James has raised the issue of women in church leadership as this seems to be fairly relevant for the church that he and Susan are a part of in Bristol at present. It's an issue that has caused a fair amount of debate, particularly over the last 50 years or so, with very strong views on both sides.
Darrin and I led a few studies on the topic a couple of years ago for our home group at the Baptist Tabernacle, and as I've managed to find my notes from that study I thought I'd write about it here. When we initially ran the study, a lot of the material was in our heads, and so I don't recall it all off the top of my head. So I'll probably update this a bit over the next few days to fill in the arguments, and based on the comments here and on James' blog.
Before we begin, there a couple of points about biblical interpretation and application. I have covered these in my articles on writing and interpreting the bible (parts one, two, and three), but they are fairly critical here.
The first point is that the Bible is our supreme authority. If it states some truth that it claims is eternal, then we cannot just ignore it.
Secondly, each book of the Bible was in a particular historical and cultural conetxt. When applying it to today, we must first find timeless principles to apply (for example, 'Greet one another with a holy kiss' - 1 Co 16:20b).
The Range of Views
Broadly speaking, there are three views on the issue of women in church leadership. Firstly, there are those who argue that women should not be allowed in any church leadership positions whatsoever. Secondly, some argue that women may be in leadership positions, but the overall leader in the church must be man. Thirdly, there are those who have no problem with women in any leadership positions, even as the overall leader.
The Burden of Proof
The first question must be where the burden proof lies. I submit that it lies with those arguing that women should not be leadership positions. The reason for this is that it simply makes sense, and seems arbitrary to rule out 50% (or more) of the population from being in leadership positions simply because of their sex. Women seem to be in leadership positions in most other walks of life - why not then in the church?
The question really is, if scripture were absolutely silent on the matter, would we be justified in allowing women to be in church leadership. Of course we would, as there would be no reasonable reason to reject it.
Now it may be that the Bible presents reasons why this shouldn't be the case and we will examine these shortly. But before we have examined the evidence, the burden of proof would appear to be with those who argue against women in church leadership positions. The consequence of this is that the evidence against women in leadership must be greater than the evidence against it.
Argument Against Women in Leadership
I have seven arguments against women holding leadership positions in church, mainly based on the arguments presented in Wayne Gruden's Systematic Theology book.
1. 1 Timothy 2:11-15
It is argued here that here Paul is presenting an eternal argument, rather than a cultural argument. The argument is based on creation - Adam was formed first - not a cultural situation, so the implication is therefore eternal.
2. 1 Corinthians 14:33b-35
The argument here is that it says women should be silent in church, as in all the congregations. Consequently, it was not just something for the people of Corinth at the time.
3. 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9
Both of these passages talk about elders and deacons in the churches, specifically giving Timothy and Titus instructions for how to appoint them. Both of these passages assume that elders are men. All the pronouns are male, and both state that elders should be "the husband of but one wife".
4. Relationship between the family and the church
This argument says that there was distinction of male and female roles before the fall:
5. The Apostles were all men
Jesus only appointed men as apostles. He could have chosen women, as he made many other contraversial decisions and statements, but he did not. Consequently it follows that he did not support women at least in senior leadership positions.
6. Male teaching and leadership throughout the bible
With very few exceptions, the Bible only shows examples of women in leadership or teaching positions. The roles of Deborah (Jud 4-5) and Huldah (2 Ki 22:14-20) are regarded as judges or prophets, not as leaders, and in both cases it was a man who subsequently acted on their prophecy.
7. Male leadership throughout church history
Throughout the vast majority of church history, all leadership and teaching positions have been held by men. The fathers of the early church all believed that women should not be in leadership, and it has only been recently that this position has been challenged. While history should not be the sole reason for favouring their position, it is important that most theologians over a long period of time have believed that women should not be in leadership.
Argument for Women in Church Leadership
1'. Genesis 1:27
Both men and women were created equal in God's image. The first part of the Bible that deals with the creation of humans states clearly that men and women are equal.
2'. Acts 2:17-18
This passage states that men and women both have equal access to the blessings of salvation.
3'. Genesis 3:16
The fall brought a distortion in the roles that God had planned for men and women.
4'. 1 Peter 2:9-10
Peter here declares that both men and women are now the royal priesthood. The priesthood is no longer limited to male descendants of Aaron, as it was in the Old Testament. Under the new covenant, both men and women are priests of God, equally, without distinction.
