When this topic comes up I always wonder, what can't men do in the church? There seems to be this list of things that were just meant for men that women aren't allowed to do but there doesn't seem to be a complementary list of the things women can do in church that men aren't allowed. There are things women are more likely to do like help with the nursery but men are allowed to do it. So if there really are these distinct roles for men and women, what are men not allowed to do in church that women are?

Justin, I have often wondered the same.

Since "complementarianism" argues that there are roles and functions that women cannot exercise, regardless of gifting and interest, it seems to me that for the term “complementary” to actually apply, there would also have to be roles and functions that men are prohibited from exercising, regardless of gifting and interest (beyond the obvious, biological constraints of giving birth, breastfeeding, etc).

Complementarianism? Definitely not a biblical word. . . Paul goes to great lengths to explain how dividing walls are torn down. Gender, social status, and race are now irrelevant within the Spirit lead church. Paul does address local congregational issues, but we are at best unsure of the context and what exact problems are being addressed when Paul tells a particular elder how to lead a particular community. Today, let the anointing be the deciding factor on who can be a Father (or Mother) of local community. Let the traditions of men be overwhelmed by power and love.

Excellent post. We should be reminded of Romans 3:21-26 "But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."

Jesus Christ is head of the church, not a pastor or elder. God is our Father, not a pastor or elder. A "sub-head" or "junior-father" role for men is not God's intention for the church. Instead, all of us are adopted children, with all the rights and responsibilities that go with that.

To all the previous commenters, what, then, do you do with passages like 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9? Neither of those are letters directed to a particular church so I don't think they can so easily be dismissed as only applying to a particular context. To advocate for a position (women as elders) that doesn't seem to be supported by Scripture is problematic.

Galatians 3:28 is often used in this debate, that because we are all one in Christ, then there are no differences anymore. I don't think that's the intent of that verse. In Christ there is unity, but there are still Biblically-defined roles and responsibilities (elder, deacon, husband, wife, children). The distinctions between male and female came with creation and we would be unwise to try and change God's initial perfect creation.

Complementarians, of which I would consider myself one, say that the office of elder is restricted to men because of the passages I previously cited. That does not mean, however, that women are prohibited from teaching and exercising their gifts in appropriate settings, just that those settings are not to be ones where the women is in spiritual authority over a man.

What do you do with the Scriptures that tell us that the two most important theological distinctives of Christianity--the Incarnation and the Resurrection--were revealed first to women? In a strictly complementarian view of "headship," God erred by not telling Joseph first that Mary was to bear the Messiah and then charging him to relay that message to her. And Jesus should have bypassed Mary Magdalene altogether and instantly appeared to Peter and the "guys," as He did later. To say that women should not have spiritual authority over a man seems to be the same as saying that God has never revealed His will first to women, and this is not illustrated in the whole of Scripture--although it may be inferred from a few verses.

/facepalm (Don't start a post with / and it won't go to junk, Sheer! BJ)

Well...I guess he decided to take the long way of answering the question...well, that is assuming he answered it...which...I don't know...he threw out so many words I had to watch it a second time just to sift through the verbage.
btw, I disagree with him, but considering he wandered so much I'll have to leave the disagreement at his use of "roles" whatever that meant.

Which, oddly enough, brings me to the topic of...

"1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9"

When I see single subject verses being used to support a teaching from the bible I get suspicious of the person because I think they're reciting a bias they picked up from someone else, and not one developed on their own.
So...here is the thing about 1tim:3, and Titus 1...if you do not understand the historical context of the society that Paul was writing too (i.e. the only amount of study put in was a reading of the cursory driblets of information about Greek and Roman society provided in the margin of your bible), or you have never done a comparative subject studies between letters (i.e. studying the historical information of the society, along with Paul's writing, and actually comprehend the issues facing the letters recipient)...you shouldn't be assuming knowledge you don't have.
Instead, you should do an open study of all Pauls letters dealing with people in authority roles, and the historical context of the society they are living in.
The crisis's Paul was addressing that his recipients were facing from without and within the church...me thinks you'll be quite surprised at what you find...which would include Paul's acknowledgement of women pastors, deacons, teaching men, leadership roles, and most of all, head of household.
I know, you are thinking, "what?"
The problem is that it takes work, time, and a whole lot of reading to discover those things...but most of all, a willingness to let the author explain himself, or...herself.
it seems that it will take a tremendous amount of willpower to actually go to a library and read those tomes that seem to be collecting a lot of dust.
I can only hope that some of you will make the effort.

