to draw out, but this is roughly where I stand at the moment.  

When I read the story of Jesus I see women following him.  I see Mary of Bethany sitting at his feet not unlike Paul sitting at the feet of Gamaliel.  I see something happening that would challenge the old distinctions of Jew and Gentile, slave and free, and male and female.  Whatever Paul meant in his prohibitions, it must also correlate to his happy observation that both men and women publicly prophesied and prayed in the local congregation at Corinth. 

One historical text that has helped me shape my egalitarian viewpoint is Pliny the Younger’s letter to Trajan.  In it, Pliny has two women slaves arrested and tortured to find out information about Christianity. He took them because they were deacons in the church.  These two women slaves who had no rights in the Roman Empire and could be arrested and tortured were, in fact, leaders in the local church.  How ironic that it was their leadership in the church and their powerlessness in the world that made them targets for Pliny!  Somehow, Christianity developed after Jesus into a faith where women slaves could become leaders.  I think this was related to Jesus himself.  If our understanding of the disciples writings (i.e., NT) does not produce similar results, we are not understanding things correctly, in my view.

Just add:
1 Corinthians 11:3 also but my term of headship is also incorrect / probably more covering is a better term – ultimately Christ is head of the church!

A quick sidenote on the list of “qualifications” for eldership in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 it is clear they are to be the husband of one wife.
Just a thought

Good point.  One of the best Greek professors I studied under was a classicist by training, a leading expert in her field, but she had people in her church opposed to her preaching a sermon or becoming a deacon in the church (Baptist, so deacon and elder get mashed together).  Perhaps she was a better teacher than preacher, but surely that should be discerned by giftedness not gender.

This is all good stuff, even what I would consider to be some objectionable thought is helpful for the discussion, although I would want to see some of it qualified (the dwindling of congregation in liberal progressive church for example).

First of all, can women be in ministry. Easy answer, yes. Christian living is ministry, so if you are a woman, a Christian, and alive then you are in ministry. If it’s a sin then no women should become Christians, although then you would be living in unforgivable sin… oh dear. Catch 22. You see why we must separate the broader ministry term, from the specific ministerial roles. These specific ministerial roles that we often refer to in this diaglogue such as elders, bishops, vicars, or even being able to preach/teach is where things can get tricky for people based on certain scripture (can we all agree that we are free from the holiness code and move on from leviticus at least into something approaching new covenant life?)

As a male evangelist and discipler I want to introduce young people to Christ, and then walk with them in their journey, hopefully learning as much from them as they learn from me. Teenagers (and yes, horror, even the girls!) have ‘taught’ me as much about Christ as have middle aged male theologians (of which my father is one). The sidelining of people based on age and gender are two areas that the church has failed Gods people in time and time again. God has responsibility for his whole creation, for his entire community, for all his people.  What does that responsibility look like in your life? We are all called to the same commandments are we not, as spoken by Jesus in Matthew 22? But sure, we are called to different works, so does that mean the God will NEVER call a woman to lead a church? I cannot teach teenage girls about the gospel with that message, because I see a generation of young women (and young men) who have the potential to frankly embarrass much of the middle aged male leadership of the current church with their passion, grace, love and faith.

With due respect to the comment about dwindling church numbers in the progressive church, you want to know one reason (of a couple key ones admittedly) why people leave the church? Because the church is often terrible at showing how it values people through the love of God. I want to see community’s of disciples that love and value each other in the equality that justification by faith and through grace alone demands (Romans 5.1).

In some areas of my life I will go to my dad for council, others, my mum. My family’s support and help in directing my life would not be as effective without one of those. Who has helped me more? Who could I do without? Who has God given more responsibility to in that role? All unanswerable questions. There is not meant to be a separation, it is Gods intent for it to work as a unit involving male and female elements.
Have I answered the question of the blog? Perhaps not effectively, but then maybe that wasn’t really my intention. Perhaps my intention was and is to point people to a loving father, a mighty saviour and a powerful spirit who transform lives for HIS* purposes. Call me an idealist, but God will use whomever he chooses, however he chooses. We need to humble ourselves before him and build a church that loves as he loves. While many are busy figuring out who should and who shouldn’t, I pray that some of us will be taking care of who is.*not to be read as a signifier of God’s male status.

little extra ‘you go girl’ thought:
Storing up treasure in heaven (read: responsibility) means there will be many of you ladies out there with far greater responsibility in eternity than those who would sideline you now. Stay faithful sisters, he has good stuff for you in the now, but most importantly, the not yet.

Bruce Ware in his paper “Tampering with the Trinity” makes a case that egalitarianism defaces the Trinity by making subordination=inequality. The Son is sent by the Father. The Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque!). This is a western view of the Trinity, but it still shows subordination WITHIN THE TRINITY!! Does this mean inferiority?! Not at all! Was the Father supposed to die? No! That was the Son’s role! 

Because of our postmodern culture, the church has taken many doctrines and fit them into their minds. For instance, all sins are equal. While this is true in one sense (all sin is enough for eternal punishment) killing is most definitely worse than stealing a piece of gum. 

Another thing, women in leadership. Women have not been given ANY roles other than deaconship until recently when the feminist movement came to the surface. If Jesus wanted women in leadership, then He would have chosen a woman or two to be disciples. We cannot go and say that “it wasn’t appropriate for the time and it would have damaged the ministry…” because this is the Man who performed miracles in front of crowds and people still doubted Him. 

The Bible is VERY VERY clear on these issues. The only thing that stops one from seeing it clearly are one’s presuppositions…

Hi Vicky, et. al., I’ve been wanting to comment, but waiting for a time
that I can devote some attention to the biblical texts… the original
intent of this post.  Beautiful!  So thankful to God for you, Vicky, and
everyone who truly desires to discuss the biblical text and not only
opinions, and general statements, though the last two can be useful at
the right times.  Discussing words “that will not pass away” can only be
the most profitable, even if it never gains numbers to either
side.  I hope that’s not the point.  I hope the point is to do some
heavy lifting, grapple with the seriousness of ministry weight which
Christ calls all of His disciples to do, and display His glory through
transformed lives.   I strongly believe that both sides respond with
knee-jerk reactions based on giving answers from arguments made by
extremist in either camps instead of “putting on listening ears,” with a
heart of charity, and “speaking truth in love.”  Eph. 4:15.

I’m a
complementarian.  My doctrine comes from passages like Ephesians 5:22: 
where Paul directly relates wives submitting to husbands directly to Jesus Christ as
being head of the church.   Verses 22-33, IMO, relate to the
seriousness of the marriage union in how it displays the example of
Christ’s sacrificial love for His Bride.  Because, from what I can tell,
there isn’t teaching on headdress/covering or eating rituals, and other
things, I do not find myself grappling with the context as much as
others might.  I may just be too short-sighted and unimaginative to do
so, I readily admit it.  :)

Anytime Paul writes things directly
related to Jesus Christ, the gospel message, dying to self, and/or the
cross, I tend to highlight those in my mind.  (cf. Phil. 2, I Cor. 2:2,
Gal. 1:8, etc.)  Thus the passages in Eph. 5 and Col. 3, they are
highlighted in my mind as to the seriousness of them.

I don’t
want anyone walking away, thinking that I am not taking the *full*
counsel of God seriously (cut and paste the verses I like or only
support my view:  II Tim. 3:16-17 “ALL (emphasis mine) Scripture” takes
care of that.  :) ) In practice though, I believe there are Scripture
verses (books?) that explicitly teach application.  In Eph. and Col., I
see the women’s role in the home being taught by Paul the both
churches.  Adding in the weight of Eph. where he likens it to Jesus
Christ’s duties, it’s very impacting to me.

I think Titus 2:2-3
has much to say about a woman’s role.  I see a worker-at-home being
taught explicitly, but do not find other “worker-at-??s” being taught. 
Here is where my lack of imagination does not serve me well, probably. 
:)  :)

I Peter 3:1-4 is another way I see a woman fulfilling a
submissive role to an unbelieving (and possibly believing husband who is
being disobedient to the Word of God? (which one of us hasn’t been
there before as the disobedient one–I know I have!!?? ))  But
regardless of experience, Paul calls the woman to be the one to take the
initiative, at least how I see it, by being submissive and not saying a
word.  He, from what I can tell, doesn’t call her to teach him those
things, but just lead a quiet, submissive, wordless life. (And I know I need that reminder of “wordless” many times!)  :)

From my cheap
seats and limited scope, I see when Paul writes mainly about women, it
is typically (I think) in the submissive role.

I know the parsing
out of some Greek words have been debated down through the centuries,
and frankly, I’m too simple-minded for that, but I do notice some themes
when it comes to women and it is generally in the area of submission to
husbands. 

I realize there are other themes of submission
(governmental authorities: Rom. 13:1, church leaders: Heb. 13:7,
Employers: Col. 3:22, children: Eph. 6:1, etc.)  I even see the commands
like in Eph. 5:21 where it calls each of us to submit to one another
out of holy fear for Christ. 

What I don’t see is explicit
teaching in Scripture where men are called to submit to wives/women in
the same way that women are to submit to husbands/men.  Besides the
incredible love we’re to have for fellow Christians (John 13:34) and the
common respect and equality of value/standing before Christ (Gal.
3:28), I see each role as mentioned above to be carried out with the
same attitude Jesus had when He joyfully submitted to His Father. 
(Phil. 2:5-7, Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ
Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard
equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the
form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.) (NASB)

Regarding
women in the church, I see it the same way.  I don’t see Scripture
(thematically) giving women a position in church as a leader.  Elders,
pastors, overseers (at least the ones I’ve read about ) were men.  I
believe the serving capacity is to other women (Titus 2:3) and anyone
who is not “a man.”  I Tim. 2:11-12.   I know there are some OT
exceptions, but I don’t see a biblical pattern about female headship in
the same way I do with male headship.  I know some of it could be
cultural, except I see God-breathed words never being afraid to be
counter cultural at certain times (i.e. Jesus rebukes the popular
leaders, Jesus talks to a Samaritan woman, Paul tells employers to treat
employees as one who will give an account to the Lord Himself, etc.).

The funny thing is that I believe
women are equally gifted in most areas, even the pastoral gifts.  But
like the saying goes, “just because you can; doesn’t mean you should”
which might be a good principle to apply when it comes to the Word of
our Lord.   There are many wonderful, profitable uses for God’s glory
that can be fulfilled without ever stepping outside of the Lord’s
explicit commands.  Likewise, many people (me!) can quickly use gifts,
abilities and resources to sin in multiple areas, multiple times.  So
the defense of “I know many gifted women… ” might be negated if we are
not “walking in a manner worthy of our calling.”  (Eph. 4:1)

Taking
this quick, biblical survey in view (I haven’t done it justice) I
believe, IMO, that women are to be submissive to one husband in the
home, first, then church leaders, then governing authorities, then
workplace as long as the categories are not asking any of us to sin.  I
believe women can be godly bosses at work as long as they follow the
Eph. 6:9  model.  I believe they can be godly politicians, and other
areas.  Personally, I’m just  not creative or energized enough to do
everything and
still fulfill the commands in Scripture to be a godly “worker-at-home”
so I opt out of trying.  :)  :)   I believe, though, in the home and in
the church, those are special arenas with explicit teaching which shape
my values.

I know it sounds like I’m chopping them up, Vicky.  I 100% agree with
you (can I get an “amen!” ha!) that we should never chop things up, or compartmentalize to fit our
surroundings.  Our core values and beliefs should be 100% with pure motives
to follow Christ *in every area of life*.  I love how you bring that out in your public
ministry!!  So awesome!!  I do believe, though, for me, that ultimately,
what is overarching or the main core value is not should women do this
or that, the core value that runs through and connects each dot is
submission.  This helps shape my everyday thoughts, tasks, and
conversations whether I’m in the grocery store, at church, or at home. 
:)

Regarding the slavery issue.  I don’t see in Scripture (but please
correct me if I’m wrong) God or the writers of Scripture ever affirming
slavery, but that since it existed, here are the principles, commands
and guidelines to follow.   That may be way too simplified and I’m sure
someone can correct me as we go along.

Blessings!  I’ll try and respond when I can if anyone has any follow-up
or corrections for me to heed.  I’m thankful for anyone who desires to
correct me out of love for His holy Word and Christ-centered message! 
:)

Kim (a grateful complementarian wife of a egalitarian-hearted, but complementarian-minded I Peter 3:7 husband)  :)

 

I so appreciate that this question is being asked in this type of forum!  I would imagine, without knowing Vicky personally or her exact thoughts, from reading her comments, that my views regarding this topic would resemble hers.  What I most appreciate, though, is the civility of this particular discussion!  It is so easy for talks like this to descend into emotional argument. So, kudos and thanks to everyone on this page for your kind, civil discussion.  Peace!

Kay, I couldn’t agree more–thank you for the reminder!  :)  I Cor. 13:1-3, If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.  If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing. (NASB)

If you’re one who’s not convinced that Scripture is clear on this subject, then I ask: Does not nature itself speak to the stark differences and roles that God has created men and women to fulfill?  Scripture is clear that men and women are 100% equal in value and worth, absolutely. But if God were truly for 100% equality in ROLES, why does He *still* create us so different?  Why are women, *on average*, weaker physically and more fragile emotionally than men?   Why can a man never bear children, no matter how qualified he feels to do so?  God is still creating us like this, even after the resurrection, and I think it alone speaks volumes!  I submit that the design of men and women is proof itself that God has a plan, and that He designed each part of His creation with structure and purpose.  I think this idea also helps us to rightly interpret what Paul said in 1 Timothy 2:12-15:
 
“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man… for Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing…”
 
This passage points out something very interesting.  Despite what many think, Paul’s command of headship is not based on anything “cultural”, but clearly goes back to Adam & Eve in the fall. He said the men will be the head or covering (think: protector) of women, and women will find fulfillment in bearing children (which is not optional… men can’t do that!).  This is a timeless truth, Paul says, that results from the sin of the first man and woman, but will ultimately display the Gospel and the glory of God.  
Remember what God said after Adam & Eve fell?  He declared 2 very important things: 1.  Your desire will be for your husband (in the Hebrew, the idea is “to rule over him” or control him) 2.  But he (your husband) will rule over you.  This was God’s judgment on humanity, as a result of Eve being deceived in her quest to be more spiritual, and Adam’s rebellion in being passive in his role as her protector.  Women will always have a desire/tendency/feel compelled to lead or control, but God says that the men are to have the role of covering for her.  By putting things back in order, God’s blessing is restored in His creation.  God is so clear in this, both in observing creation and in Scripture:
“Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” – 1 Cor 11:3

Now, there will always be those who question God’s commands (like the serpent: “Did God really say…”?), and twist and re-interpret God’s word to suit their preferences and desires.  EVEN GOOD DESIRES, such as our quest to be more spiritual and use our giftings can turn sinful (I believe Eve truly wanted to be more like God when she was deceived and took the fruit).  Sin will always lead us to think we know more than God, or that we have a better way… but there is just something not quite right when we do.  We go against the rhythm of His design.  And very often, like Adam and Eve learned, rebellion can be disastrous.  The wages of sin is death.

