Hi, thanks for stopping by uprisingyouth and subscribing ! Christ did break the Jewish tradition and preached  to, taught and dealt with women directly. They traveled with Him, were His friends and He had emotional bonds with a few imparticular. He experienced all of life, not a monastic lifestyle, although celebate.  In circumsicision only males received the sign of the covenant, now woman also receive the sign. I believe we find equal responsiblity and women being formally marked as in covenant with God and Christ Himself recognizng their worth and value (a quantum leap).  I also see women as being underutilized in the church in teaching and ministering to people. Especially women discipling women in a coventantal community (communion of saintly women) In the NT we are all called to ministry and to a Kingdom role and purpose, not just our own little personal piety. That said, do you see the “equality of women” extending to all the offices?

“However, I can certainly state with confidence that (again) nothing is Scripture is contradictory….it is only our interpretation of Scripture that often is contradictory. What do you think?” We certainly agree that this must be a base premise in examining inspired canon. I am not into a pick and choose biblical exegeis at all.

Thank you for pointing to the real interpretation of Galatians 3:8 as that does show interpretive honesty. The subject is large and deep and like you (from what I glean from this and other remarks) I believe we err when we don’t look at the geo-political aspects of scripture and church history as well as the socio-economic forces at play at the time of each. To divorce them would be to take an aspect of the historicity away from it.

That said, and as a underlying basis, with scripture we must also accept it being God breathed~and while a mans personality and writing style may well come into play, they are inspired text. Now I have known of some who say that part of Paul’s writing were not inspired. A good friend of mine, Dr. Carpenter studied under some of the leaders of the biblical feminism movement at Fuller and at Trinity Evangelical and their take was the exegis could not be interpreted to support it, but these were Pauls words and not inspired. Ok, now while we are not required to agree with them, (which I do not) it is made as an intellectually honest argument.

1 Timothy 2:11-14 certainly is an oft debated text. I would look at other areas though to find how we should interpret this. Obviously Eve was the one seduced by satan and sucuumbed to sin and Adam failed to be the head  that God ordained him to be to his helpmate. But we see male headship from creation on, and as a design of creation, we were made differently. God being a God of order established an order. Adam first created, Adam responsible for Eves sin (His sin caused the fall) Christ came as the Second Adam, again a headship role representative in covenantal language. Abraham’s seed, House of David, the illusion to false teachers preying on woman with their seductive teaching. The short list.

The male role is not taken serious today. In other words, biblical males are not filling their biblical roles as husbands and priests and in the church and community. Wives are underutlilized in the church, many women are very gifted. I am not familiar enough with the complimentarian nuances to list myself as such, but I believe unless we discount Pauls writing in Timothy and Titus  as uninspired and feel that Galatians 3:8 negates the males assigned role or responsibility in the home and the church throughout the bible, egalitarianism can not be honestly reconciled with scripture.

That said, if someone goes to a church that holds an egalitarian position, I am not going to condemn them, I am just not going to attend . Large subject, trying to consolidate I am sure I missed some things. Have a good afternoon   John

Jan, I am glad you reached into the personal aspect of your familial role. My wife is a professional insurance agent and has been for 20 years. We just are hitting 15 years in Dec. Her professional skills combined with mine has given us the ability to live all over this country and choose where we wanted to be, and finacially it has been a team effort. We used to have a healthy competition for who made more really always hoping the other did.  I make final decisions but really that is so few and far between it is inconsequential. Basically it means on final decisions I bear the brunt of he weight if it was the wrong one! Theologically I may be more astute, but we really discuss the implications of the gospel at home more than any other topic. Daily decisons, everyday decisions are our own to make because we trust one another. Our bills are divided as to whose they are by joint agreement and we have seperate accounts. But there must be a final decision maker and scripture puts that onus on me, and my wife gladly accepts and EXPECTS that. We both fall short in our husband and wife roles because we are still works in progress and working towards the goals scripture mandates.  So my life is complimentarian. Where we worship is my decision, but if my wife  and daughter are not being fed properly then it would be my job to find a place where they would be fed properly, as I should be in touch with those aspects and not self absorbed. Any authority comes with a responsibility so to speak.