Lane, very good points!

From an Orthodox perspective, women aren't restricted from participating in church leadership in that they can be elected to and serve on the parish council, and they can teach Sunday school where it exists ("Sunday school" is more a western than an truly Orthodox Christian institution), etc. On the other hand, Orthodoxy has always reserved the roles of Deacon, Elder/Presbyter(Priest) and Overseer(Bishop) for men (and not all men--only certain men), understanding the Presbyter and Overseer, like the husband in the family, to be "icons" of Christ (following St. Irenaeus' imagery) and serving in their liturgical and sacramental roles in this way.

On the other hand, the most highly-honored layperson in the Church is Mary, the Mother of God (who is also an icon of the whole Church in relationship to Christ as the Bridegroom). Lay people are not considered of less value or less gifts to the Church than clergy in Orthodox theology (though, of course, the sin of clericalism still can and does infect the Orthodox Church in practice). It is this understanding of husband/man in his priestly liturgical function as icon of Christ, and wife/woman as icon of redeemed humanity/Church that adds an extra dimension istm to the discussion and suggests that our thinking about these issues ought to be informed both by God's creation distinctions and the NT teachings that others have raised in comments above.

Yet the Christian understanding of woman in her full personhood and spiritual gifting is also expressed historically in Christian monasticism where there are no distinctions (to this day in Orthodox monasticism) in dress, calling or lifestyle of a monk vs. a nun. An abbess has authority in her monastery just as the abbot has authority in his.

Orthodox Saints are honored in the same way whether they are men or women--both equally can be said to be "God-bearers" by grace being molded into the image of Christ in His humility and love and uniquely expressing that in its fullness their lives. There are women Saints in the Orthodox Church who have been given the title "Equal to the Apostles" in that they were recognized to be the bearers of the good news to those who had never heard it before (despite never serving in the office of Bishop or Presbyter). I think that about says it all.

To put everything in its proper context, though, grasping for honorific titles or position is deeply foreign to the true spirit of Orthodoxy/Christianity (Phillippians 2:1-8), whether on the part of man or woman. So the fact that we are even having to have this discussion shows that things have already gone deeply awry in many ways in our thinking in the modern context.

RE: I Timothy and Titus.

It's not apparent to me that he is strictly limiting the office to men anymore than he may be strictly limiting the office to only married men at that (thereby disqualifying himself and Jesus) or anymore than he may be advocating the institution of slavery in other passages by not explicitly condemning said institution.

The only "consistent" literal/plain sense reading of this text would demand, by that standard, that eldership is not only male, but married male.

That would be my answer...

To be clear, that's not a reading I would agree with

It is interesting to hear the banter on why women should be able to have the same sacerdotal positions as men, when God has not asked either to take on these contrived rolls in the household of faith. The protestant church is still largely stuck in Catholic thinking and is unreformed in this key element. Pastoring and oversight is not over-talking, over-visioning, over-bossing, over-titling, over-deciding, or over-anythng else. It's only oversight. God has not "called" anyone to any of this other rigmarole.

@Tim,

As a person who is in a paid ministry position I've met my share of over-talking, bossing, etc. etc.

but the vast majority of those I know don't fit that description in mindset or in how they actually function.

@Nathan
If the saints gather and one guy or woman does 90% of the personal expression of truth, he/she is over-talking. They are helping the saints "forsake the assembly" which is specifically stated to be "spurring one another on to love and good works" and "encouraging one another". I know it's been this way for a long time but it doesn't match up. The "holy priests" are all silent, rather than "proclaiming the glories of Him who called them..."

Here's a defense of ordaining women written in the 19th c. by Free Methodist leader B.T. Roberts. Might be of interest here.

http://www.freemethodistchurch.org/pdfs/resources/Ordaining_Women.PDF

@Tim,

What's the role of the pastor-teacher or just "teacher", depending on how you read Eph. 4?

Those "offices" are "gifts" (domata). The word means the persons themselves are the gifts to the Body.

How would you understand that role to function in the Church?