I really believe we can trust God in this, friends.  Only when men begin to use their God-given advantages and authority rightly, sacrificially, and lovingly, and when women find comfort and security in this protection, being allowed to prosper in their gifts as we walk through a fallen world, will the invisible God powerfully manifest Himself among us. 

I believe that women should be allowed to be ministers in the church.. If a women is called by God into ministry then who are we to say they cannot.. I do not think we are in control of who god calls to ministry.

Concerning Rom16:7…Gordon Fee makes an interesting quote in “Gospel and Spirit”….(quote) ” there isn’t a shred of evidence in the Roman world for an ‘s’ to be applied to Junia .” (making the name masculine and refuting feminine apostleship.) 

The phrase – ‘My husband wears the trousers in our relationship, but I get to choose them’ springs to mind here! I believe that an ultimate decision should be made by the husband but any loving husband would have considered the wife’s opinion and reasons, and needs to make a considered answer. Ultimately the responsibility would lie with the husband which is why he should consider carefully, seeking counsel.
 
1 Corinthians 14 I believe, is talking about the misconception that Paul and many men have that women talk too much and too often. Not all women are like this but I think the point Paul is making is that we should all be listening to our speakers, carefully considering what we say to others and not gossiping. This of course goes for men and women.
 
In Acts and Proverbs 31 women are taking on roles that were traditionally for men but ultimately for the same goal – to see God glorified and their husbands respected.
 
The issue I have is the woman in Proverbs 31 seems so unrealistic that it worries me! I could not possibily do all that and be able to have ‘quiet time’ with God and fulfil callings that God had for me. Women seem so determined in this present age to ‘have it all’ we’ve forgotten why we wanted it all in the first place. I believe we can have the choice now to follow our God given callings in ministry, to raise a family, to work with our husbands or to promote their business, to work in male workplaces and to lead/manage, where before some of these roles were male-dominated. I think the folly begins when we think we can do it all without becoming ill or neglecting important areas in our lives.
 
The principles of loving God and loving others need to be adhered to but when we’re loving too many we sometimes forget to love God and look after our ‘temples’. The modern idea of ‘being able to do it all’ is silly because we were never meant to do anything on our own. The husband/wife partnership works best when it is a partnership; the church works best when leadership work together, considering everyone’s gifts and callings – men or women.

Acts 16 is where Lydia is mentioned :)

Hi Dennis, Kelly was kind enough to mention Acts 16 which I think Luke mentions Lydia twice, but can you direct me where she is mentioned as leading the church?  Or did I misunderstand your reference to Lydia?  Thank you.

It breaks my heart that this debate has been unresolved and going on since the New Testament was written.  I think when we all get to heaven, Jesus will clarify what was meant, because obviously the Bible is NOT clear on the subject of women in ministry. 
We have wasted so much time over the years on this issue when we should be spending that time sharing Jesus with our lost and dying world.  Jesus didn’t give His life for us so we could continue to be legalistic in ANY area.  His is the gospel of grace. 
God gives gifts and callings and anointings and talents to whom HE chooses, be it male or female.  Who are we to say what God can and cannot do? 
This is a very emotional subject, and not just for women.  Clearly, our dysfunctional society has fed into this to where there will likely never be agreement this side of heaven.  I am happy to say that the majority of churches I have been part of over the years were ones where giftings from both genders were embraced and encouraged, but I realize this isn’t always the case.  I would much rather spend my time in a place and with people who cherish all God can bless this broken world with, male/female, young/old, whatever.  Does it REALLY matter who GOD chooses to use in a certain place at a certain time to accomplish HIS purposes?  After all, it’s NOT about us, it’s about HIM.  If we are focused on and in love with Jesus, I think these subjects sort of fall into the catagory of “just not that important.”  Beholding the King of Kings is life altering, perspective changing, and in His presence is where we are changed into His likeness.  In the light of His glory, I’d rather be hearing what He has to say than humanity of either gender.
We are called to go into all the world and make disciples for JESUS.  We are called to preach the good news.  Paul didn’t care how the good news was preached, he rejoiced THAT the gospel was preached! 
We need to rethink, each one of us, the issues that are divisive – like this one.  How much time are we spending defending our position that could be spent loving someone whose life is falling apart?  Are we being Jesus to our spouse?  Are we being Jesus at our church, our job, at the store? 
Jesus gave everything out of love.  I’m pretty sure the Bible is clear on that one.  Love.  It conquers all.  It covers a multitude of sin, something I personally am eternally grateful for – because in myself, I will never have it all together, never have all the answers, never get it completely right.

My sketchy thoughts.

I suppose I’d take a broadly complementarian approach – saying no to women elders in the church and yes to male headship in marriage, but I want to be really careful about how that applies and works. Ministry in church has to be body ministry – everyone has a part to play, and even if one role is restricted every other is opened up. I suspect that probably also means a restriction on sunday preaching, but not in any other teaching context – tying an elders leading roughly to preaching. Women have a massively important role to play in the church on so many levels.Headship in marriage has to be about the head dying – he gives himself in love rather than imposing himself, while the wife “submits” as to Christ… i.e. rather than suspecting him of not loving she receives his love, she can rest secure in the marriage. This would seem to be very counter-cultural – liberating and honouring and safe for women, and challenging and humbling men. I don’t think this is a slippery slope to women in the kitchen and men as sole providers etc.What about final say in matters? A husband needs to lead rather than shirk responsibility but that doesn’t mean he’s always right, or that he does what he wants – indeed his call would be to always do what’s best for his wife, for her good, her beautification, her advancing etc. What that looks like surely varies case to case. Are men and women equal? Equal but not identical… no more than the Father, Son and Spirit are identical – their roles are different which is wonderful, yet each is divine.

Thanks for commenting!
Glad you’ve been part of the church for 49 years. That’s a lot of faithful service :)
Thought your 8 questions below were great. Anyone want to speak into them?

“1)  What do we do with the large numbers of evangelical churches that do NOT practice this?  2)  What do we do with all of the teachings that have been passed along via Godly and Wise women over the years?  3)  What do we do with the teachings of Great Women over the years?  Does this mean as a man, I cannot subject myself to their teaching via book, video, etc?  4)  What about school teachers?  5)  What of home schooling scenarios where the mother is the primary teacher and there are male children?  6)  What of the mother-son relationship?  Does this mean that the mother does absolutley NO teaching to male children in the home?  7) (This one comes with apologies.)  How can we say that this is the absolute truth about Paul’s teachings without addressing what he said about the submission of slaves, women’s clothing in church, and other similar directives of Paul?  8)  Where does this put the church (the church that I have grown up in for the past 40+ years) if we muzzle women from teaching and leading based on this interpretation of God’s Word?”

Thanks for being so honest Nigel!
Great thoughts!

Hey Rich :) Thanks for dropping in!
Haha…you can be whatever you want to be :) And I’ll still think you’re great, I promise.

Hey all

The best theological study on some of these issues I have ever come across is John Piper’s ‘This Momentary Marriage’ dealing with key passages such as Ephesians 5:- 

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/online-books/this-momentary-marriage

Also, these should inform our thinking as we approach the Word: 

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/online-books/biblical-foundations-for-manhood-and-womanhood 
 
http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/online-books/recovering-biblical-manhood-and-womanhood 

Thanks for the response Vicky, totally agree with you. This is an important discussion, well worth having – and definitely agree on the cultural context stuff. That’s the thing with the Bible, that it can be interpreted in so many ways. So often we make the Bible suit our agenda, rather than the other way round, but at the same time there is often more than one correct interpretation, as well as lots of wrong interpretations. Great discussion!

Yes Vicky, I would never worry about you being mad at me or anyone for an opinion. Thanks so much for keeping the “biblical” as important. I have always appreciated that about your ministry in concert as well as teaching!
So, I will post something when I can meet a better standard. Still, enjoying this needed civil conversation. :)

But not authority over her husband

Thanks for bringing this up. I love the idea of the intimacy of worshipping God as to kiss forward. I have to remember to remove my own parameters of what worship means – in which I confess usually means related to music. Interestingly, the words for praise can be translated as ‘to look towards a guiding light’ (the root pictogram is the same one used for the north star) or to throw with the hand ( which I have heard interpreted as our praise is a weapon!)

I agree with the idea of parenting a church. It is the example that the early church leaders provided. Paul treated timothy as a son. Timothy had a mother that instructed him in the ways of the faith. I think that if Paul were alive today he would be delighted to see eduacted women sharing and proclaiming the truth.

My current church has a husband and wife that are both the senior pastor. I have appreciated what each has had to bring. Both are excellent teachers, both have a passion for reaching the lost and both are doing an amazing job in their role.

How about this verse to add some more to the discussion: ” Man looks at the outward appearance, but God looks at the HEART” 1 Sam 16:7

1 cor 12 surely is saying that the body is made up of different members with different roles? So if god has given men and women roles they need to fulfill those roles. Gifting is often argued that women with strong leadership and communicaton skills must be allowed to teach and lead. But surely all over the bible God chooses the most unlikely to lead his people and proclaim his word. Would we pick the same people as god. Adam a hopeless leader. Noah a drunk naked dude. Moses a murderer. Abraham a polygamist. John the babtist a weird guy in the middle of nowhere to proclaim the coming of Jesus himself. These arguments that gifted people male or female are the ones god wants to use to lead simply is not what is all over the bible. Is it?

Was not expecting to go off on that tangent. But there are so many ! God bless hope this helps somehow. John

I love that passage, but it doesn’t address the role of church leadership does it? The same man who wrote that beautiful also wrote that wives should submit to their husbands and that men are to be elders of the church. Col 3 and Eph 5 is actually a simple reading of the text. Vicky disses that statement above, but you just reject what Scripture teaches.

Eph 5: 22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.Women are smart, intelligent, wise, gracious, and worthy to ministry in man ways in the church with man gifts as the passage says. Unfortunately God through the Apostle Paul makes it clear that male headship is actually a God given concept.

So what you are saying is that “being subject to one another” negates what Paul said a sentence before in Ephesians 5 that ”Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord?”

You just ripped a sentence right out of your Bible.

Hi Vicky,  thanks for responding to my comment. I did not mean to seem insensitive earlier and I really appreciate that you have continued this conversation on your blog.  And I apologize that I did not cite any references or statistics earlier but I was writing from my mobile! :  )

You asked earlier how I came to have this general understanding? (to associate churches that embrace a broader role for women in ecclesiastical leadership with a state of spiritual and demographic decline? ) well…. I know it sounds like a stretch to make that connection.. but it is a common view held by many American evangelicals.  As you know, the US does not have a recognized, official religion or state-supported church. Church congregations here can rise and fall and it makes for interesting sociological research and debate.  This has led many people to study trends, make assumptions and offer hypothesis over the years.

For generations, mainline Protestant churches dominated the American spiritual and political landscape… but this started to change during the 1960s.  Obviously this is a complicated topic and a great many factors including social, economic, political, cultural and demographic change has taken place to influence overall church attendance.  However, mainline Protestant churches also made some major theological decisions during the 1960s that may have precipitated this decline. These denominations (Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Lutheran, etc) began to openly embrace “liberation theology”, humanism and amend their statement of faiths to ordain women in leadership roles.  These topics had been debated for decades.. but  in the 1960s, the issue boiled up to the point that it led to schism within these denominations. 

Orthodox Protestant denominations were formed and have since experienced steady growth in church attendance (along with non-denominational evangelical churches, Pentecostal denominations, the Catholic Church and others) by placing a priority on the basics: saving souls and missions.  In stark contrast, the mainline denominations that have embraced humanism, liberation theology, moral relativism and the ordination of women (and later homosexuals) have experienced steep decline in attendance.  The question one is forced to ask is… all things being equal, why has one group of denominations experienced decline while others have flourished?

So that’s why I referred to it all as a “Pandora’s Box” … all of these theological issues seem intertwined and linked together… but that is just my anecdotal hypothesis backed only by stats on trends in church attendance (won’t bore you by quoting stats, but they’re easy to find on the web).   Also, I’m no scholar.. but others out there more learned than I have written in-depth essays on this topic. Their writings won’t be hard for you to find if the topic interests you!  

I find it very unfortunate that the in many places, as represented here, has come to represent a very primitive argument based on a strikingly Western reading of the Bible. The New Testament is not addressing issues of 21st century church politics but primarily those of specific Christian communities in the first century. The general trajectory of the NT – including Jesus’ actions – is to collapse cultural restrictions and boundaries based on social status, gender, etc. ie the woman at the well. The role of women is repeatedly given more weight throughout the NT than the culture in which it was written, not less.

There are certain things I will tolerate the world’s scoffing for. For instance, believing a man who is God came back to life from death. But while the world recognizes, promotes, encourages, and cherishes its, I tend to feel ashamed when the organization that is supposed to defend the oppressed and marginalized simply cites a text written to Christians in first-century Ephesus as if Paul wrote it directly to us today, with all knowledge and foresight of our current culture and debates.

Some women are better preachers, teachers, pastors, and elders than men, and they should without a doubt be allowed and encouraged to serve and edify Jesus’ Church in such capacities.