Why did God make Deborah a judge in Israel?” The answer is not difficult. God’s perfect will is for men to lead, but when men will not assume their responsibilities, God uses women. The men in Deborah’s day were weak and chicken-hearted. Barak, the captain of the armies of Israel, proves this to be true. He refused to go into battle unless Deborah went with him. Deborah had to remind him that God had said it is time to fight.  Deborah had to  actually go with the coward! See Judges 4:8-9 And it was a period in Israel’s history during which God could find no man to do His will, so He used a willing woman.When there is spiritual apostasy in a nation, a church, or a home, God sends his judgment by rendering the men powerless . He removes discernment and true wisdom from their thinking.This is exactly what is happening in our nation today. We are under God’s judgment because our leaders are weak and godless.  Just as Israel in Deborah’s day was in bondage to their enemies because of their apostasy, here in  America we are walking down that same path.

This is what I was speaking to by men not fulfilling their roles Jan. Men have become effeminate in society and the church and women are having to assume their role. I see this as a judgment. A friend in our reformation group Dan, with the PCUSA said they dont even have enough qualified men to serve as elders for example. My brother in another PCUSA reports the same.

Now one area I will touch that I am not sure if we are on the same page as or not and that is teaching. I believe a women can taking a teaching role and still not be over the man. I could even see if you have a women in leadership whose leadership role was over woman, especially in a day and age where counsel of the opposite sex has led to so many problems and potential problems.

I found the quote I was trying to relay before from memory from my friend so will put it here-  I was indoctrinated in the evangelical “feminist” position at Fuller. There, the advocates of that position feel safe to describe it as feminism. Only later did I see people describe the same position described as “egalitarianism”. It appears that this later term is used in contexts where the position has not gained the upper-hand. I know of no differences between the so-called evangelical feminism or egalitarianism.

My systematic theology professor, Dr. Paul K. Jewett, literally wrote the book on evangelical feminism: Man As Male and Female. His main thesis is that Galatians 3:28 is the loci — the canon within the canon — around which all other texts on the issue of gender roles must be interpreted. Grudem is a great scholar, a good man, and a sincere Christian. I was a member of the church at which he was an elder and I’ve spoken personally with him (though not about this issue.) (I did notice that he had a copy of Dr. Jewett’s systematic theology on his shelf!) I think his works on this issue are commendable. But if one wants to know what the advocates of a particular point of view are saying, it is best to hear it first hand.

The Biblical position only loses credibility when it sounds patriarchal if one has accepted the world’s assumption that patriarchy is a bad thing. I’ve published an article, “The Power of Patriarchy”, in praise of that very thing. God has ordained the family and the church, in particular, to be ruled by “fathers”. There simply is no way to interpret the relatively clear texts of 1 Corinthians 11 & 14 and 1 Timothy 2:12-14 any other way. Even the honest feminists admit this. I have heard more than one such advocate declare openly that Paul cannot be seriously interpreted to be allowing for gender equality in the church or home. If God inspired the words “man is the head of woman”, “women are to keep silence” (when authoritatively judging prophecies), and “I do not permit a woman to teach and have authority over a man” — if He inspired those words but really intended to teach the “egalitarian” position, then God must be an incredibly incompetent communicator, which, of course, a perfect God cannot be.

To argue that simply because we do not today follow a cultural expression of a universal truth so we are then free to not have any expression of that truth is faulty logic. We do not greet each other with “holy kisses” either but that doesn’t mean we should be congenial. Besides, perhaps we are wrong not to have women wear head coverings. I don’t think so; I think that was simply the cultural expression of a truth that Paul, in that passage roots in creation and the Trinity. But even if we are inconsistent and we should, if we are to be consistent, have women wear a head covering, our inconsistency does not then mean we are better off consistently ignoring scripture.

As for 1 Corinthians 14, the context is, once again, key. It has to do with judging prophecies, which is an authoritative role in the Body. Paul says that only men should do it. The “evangelical feminist” will say that it was just a rule for that particular time and place. (What is to keep me from ascribing any rule I find inconvenient to be merely contextual?) But Paul begins that passage, 1 Cor. 14:33-38, with the words, “As in all th congregations of the saints. . .” and ends it with the words, “If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.” It doesn’t sound to me like this was intended to be a merely contextual, temporary principle.