5'. Galations 3:26-29
This passage clearly declares that men and women are equal in Christ. Men are not special, neither are Jews, Greeks, slave, nor free - all have equal access to Christ and are Abraham's heirs.
6'. Acts 18:24-26
The interesting thing here is that both Priscilla (female) and Aquila (male) taught Apollos, who was possibly the author of Hebrews. While Apollos was not an apostle, he was definately a major figure in the early church, yet was taught by a woman.
7'. Romans 16:1
The word used for servant here is the same word used for deacon in other parts of the New Testament. It was historically translated as servant as the translators couldn't believe that a woman was a deacon in the church. But surely that is a horrible way to approach scripture - start with your prejudices and then translate accordingly. That's the same approach used by the Jesus Seminar and look where it takes them!
8'. Progressive Revelation
This argues that God's revelation over time is progressive, and a prime example of this is slavery. There is nothing in the Bible that explicitly rules out slavery, and Jesus definately could have argued against it if he chose to. However, a long time later, slavery was abolished, and looking at the Bible now, we can definately see hints of this, even though it is not stated explicitly.
The role of women in the church is similar.
Weighing the Arguments
So there are a number of arguments on both sides, so let's now examine how strong they really are.
Against Women in Church Leadership
In summary, the arguments against women in church leadership were:
Let's go through these arguments in reverse order.
(7) is not convincing unless there is a good reason for it. It may point to a good reason, but is not convincing on its own. Consequently, it is not too relevant when considering the arguments here.
(6) is almost true, but there are exceptions. In addition to the exceptions of Deborach and Huldah, there is Priscilla (6'), and Phoebe (7'). Furthermore, (8'), that argues for progressive relevation can easily explain that there are few examples of women leadership in the bible. As there are conter-examples here, it is not convincing on its own, without further evidence.
(5) can be explained by the simple fact that if Jesus appointed some women as apostles, it would have distracted from the purpose of his ministry. The women apostles would not have been able to function effectively, as the Jewish people simply would not have been prepared to listen to them. This argument can also be answered by the idea of progressive revelation (8').
(4) argues that that the Bible claims male headship in marriage, and since the church is the extended family, this must apply there as well. Assuming for the moment that the bible does teach male headship in marriage, I think the argument that therefore this implies male leadership in the church is very weak. Leadership in the family and the church are not identical, there is no biblical passage that implies that they are, so I think this argument falls over.
The two passages in (3) talk about the qualifications for elders, and both seem to assume men. This of course is very different to it stating that they must be men, and so I don't think this argument stands. When Paul was stating the elders must be "the husband of but one wife", I don't think he specifically meant that they must be married, and must be men. He is contrasting "the husband of but one wife" with being the husband of many wives!
Argument (2) is claiming that the passage in Corinthians where women were meant to keep quiet in church applies to "all the congregations", and so therefore, women shouldn't be in leadership positions. However, there are two problems here. Firstly, there is no indication that this is a timeless command rather than culturally bound. Secondly, the reason for this can be easily explained by the situation at Corinth at the time. Their church services were rather chaotic. At that time, the men and women were seated separately - often the women were seated upstairs. Imagine the chaos when the women were shouting things to their husbands, and the husbands were responding! Of course Paul was going to put in place a rule that they should discuss it afterwards, but that is very much a rule for that particular situation, not a timeless principle.
So we are left solely with (1). I do not think that any of the other arguments against women in church leadership bear much weight. Let's see how the arguments for women in church leadership stand up, and weigh them against (1).
For Women in Church Leadership
In summary, the arguments for women in church leadership were as follows:
The argument against (1') through (5') is fundamentally the same. Those who claim women shouldn't be in church leadership will agree absolutely that men and women are created equally and have equal access to the blessings of salvation. However, it is claimed that their roles are different, and they were different from creation. Sure the fall brought a distortion in the roles, but they were fundamentally different from the start.
(6') and (7') are not considered to be particularly persuasive for two reasons. Firstly, the bible does record things that it doesn't approve of (the principle being that narrative passages are interpreted in the light of didactic passages), and secondly, these two examples are explained away as not teaching (in the sense that Paul ruled out), and the translation of 'deacon' being incorrect.
Finally (8') is not considered to be evidence that women should be in church leadership. The bible definately improves the role of women over time, but if Paul's statement that women should not teach or be in authority over a man is a timeless principle, then progressive revelation is not enough to overcome it.