Shoot…2nd paragraph *and cherishes its women*

I wonder how Jesus would view the way we silence and oppress women in our churches. Jesus was really into women – in the culture of Palestine at the time of Jesus, women were regarded as pretty worthless – there was a Jewish prayer which included a verse along the lines of ‘praise God that i am not a woman’. When a boy was born, great peace came into the world – women brought nothing. But Jesus really honoured women and treated them as though they were worth something. I think it is prominent that the first person to see Jesus alive after his death was Mary who was told to go and tell the disciples that she had seen Him. And perhaps the fact that the discples didn’t believe her is another example of how little was thought about the word of women. Women were poorly educated and as such, not qualified to teach others.
But here is the revelation….. God used them anyway! I don’t believe that there just weren’t any men avaliable ((they were all busy hiding) so God resorted to second best, I believe that God intended to use women in the first place to show that as women, we can see God, hear God, love God, behave as presence carriers of God and carry this gospel to the ends of the earth.
As an unmarried women, I have a real issue in the church that I am not allowed to carry any sense of responsibility, not allowed to preach, not supported in mission. I know God and love God. God speaks to me and through me. I’m not prepared to deprive my community of the word of God through me, just because that is the culture of the church. Jesus was a revolutionary. I want to be too.
Thanks Vicky for raising this…muchly thought provoking!

In other words, the husband sits at his ease, taking the credit for all his wife’s initiative and hard work :-) My point was that the description of the noble wife quite noticeably does _not_ include anything about submission.

I’d like to make one point specifically in relation to the things you have said ….
It SO saddens me when Christians miss-quote the Bible, and I feel it is one of the main reasons that non believers have problems with us…
common examples
*Money is NOT the root of all evil – the LOVE of it is.

*Jesus did NOT sweat blood – in the darkness, the huge drops of sweat LOOKED LIKE blood.

*Peter is NOT the ‘rock on which the Church is built’, the Truth that Jesus is the Christ IS – ‘PETER’ means ‘stone’, Jesus had given Simon the nickname of Peter, knowing what we do about Simon’s hot-headed stubborn character, we can imagine why :)  Simon  made the fantastic, Spirit inspired declaration of the revelation that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Jesus, as He so often did, makes a play on words – a parable of language to help them and us remember His meaning -
“Blessed are you, Simon ….. you are ‘a stone’ (Peter) and on this rock (the fantastic unchangeable truth which Simon had just uttered) I will build My Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it….”

To interpret this verse as meaning that Jesus meant that Peter was ‘the rock’ is to say that Jesus was giving Simon God-like status and that the gates of hell could not prevail against HIM. In other places in Scripture Jesus is pictured as The Rock or the cleft in the rock….  we MUST consider the Bible in context and in it’s entirety if it is to make any sense, to say that Simon (Peter) is the person on whom the Church is built makes no sense and leads, in the end, to idolatry.

This is written at a time when women were property of men. Pretty much slaves themselves.
so of course it was written as husband of one wife. because to be a person with a job, vocation,
was impossible. women at this time in history were married in their childhood, and just made children. Yet Jesus, talked with women as if they were men and important enough to save..see woman at the well. Jesus appeared first to a women, she was told by him go and tell my brothers. She was important, trusted with the most important message.  Do you think he excludes women from giving his messages now.  he changed his mind. The God that never changes….but if you look ahead you see the disciples they do not believe the woman because she is less then them (they consider it is their culture) These men are the ones who wrote the bible. The ones who did not believe her until of course they had seen for themselves. 
Maybe you should stop arguing and look around see the Holy Spirit working in the women around you. 

I see no dichotomy at all. I passionately believe that women should be allowed to function in all that God gifts them.
Surely the point here is this – Paul says “wives should be submissive to THEIR OWN HUSBANDS” …. in a passage where he is speaking of the whole Christian community submitting to one another in Christ, he specificity addresses the Talmudic misconception that ALL female-kind is subordinate to ALL male-kind and reinforces the beauty of the exclusive, intimate bond of marriage.

     To keep everything in context though. What Jesus did was bring in a
whole new covenant, whole new teachings, and clarified and set straight
alot of the old. The apostles went against the social trends and taught
against the laws of the day, so it would seem very strange that God
would set so much straight but not rewrite this concept of leadership in
his church if it was what He had intended.

     So this argument – “Please try to remember this was written in a time
where women were
considered property.  So Paul could not write husbands and wives should
submit to each other because he would have been laughed at and ignored.”
falls down rather quickly.

     If we believe that scripture is God Breathed
then we must also beleive that is without compromise. I see it as very
unlikely that Paul would act with such boldness and be Martryd for it,
but on this subject would seek to avoid offending people.

The bible is clear, and to dismiss key passages as simply cultural takes away a
great deal of the Authority of the Bible. Then you’re faced with the question, where do we stop cutting?

You are right Dan, it makes no sense! Sadly there are Churches where the view is taken that it is ALL wrong, and women can not even lead worship.

Holygoth777,  It’s so interesting to me how we all read the same passage, yet
come to
different conclusions.  I completely agree that in Eph. 5:21, we are
called to submit to one another.  What I don’t see is it being an equal
or mutual submission=no one ever makes a decision because everyone’s
always preferring one another, but Paul is setting up the building
blocks for the church in Ephesus to say something like, “Hey Guys, we’re
gonna talk about submission here–listen up.”  And then goes on to
expound what he writing and define the type of submission.  Wives
submitting (hypotassō=be subject) to (idios=one’s own) husbands in a headship role (as Christ is Head of the
Church=vs. 23) and husbands loving (agapaō=to be dear to, beloved)
and sacrificially loving her (more than he loves his own body=vs. 25)
as described in I Peter
3.   Beautifully, Paul does a wrap up in vs. 33 which uses different
verbs, not the same verbs to equate with equality in roles=husbands are
to love (agapaō) and wives are to respect (phobeō) which
from what I can tell has every since of the nuance “fear” out of
reverence.  The same word is used in multiple passages in Scripture to
pertaining to fearing from a subordinates perspective.  But I’m
absolutely no Greek scholar so I would love to be corrected if that is
not so.

Regarding this quote:  “the sort of submission which requires any person to blindly obey without
question any other person is not love as Christ has commanded. ”

I hope no one walks away truly believing that we’re called to “blind
submission.”  Col. 3:18 which ends with “as is fitting to the Lord”
covers demands of sinful actions by sinful creatures.  I think it’s just
the
opposite.  A wide-eyed, discerning submission out of holy reference for
God’s created order and
modeled in Phil. 2:5 by Jesus Christ Himself.  Who was perfectly
submissive and perfectly wise and discerning.  Something to strive and
pursue, but we will never achieve here in this lifetime.  :)  My opinion
is anyone who claims it is a “blind submission” from the
complementarian camp, is an extremist, and should not be taken
seriously… or biblically for that matter. :)

Kim that is a great question it is more of an extrapolation that since the church met in her house she had some form of leadership. Not dirrect I know but still widely acepted by many. 

Matthew 5:17 onwards: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” and so on…

Jesus certainly did not bring in a whole new covenant – the new covenant is the fulfillment of the old. He did not bring in whole new teachings – “Love the Lord your God ith all your heart and love your neighbour as yourself” is the 10 commandments and the Law in condensed form. He did not clarify and set straight a lot of the old – that would suggest that God had got it wrong in the first place.

The same logic that allows us to treat certain Old Covenant Laws as inapplicable to us today can be applied to Paul’s letters. If the intent is clearly cultural, and if the outcome of treating a law as inapplicable does not breach the spirit of God’s law (that is that the people of God need have wholeness, holiness, integrity and life) then we can justify looking at particular instructions in a new light.

On this particular case, God gives people gifts to bring to the Church. 1 Corinthians 12 does not (as far as I know) have any gender specificity that would preclude the gifts belonging to both men and women.We are told in 1 John 4 to test the spirits. If God does not want women in positions of leadership, then he will not annoit any, and none will pass the testing. On the other hand, if God does want women in poisitons of leadership, then I for one am not going to stand in His way….. :-)

You misunderstand the Biblical meaning of the word ‘sin’, dear brother. Sin is sin . There are no levels and no degrees. Either we are perfect or we are not. Either we have ‘hit the target’ or we have not. We are alienated from God or we are not.
Sin is the imperfection that keeps us from the relationship with our Creator that He purposed for us.
Trespasses are the mistakes that a believer makes alond the way, once their sin is dealt with.
Crime is a world concept. Many things are ‘sinful’ but not ‘criminal’. You rightly point out that there are degrees of CRIME, and the punishments for different crimes are rightly in accordance with the severity of the offence.

It saddens me that you continue to use (even emphasise) the very statement that Vicky has repeatedly highlighted as dangerous and unhelpful. If you read  1 Corinthians you will find that it is VERY VERY clear that Paul was answering a list of questions that the Church has asked, posed because Judaisers had been trying to force gentile believers to follow the Talmud and the Mishna (both devised and written by men.) …. Gentile men who think that believing females should follow these rules are honour bound to do the right thing, show themselves to their priest and get themselves circumcised as soon as possible!!
may God bless you, soften your heart and open your eyes.

But Luke’s differentiations surely are descriptive rather than prescriptive aren’t they?  Luke, above all the other Gospels, champions women, the poor, oppressed, Gentiles, etc.  I don’t think he is prescribing intended gender roles so much as describing what they looked like.  Gosh, in rural SE England, there’s still a large percentage of families in which daddy works and mummy stays home.

Yes, of course they are descriptive, I’m not saying that the bible teaches only men should be shepherds!  All I am saying is that we see in Luke that there were women following Jesus and that he had something to say specifically for them as well as the men.  I think the significance of some of these women is more clear in Luke 8:2-3, where they are listed parallel to the 12 and their names are given.  This too is descriptive, but it speaks to something deeper going on.

I think it’s wonderful that you have these “blogs” where people can
express their opinion. I personally love that women can preach and lead
worship in my church. Mainly because it was the ministry
of two women that led me to Christ 20 years ago. In a day and age where
Christians are having less of a say in things (Happy Holidays, not Merry Christmas, we
are to refer to a Christmas tree as a Holiday tree and are not allowed
Christmas songs in school),  I don’t think it matters if it is a woman or
a man that is preaching the Word of God. The important thing is that
the Word is being preached and that it is being preached to as many people as possible. That is what Jesus wanted.  Matthew 28:19-20  says ” Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,  and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” If someone has never heard the Word of God, then I don’t think it matters if it is a man or a woman that preaches it.  The important thing is that they hear the Gospel from someone and give their lives to Christ. May God bless you Vicky

My line of thinking is:
1)  Jesus had male disciples and female disciples. (Acts 8:2-3; Luke 10:39, etc.)
2) Deacons were leaders in the church (Acts 6 the all-male deacons were put “in charge” of food distribution)
3) Women became deacons in the early church and were seen by their pagan neighbours as leaders in the church.
4) Any modern theology that does not allow a similar trajectory is in error.

I agree that Fee is a tremendous scholar.  His commentary on Corinthians is first class.

Thanks for chiming in, Mark.  Love the verse.  It reminded me that I forgot to add that my statement of “fathers and mothers” are in the spiritual sense, just as we are brother and sister in the spiritual sense.  That’s why I believe Paul told Timothy not let anyone look down on him because he’s young.  Timothy had a  spiritual maturity of an adult even though his physical age was young.  Even at a young physical age, Timothy received his spiritual gift through prophecy when the elders laid hands on him (1 Tim 4).  With that said, single men and single women should never feel as if they don’t matter.  If they are walking in the Spirit, they are our spiritual parents.

Something else to add to the discussion is that Junia in Romans 16:7 is a female apostle!  Of course, many will argue that it’s not well proven, but deeper studies into the name reveal that Junia was indeed a woman, and most translations state “among the apostles” which to me means she was one of them (and an outstanding one according to the verse).

Vicky,
Something that comes to mind every time this debate comes up is the repentance of those who change their “policy” regarding women in church leadership.  Over the years, I have witnessed congregations move from dogmatic “women cannot be _____”, and years later the same congregations have female worship leaders, female Sunday School teachers, female ushers, etc.  Through my observations, not much is said about why the leaders change the policy, they just change it with nothing really said as to why.  It’s like a “stealth” mode of allowing women to minister as God has gifted them without an admission of “being wrong” in handling God’s Word.  No apologies, no public statements, no confessions; just changed policy.

With that said, do you think men who have made these policy changes should seek the forgiveness of the women they have prevented from operating fully in the Holy Spirit?  Please understand, I’m not bashing men here at all.  I’m looking more for the confession-forgiveness-reconciliation between the genders operating together in Christ’s ministry.  Hope all that made sense.

You must understand (especially as a new Christian like myself), that it is very difficult to interpret passages like -
“12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 1 Timothy 2:12–14″

“2 Therefore
an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,
sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,” 1 Timothy 3:2
 
“5
This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order,
and
appoint elders in every town as I directed you— 6
if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of
debauchery or insubordination.” Titus 1:5-6

“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto
them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the
law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for
it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”1 Corinthians 14:34-35

- Any other way than how they are written. I for one can find no other way to read these to discover a different meaning to them. A woman would have to ignore these verses in order to become a leader, I simply cannot see another way of reading them. The only alternative then, surley, is to assume that Paul was not guided by the Holy Spirit whilst writing, in which case, shall we discard his entire contribution to the New Testement?

In regards to Deborah -

“Judges Chapters 4-5. After 20 years of oppression, God told Deborah that it was
time to deliver the people once again. She appointed Barak to lead the army, but he was afraid to go without Deborah. She had deep
faith in God.  She united the people of Israel and lead them to victory against
the Canaanites.”

This passage above shows Deborah as a Godly woman who had great faith. She still however understood her limitations and appointed Barak to lead the army. This, you could argue, is a representation of the lack of faith amongst men at this time so in response, God uses a woman to liberate her people.

Also you will note she was the only woman to ever hold that position. Proving that God has the ability to raise woman up as leaders, however He does so only once. That in itself says a great deal about God’s intentions for leadership.

I’m very aware that during discussions like this we might be percieved as judgemental. I just want to clarify that, It’s not a case of judging. It’s simply trying my best to answer this question using the scripture God gave all of us, which I feel is very clear.

I have a wife and I don’t know how I could get through my life without her, however within our marriage we have different roles. Her role is essential, for without it I couldn’t perform mine. Although different, they are equally vital, this is very much a picture of our roles within church.