I need to amend my post above to read in the 3rd paragraph (or 2nd, depending on how you look at it, since my first is just a sentence!): ". . . the most highly-honored member of the Church is Mary, the Mother of God, a lay person . . . "

@Tim, on the other hand, there is also in the NT Acts 20:7-9. Also, those described in Scripture with a prophetic ministry tend to be preachers, not group discussion facilitators. :-)

Oh...I see...the / flags the spam guard because it thinks it's a command line for an http...right, good to know, and I won't do that again.

Tim...I'm...hmm...I think you're a little off base here...because given the social construct of the church in Acts...they did have leaders...I'm not sure you can escape, or dismiss that without contravening the bible.
Unless that's not your point, and I'm misreading/misunderstanding your argument in which case feel free to correct my perception.

If you get rid of offices and titles - then this question has very little relevance. God didn't create man or woman to be overlords of His Body - and He certainly didn't create the church to be pastor-or-elder centered. He create it to be Christ-centered. You can't accomplish that with a Diotrephes ('who loveth to have the preeminence among them' see 3 John 1:9) at the helm. You can only accomplish that by the 'proper working of each individual part' (see Eph 4:16). Christ is represented on this earth by HIS BODY - NOT by a group of ELDERS.

In the persecuted church in the world - much of the church is led by women. The Chinese church was propogated by women - they had put all the men in jail. In the American church - most of the church membership is put in 'jail' by the hierarchical leadership that thinks only the elite (clergy) should be allowed to do spiritual ministry. Man or woman - doesn't make much difference - if all the members are stuck to a chair listening to you talk - instead of minsitering to 'one another'.

Americans think they are preeminent in Christ's Body - Reality is - they were left behind 50 years ago to argue about things that were left behind 50 years ago.

The church is a family, and God has designated men to be the head of the family.

by this logic then man would be head of the church...not jesus.

Where in the the New Testament is the church regularly described as a family? Generally, Paul describes the church as a body where no part is greater than another. When a part is not used, a critical function is lost! No feet equals no walking. No eyes, no sight. All parts are necessary for the healthy function of the body. Excluding women from using the gifts that the Holy Spirit has given them for the healthy functioning of the body must grieve the Holy Spirit and retard his work.

Many scholars and theologians have examined the various texts that "seem" to exclude women from some ministries and come to very different conclusions about what they really say. I won't attempt to repeat those arguments here. However, I do know that the God and His word (the Bible) can never contradict. So for there to be as many women leaders in both testaments means we need to re-evaluate some of our thinking related to women not being called by God to leadership in the Church. I do believe God holds the church accountable for accomplishing His will. What will be His reaction when told His will wasn't accomplished because the men (or enough men) weren't given all the necessary gifts? Isn't it possible for Him to respond that He gave the necessary gifts to Jane, to Julie, to Nancy, (just as He did to the prophet/judge/leader Deborah, deacon/patron/leader Phoebe, apostle Junia, teacher Priscilla, etc) not just to Mike, John and David? How do we respond then?

@Jerry,

in my experience growing up in church, it was often people without titles who thought it was their job to lord it over people by force of will and who talked the loudest/demanded more openly what they wanted.

I don't think titles are the problem.

it's the human heart and for all the stories of the evil controlling pastor boogeyman (not saying they're not out there, i've ran into a few) it's actually my experience that some congregation members are often the most blatantly power hungry people in the church more often than not.

When Paul wrote "I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man", he clearly meant "I do permit a woman to teach and exercise authority over a man".

Just like when Jesus said "Love your enemies" he clearly mean "Do not love your enemies".

Duplicate When Paul wrote "I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man", he clearly meant "I do permit a woman to teach and exercise authority over a man".

Just like when Jesus said "Love your enemies" he clearly mean "Do not love your enemies".

"When Paul wrote "I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man", he clearly meant "I do permit a woman to teach and exercise authority over a man"."

yes, yes...I see you're point...you know, I think it's like when Y'shua said to Peter, "feed my sheep" what he really meant was, "dude, seriously, I got a herd of sheep on the back forty, go feed them because I'm tired."