So it all boils down to an interpretation of 1 Ti 2:11-15. Let me make a few observations here. First of all, the NIV translates ?????? (isychia for those without Greek fonts) in verse 12 as silent. However exactly the same word is used in verse 11, and actually means quiet. Secondly, there is no direct reference to church leadership here - it is purely teaching and authority. While church leadership may be implied from this, it is by no means stated. Thirdly, Paul clearly states here that "I do not allow..." rather than "Women are not allowed...". Could that indicate that he was expressing his personal views at the time, rather than stating a timeless principle of God?
Honestly, I am not sure here. Unlike most biblical principles, this one is stated clearly as Paul's position - it is not made clear whether it is an eternal principle or not. However, we do have biblical examples of women teaching men, and being in authority over men. We do have clear passages saying that men and women are equal, and both part of the royal priesthood. It is difficult to see how equality can be understood plainly when men must be in authority over women, and the teaching gifts of women cannot be used. It is interesting to note that those who claim women should not be in church leadership generally do not have a problem with women in some teaching roles, however, I would suggest that this is an inconsistent position to hold. If you believe that this verse is an eternal principle, then it would appear to rule out the possibility of women teaching men at all.
An important principle of biblical interpretation is that the main things are the plain things. That means that important biblical principles are taught clearly and in multiple places in the biblical. Conversely a interpretation principle says not to base doctrine on obscure passages of scripture.
But barring women from church leadership on the basis of one interpretation of 1 Ti 2:11-15 would appear to do just that. I do not think that the timeless principle behind this passage is clear. There are many clear passages supporting equality for men and women - there is one unclear passage that may argue women should not be in church leadership.
I argued at the beginning that the burden of proof must lie with those arguing women should not be in church leadership.
The case has not been made convincingly. It requires a doctrine to be built on a single biblical passage whose meaning is disputed. The effect of this doctrine is very serious, as it automatically rules out 50% of the population from leadership roles.
Consequently I cannot support it. Based on the evidence presented, I can see no justification for preventing women from church leadership positions.ModName: shell32.dll
Darrin and I led a few studies on the topic a couple of years ago for our home group at the Baptist Tabernacle, and as I've managed to find my notes from that study I thought I'd write about it here. When we initially ran the study, a lot of the material was in our heads, and so I don't recall it all off the top of my head. So I'll probably update this a bit over the next few days to fill in the arguments, and based on the comments here and on James' blog.
Before we begin, there a couple of points about biblical interpretation and application. I have covered these in my articles on writing and interpreting the bible (parts one, two, and three), but they are fairly critical here.
The first point is that the Bible is our supreme authority. If it states some truth that it claims is eternal, then we cannot just ignore it.
Secondly, each book of the Bible was in a particular historical and cultural conetxt. When applying it to today, we must first find timeless principles to apply (for example, 'Greet one another with a holy kiss' - 1 Co 16:20b).
The Range of Views
Broadly speaking, there are three views on the issue of women in church leadership. Firstly, there are those who argue that women should not be allowed in any church leadership positions whatsoever. Secondly, some argue that women may be in leadership positions, but the overall leader in the church must be man. Thirdly, there are those who have no problem with women in any leadership positions, even as the overall leader.
The Burden of Proof
The first question must be where the burden proof lies. I submit that it lies with those arguing that women should not be leadership positions. The reason for this is that it simply makes sense, and seems arbitrary to rule out 50% (or more) of the population from being in leadership positions simply because of their sex. Women seem to be in leadership positions in most other walks of life - why not then in the church?
The question really is, if scripture were absolutely silent on the matter, would we be justified in allowing women to be in church leadership. Of course we would, as there would be no reasonable reason to reject it.
Now it may be that the Bible presents reasons why this shouldn't be the case and we will examine these shortly. But before we have examined the evidence, the burden of proof would appear to be with those who argue against women in church leadership positions. The consequence of this is that the evidence against women in leadership must be greater than the evidence against it.
Argument Against Women in Leadership
I have seven arguments against women holding leadership positions in church, mainly based on the arguments presented in Wayne Gruden's Systematic Theology book.
1. 1 Timothy 2:11-15
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing�if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
It is argued here that here Paul is presenting an eternal argument, rather than a cultural argument. The argument is based on creation - Adam was formed first - not a cultural situation, so the implication is therefore eternal.
2. 1 Corinthians 14:33b-35
As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
The argument here is that it says women should be silent in church, as in all the congregations. Consequently, it was not just something for the people of Corinth at the time.