Heya :)

Just wanted to say its great reading all these comments. I’m a young man, and this has been a topic that has been in the back of my mind for a while now. Its something that I have been studying through scriptures and commentaries, and though I am way off being any expert on the topic, I felt it was something of importance to know as I prepare for manhood in Christ. 

To be honest, I really don’t have a stance on it at the moment, some days I feel one way on the issue and other days the complete opposite. I can see good arguments from both sides, and in all honesty I do feel very confused most of the time haha. 

But I know that by spending time with God in prayer and being surrounded by good role models I will eventually come to a conclusion, and if not then I’m still going to chase after Jesus and glorify him in my life :)

But thanks for all your input, its great stuff! :D

I am a wife, and mother to three children so am merely quoting a book on this topic, due to not having the time to study it in too much depth! I have found much help on this/ these ‘women’ issues from a book: ‘Woman The full Story’ – Michele Guinness.
On the I do not permit a woman to teach passage: ’1 Timothy 2 11-15 She writes:
” Authentin, the word tranlated as authority in the sentence “I do not permit a woman… to have authority over a man’, is particularly strong. It isn’t used anywhere else in the entire new testament, so there is no way of cross checking Paul’s meaning. In fact it it had no suggestion of usurping authority until the third or fourth century. In their intensive study of the verse, Richard and Catherine Clark Kroeger were forced to turn to greek drama for clues to it’s original meaning. They concluded that ‘authentin’ was in fact an extremely rare verb. Its literal meaning was ‘to thrust’, presumably with a sword, and it was used by Greek dramatists to refer to murder or suicide. In Greek mythology there was a close association between sex and death. Death was often the fate of the poor, benighted human who dared to mate with a goddess. The sword was also a phallic symbol, which gave ‘authentin’ a slang meaning at the time of Paul. It was in fact a rather coarse word for sexual relations/ Now why would a nice jewish boy like Paul, a rabbi at that, resort to such strong language? It would appear that these women in Ephesus were using their sexual charms to seduce and ensnare susceptible men, to entice them in as new followers of their heresy. This was not just erroneous. It was downright evil.
‘For Adam was formed first, the Eve,’ Paul continues. ‘And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.’ This has nothing whatsoever to do with superior male intellect or moral judgement. Nor is Paul suggesting that woman is more vulnerable or susceptible to sin. In fact, in his letter to the Corinthian church, Paul lays the blame for the fall firmly at Adam’s door. ‘For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive’ (1 Corinthians 15;22). Nor is Paul establishing a hierarchical order of creation. That would be a denial of the God-given equality of all human beings, irrespective of race or gender. Rather Paul is issuing an out-and-out challenge to the way certain women in Ephesus were manipulating the Genesis story. He had to explain to them that Eve was not the Earth Goddess (worshipped in Ephesus in a large temple at the time – Artemis) and couldn’t reproduce without a relationship with Adam.  At creation men were not given authority over women, nor were women given authority over men. Women were never intended to use their sexuality to control, subvert, manipulate or dominate men. Paul was setting the record absolutely straight. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that he told Timothy to silence this pernicious little group.
According to Gordon Fee, the Greek present tense “I do not permit’ may be more accurately translated in this context as i am not permitting here and now’, supporting the view that the verb is specific to the situation rather than a generalization. A woman is to ‘learn in quietness’, which Fee says doesn’t mean ‘not speaking’, for then no woman would ever be allowed to participate in worship at all, but rather, it means ‘with a quiet demeanour’.
Carefully translated in context, the verse begins to look like this: ‘I am not permitting these women to teach while they seduce men and claim they are the author of man. Instead they are to learn with humility, for Adam was created first, then Eve.’ In other words, they were not to be given a platform until they could prove they had learned the basics of true Christian doctrine and were disabused of their subversive, dangerous ideas. There would be no revealing clothes, no more eyeing up anything in a toga, no more flirting or suggestive behaviour, all condemned by Paul in the strongest terms (1 Timothy 2:9) Instead they would submit to learning a greater wisdom and truth.”
Does this help at all?

In order to interpret Biblical passages we need to consider several factors.

I have copied below the guidence from Spurgeon’s College on how to interpret Paul’s letters:

“a) First we ask ourselves what this chapter, or paragraph within which our particular verses are found, is about. What is the subject Paul is addressing. This will clarify the immediate CONTEXT of the particular verses we are going to explain. Obviously the whole context includes the whole book and the better we understand the structure and purpose of the whole book the better we will understand particular paragraphs and verses. But we need to pay most attention to the verses immediately before the ones we are going to explain in detail. These will indicate how the argument is going up to the point where our passage begins.
b) How does the writer now deal with this subject in our particular verses? This requires that we set out the shape or COMPOSITION of the passage we are explaining.
c) Now we consider the CONTENT of our verses. What needs to be explained? How can we explain that?
d) What CONTRIBUTION does the message of these particular verses make to the argument in these chapters?
e) What does this passage say to us, how does it CONTRIBUTE to what we have to learn and how we live?”

In particular the context is key – what was the Historical context? Who is Paul writing to, and why? What is his point? Are the errors he is addressing relevant to us today? And so on. What is the Literacry context? How do the passages fit into the whole book? For example 1 Corinthians 13 (all about love) is betwen chapters 12 and 14 (both about spiritual gifts). When we have an understanding of the context, then we can move on. It is a very dangerous starting point to assume from any Biblical passage (but especially letters) that they are written for us alone.

For a details analysis of Biblical interpretation principles I would recommend Fee and Stuart “How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth”.

Fee and Stuart also highlight New Testament passages which highlight women’s ministries in the Church:
Rom 16:1-2 where Phoebe is a deacon;
Rom 16:7 where Junia (not Junius as it is often mistranslated) is named among the apostles;
Rom 16:3 where Priscilla is Paul’s fellow worker (same word used of Apollos).

These passages stand against the ones you quoted, and therefore how do we decide which is most accurate, or best? We can’t without either deciding that the Bible has contradictions, or that instructions to different churches in different places at different times may have been different. That is not a contradiction, but a recognition of a basic truth.

And somehting to think about: Fee and Stuart is the course book for the ’Reading and Using the Bible” module of the training college for the Baptist ministry. We can therefore assume that the principles of interpretation given within are sound.

Actually, the Greek says, “Wives, to your husbands.”

I love that 1 Corinthians speaks of all of us being the recipients of the gifts of the Spirit. To me, that’s what a healthy, flourishing church looks like. Joel also speaks of God pouring out his spirit on men and women, and both prophesying. 

Luke – “to dismiss key passages as simply cultural takes away a great deal of the Authority of the Bible. Then you’re faced with the question, where do we stop cutting?”

If that method of interpretation is correct, then there are a LOT of things you need to adhere to! Hope you’re not wearing two kinds of fabric in your clothing, or eating any of the prohibited animals/seafood, or allowing women around you to take off their headscarves? 

As Christians today, we’ve dismissed the passages that seemed “very clear” in their endorsement of slavery to those who used the “Scripture is very clear” argument during the fight for Abolition. How would you differentiate the ways we DO let things go culturally?

Then an expert on the law stood up to test Jesus, saying, “Teacher, what must I do to get life forever?”

26 Jesus said, “What is written in the law? What do you read there?”

27 The man answered, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.” Also, “Love your neighbor as you love yourself.”

28 Jesus said to him, “Your answer is right. Do this and you will live.”

It must be impossible to love your neighbour (or cultural enemy as in the following good Samaritan parable) as yourself and keep them in slavery to yourself. Jesus in being the fulfilment of the law laid down his life for others as we must do also, keeping others in slavery is not laying down your life for them.

Vicky – I really don’t profess to be as educated as i’d like on these deep biblical issues, however there does appear to be a great deal of Black and White on this issue.

Alot of the old what you’re mentioning in from the old testement. In particular the unclean animals was changed with the new covenant. Peter has that vision of corse:
 
“9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”  14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”
 15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”
 16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven”

This is an excellent picture of the new covenent being layed down. With this now in place God commands Peter to eat of what was previously unclean, and I think we can assume that it can apply to two kinds of fabric also.

I for one am very thankful I can eat seafood :D

Good to see a healthy discussion and managed well by Vicky. Good job guys.

I haven’t had time to read all the comments so not sure if it’s been mentioned or not, but thought I might add something to it:

I find it really interesting that in the fall God goes looking after Adam, despite the fact that it was Eve who was the main instigator of the sin. To me, this signifies that God places man as being ultimately responsible for the state of the marriage.

In addition to this, the fact that God calls the husband to love his wife like he Jesus loves the church should put debates like this in context. I consistantly fail to love my wife like this and so this serves to draw me back to the cross time and time again knowing that I need his saving mercy and grace so much, regardless of whether or not I have a correct understanding of the role of women in ministry and in marriage.

I have issues with much of what you said, but for clarity sake will mention just one: the issue of Deborah. You say that God has the ability to raise a women up as leaders, but He did so only once. The reality is, in the OT we are only told about Him doing it once, but since it would be impossible to write down everything God did with/for Israel, we don’t know for sure that this is in fact the only woman he put in authority. And then, of course, there is the issue that if women in leadership was against God’s plan He would not have done so even once. The fact that God put a woman in the position of leadership of the
nation indicates that He isn’t as opposed to women in leadership as
complimentarians would have us believe.

Also, the fact that Deborah put Barak in charge of the army does not say she knows she is not able/supposed to lead; she was not a warrior/soldier, which is necessary to lead an army. It has nothing to do with gender, but with specific training.

One more quick thing about Deborah: I often hear the idea that Deborah was placed in leadership because there were no men that would do the job (similar to your statement that it was lack of faith in the men that caused Deborah to be appointed). If you think through that line of thinking, you must see that it is highly unlikely that in the entire nation there was not one man willing (or able, depending on how you think about it) that would do the job. I don’t know what the population was at the time, so I’ll grab a random number, let’s say one million men in the nation. Out of that, not one of them would do the job? VERY unlikely.

On a general note, it is important in this discussion to realize that both sides of the issue are in fact reading scripture and seeking what it truly says/means. Part of what makes that difficult is that we all study the issue through the filters we have in place. We have filters given by our culture (“Everybody knows women/men are…”), filters from our upbringing (“Mom always let Dad have his way,” “Mom never let Dad lead and it made us all miserable”), and filters from what we have been taught. When looking at any issue in scripture, we have to be aware of what our own filters are, as they make certain things seem like common sense/knowledge that aren’t necessarily so.

Are you aware that there are a number of women in leadership in the NT? No, not the 12 apostles that Jesus appointed, but there are a number of them are mentioned. Including one who taught a man. And one who is referred to as and apostle.

You bring up excellent points on Biblical interpretation, Chris, however on this particular issue of roles in church, you (and others) seem to be forcing it to be a historical/cultural issue, and I’m not sure you can make that case.  In 1 Tim 2 Paul makes it clear that the issue for women being covered by the men is not in any way cultural, but goes all the way back to the beginning of time.  It was the design and plan of God.  Paul says clearly why he is giving that instruction, and it transcends time and culture.

Vicky, as I alluded to above, the proper way to understand these concerns you have in interpreting commands of Scripture is to realize that each of God’s commands has an underlying truth behind it that is timeless, but is expressed in different ways with different cultures.  Our invisible God reveals Himself and His ways through pictures and shadows! So where the Jews of the OT were instructed to not have two kinds of fabric in their clothing, we look back and see that being clearly a picture of God’s people not being blended with the ways of the “world”, which is the timeless truth it represents:  He alone is to be the fabric of our life.  Another great example is the list of animals the Jews were forbidden to eat: notice they were scavengers… Shellfish are bottom dwellers that eat anything, and pigs roll in their own filth.  God declared, as a symbol to the world at the time, that His people would not have a part with these things (this was also God’s protection of them, as their cooking practices were not up to the standards we have today, and cooking pork improperly could easily cause sickness/death).  But the timeless truth is that God’s people are to be clean and set apart, not partaking in things of filth.
 
Now in the issue of headscarves, as Lukebarrs pointed out wonderfully, there was some serious issues with temple prostitution at the time.  Church women were to differentiate themselves and show they were not a part of that immorality, and Paul makes it clear it was not to be a contentious issue (not worth dividing over).  But even with headcoverings, there is a greater truth at work that Scripture makes clear… women are to be “covered”.   Just as the church is to be “covered” by Christ in all it does, as He is our head, the women are to be covered by the men in the areas of the home, in church, and in doctrine.  This does not mean dominated, oppressed, silenced… etc.  This means loved and nourished and encouraged to use their gifts for the glory of God, just as Christ encourages His church to express itself.  But just as each church operates as to what they think is right and good, they acknowledge that Christ has the final say in all they do, and trust Him to lead, cover, and protect.  No healthy church operates independently of Jesus’s authority.
 
Paul makes clear in 1 Tim 2 that there is a timeless truth that is still in effect today… because of the fall (not culture, and not context) a women should not teach or lead a group of men with final authority, and this is God’s design and plan for humanity.  This is because Eve was deceived, and Adam rebelled.  And just as there are consequences from that fall that are still in effect physically today (pain in childbearing, etc.), there are spiritual commands that God has put in place for His people (men covering the women) that remain. 
 
Now Vicky, there will always have be people who question God’s commands because it doesn’t make sense to them.  I’m sure there were Jews that said “Why would God not want us to eat this perfectly good pork??  He made it and it tastes great!”.  And there were probably those who said “No blended fabric?  That doesn’t make sense… it looks even better than plain fabric!”.   Eve in the garden probably said to herself “Why not eat this fruit.. it looks good, and it will make me more spiritual!”.   And Vicky, there will always be those who say “Why can’t women pastor churches and teach men?  They can do it just fine!”  There will always be that voice of opposition and “reason” to what God says to trust Him in.  God always gives us the choice to believe Him at His word, that He knows us and knows what’s best, or find a reason why He couldn’t really mean what He said, in order to justify our (often good) desires.  But sadly, Scripture is clear this always leads to death. 
 
I wish people would see this idea of covering does not mean hindering, oppressing, or stifling. Does Jesus do that with His church?  No… covering is loving, serving, laying our lives down for, protecting, and providing and sacrifically leading the women men are called to cover.  This is such a beautiful, God glorifying thing when practiced rightly.  And it takes faith.

But where does it say we need to be educated to preach?  Jesus chose some of the most uneducated imbiciles of His time to build His church upon. 