As for the 1 Timothy 2:12-14 passage the confusion is with the word “teach”, which in our time does not convey the idea of an authoritative, disciplining relationship, as it does in Greek. Didaskalos would be translated in Hebrew as rabbi, and could, hence, be interpreted as “master.” Thus Paul is prohibiting women from discipling relationships with men. Obviously, he did not prohibit women from speaking in church because the whole purpose of the 1 Corinthians 11:2-17 passage is to give regulations on how women could pray and prophesy in church today. I for one think that the traditional evangelical today is too restrictive on the contributions of women to public worship. Paul allowed them to pray and prophesy! It would, then, be possible for women to speak in the public meetings in church so long as they did so under the headship of the male eldership. But I’d rather be safely conservative than rush head-long into the ways of the world which have no understanding of headship or respect for the idea of submission. For example, a woman cannot meet the standards of being an elder because she is a woman and thus not allowed to be in an authoritative — i.e. headship — position in the church.

The answer is not to find a “pragmatic” solution that ignores the clear teaching of the Word of God. It is to seek to glorify God by obeying His Word. Perhaps if churches strove to do that, there would not be a dearth of godly men.

Sincerely,

JBC

Again, I am not offering condemnation but what some of the other views were. I have a meeting in the morning, so have to close here. Blessings to you and yours and thanks for the discourse. Will check back. Respectfully John

My friend, I am not sure we even disagree but are busy in the arduous work of defining scripture today. I think we are in agreement that due to mens absymal failure to lead in the home, in the community and in the church, God has in fact raised some women up to man’s shame.( The gentlemen who I quoted, Dr. Carpenter is ironically a man whose wife is a excellent teacher and well versed in scripture and counsel. I believe it was Fuller she has her masters in missiology and is a editor with Impact magazine.) I believe we both feel women are underutilized in the ministry, but I don’t even think some of it is a male female thing. I think we have a lethargic CHURCH. We view pastors and church leaders as the ones who are hired to do a task, when in effect they are the ones to equip us to do the day to day work of the kingdom. Yes, please let me be clear, I have no problem with a women teaching. MIne more or less falls under the defined order. However, God will not be confined to a box or limited in what he uses. He will make the rocks cry out if necessary, and most likely the women before the rocks……..

We can certainly agree to disagree on the fine points but it seems we are approaching it from a non-hostile posit and look at different arguments civilly so it appears profitable to the kingdom. I guess that is where our age may be helpful, genuinely searching for the same thing-His truth. To Him Alone Be all the glory Jan, John

Now see therein is where some of the confusion lies with the word leader and head, glad you and P.O.T. posted these. I spent quite a few years in senior management  and also management /ownership of a business. Very few times did I ever know every single detail of everything that went on, not did I ever really strive to. I knew how everything operated, how everything coordinated, and how things had to interact (systems and personnel management in long term care) for optimal performance. But once something was set into motion, you normally review it, but don’t fix it unless it is broke. You give people responsiblity areas and allow them to fulfill them. If you over manage you are never successful or capable of moving up because you are NOT A LEADER or a manager, but a foreman who does a lot of work. Leadership in the home and the church is the same way. You assign people tasks and let them do it (better yet areas of responsibility). At times it involves just lending a hand or getting an extra helper if a task if too burdensome. Taskmasters rarely make great leaders because they dont leave room for people to excel or add their personal adjustments to it. Taskmasters amny times have feelings of inadequacy which they must cover up for by being on some power trip.

It is rare that either myself or my wife contravenes any action of the other once done. We make adjustments if needed instead. Once the milk is spilt or a bad move made you adjust, not throttle. In a church even moreso.  When I trained managers and supervisors I used to tell them don’t be job scared, don’t be afraid to do something if something needs to be done. Why? Because inaction is a bigger action and statement than trying to adjust and doing it wrong. A little praise and a thank you goes a long way when someone steps out to do something even if they ball the works up. They learned before you found the error.

Funny now you mention that joke, I have found many pastors or elders (and company managers) who are taskmasters and over-disciplinary focused in a church, (or fire happy) or are overly paternal (beyond what scripture calls for) live in the exact opposite situation.

Again good discussion. Hey Jan stop by……