3. 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9
Both of these passages talk about elders and deacons in the churches, specifically giving Timothy and Titus instructions for how to appoint them. Both of these passages assume that elders are men. All the pronouns are male, and both state that elders should be "the husband of but one wife".
4. Relationship between the family and the church
This argument says that there was distinction of male and female roles before the fall:
- Adam was created first.
- Eve was created as Adam's helper.
- Adam, not Eve, represented humanity (1 Co 15:22 and Ro 5:15).
- 1 Co 11:3,7-8 - 'the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man'.
- Eph 5:22-23 - 'the husband is the head of the wife'.
- 1 Pe 3:1-7 - 'wives be submissive'.
5. The Apostles were all men
Jesus only appointed men as apostles. He could have chosen women, as he made many other contraversial decisions and statements, but he did not. Consequently it follows that he did not support women at least in senior leadership positions.
6. Male teaching and leadership throughout the bible
With very few exceptions, the Bible only shows examples of women in leadership or teaching positions. The roles of Deborah (Jud 4-5) and Huldah (2 Ki 22:14-20) are regarded as judges or prophets, not as leaders, and in both cases it was a man who subsequently acted on their prophecy.
7. Male leadership throughout church history
Throughout the vast majority of church history, all leadership and teaching positions have been held by men. The fathers of the early church all believed that women should not be in leadership, and it has only been recently that this position has been challenged. While history should not be the sole reason for favouring their position, it is important that most theologians over a long period of time have believed that women should not be in leadership.
Argument for Women in Church Leadership
1'. Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
Both men and women were created equal in God's image. The first part of the Bible that deals with the creation of humans states clearly that men and women are equal.
2'. Acts 2:17-18
In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
18 Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy.
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
18 Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy.
This passage states that men and women both have equal access to the blessings of salvation.
3'. Genesis 3:16
To the woman he said,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."
The fall brought a distortion in the roles that God had planned for men and women.
4'. 1 Peter 2:9-10
But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
Peter here declares that both men and women are now the royal priesthood. The priesthood is no longer limited to male descendants of Aaron, as it was in the Old Testament. Under the new covenant, both men and women are priests of God, equally, without distinction.
5'. Galations 3:26-29
You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham�s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
This passage clearly declares that men and women are equal in Christ. Men are not special, neither are Jews, Greeks, slave, nor free - all have equal access to Christ and are Abraham's heirs.
6'. Acts 18:24-26
Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervora and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.
The interesting thing here is that both Priscilla (female) and Aquila (male) taught Apollos, who was possibly the author of Hebrews. While Apollos was not an apostle, he was definately a major figure in the early church, yet was taught by a woman.
7'. Romans 16:1
I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea.
The word used for servant here is the same word used for deacon in other parts of the New Testament. It was historically translated as servant as the translators couldn't believe that a woman was a deacon in the church. But surely that is a horrible way to approach scripture - start with your prejudices and then translate accordingly. That's the same approach used by the Jesus Seminar and look where it takes them!
8'. Progressive Revelation
This argues that God's revelation over time is progressive, and a prime example of this is slavery. There is nothing in the Bible that explicitly rules out slavery, and Jesus definately could have argued against it if he chose to. However, a long time later, slavery was abolished, and looking at the Bible now, we can definately see hints of this, even though it is not stated explicitly.
The role of women in the church is similar.
- The role of women in the New Testament is greatly increased over their role in the Old Testament.
- The symbol of the new covenant, baptism, is available to men and women equally. The symbol of the old covenent, circumcision, was only available to men.
- 1 Co 7:4 - the idea of mutual ruling over each other's bodies is unparalleled in previous Jewish thinking. It is a clear step forward.
Weighing the Arguments
So there are a number of arguments on both sides, so let's now examine how strong they really are.
Against Women in Church Leadership
In summary, the arguments against women in church leadership were:
1) Women not allowed to teach or have authority over a man (1 Ti 2:11-15).
2) Women must keep silent in church as in all the congregations (1 Co 14:33b-35).
3) Elders are assumed to be men (1 Ti 3:1-7 and Tit 1:5-9).
4) Relationship between family and the church.
5) The apostles were all men.
6) Male teaching and leadership throughout the bible.
7) Male leadership throughout church history.
2) Women must keep silent in church as in all the congregations (1 Co 14:33b-35).
3) Elders are assumed to be men (1 Ti 3:1-7 and Tit 1:5-9).