Paul lays his cards down and says the reason women can’t preach goes back to the fall (1 Tim 2) and the command and plan of God.   It’s not a cultural or educational issue.

Satan takes Jesus up in the mountain, and shows Him all the kingdoms of the world, and says, I will give these to you if you will only bow down, and worship me.

Here is a picture of our failing marriages today.

Here is another way to word what Satan just said:

“I will be your provider, and my only requirement is that you love me.”

Now remember that Satan was never created in the image and likeness of God like Adam was, and Jesus, the second adam was not even an image. He was God.

Now we know that marriage is not a type of Satan and the church, but rather, of Christ and His church. With that said, let’s look at what Jesus expressed through His life’s ministry towards His bride (us):

“If you will let me bow down to you, and become your servant I will remind you that you are my kingdom. My house is incomplete without you. You are my house. You are my increase. Without you there is no increase. There are no children. If you will let me lay down, and give my life for you, I will be your foundation. I will support you. I will push you higher. I will lend you influence and favor. I will build you up on my name, and everything I have is yours. I will always put you first. I will never leave or forsake you. There will be no shadow, no hint of turning. I will always allow myself to be vulnerable. I will always be willing to trust you again. I will defend your honor, and stand up for you. I will rebuke any tongue that rises up against you. I will pour everything I have into giving you vision, and rejoicing over you in your victories. I will be the husband who praises you in the gates. I will confess you before my father. I love you.”

You see, we were made in an image the enemy cannot, and will not ever understand. We weren’t made to be fulfilled in being loved. We were made like Him…to be fulfilled because we love.

If Jesus had to be loved to be fulfilled, He would be falling apart…but no, He loved us even while we were yet in our sins. He saw ahead, and the joy of that vision allowed Him to endure the pain of the cross. He was fulfilled in loving us…and we won’t be fulfilled until we look like Him.

If we want real revival we will have to die. Only those who lose their lives will find them.

Can a non-married man instruct the church in terms of marriage if he has never experienced it?  Is he going to instruct people while not knowing what it is like?  Are people going to feel confident going to him with their problems when he doesn’t know what they’re talking about?

Hi Dennis–thanks so much for taking the time to respond and I am thoroughly blessed by your desire to take everything into account–the full context of things.  Surely, the result can only be your spiritual muscles being worked to the fullest. 

You’ve brought up some great points.  I understand and appreciate what you’re saying, so bear with me as I try and respond.  Please know I don’t do this to try and sway you to my side, that would be very foolish of me and I wouldn’t necessarily want that done to me.  Matt 7 tells me to treat others in the way I want to be treated.

So my intent, however flawed will be to present my side as best as I can, but I’m very thankful to know that we are raise to life in Christ–the most important side.  :)
Dennis:  When the Bible lists different ministry roles (apostles, prophets,
evangelists, pastors tachers etc…) there is never a delinitation
between which gender can fulfill which role.

Me: Are you saying that when the bible lists these gifts, God never says that He appoints these roles to him or her such as in I Cor. 12:27-30?  Could that be because all actually can possess these gifts, but carried out in different *roles* under the authority established by God for church order?  From what I see in Scripture, Paul writes not only the order of gender roles (for the Corinthian church) but even goes into talking about the order of spiritual gifts in I Cor. 14.  So in my opinion, Paul’s saying, “Listen up Corinthian church, you guys are so out of whack you can’t even get these rich spiritual gifts in order so I’m sending this letter to clean house and let’s do this, not by encouraging everyone to do everything, but by reordering everything in the Corinthian church.”

So that, is specific to the Corinthian church, which I think both camps would readily agree.  But following your great example of desiring to broad brush things, (historically in Scripture, why do we not read explicit instructions regarding home and church authority… or at least one clear, solid example in Scripture of Paul (or other NT writers) putting thing back into order via letter, appointing as clearly as Paul (or other Apostles) appoint men to positions, women?  Or a woman for that matter.  I know if we read into Lydia’s life, she could certainly have been a leader, some other women, etc., but if this was such an important issue, so important that Paul, in the book of Ephesians relates it back to the work of Christ Himself, why doesn’t he write it as clearly about women than he does about men.  This has always puzzled me and until I read somewhere the clear instruction, I can only go by the explicit wording in Scripture.

Since the Church is Jesus’s and he and the other writers are getting things right when it refers to something as important as the sacraments and teaching, not head coverings and whatever a person eats (personally, I think Paul and Peter address that quite easily.  Paul addresses eating liberties in Rom. 14 (no one is supposed to judge each other because of it) and Peter addresses it I Peter 3:3)) but to me those are not sweeping statements or patterns set up in the church *as much as orderly church service* (established by Paul) and *orderly homes (established by Peter.)

Dennis: Therefore I ask again does authority come in the sacraments or the teaching of God’s word.

Me: I think the bible speaks to women not having authority over men in the home (Eph. 5:22) and the church (I Cor. 14:34-35) which would include the sacraments and teaching of God’s Word, but would also include other responsibilities in the church.  No authority because the focus is not on the liturgy or the text, but on God who raises up leaders (Rom. 13:1) for His divine purposes.

Dennis:
I know this is supposed to be biblically based discussion but if the
church did not have the Bible as we now know it until well into the 4th
century what was the standard used up until that point?

Me:  I’m confused by this question.  Are you asking up until the 4th century what did churches do or what standard did they use?  Thanks for taking the time to clarify.

I’ve honestly not heard that it was solely Adam’s fault regarding the original sin curse.  But if that is the case, what do we do with passages like I Tim. 2:14, “And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.”?  But I definitely desire you to clarify for me because I don’t want to pretend like I completely understand what you’re saying.

Thanks for the rich and charitable exchange Dennis.  Blessings for a wonderful day in Christ!  :)

Kim

This is an awesome discussion that’s going on.  Thought I’d drop some of my own thoughts in the mix.  The issue of women in leadership has always fascinated me – I know what I’ve been taught about it, I know what I’ve read about it – I’ve also seen in action, great leadership and abysmal leadership and neither are the preserve of one particular gender.  I remember seeing a televised debated just before the ordination of women, and an old rosy nosed vicar, sat in his cassock and spat out across the nation that for women to be ordained as priests would be an act of transvestism!  As this was in my younger years, I watched the telly and thought – ‘There’s a dude in a dress, chatting about women being transvestites… awkward.’ 

I remember meeting some american girls from the bible belt on mission who avidly believed that because they were girls, they couldn’t lead anything… They did some phenomenal youth work in those few days, and it frustrated them no end when I tried to encourage them by saying… ‘You led that so well.’  

The big problem for me is that somebody always wants to be on top – granted, guys have held the key positions at the top of our oligarchic church structures (some steering us gallantly into the depths of decline… some have done rather well)  and part of me thinks, well maybe it is time for the ladies to have a stab at it.  But I’m not sure that’s the answer either… 

I know when I’ve read into some of this, I’ve realised there’s a depth of cultural context that the epistles were written into, most of which, I don’t really full grasp… cos I wasn’t there.  

I find something resonant in scripture regarding the beauty of oneness – community functioning in shalom.  I see a creative God who crowns His creation with a man and a woman who were created in the image of God – fully masculine – fully feminine, a triune community without inequality.  (we don’t say that when God leads, he is Father – when he nurtures, he is mother)  I see a God who raise Christ from the dead and seated him in the heavenly realms. (Eph 1:20) and then we, the church, his bride have been raised up with Christ and seated with him in the heavenly realms too.  There’s a co-heirship with Christ who died to afford that inheritance and privilege.  Men are then exhorted to treat their wives in the same way.  The fullness of that out working is so different to what I see around me in the church.  

At the very least it feels like our framework is broken, reminiscent of the fearful children of Israel, trembling at the smoking mountain and saying , ‘No, Moses – you go for us.’ dashing God’s intention that they would be a nation of priests (Ex 19)  another thing the new covenant has afforded us.  For me, this symphonic connection of Gods people resonates through Joel’s prophecy that the Spirit of God would be poured out on all flesh, not just the flesh with an appendage in the midriff.  The doctrine of the gifts of the spirit are in no possible interpretation gender specific.  God giving gifts so that the church can be built up.  Gifts to edify, fruit to enable us to get on.  (a good portion of my fruit is spent on my wife… I’m sure the same is for her) The foundation of the church is built upon the apostles and the prophets – two – word and spirit.  Moses and Elijah, Zerubbabel and Joshua (Zach)- two witnesses (Rev).  

I don’t know many people who would actually say that women can’t lead in any context – we are happy for them to lead and teach in what’s probably our most strategic gathering – the kids groups (in which case – most of the scriptures that people quote to limit the role of women in the church have been selectively applied).  What people seem to take issue with is a woman being in an absolute position of authority.   Maybe the reason this debate feels so circlic is because we are talking about elevating certain women in to positions that really, men shouldn’t be in  either.  Maybe if we have just a man or just a woman lead… we miss out.  As much as there’s a difference between democracy and autocracy – there’s a difference between autocracy and theocracy.  I know some people think decisions can’t be made unless you have a clear leader, or even a ‘primus inter pares’, a first among equals… but what if that’s just not true?  And what if consciously of sub-consciously too much effort has been made to preserve the roles and titles that get banded about the higher echelons of our church communities.  Christ is the head of the church… 

Mat 23

   8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant.  

What would happen if a new movement of leadership worked together to hear God, follow his Spirit.  Not managers and presidents, but fathers and mothers, grand parents, aunts and uncles – an extended family.  And then, when it all goes well, there’s not some guy or girl, sitting at the top of the pyramid taking all the credit, rather a community of people learning what it means to be seated in the heavenly realms with Christ, enjoying His favour and His love.  Call me a wooly liberal, but I’m grateful my mom and dad were both around to bring me up.  Maybe the church needs some parenting too.  

good idea andy, but doesn’t God appoint leaders all throughout Scripture?  it’s as if His spirit moves through the structures and peoples He’s designated.  i think too, that in order to rightly follow “God”, we need a right image of God… the trinity.  Separate roles and functions, but equal in essence and value, all in submission but working in harmony.

mabye our framework doesn’t need to be thrown out, but redeemed.

Melanie, I do realize that Peter’s vision was used to explain that, but it surely had a little to do with food as well! ? So, yes, it made sense. + Blessings to you too.

You obviously missed the “:-)” at the end of that first sentence. If you want me to take your argument seriously, I suggest you refrain from any further ad hominem “tainted by sin” stuff. Yes, I am tainted by sin. So are you. That’s what Jesus was all about, right? 

Hey Brian, I don’t profess to be a part of any camp, but I have some thoughts to share on the questions you addressed.  Thank for your patience.

1.  In Genesis 3, people tend to overlook the fact that Adam was standing there beside Eve the entire time Satan was “tempting” her (verse 6).  So Adam had full knowledge of everything that was going on.  I’m not sure exactly how this applies to men being the “cover” of women, but I know this is often used as an example of how women are “so easily deceived.”  God also says in Gen 3 that a wife’s desire will be for her husband, and the husband will rule over her.  This has also been misinterpreted, in my opinion.  I’ve read that the word for desire means “to devour” because that word is compared to the same Hebrew word used in Gen 4:7 (sin “desires” to have you).  However, the same Hebrew word for desire is also found in Song of Solomon 7:10 (“I long for my beloved, his desire is for me.”)  So, why is it that when a woman “desires” her husband, she seeks to devour, but when a husband desires his wife, it’s relational?  It does not make sense.  The best understanding of Gen 3 is prophetic to the current debate.  Women desire their husbands, not in a controlling way but in a relational way.  Yet, men still rule over them.  Paul addresses this issue in Ephesians 5.  Paul is not saying that men should rule over their wives.  He says husbands should lay their lives down for their wives just as Christ did for the church; a lesson Adam did not know at the time.

2.  May I ask this question before addressing: when we say “roles in the church,” are we looking through the lens of the Western church?  In my observation, the Western church looks nothing like the church in scripture.  There is more hierarchy in today’s church (more like the 4th century church at the time of Constantine) rather than the healing-the-sick, raising-the-dead church of the 1st century.  So, I can’t answer that because it all depends what kind of lens we are looking through.

3.  Again, I think this question is looking through the lens of the Western church.  It’s not about “roles.”  It’s about applying the gifts.

4.  This is touchy because there are many people I love in this situation.  Whenever a relational element is missing in the family, it is very tough to make up the gaps.  In these cases, we have no choice but to ask God to fill in the gaps.  When a dad is missing from the family picture, the woman and children must learn to look to God as their Father (as we all should).  We also look to the church to help (serve the widows and the single mothers).  When a mom is missing from the family picture, we must learn to look at the body of Christ.  Jesus said “those who do the will of my Father in Heaven are my mother and my brother and my sister.”

5.  The common business practice is a hierarchical structure.  The person on top has the power and the pull to make final decisions, even if this person is surrounded by a bunch of counsel.  Can a company survive with each person having equal say, submitting one to another?  Absolutely!  A good example is W.L. Gore & Associates.  The company is more well known for making Gortex clothing.  Skiers and military know their products well.  The CEO is a woman, and the company is based on submission to one other.  There is no hierarchy.  The only reason why they have a “CEO” is because she is the PR person when others want to learn more of the company.

My main question I have with the entire “women in ministry” issue is, how much does the church today look like the early church?  The church has become so Westernized that there is very little resemblance between then and now.  I would love to see today’s church miraculously heal people, raise the dead, etc as Christ gave us the authority to do.  The church really must wake up and understand the authority Christ died to give us.  Without nurturing the spiritual gifts, the church is powerless.  Just some thoughts.  Thanks for the dialog.

So Stephen you’re basically saying: 1. The Bible isn’t true in its entirety 2. God and the Gospel are weak, and are therefore subservient to culture  3&4. The Creator and His creation have nothing to do with each other (ala Plato) 5. (This question was geared towards marriage (who leads?))

Thanks for your perspective!

I’m game. :)

1) God rebuked Adam for listening to his wife in Genesis 3, but explicitly told Abraham to listen to HIS wife in Genesis 21. The problem is not listening to one’s wife. The problem is that Adam listened to his wife instead of to the clear command of God. I believe Paul’s reference in 1 Tim 2 is about Eve’s deception, and that he is applying it to an instance of deceived women in Ephesus who were trying to teach. I hope to explain that in a separate comment soon. 