In response to Lane, Jesus spoke to Mary first. Indeed, but he also spoke to Joseph. In fact after they were married, He communicated to Joseph His will that they flee to Egypt not Mary. Women were very important in the life of Jesus. In fact he overturns the misogyny of Jewish and to some extent the Hellenic and Roman world. Women supported Him. He spoke to a Samaritan - a Samaritan woman! He was good friends with several Marys, Martha and others. His resurrection was revealed to women. No where is it stated women are not to be evangelists. Women were likely part of the 120 at Pentecost. Yet He chose 12 men as apostles, "leaders" of His church He is building.

@Nathan:

No disagreement here about the people outside of 'church leadership' who step up to control others and situations. In my experience women/men fit into that role equally well. My experience is even those people were empowered by giving them a title - even a title as simple as 'elder's wife' or 'church secretary'. What do you do when you're an 'elder' - and the church secretary starts ordering you around?

The pastor in the church where I was an elder had the exact same view on women as Bill Kynes (which I totally disagreed with). The church secretary - who spent a great deal of time with the pastor every day - ended up establishing most of the doctrine for the church. She did it by handing material to and daily discussions with the pastor. An elder with a 9 to 5 job couldn't even compete - as wrong as some of that doctrine was.

The pastor's wife could easily apply enough pressure on the pastor - that a mere elder couldn't stand up against her. Since she wasn't allowed in leadership - this created a 'ghost' of a leader. Ever tried contronting a 'ghost'? They don't exist - end of discussion before it even starts.

Has anyone ever blogged on all the problems created by 'no women allowed in' leadership? The fruit that this doctrine bears is worth bringing out in the open. It's really, really ugly.

Jesus did choose men for the Twelve, he had many disciples, both men & women (Mary Magdalene, Susannah, Joanna, etc - Luke 8:3) -- These disciples, both men & women (we're not told otherwise) were sent out as the 72 (or 70) and the 120 to teach, etc.

Jesus' mission while on earth was not to right injustice (altho' through Scripture, we know that is a priority of God's), but to show us the Father, His love for us, and to die sacrificially for us so that we could be restored to a right relationship with Him. Jesus did not tear down the 3 main barriers of the day -- Jew vs. Gentile (race), slave vs. free (social class), male vs. female (gender). Jesus did not pick Gentiles or slaves for the 12 either. (FYI, the same arguments to keep women from leadership, preaching, and teaching, were used by some Christians to justify the slavery of millions of Africans in the South prior to the Civil War). To apply the standard that women can't be leaders because they weren't among the 12, means that, to be consisitent, non-Jewish men, slaves, prisoners, or those of a lower social class should not be allowed to lead, teach, or preach either.

Jesus' mission was not to change people's hearts -- that's the job of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, working through the hearts of those members of the Jesus' body (the church), will bring many to God, change their hearts and through the church, right injustice, including that of race, social class, and gender. "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28). That's one of the points of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit filled all those present in the upper room -- men and women, regardless of race or social class -- "Your sons and daughters will prophesy... Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit.." (Act 2).

Since Paul did have women in leadership, Phoebe a deacon and Junia as apostle among others then we have to ask ourselves how do we understand that with the passages in Timothy because scripture does not contradict itself. Purhaps we could understand it in light of Romans 14:14-21

"I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean. If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died. Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval. Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall."

So that when Paul is telling women not to have authority what he is saying is don't cause anyone to stumble and let the only charge that anyone could bring against you that you are a Christians. because it's likely that the Roman culture around would see women in leadership as a sexual position since the place for women in their temples was as prostitutes. Oh course that would not be the image that Paul wants to present because we don't want to cause anyone to stumble. So even though we know it is allowed, it's better in that case that women not be in charge then the culture around and even fellow Jews think and we are just another sexual cult.

So then when we look at that passage today we realize that the same context does not exist. We are still called not to cause anyone to stumble, but having women pastors does not cause people to stumble, in fact the opposite is true today, no having women as pastors causes people to think that we are misogynistic and sexist. That isn't true, but that's what we are putting across and we are causing people to stumble.