4) Relationship between family and the church.
5) The apostles were all men.
6) Male teaching and leadership throughout the bible.
7) Male leadership throughout church history.
Let's go through these arguments in reverse order.
(7) is not convincing unless there is a good reason for it. It may point to a good reason, but is not convincing on its own. Consequently, it is not too relevant when considering the arguments here.
(6) is almost true, but there are exceptions. In addition to the exceptions of Deborach and Huldah, there is Priscilla (6'), and Phoebe (7'). Furthermore, (8'), that argues for progressive relevation can easily explain that there are few examples of women leadership in the bible. As there are conter-examples here, it is not convincing on its own, without further evidence.
(5) can be explained by the simple fact that if Jesus appointed some women as apostles, it would have distracted from the purpose of his ministry. The women apostles would not have been able to function effectively, as the Jewish people simply would not have been prepared to listen to them. This argument can also be answered by the idea of progressive revelation (8').
(4) argues that that the Bible claims male headship in marriage, and since the church is the extended family, this must apply there as well. Assuming for the moment that the bible does teach male headship in marriage, I think the argument that therefore this implies male leadership in the church is very weak. Leadership in the family and the church are not identical, there is no biblical passage that implies that they are, so I think this argument falls over.
The two passages in (3) talk about the qualifications for elders, and both seem to assume men. This of course is very different to it stating that they must be men, and so I don't think this argument stands. When Paul was stating the elders must be "the husband of but one wife", I don't think he specifically meant that they must be married, and must be men. He is contrasting "the husband of but one wife" with being the husband of many wives!
Argument (2) is claiming that the passage in Corinthians where women were meant to keep quiet in church applies to "all the congregations", and so therefore, women shouldn't be in leadership positions. However, there are two problems here. Firstly, there is no indication that this is a timeless command rather than culturally bound. Secondly, the reason for this can be easily explained by the situation at Corinth at the time. Their church services were rather chaotic. At that time, the men and women were seated separately - often the women were seated upstairs. Imagine the chaos when the women were shouting things to their husbands, and the husbands were responding! Of course Paul was going to put in place a rule that they should discuss it afterwards, but that is very much a rule for that particular situation, not a timeless principle.
So we are left solely with (1). I do not think that any of the other arguments against women in church leadership bear much weight. Let's see how the arguments for women in church leadership stand up, and weigh them against (1).
For Women in Church Leadership
In summary, the arguments for women in church leadership were as follows:
1') Male and female created equally in God's image (Ge 1:27).
2') Equal access to the blessings of salvation (Ac 2:17-18).
3') The fall brought a distortion of the roles (Ge 3:16).
4') Both men and women are now the royal priesthood (1 Pe 2:9-10).
5') Equality in Christ (Ga 3:26-29).
6') Priscilla and Aquila taught Apollos (Ac 18:24-26).
7') Phoebe was a deacon of the church in Cenchrea (Ro 16:1).
8') Progressive revelation.
2') Equal access to the blessings of salvation (Ac 2:17-18).
3') The fall brought a distortion of the roles (Ge 3:16).
4') Both men and women are now the royal priesthood (1 Pe 2:9-10).
5') Equality in Christ (Ga 3:26-29).
6') Priscilla and Aquila taught Apollos (Ac 18:24-26).
7') Phoebe was a deacon of the church in Cenchrea (Ro 16:1).
8') Progressive revelation.
The argument against (1') through (5') is fundamentally the same. Those who claim women shouldn't be in church leadership will agree absolutely that men and women are created equally and have equal access to the blessings of salvation. However, it is claimed that their roles are different, and they were different from creation. Sure the fall brought a distortion in the roles, but they were fundamentally different from the start.
(6') and (7') are not considered to be particularly persuasive for two reasons. Firstly, the bible does record things that it doesn't approve of (the principle being that narrative passages are interpreted in the light of didactic passages), and secondly, these two examples are explained away as not teaching (in the sense that Paul ruled out), and the translation of 'deacon' being incorrect.
Finally (8') is not considered to be evidence that women should be in church leadership. The bible definately improves the role of women over time, but if Paul's statement that women should not teach or be in authority over a man is a timeless principle, then progressive revelation is not enough to overcome it.