That said, I am not opposed to the idea that a husband is supposed to protect and lead his wife, even in a primary sense, but neither do I believe it is a completely one-way street.

2) I could answer this question with another question: Jesus absolutely esteems Gentiles throughout Scripture, clearly intending to call them forth into the same kind of relationship with Him as Israel, and no doubt God gives Gentiles gifts, talents, and abilities with which to bless the Church.  But if Jesus really desired Gentiles to have the same roles in the church as Jews, why did Jesus personally choose 12 Jews on which to found His church? 

I understand that the Jew/Gentile barrier is more frequently and clearly addressed through the rest of the NT, but my point is to simply note that Jesus’ choice of the Twelve was clearly restricted beyond their gender alone, and so it’s questionable to say that their gender was a direct statement for how the rest of church history should work.

3) I have really only heard one or two people in my life who claimed that there was no difference at all between men and women, and they were in rather trollish comments on a message board. So I think it’s worth clarifying that no one is trying to make the case that men and women are the same. From my perspective as an egalitarian, the point is not that *every* man and *every* woman should have all the same roles in all contexts and in all seasons. The point is that being a man does not automatically qualify for leadership, and being a woman does not automatically disqualify. Which one can give birth to a baby and which one can go #1 while standing up seems like it doesn’t have much to do with who can preach on Sunday morning or oversee the checkbook. Men and women are different; the question is whether or not those differences affect ministry callings and home life the way that complementarians claim.

4) I don’t like to answer these kinds of questions, honestly, because they are purely speculative, and there’s no way to objectively answer it. Men *can’t* have children, and mothers *aren’t* fathers. If things were different, well, then things would be different, and I suppose would follow any arbitrary rules we had set up for the way they should work. 

Households who have to raise children without either parent is certainly sub-optimal, but how those kids turn out depends wildly on the family. Again, though, the question is not “Do children need a father?” (which they clearly do), but “How does that translate into church leadership/family structure?” 

5) I could ask these question with some questions, too: Are healthy, heart-level friendships one way, or reciprocal? How long do such arrangements last if one person is seen as dominant over the other? How often do close friends feel the need say, “You know, we really need to establish who is the leader here”? And is marriage more like a deep friendship or a business arrangement? Right now, I live with two roommates, we are very close friends, and none of us is the “leader”, and we’re doing just fine–even when making decisions on things like splitting up housework and bills. Granted, roommate-level relationships are nowhere near as intimate as marriage–but neither is a business partner. So I think the whole analogy falls rather flat.

Melanie, thank you for your gracious and intelligent response.  If I may, I have a few responses to your response:1.  My question was more about God’s reaction to Adam: Adam is specifically cursed for “listening to” or following the lead of His wife.  Peculiar, isn’t it?  Eve commits the first sin, but Adam gets the blame and is cursed for letting her lead in spiritual things.  Regarding your point on “desire”, yes, I can see what you’re saying with some of the translations of that word, but in this particular context of Scripture it is interpreted as “to devour”, or more clearly, “to rule over or control” and has been viewed this way for centuries.  So if you look at the sentence with the proper definition, it makes perfect sense:  “Your desire will be for him (you will want to control or lead), but he will rule over you (he will be the one to lead)”.  And on your last point, I totally agree and think a right definition of “lead” and “head” is crucial to this discussion.  As leaders, men are called not to “rule over” as in dominate or control, but to be an example, to serve, protect, provide for, preserve well-being of the women.  When looked at in its proper light, I think it should help some of the egalitarians relax some, and see the beauty in God’s design.2.  I’m familiar with many of the differences between the modern ”Western” church vs Eastern, Eastern Orthodox, etc.  I agree, the practices can be quite different between them.  But nobody is arguing that women can’t practice Christianity… we’re all called to feed poor, heal the sick, pray, prophesy, and share the Good News. While Western tradition may have overemphasized hierarchy to a fault, we can’t say there is no order, structure, or hierarchy modeled or commanded in Scripture.  Especially in light of verses like Eph 5:23 and 1 Cor 11:23, and Romans 13.  The even greater question is, though, why Jesus saw fit to appoint 12 men to be trained to lead His church, which speaks volumes regardless of the lens you see it through. 3.  My question actually is about “roles” though.  That’s why in the same verses that Paul instructs women not to teach over men, he then immediately balances it by reminding us that women are the ones called to childbearing.  Once we see that God indeed does create us different, to fufill different roles He has for us, it becomes easier to understand complementarianism. But simply, if God really sees us all as “equal”, why is the woman given the sole role of bearing children (and not the man)?  4.  I agree this is a touchy subject, as there was a period of time where my sister and I grew up without our father in the home (we’ve since been reconciled, praise God).  It sounds like you also agree and see the need for a dad & a mom in the home, as each brings something to the family that only they uniquely can bring.  Now, can the gaps be filled in if one is absent? Absolutely.  Can women lead in the church when men are absent and neglecting their responsibilities?  Sure!  (Think: Deborah in the OT).  But this debate is about what God’s “ideal” is, what He commands us to do, and the pattern He sets.  Just because a mom can raise 3 boys and 2 girls by herself, doesn’t mean that God’s best is achieved by her doing so.  And just because a woman can teach over a man and do well at it, doesn’t mean it’s in line with God’s design.5.  This question was specifically geared towards marriage, with the idea of the husband being called to be the final decision maker in important matters of disagreement.  But in general, I think my point still stands… a true democracy rarely exists for long, and where it does exist, there is usually terrible inefficiency and constant division (hey, kinda like some marriages!).  Your example of W.L. Gore is perplexing though, as they still have the title of CEO… CHIEF EXECUTIVE Officer.  Why call someone chief if they’re only a PR person and everyone supposedly has equal say and position?  If I want a pay raise, and nobody else agrees with me, can I still give myself one?  ”Equal” say quickly becomes a challenge.  :) I’m actually familiar with Gore, and they operate under what’s called a “Team Based, Flat Lattice Organization”… which is an interesting business model, as it is somewhat like I believe a church should operate (less bureaucracy).  Even though the titles are gone, Gore still has leaders, managers and decision makers for sure.   Melanie, I am in complete agreement with you that the church today has much to improve on in order to look like the early church.  But what if God’s plan is to manifest Himself through His church only when the church becomes a better reflection of Him?  And what if we are dropping the ball because we can’t figure out exactly what that reflection should look like?  They say the Trinity is the perfect image of God, and even within the Trinity there is definite equality but obvious hierarchy.  Why are we so afraid of hierarchy?  Sure, it’s been absolutely abused by sinful men, but that doesn’t mean we throw it out.  Let’s redeem it, that Glory of God might be shown again!  Thanks for listening, God bless!

Most of us read that as a “smile”, showing you are happy about what you wrote.  What does a :-) mean to you? 

My “tainted by sin” comment was not ad hominem towards you, but merely a guess as to why you keep reading things into Scripture and doctrine that aren’t there.  So unless you have a better explanation for your style of argument, it will be hard for me to take *you* very seriously.

Great point Adam!  But a complementarian believes the same things (and actually emphasizes them) while still maintaining it’s the man’s role or calling to do this as head.  This is similar to Jesus, where He pours Himself out for us to make us great, He serves us, He blesses us… but we are still called to be under His covering and follow Him whereever He leads.

Tackling another passage – 1 Timothy 2

I think it is important to remember the cultural context of Ephesus, the city Timothy was stationed in when Paul wrote to him. Ephesus was home of the temple of Artemis–one of the longest-standing and biggest goddess cults of all time. The temple literally dominated city life. It controlled many of the fisheries in Ephesus, was a place of refuge for accused criminals, had a museum, boosted the economy of the city through tourism and the sale of idolatrous trinkets, and functioned as a bank. Because it was a goddess cult, women had many natural inroads into becoming active participants in the rituals.

It is also important to note that, in 1 Timothy (as with the other Pastoral Epistles, 2 Timothy and Titus), Paul is not writing to a church at large, but to the leader of the church in particular. Paul is writing to Timothy, his “true son in the faith”, and giving him advice on how to oversee the church in that city. This means that Paul was not spouting random theological facts; he was addressing real needs and real circumstances that his dear young friend Timothy was really up against. So while it is absolutely true that this book contains universal truths, relevant to us today, we have to understand what it meant to Timothy *first* before we can rightly understand what it means to us.

From other pastoral passages, we can see that Ephesus was in significant danger from false teachers and deception (1Tim 1:3-7, 19-20; 4:1-4; 6:3-5,20-21; 2Tim 3:1-9; 4:3-4)–and these false teachers seemed to particularly target women, or at least have unusual impact on them (2Tim 4:7, 2Tim 3:6). Younger widows were becoming idle and in danger of falling away from the faith (4:11-15).

When Paul is addressing the men and then the women in 1Tim 2, I believe he is addressing specific problems they were having. For instance, although the men were the ones told to pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands without wrath and doubting (2:8), one would be hard pressed to say that it isn’t something that women, in general, should also do. So why did Paul address just the men? I believe it’s because *these* real men, in real, historical Ephesus, were having issues with it. 

In any case, Paul says that the women should “In like manner also” be adorned in modest clothing (“In like manner” presumably indicating, “in prayer”). Again, the exhortation to modesty could be equally applicable to the men and women, but the singling out of the women indicates a specific problem in Ephesus. It could be that Paul is urging them not to come to church dressed like they were going to the temple of Artemis.

When Paul says, “Let a woman *learn*,” it is worth noting that this was pretty revolutionary for 1st century Greco-Roman culture. “In silence and all submission” is how the women ought to learn–which is simply good student posture. It’s the opposite of learning with a boisterous and argumentative attitude. It’s a picture of teachability, the same way a student was to learn from a rabbi.

“I do not permit a woman to teach” is certainly difficult, but again, we have to remember that 1) Paul is addressing real-life, specific problems, and 2) This is in a city full of goddess worship. false doctrine, “old wives’ tales” and backsliding widows. 

Now we need to see that Paul also could have said this in a much stronger, more clearly permanent way. The word Paul uses is a first person present tense indicative (“I am not permitting”). He could have said it in the future tense indicative (“I will not permit”), which is much stronger. He could have said it as an imperative, making it stronger still (“Do not permit” or “You must not permit” or “The women must not”). Between the limited force of the verb, combined with the cultural background, I am very inclined to think this was a specific injunction for Ephesus in Timothy’s day due to the deception running rampant through the Ephesian women.

The fact that Paul goes on to bring up Eve reinforces this for me. There is nothing in the Genesis account that indicates Eve was being insubordinate–the only way to find that in there is to read wayyyy into it, based on an already-settled interpretation of 1Tim 2. Paul brings up Eve one other time in the New Testament (2 Cor 11:3), and the issue at stake is deception, not authority/submission.

This would explain why the women are not to teach, but ARE to learn: They are currently deceived. Just like Eve’s deception led to a really, really bad chain of events, these first-century “Eve’s” were trying to spread their deception around through their teaching. I believe the reference to Adam being created first speaks not to priority, but to maturity–Eve was not created yet when Adam received the command about the forbidden fruit (Gen 2:16-17), and these women in Ephesus were new believers with a very weak grasp on the faith.

I believe this explains the “saved through Childbirth” line. Just like deceived Eve received the promise for her Seed to crush the serpent’s head, and thus redeem her, there was hope for these first-century “Eve’s” if they persevered in faith, love, holiness, and self-control in that promised Son. This not only explains why Paul brings childbirth up here, but reconciles it with his “salvation by faith” doctrine, and does not exclude single, barren, or bereaved women in the process.

I feel I have gone too long already, but it is also worth mentioning that the very “have authority over” (authenteo) is a very strong word that appears nowhere else in the NT, and probably means something closer to “usurp authority” (KJV, Calvin). Elsewhere, when Paul communicated a more neutral or positive idea of having authority, he uses the word exousia/exousiazo.

Wrapping up for tonight, but those are my thoughts. :)

Ahh! Sorry for my horrible formatting… somehow all my paragraph breaks disappeared, grr. 

So you’re off the hook on your stuff too.  ;)

Ah, I see. I am so tainted by sin that I am incapable of correctly interpreting Scripture. Hmm. Argument over. Bye.

Is it the same as saying – I can’t believe Jesus was the one on the cross, why him and not the Father or the Spirit? There are different roles. I’m not persuaded that the difference between men and women is just something arbitrary – perhaps God made us in his image different from one another for  a purpose – never in a way that would make men better or women lesser, but so that our lives might be an object lesson to reveal his love to the world… 

We might similarly ask, why does it get dark at night, why does the sun rise…  why do women carry babies, why do we taste, see, hear… why does it rain, why is anything as it is (Jonathan Edwards explores this in his notebooks on “Images of Divine Things”). To which the answer is (in Psalm 19) to reveal his glory (i.e. his great love). Could it be that asking men to do one thing, and women another might be a way of showing his great love in a beautiful way that we would never design but he might?

The church is after all the place where the manifold wisdom of God (i.e. Christ) is gloriously being revealed – it’s not just a business or an organisation, it’s something altogether more wonderful and peculiar and divine than that.

Hi Dave,

Thanks for your response to my comment, and I agree with your point about God revealing his glory in different ways through different people, but I suppose I have known too many women who have the gifts of teaching and leadership to be able to see a clear gender-related dividing line when it comes to roles within church (or in any other area of life, really). Hence, the idea of complementarianism just doesn’t make sense to me and doesn’t sit well in my soul. And I’m still left wondering why God would give these gifts to women, yet not allow them to exercise them because they’re woman. For me, it just doesn’t gel with the way that Jesus seemed to go out of his way to erase a lot of the lines that were being used to justify the exclusion and oppression of various people groups in Jewish culture at the time.

Right now, Matthew 7:15 – 19 comes to mind:

“15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.”

I’m sure there are churches with complementarian views and churches with egalitarian views that are bearing good fruit right now; it just saddens me to think that there are women (and men) who (for all sorts of reasons) are not being encouraged to serve God to their fullest potential with the gifts that he has given them.

@f27eb6260c4b9239b205603d16cb7c12:disqus Oh the things that click right after hitting “send”! I just re-read your point on the “church was not originally male” thing for maybe the fifth and finally got it. So please kindly disregard that part of my reply. It’s past my bedtime, I think!