So it all boils down to an interpretation of 1 Ti 2:11-15. Let me make a few observations here. First of all, the NIV translates ?????? (isychia for those without Greek fonts) in verse 12 as silent. However exactly the same word is used in verse 11, and actually means quiet. Secondly, there is no direct reference to church leadership here - it is purely teaching and authority. While church leadership may be implied from this, it is by no means stated. Thirdly, Paul clearly states here that "I do not allow..." rather than "Women are not allowed...". Could that indicate that he was expressing his personal views at the time, rather than stating a timeless principle of God?
Honestly, I am not sure here. Unlike most biblical principles, this one is stated clearly as Paul's position - it is not made clear whether it is an eternal principle or not. However, we do have biblical examples of women teaching men, and being in authority over men. We do have clear passages saying that men and women are equal, and both part of the royal priesthood. It is difficult to see how equality can be understood plainly when men must be in authority over women, and the teaching gifts of women cannot be used. It is interesting to note that those who claim women should not be in church leadership generally do not have a problem with women in some teaching roles, however, I would suggest that this is an inconsistent position to hold. If you believe that this verse is an eternal principle, then it would appear to rule out the possibility of women teaching men at all.
An important principle of biblical interpretation is that the main things are the plain things. That means that important biblical principles are taught clearly and in multiple places in the biblical. Conversely a interpretation principle says not to base doctrine on obscure passages of scripture.
But barring women from church leadership on the basis of one interpretation of 1 Ti 2:11-15 would appear to do just that. I do not think that the timeless principle behind this passage is clear. There are many clear passages supporting equality for men and women - there is one unclear passage that may argue women should not be in church leadership.
I argued at the beginning that the burden of proof must lie with those arguing women should not be in church leadership.
The case has not been made convincingly. It requires a doctrine to be built on a single biblical passage whose meaning is disputed. The effect of this doctrine is very serious, as it automatically rules out 50% of the population from leadership roles.
Consequently I cannot support it. Based on the evidence presented, I can see no justification for preventing women from church leadership positions.ModName: shell32.dll
Comments
A couple more things I think you need to address Dave:1 Corinthians 14:33b-35As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, AS THE LAW SAYS. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.Paul actually refers to "the law" as guiding him in this statement, not certain conditions in Corinth. This leaves us a few questions... Is he referring to God's law, or the law of the land? If he is referring to Corinthian or Jewish law, is his reasoning so the Jews won't be offended, or does he think that law still stands for Christians?Another passage hints at the underlying views of Paul regarding the spirituality of women and why they shouldn't bear the burden of leadership:1 Corinthians 11:7-10A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.Yes, Paul does say in Galatians that both men and women are children of God, intermediary priests to the lost, and prophets and ministers of his Spirit and his word. We are all equal benefactors of God's love and grace. Yet in 1 Co 11 Paul seems to communicate a belief that the extent to which we bear the image and glory of God is different; that men are the glory of God, and women the glory of man. This would explain why he holds the views he does re women in leadership.Now I know a number of Christian women who would vehemently oppose Paul in this matter, Christian women that I trust. Because of this I am reconsidering my allegiance to Paul, but in need of some verification that this new Aquarian understanding of female spirituality is of God, and that Paul was really a mysogenistic bigot.ModName: shell32.dll
Thanks for those comments guys. They are much appreciated. I definately need to expand those sections further and clarify what I meant there. Hopefully I'll time to revisit them over the weekend.ModName: shell32.dll
Thanks for those comments guys. They are much appreciated. I definately need to expand those sections further and clarify what I meant there. Hopefully I'll time to revisit them over the weekend.ModName: shell32.dll
Anonymous, I don't think your so smart really.I guess this still comes down to should views of Women in his time hold today?ModName: shell32.dll
Anonymous, I don't think your so smart really.I guess this still comes down to should views of Women in his time hold today?ModName: shell32.dll
Anonymous, I don't think your so smart really.I guess this still comes down to should views of Women in his time hold today?ModName: shell32.dll
Women were created to be man's helper before the fall. Women can help in the Church treaching preaching and having authority, provided the final authority is male in the Church as in the home. Man's job is to empower his wife to rule with him the same can be said in the Church. The final authority is male. Jesus is equal to the father and yet is in full submission. In the same way women are equal to men yet should me in full submission.Christ being the example laid down his life for the Church, in the same way husbands should lay down thier lives for thier wives. It is the same in the Church as Christ has given us the model of marriage as the example. The main overseer should be male who lays down his life in leading the people. The problem it seems today is that submission is somehow seen as lesser, but the bible teachers that as women submit to thier husbands they are serving Christ. also looking after children and teaching them the ways of God is seen as a small job. my own view is this is the greatest calling anyone can have. Sorry no email please send answer on site. ModName: shell32.dll
Then again you all could just abandon all these antiquated Judeo/Christo/Islamo Facist Myths and live true and free and just rule yourselves and rule over men without the need for the fear and guilt of a man made religion.
All religions are man made.
All religions are CULTS some just have more members.
God is just pretend.
We no longer live in the Demon haunted world. We know now about illnesses, viruses, bacteria, eclipses, the revolution of the planet, Hielocentrism, DNA, Evolution...
We know that the Bible wasn't written in English... that it was written by deluded little men bent on power and control in many languages... and that deluded little men bent on power translated it into the modern tounges... often fraught with malicious "mistakes", and outright lies. Books left out, as they did not "fit" into the power control scheme. Crimes committed against humanity throughout the ages due to the Book. Progress of humanity halted because of delusional faith in the flawed, brainwashing of the book. Women tortured into false confessions of magical acts, then killed for those same confessions. Out right evil committed by Christians against fellow humans, because of fear of FANTASIES! Witches! Stupid silly, and it continues to this day, this crazy belief in demons behind every tree and flying witches on broomsticks, and blinded by the book into denying that the Earth is round and moves and circles the Sun, denying that the Sun is the center of the Solar System, denying that we are NOT the center of the Universe! Yet the truth has been made clear! Still it continues, in the denial of Evoulution, and the Sciences. That Book has been Man's greatest Wound... keeping us from progressing, keeping us in the Dark Ages...
Give it up. Take control of your lives. Let go of the false guilt, and the Death Religions of the Judeo/Christo/Islamo freaks.
Mankind could have been so much further along if it were not for these wacko Death Religions and their Silly Sky God.
Women could have been ruling the wreakless, passions of men for thousands of years by now, in true equality. The USA could have been founded equally by Women and Men, The Constitution written and signed equally by
Women and Men. We could have had famous Women Generals. We could have already had countless Women Presidents.
This country with it's backwards Evangelical screwballness... still has had not a Woman for President. Yet England has had Queens and Primeministers, India too, and Germany currently has a Female Chancellor! The USA? -Still in the Dark Ages of the Bible and Men ruling over women...
Enough is enough...
No more Heaven No more Hell.
No more Sky God. No more wacko Death Religions. Stand up against the Darkness, and peel the Bible off your face and SEE the world for the first time...
Behold! You are free!
ModName: shell32.dll
I tried to email you privately but the word verification thing is realy throwing me off. Hopefully, you got it. If I don't see a response, I will post the link myself. Thanks for the great article.ModName: shell32.dll
Philip took Marianne as an associate. Paul mentions several women as "fellow-laborers" (Phil. 4:2-3; Rom.16:3,4) and says that others worked powerfully in the Gospel (Rom. 16:6, 12). The "labor" which the women performed is described by exactly the same word in the Greek as the one used for the work of Timothy, Barnabas and other early missionaries. Furthermore, Paul asked the Christians at Corinth to "submit" to his fellow-laborers (I Cor. 16:16, 19). He appears to have organized a church in the house of Lydia (Acts 16:13-15, 40) and to have selected her nucleus of women friends as his first base of operation in Europe.
Inscriptions and images found on tombstones, frescoes and mosaics throughout the Mediterranean show that women held respected roles in the early Christian church that were identical to those held by men. They were apostles, priests, deacons and bishops. some of the early Christian households were headed by women. Thanks to the painstaking work of contemporary scholars, we now have compelling evidence that women held leadership and ministerial roles in the early church similar to those held by men. Inscriptions and images found on papyri, tombstones, frescos and mosaics show early Christian women served as apostles, prophets, teachers of theology, priests, deacons, stewards, enrolled widows and even bishops. Eisen's book: Women Officeholders in Early Christianity (Liturgical Press, 2000) is an exhaustive study of the literary and epigraphical evidence for women officeholders from the ancient Church to the Middle Ages. Her shows that women led and served communities Asia Minor, Greece, Spain, Egypt, Sicily, Italy, Palestine and Yugoslavia. Phoebe was a church leader as were Syntyche, Euodia (Phil. 4:2-3) and Lydia (Acts. 16-14-15, 40). In addition, there is well-argued speculation that the anonymous author of the Book of Hebrews is none other than Paul’s beloved friend, Priscilla.2 A bible will be coming out that unlike those purposely mistranslated will be 90% or more precise based on exhausted research to the original writings of the early church and thus this bible will be true to the Word. That will further clear things up.