I think you have misunderstood what I wrote: Paul calls for _mutual_ submission of husbands and wives. Then he calls for wives to submit to their husbands as they would to Christ (i.e. it’s not just blind obedience) Then he calls for husbands  to love their wives, which includes not insisting on their own way. He is building a very nuanced picture of mutuality under the headship of Christ.
By the way, using language like “ripped a sentence right out of your Bible” is not constructive in this kind of debate. If you don’t accept that I’m approaching the text with as much respect and attention as you yourself are then it’s much more difficult to continue the debate.

I think what we have to look at here is the prophecy itself.  The dream was very prophetic; Cornelius was the first of many Gentiles to fulfill that prophecy in Acts 10.  When it comes to prophecy, God uses the physical to explain the spiritual.

Another “food” example is when God had Ezekiel eat the scroll (Ez 3).  Because God asked Ezekiel to eat the scroll, should we presume we should eat the Bible?  Of course not!  Same reasoning for Peter.  When God interpreted the dream to Peter, not once did God say he changed the “pork law.”  :-)

Again, we have to look at God’s laws as a protection for us and not a list of rules and regulations to earn his approval.  Moses stated over and over again to the Israelites, that it’s not about the LAW, it’s about fearing and loving God.  The law was given to them to prosper them physically and financially.  Also, David wrote in Psalm 119:160, “All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal.”  David understood God’s laws preserve our lives.

I don’t mean to take the OP in a different direction.  Maybe Vicky can start a thread about how we view God’s laws.  I’m sure that will elicit a ton of response as the “women in ministry” topic.  :-)

Blessings to you!!

Hi Vicky

you missed out 1 corinthians 11 on your list that explains a lot of things concerning men and women in the church.

Indeed Jesus did choose uneducated men – but they spent up to 3 years learning from Jesus, living with Him, they knew His message – though I do get your point. But Paul was writing to a particular church at a particular time, in a city where women were preaching men were below women, in a culture where women were uneducated. The bigger message behind what Paul wrote was that uneducated people shouldn’t be teaching, Paul didn’t want a false teaching being taught. When Paul talks about the fall He was writing to a church in a city where the cult of Diana was teaching women were above and better than men, or superior to them. He talked about the fall to teach that women and men were both equal – not women above men. He said it not to demean the role of women, but to redress the balance.

“This is written at a time when women were property of men.  Pretty much slaves themselves.”

2 Peter 1:20   Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 

When people say that the Bible is speaking to a cultural situation and it isn’t for today then I believe that is a private interpretation that not everyone shares.

How do you know the Old Testament is written for you?  If the Bible is just cultural then how much of the Bible is written to you?  I mean, how do you know Matthew wasn’t written to the Jews and not you?  How do you know that the book of Acts just wasn’t written to Theophilus and not you?  How do you know that the book of Corinthians wasn’t just written to the Corinthians and not you? 

If you want to approach the Bible culturally then people end up not believing any of the Bible and other people who use these cultural arguments are usually (not all) atheists.  When you start giving these arguments then I would have to believe none of the Bible to be consistent.

My other question is that if the Bible is only cultural then isn’t it time for those commands to cease?  Then why does the Bible say that the word of the lord endures forever?

1 Peter 1:25   But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. 

If headship is not our example then why does the Bible say these things were written for our example?

Romans 15:4   For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope. 

1 Corinthians 10:11   Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples (an example): and they are written for our admonition (our exhortation), upon whom the ends of the world are come. 

But the Bible is written to disciples and anyone can be a disciple (a learner and a follower).

Matthew 28:20   Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen. 

We’re admonished to teach the full counsel of God (Acts 20:27).

Acts 20:27   For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. 

The Old and New Testaments are scripture.

1 Timothy 5:18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer [is] worthy of his reward. Paul links scripture with Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7 (New Testament) because “…men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.”

1. If Jesus, Paul, and many other NT figures spoke of accounts in Genesis as if they were true, then on what basis do you conclude they’re just “myth”?  Wouldn’t Jesus have been insane for warning of impending destruction ”like Sodom & Gomorrah”, or wouldn’t Paul be out of his mind for basing church practice and doctrine on “stories” like Adam and Eve?  Perhaps we can trust Jesus and Paul, and those things really did happen

2. Jesus ”wanted to make sure his message would be listened to… so he chose men”?  Where do you get that idea anywhere in Scripture?  3&4. My point was physical and biological differences are created by God, they’re not just “biological” as if they were separate from the Creator.  Biology came from somewhere, correct?  And maybe that same Someone who created biological roles for men and women also has different roles in His church. Connect the dots.

Sounds like we’re on the same page and I was misunderstanding the intent of your point.  Thanks for clarifying.

Thanks Jody! :)

“I’m still left wondering why God would give these gifts to women, yet not allow them to exercise them because they’re woman”  – there are limits on every ministry though. Doors are closed on everyone somewhere… I’d like to think that even if a gifted person doesn’t get to teach in every context they get to teach in the context they’re called to. We had an university professor in our church (now a Cambridge Chair) who taught the infant school kids but never preached to the whole church…  

I appreciate if a line is drawn by gender that feels different, but its not like everyone has every opportunity without that – I was never going to be allowed to study at Oxford Uni, I may never get to preach on the main stage at a major conference – and I certainly wont get to lead worship in that kind of context (I can’t sing!). Even if my maleness means it might theoretically be possible, many doors remain shut – but God does call me to certain things.

I suppose the point is – if God meant gender for something (presumably could have designed us differently…) then maybe that’s a very important thing, and that somehow highlighting difference might serve to reveal more of his love than suppressing difference? 

“there are women (and men) who (for all sorts of reasons) are not being encouraged to serve God to their fullest potential”  – certainly works both ways doesn’t it. We need to release the whole body of the church to serve, and probably that means downgrading the importance of the Sunday preacher – or at least, removing the idea that it’s the only valuable ministry to do. Highly honourable and worthy of great honour – but such leaders aren’t the ministers, they prepare the saints for ministry…

Hi Dave,

“I’d like to think that even if a gifted person doesn’t get to teach in
every context they get to teach in the context they’re called to. We had
an university professor in our church (now a Cambridge Chair) who
taught the infant school kids but never preached to the whole church… I appreciate if a line is drawn by gender that feels different …”

Absolutely. :) When the line is drawn by gender (rather than ability/gifting/calling etc) it does feel very different. Many women feel devalued in churches today because it’s the fact that they’re women that bars them from serving in areas they feel called to. We have several women in our church who regularly preach and/or lead our services, but in the church down the road they would not even be allowed to share their testimonies in a service. We recently had one family from that church join our congregation and the wife commented that she felt as if she had been ‘set free’ because she can now pray aloud without fear of reprimand. That makes me feel very sad (but also glad that she and her family have now joined us).

“Even if my maleness means it might theoretically be possible, many doors remain shut – but God does call me to certain things.”

Imagine what it would feel like if you were told that even though you have the gifting, even though you feel called, you can’t serve in those ways because you’re a man. :)

“I suppose the point is – if God meant gender for something (presumably
could have designed us differently…) then maybe that’s a very
important thing, and that somehow highlighting difference might serve to
reveal more of his love than suppressing difference?”

I’m not against acknowledging difference. What I don’t like the idea of is gender difference obscuring individual gifting/calling. Also, I think that a complementarian view of women’s roles within church may hinder our evangelistic efforts, especially with regard to the current generation of young people who have been raised in an equal opportunities culture.

“We need to release the whole body of the church to serve, and probably
that means downgrading the importance of the Sunday preacher – or at
least, removing the idea that it’s the only valuable ministry to do.
Highly honourable and worthy of great honour – but such leaders aren’t
the ministers, they prepare the saints for ministry…”

I’m in total agreement with you there. :)

I became a believer in a brethren church and embraced a
highly reformed theology that included the understanding that women could not
lead or preach. The proof texts for this are well rehearsed. They were well
meaning, Godly men and women who were deeply concerned to protect and preserve
sound doctrine. They weren’t the enemy.

As a church planter I had a different and highly pragmatic
view and women preached. During this time as a student pastor, my elders and
senior leaders engaged with a complimentarian view and I came into line with
that.  Over time this view changed radically.  Its been a journey and a half!  There are difficulties wherever you stand on the debate but more I feel from a complimentarian position.

There are apparent contradictions. In Corinthians, women can
prophecy in meetings in 1 Cor 11:5 but then not speak in 1Cor  14:34?  Some say the latter is a later addition in the margins.  Others say it is a reference to
Corinthian legalists (ie Corinthians is a letter answering questions and here
Paul is simply re stating their position to him. Ie ‘you say…etc’ and then
bringing correction ie ‘did the word of God originate with you?’ in verses
36-39.) Others take it at face value.

There is also the appeal to Genesis in 1 Tim 2. This states
that women were deceived and God made Adam first.  (1Tim 2) This is applied in complimentarian churches by not
permitting women to teach adult men. 
However it is always
acceptable for women to teach children of either sex (the most vulnerable) or
go and lead mission teams oversees. 

Staunch complimetarians accept cultural contextual arguments for some texts but not it seems in the case of women in leadership.

It seems to me that there are many proof texts that if taken
out of context and at face value would cause serious difficulties for us, such
as execution by stoning.  There is
also no explicit prohibition against slavery in the bible.  However, we accept that there was a
general trajectory that led us to the understanding that slavery was/is an
abhorrence and that stoning isn’t the way forward!

There is also unresolved and extensive debate about the
cultural and contextual nature of the texts. This cannot be ignored.

In practice, most married male elders consult their wives and take their joint opinions into meetings.  I know this from over 13 years experience of church leadership.  In one church, such was the wisdom of the wives that they used to have a joint meeting every month or so, in order to benefit from the wisdom without compromising biblical integrity.  It felt much like the Pharisees laying a rope from their doorways so that they could visit the well on the sabbath without leaving the boundary of their home. ;)

Theologically for me it is about “trajectories”.  From the Old Testament we seem to see a
trajectory of women in leadership or significant roles.  Deborah, Esther etc. Then in the NT,
this trajectory continues with women as witnesses to the resurrection and the
apparently female names of apostles (ie Junia).

Interestingly these trajectories are not seen in other
debates in the evangelical community just now.  When it came to slavery, Paul preached a message of behaving like brothers rather than freeing slaves. It was as far as he could go in his time.  We don’t however believe he was pro slavery?

We can only scratch the surface here but from my
perspective, there are simply too many questions and difficulties to hold a complimentarian view.  That people get so passionately angry  at times about the issue also raises questions for
me.  For me, I think we should be more passionately
angry that people are dying without Jesus and that globally, injustice thrives.  From where I’m standing we need all hands on deck.  My concern is also heightened when
people seem to dig their heels in and stop listening and learning.  This is dangerous.

Considering 2 women are killed every week by men in the UK
alone and that there is an increasingly proliferation of porn etc, men would do
well to speak first of laying their lives down and demonstrating a radically
dynamic life of sacrifice, mutual submission and respect and the pursuit of justice, rather than focussing on enforcing
male dominated pulpits.  On that note, some of the best mentoring, teaching and input into my leadership of a mens ministry came from a nationally renowned leadership expert…who happens to be a woman.

Just to be honest, I thought about adding a thought or two to this last night but waited on it. I am 30, married and live in Berlin. I am a missionary/worship leader guy serving a German church plant. Over the last few years, I have been shaped and influenced by a few voices coming from the (new stream of) Reformed camps, namely Tim Keller and John Piper (not the newest voices I know). 

This is what I noticed. If I had added a comment last night I would have written something with regards to Complimentarianism, which is a place where I find myself from time to time. However, after giving it more thought I found myself use a systematic theology to argue a position and not starting with the text. So I think I will have to go back and prayerfully read through the suggested texts from above. 
On a side note, as one who thinks and deals a lot with missiology, I know of many groups of Christians in contexts where there is not an able or qualified man to lead/pastor, but there are women. So in these contexts my “from time to time” complimentarianism get stretched. If these women cannot/not aloud to teach/preach/lead these bodies of Christians then there are a lot men who are needed to go into some messy far off places of the world. Maybe that is one of you…..Anyways, I have some reading and thinking to get to.Ben

Blessings to you, Vicky, and all who’ve made comments!

I will not look at every scriptural reference given here, just the specific ones that deal with whether a woman should preach or teach:  1 Corinthians 14, 1 Timothy 2, Galatians 3:28″Do you believe women should be able to preach in Church?” ~ Yessssssss!!!!  

“Should women be able to be the senior leader of a Church? An Elder? A Bishop?” ~ Yikes, tough one! In Timothy and Titus, for part of the requirements of the “office”of presbyter, it should be a man who is the husband of one wife.  However, we have to interpret this in light of all 13 epistles, and also in terms of the 1st century Greco-Roman culture of the cities Paul wrote to.  I would argue that a woman could be a co-pastor of a church along with her husband.  