ModName: shell32.dll
Greetings Dave Like to make a statement.
I am a woman who is silent in all the congregational meetings, I do not speak, but I do 'sing praises'[a form of prophesying] to God.I prophesy outside of the congregational meetings because 'the women 'telling' the good news is a large army' i cover my head when i pray or prophesy [ tell forth Gods sacred pronoucements]And i believe that in union with christ there is neither male nor female.Subject myself under the mighty hand of God that in due time he will exalt us.I expect other christians who say they are prophets or gifted with the Spirit to acknowledge what paul has written under the guidance of Holy spirit as the lords command. ModName: shell32.dll
You wrote: "I submit that it lies with those arguing that women should not be leadership positions. The reason for this is that it simply makes sense, and seems arbitrary to rule out 50% (or more) of the population from being in leadership positions simply because of their sex."ModName: shell32.dll
I don't agree. The burden of proof -- assuming we both agree on the infallibility of the Scriptures -- is with those who interpret the text in a non-plain way (do words mean anything?).ModName: shell32.dll
Passages such as those in 1 Timothy appear to make leadership male. Therefore the burden of proof is on those who disagree with what the text certainly appears to say.ModName: shell32.dll
Also, to say it "simply makes sense" is not a good argument. There are numerous paradoxes in the Bible and other things that do not make obvious sense (the Trinity for example). Therefore we must use the Bible as the infallible plumb-line and guide in these matters.ModName: shell32.dll
Lastly, Paul does not build his case based on "simply because of their sex". His argument is that it was Eve who was deceived. A womain is not a man in a skirt ;-) I think it is reasonably obvious that men and women often think very differently -- especially in cases of apologetics(!) and philosophy(!).ModName: shell32.dll
Warmest regards,ModName: shell32.dll
RobModName: shell32.dll
I think you're falling into a common trap, that of setting scripture against itself.ModName: shell32.dll
Scripture can't contratict - it's written by one person at one time - God (via humans at different ages).ModName: shell32.dll
So instead of discarding scripture, we must understand how to fit together apparently contradictory statments. ModName: shell32.dll
The thing is, the scripture you've got here doesn't contradict. It says quite clearly that Women should not hold leadership positions, although they *are* equal with men.ModName: shell32.dll
Rob and Scrub one, love your comments, lovely to hear ones are sticking to gods word and learnt not to PRESUME.ModName: shell32.dll
WOW. Dave I like your article. It was very informative. Now, if we all would spend more time accomplishing the work (reguardless who does it) that God has set before us, I don't think we would have time to toss such issues around. Does it matter if a person is saved under the leadership of a man or woman? The God fact is, that we save the lost. If someone is lead to Christ under the leadership of a woman, our merciful and compassionate God would not turn them away and say that their salvation is null and void because the word came from a woman. Let get busy doing the work.
Blessings to you Dave.ModName: shell32.dll
God can save anyone using male or female, but if the one saved does not obey what christ commnds then he becomes one like jesus said would say to him on that day " Lord Lord did we not do this or that in your name ' and jesus says " get away from me you workers of lawlessness. Do people really know what lawlessness is ? So yes it matters very much how you walk with God after you believe because only a couple made it into the promised land under joshua, and they are written down as examples to us , never to become complacentModName: shell32.dll
If you read the whole paragraph and not just one verse, you will get a better understanding of what is being said. I believe that men and women are equal to each other. Read www.free webs.com/johnaclark The essay title 'to make simple' is a short example, but 'the people of the way' is a complete essay on the New Testament. - thant-you John.ModName: shell32.dll
If you believe all the authors of the Bible were not even slightly influenced by their cultural/educational background and limitation, and nothing is to be PRESUMED or anaylzed, then I think you are Neoplatonian, not Christian.ModName: shell32.dll
One of the realities we often forget as the Church is when Christ came to deal with the sin problem, He came to restore those who are "In Christ" to the state prior to the fall of humanity.ModName: shell32.dll
There was perfect unity with God and between the man and woman in the garden prior to the Fall. The atonement provides grace to be restored in the here and now. ModName: shell32.dll
When one is in Christ, we do not need to seek for authority in male or female. The authority is in the being, essence and Lordship of Christ, the head of His Church.ModName: shell32.dll