“Are men and women equal and ‘the same’ before God, in their role, because of the resurrection? Or is there a difference in role that is God intended?” ~ while I believe that woman and men are equal before the Lord, I believe that there is a place for healthy distinctions between the roles of men and women in society, and in church to some degree. For example, I believe that in terms of struggling with certain issues of the flesh, women should be accountable to other women, and men to other men, etc. 
“Is a man the ‘head’ of his wife? Should the husband get the final say in a marital issue?” ~ Nope! Not about final say, but I believe men desire and yearn for respect above all else in marriage.  However, the revelation that we men must love our wives as Christ loved the church is so deep, that if we were to truly do this in our lives, our ladies would have no issue in honoring our decisions.  In terms of being “head, ” I would say men are the head of the marriage in terms of accountability before the Lord.  We men bear the greater responsiblity, or carry the bigger cross in marriage according to Ephesians 5. ”How do we interpret the key Scriptures about these things?”
 ~ The issue is that we have 2000 years of cultural changes and shifts to contend with, as well as entirely different languages today than there were during the time of the NT.  We also have to factor in the original intent of the Apostle Paul and his original audience.  In terms of interpretation, I would say that every verse falls within a chapter, that falls into a book, that falls into the entire canon of Paul’s writings.  1 Corinthians 14:34-35 cannot be absolute, for Paul commends women who pray and prophesy in modest dress (11:5, 13). Perhaps he was arguing against women speaking up to judge prophecies prior their male leaders, which is the immediate context of 1 Cor 14.  Also, remember that 1-2 Timothy were written in Ephesus, where the temple of Artemis stood.  She was the goddess of fertility…..think about it. In Corinth, there was a huge temple to Aphrodite, the goddess of love.  Her priests were all-female, and Corinthian citizens would “worship” by engaging in various “activities” with a priestess.  Perhaps these female priests converted to Christ, and tried to introduce the same style of “worship” to Christianity, to which Paul replied by quickly deferring to the law.  Or perhaps because these former priestesses were in charge @ the pagan temple, they assumed they could take charge in the church, even though they were brand new.  However, if the cessationists are correct, 1 Cor 14 wouldn’t matter in this discussion, anyway!
   ”Is Complimentarianism (the belief that men and women have different roles; e.g. women can’t teach men) right?” ~ No, not in the very strictest sense.  ”Is Egalitarianism (the belief that because of Christ’s work, men and women are equal in role and not bound by any gender dictated restrictions) right?” No, that’s not exactly right, either.But I would argue that the starting point in discerning any NT texts has to be studying the Koine Greek. In his writings, Paul uses deakonos and apostolos to describe Phoebe and Junia.  He commends Priscilla, Junia, Julia and Nereus’ sister.  Tryphena, Tryphosa, who “labour for the Lord’s work”, and Rufus’ mother. Mary and Persis are commended for their hard work. Chloe and Lydia are prominent women, businesswoman and leaders whom Paul commends. Euodia and Syntyche are called his fellow-workers in the gospel by the Apostle. God Bless You All! 
 @swansonworship:twitter  

Vicky,
1) Headscarves – this is different from women not being elders because 1Tim2 (prohibition of women being in authority over men) is rooted in creation and therefore is TRANScultural. Not sure that is the case for headscarves, but…2) Many Chistians still believe headscarves should still be worn in church today (e.g Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, Free Church Continuing, Amish, Plymouth Brethren, RC Sproul and many more), just not the kind of church circles you are from. Whether this is a cultural expression of an abiding principle is a discussion the church needs to have. If it is not cultural then I agree we should go back to wearing headscarves which apparently the church universally wore until the 1960′s. It was funny to see the Royal wedding prohibiting men from wearing hats inside the Abbey and yet women were allowed/encouraged to do so in the 22-page etiquette guide! Perhaps they are right?)3) Not eating pork/shellfish (& other OT commands you brought up) – I’m sure you know what the NT has to say about the OT law!4) Slaves obeying their masters – if slavery was legal today and we were slaves then we should follow Paul’s command and submit to our masters. It is not legal now though. Also, you are assuming that all types of slavery are inherently wrong, but you must establish that rather than assume it. I’m actually a slave of Christ according to the NT. Is this wrong? Many scholars believe slavery in the bible was rather like indentured servanthood, just like if your permanent job was being a house-servant to a rich family. The problem with slavery is when the master mistreats the slave, but as I’m sure you know the scriptures also have something to say to the masters too. I’m not sure you can successfully argue that God says that slavery is inherently wrong, our culture does, but our culture says a lot of things that are diametrically opposed to scripture. If you would really like to read detailed into this debate then I encourage you to read Evangelical Feminism & Biblical Truth by Wayne Grudem. It is an exhaustive 800+ page work that addresses every single objection you are likely to hear, including the ones you have made here. I’ll send you a free copy if you like:)Regards,

Vicky I’d like to ask you a question:

If the fairest reading of scripture convinced you that women should not be worship leaders in the church, then would you surrender your career as a worship leader on the altar of obedience to God? 

With all the songs about sacrifice we hear from today’s modern worship leaders, I won’t to know if this one would be willing to bite the bullet, if the bullet came this way?

“Considering 2 women are killed every week by men in the UK”
“dynamic life of sacrifice, mutual submission and respect and the pursuit of justice, rather than focussing on enforcingmale dominated pulpits”

I grew up in the United States and the school system is dominated by women.  I have had more women school teachers than men. 

You can no longer mention God or Jesus without having problems and my grandmother complained and asked where are the men.  Men had not taken to teaching because they generally want to make more money and what you have left is a list of problems in the public school system because the women will give in.

You can make a case that women are killed in the U.K. and I can make a case that we lost a generation of Christians in the United States because teaching was left up to women who gave in or couldn’t fight the men in a secular battle.

Henry… I think this is getting a bit personal. I find it patronising and kind of judgmental. I am so sure Vicky has given this much thought, even more prayer and reached her own conclusions through the teaching of the Holy Spirit. She IS surrendering and IS offering God obedience in the best way she knows how and according to her best understanding of the Bible. We all struggle with issues like this and reach our conclusions and go on in our lives doing the best we can in obedience. Please don’t make this personal to Vicky but support her in her faith and outworking of it in her life. Thank you.

If you read the rest of that same verse, “it is pretty clear” :) that the husband should be ready to go so far as laying down his life for his wife.  He should serve her as Jesus came to serve.  If a man wants to claim Headship, he needs to do just as Jesus did.  He didn’t come as a king, he came as a servant. 

Also, in the original Greek, the sentence that talks about submitting unto each other is actually a part of the popular Ep. 5 text, but in most English translations, has been removed and put at the end of the previous paragraph.  Translators have chosen to take it out of the passage dedicated to husbands and wives.

This is a great essay on the issue by Gregory A Boyd http://www.gregboyd.org/essays/essays-church/women-in-ministry/

I have just been asked to become the Associate Pastor of a church that our main body will be planting several miles away, in a neighboring community.  My husband will be the Youth Pastor.  The Senior Pastor who invited us both to seek the Lord before accepting these positions has told us that once this body reaches a certain size, he plans to move and plant again, leaving the church to be pastored by me and my husband.  At this time, I feel that due to social and cultural traditions, my being a Sr. Pastor would hinder the church, simply because people have their “issues” with a woman in this position, not an incapability or willingness on my part.  I would like my husband to be the Sr. Pastor when that time comes, and for me to serve as Associate under him.  However, whatever the Holy Spirit directs, we will be obedient to.  I suppose the “issues” will have to be taken to God.  This is not a theological response, obviously… just me sharing an experience from the heart.

Kim.   
What we think of our full potential may look very different from God’s point of view – as disciples of Jesus Christ we are called to lay down our lives as he did.  Those of us who are called to be ministers, to hold authority in the church are not pursuing a ‘lovely flourishing ministry’ but are simply seeking to be obedient to the call that God has placed upon us.  It is self sacrificial and it is often painful.  For those of us who have to exercise authority in matters of doctrine and discipline it is probably good that such a role comes at a price.  
Please do not assume that women who are leaders/ministers are just doing what they want – most of the ones I know would not have chosen this role for themselves.  It is certainly not about fulfilling their potential!  It is an act of obedience.As members of the Body we have different roles but whether our gender dictates those roles is not as simple as complementarian hermeneutics often presents it.  There are very good arguments for every point, every text that is pulled out to support a complementarian view and also for those who are egalitarians.  If you are seriously interested in this I recommend you read ‘Two Views on Women in Ministry’ published by Zondervan – it is not a particularly easy read (written by egalitarian and complementarian scholars) but it covers most of the main arguments succinctly. As far as fruit is concerned – how do you measure it?  That’s a tricky one.

Certainly giving birth is unarguable!  However, biologically the genders are designed to need, as well as desire, each other – we work in partnership to survive.  Men are not alone in not being able to give birth though – many many women cannot, or do not, have children for all sorts of reasons.  So differing biological roles yes but I don’t see how that can be used as a reason to bar women from exercising a position of authority in the church.   The gifts of the Spirit are given regardless of gender and apart from the issue of authority, no one seems to have a problem with this.
 

So what’s your opinion on a woman maturely seeking the Lord’s guidance? If a woman doesn’t have that responsibility then does that mean she’s not called to study the Word in the same way? But if she is then surely she gains spiritual maturity to seek the Lord’s guidance too? 

Quickly in regards to submitting to your husband, I think it
is healthy to view this in the same way that we submit to God: we have a
relationship with him, he values our thoughts and desires, and he works through
every situation for our good; because of this we place trust in him that when
we get to a point of disagreement his way is the way that is better for us,
because he wants what is best for us. In the same way, if a husband truly loves
his wife like Jesus loves his church then he will want what is best for her,
and therefore a wife submitting to her husband means trusting him in that love
that he has for her.

Quite obviously the scripture isn’t as clear as some people
perceive, and if it is the case that scripture isn’t 100% clear then we must
gain wisdom from God. If someone is called by God to do any given task, we must
discern if we trust them in that they are truly called to that job; personally
I feel that is the same whether it’s preaching, worship leading, or youth work…
you want the person that God has called to do the job!

Several people have made reference to Deborah being called to
be a judge of Israel, a couple have suggested that she was essentially a second
best alternative, in my opinion, this is nonsense. If God wanted a man in that
role, he would have made, chosen, and called one. God is the creator of all
people, and powerful over all situations. We see in Jonah that God is not a God
of compromise.

I was recently at a seminar hosted by Vicky Beeching at
Worship Central Conference on the subject of Social Media. During this Vicky
brought up the ideas of Church 2.0 and Beta Church; ideas that would involve
church becoming a participatory forum,  where it’s ok if we don’t get it 100% right, and
that we can change methodology with what fits the need of the church… I think
it’s fair to say that although all churches need God, different churches will
require aspects of teaching, worship, and prayer at different times. I,
personally, can only see a fully participatory church working if men and women having
equal authority… and I don’t see anything unbiblical about this (I think it’s
worth noting that any “authority” we have from our own efforts is worthless, it’s
ALL about God’s authority). If this were the case you would have women teaching
men, but as it’s an equal platform no one really has authority over another, as
warned against in 1 Tim 2:12.! The bible has so many references to church
leadership being a group effort, we see this with the appointment of Elders,
Deacons, the disciples going out to evangelise in pairs, a kingdom of priests,
even Paul would go out on mission with a group of people that would not only
support him, but also preach and evangelise alongside him.

Before we can truly understand what sort of a role a woman
in leadership could have we must evaluate the role of church leadership and
what that should look like, otherwise it’s like questioning whether a woman is
suitable for marriage before ascertaining what marriage truly means. 

Vicky, these are tough questions that are divisive because obviously not all christians, leaders and churches agree on these things. I am fully in favor of women functioning in every ministry role that is available to men. They can do anything except be husbands or fathers. I would say the same for men regarding women. Men are never going to be mothers and wives. Nonetheless, I also believe that men and women are essentially equal but different. We are complementary to each other in marriage, in friendships, in the family as brothers and sisters and in the church.I do not treat the women I pastor as men but as women with all the respect that goes with treating women as mothers, sisters and daughters. With the exception of women counseling alone with men about issues of sexual struggle or that should be exclusive to men to men and women to women I would put no limitations on a women’s role in the ministry. Yet I believe that a woman should and must submit to her husband in the Lord as long as he is loving her like Christ loves his church. The greater question today is are the men in the church dying to themselves and sacrificing their lives for their wives because I have yet to see a Christian woman who didn’t want to submit to that kind of love and that kind of man. Let me say one thing here. In  almost 20 years of marriage my wife and I have never made a major decision without coming to a consensus. I think this is how it should be and she has no problem with this either. I could give you verses to back my point of view but I have chosen not to do that because i do not want to sermonize. 

Problem here is that we are then saying that Paul’s message was purely for then and not today as there are different understandings of gender now to then. Yet if we do that for 1 part of the Bible how can we not do the same for the rest of it, thus making the Bible nothing more than the casual musings of a few generations of people in the Middle East?

My take on it is that the man is the head but that does not mean he is in control. He is the one who must serve his wife as a servant, just as Christ served his disciples and the Church.
The issue around slavery is taken out of context as it is not to do with saying slavery is ok and actually saying that if you are a slave don’t kick up a fuss just because you are a slave but get on with doing your job and worshipping God through that. The message was to slaves, not to their masters, who could then show their masters true Christian love through their dedication to them. Certain types of animals are dealt with by Peter’s dream about eating unclean food, so I don’t think I need to say more than that.

@Chuckt it’s also rather difficult for a single mn to be the husband of one wife. So I guess single men must also be eliminated from the minisrt as well?

Why is the husband never told to “claim his headship?” Why are there severe consequences for him if he does not “listen and be understand with his wife” or “his prayers will not be answered?” (2 Peter) Yet nothing like that is told to the wife if she is not submissive? Just wondering……..he’s not told to “be the head” he’s told to “lay down his life” and if he fails, “his prayers will not be answered.” Interesting. Yet the consequence given to the woman? Nothing.

Extremely interesting reading & my thanks to everyone. Not going to add further exegesis to a topic so well covered already. Just a comment. What is really very clear more than anything else is that we still have so far to go in our understanding of scripture & especially in how we have translated the concepts & words of the original lanuages to our modern (even 16th century) English. What always encourages me is the people who see the big picture and don’t get hung up on every word in a sentence, but understand what is said on that subject in various places in the word, seeing that there must be agreement. And I’m sorry, but in my experience, men are usually better at this. Praying that we would continue to value each other’s understanding whilst always seeking to know God better for ourselves. Thank you.

Vicky I have tackled all these texts in my blog http://www.psephizo.com and in my Grove booklet Women and Authority available from http://www.grovebooks.co.uk

People in support of woman leaders* in the church, use the argument of ‘equlity’. But there was ALWAYS equality. God made male and female equal. Genesis 1v27 ‘in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them.’

I would add that during Jesus’ ministry, he very rightly elevated the position of woman in society. He valued them, spent time with them, let a ”sinful” woman wash his feet. Some of his closest friends were woman and came first to the empty tomb. The Bible doesn’t oppose equality but strongly enforces it.
BUT that doesn’t mean male and female have the same roles. God created man for leadership and woman the helper (2v20) in the good sense that the Lord is our helper, Psalm 54v4 ‘surely God is my help’

*By this I mean positions of leadership that have authority over men. There are many righteous, and Godly woman in the Bible and today who lead and teach which is great. But I’m talking about that 1 area of leadership and authority over men.
Surely 1 Tim 2 is pretty clear isn’t it?