I do not fully agree with these conclusions. It is certainly important for men to lead in their marriage and household and the local church and every aspect of life from coaching to political leadership also need strong male leadership. However, this does not mean that women do not and cannot have leadership roles of equal importance. Women co-lead the household under and together with their husbands. My wife co-leads the church that we pastor and founded in Valencia, Spain. She is also the senior pastor, as well as, the worship leader (she is musical and I am not). Further, she does all of the counselling and one on one discipling and ministry to the women in the church. I counsel, disciple and minister one on one to the men. Together, we minister to the couples and in general we both teach and preach the Word in services. While we are the senior pastors or lead pastors of our church it is understood that she ministers with me as my wife and under my covering and leadership as my wife. She is submitted to me as her husband as the Bible teaches. I love her and sacrifice my life for her and my children as Christ loved the church. We are not egalitarian nor are we complementarian as these terms are often understood today yet we are both in a balanced way. I believe that women can and must pastor and lead (especially the other women). If not, how can we fulfill Paul's admonition to Timothy and the Ephesian church for the elder men to disciple the younger men and for the elder women to disciple the younger women. Frankly, the larger area of concern that I have for the 21st century church is not wether women can pastor or teach men (I have no problem with it at all) but why so many male leaders are trying to do what only the female leadership should be doing in their churches -- teaching, discipling and counselling the younger or less mature women. Male pastors often fall into sin with women they counseled. I have seen this happen for years and it is usually because of our prideful belief that only we (men) can do these things. Because we do not empower the women leaders in our churches, men are falling like dominos and losing their leadership and ministry. In conclusion, I believe that healthy male leadership in a local church setting requires and demands female ministry and leadership at the very least to meet the needs of the women who are in our churches. Even those pastors who are strictly complementarian and believe that women can't preach the Word (I do not share this view at all) must recognize that they need to empower women to minister to the other women. In conclusion, I believe that God calls women in every area of ministry including the five-fold ministry gifts.

"It is certainly important for men to lead in their marriage and household and the local church and every aspect of life from coaching to political leadership also need strong male leadership."

Okay, just so you know Brent, I read your entire thread...then reread it again...and I am seriously confused...how do you reconcile this beginning paragraph with what you wrote afterwards?
Why is it important for men to lead?
Why is it important for anyone to lead?
Why is it important for men to only counsel men, and yet you conclude with..."In conclusion, I believe that God calls women in every area of ministry including the five-fold ministry gifts."
Cannot a woman counsel a man, and a man counsel a woman...and if not...why not?

@ Nathan What is the role of the pastor-.... Just what the text says.
Sacerdotal (institutionalized) pastoring holds the saints in perpetual dependency. The system is set up so that no one is "equipped" to do "the work of the ministry" for anything someone is hired to do. These "ministries" have a fence around them - do not enter - this is my livelihood. Everything living, by God's design reproduces. This type of leadership does not reproduce. After 20+ years of a "strong" pastor, he leaves, no one there can do anything he did. Another has to be hired to do everything he did. There is COMPLETE separation of ministry into two classes - no where near "equipping". The results are tragic. The saints must consume 86% of the "giving" to buy the clergy goodies to benefit mostly themselves. The saints in the richest country in the world will only give 2.3% of their income on average. Only @20% of the saints will grow into any substantive form of service and faith action. True reproductive discipleship dynamic is almost non-existent (even among "full-time" pastors. Is this a "gift" from God to His church? No, God designed reproductive leadership, not perpetual dependency leadership.

@Karen
"...Acts 20:7-9. Also, those described in Scripture with a prophetic ministry tend to be preachers, not group discussion facilitators. :-)

Well, Karen, :-) If you go to Blue Letter Bible online you can check that the word used in Acts 20:7-9 is the exact word which gives us "dialogue". NO JOKE! That was a discussion going on. Your translation is not very authentic here is it? Maybe you can try another proof text that seems to suggest "preach the Word…" = "lecture the Word…". I am having a prophetic ministry to you right now and I'm not lecturing to you.

@Sheer
I'm not asking for no leadership. I'm asking for reproductive leadership - the exact opposite of what happens in institutionalized forms that woman and men seem to seek after. Perhaps you have only seen the sacerdotal kind. It is not what God asked for at all.

@Brent:

I think this is a good post. I've seen a few single women who were pretty strong believers counseling men who were young in the Lord and get into problems too. The mothering/fathering thing can go south real fast in counseling situations.

Young ministers big problem is they have no concept that it's the body that is to do the work of the ministry. (Eph 4:11-13) The pastors job is to equip the saints to minister to one another. Titus is specifically instructed to teach the older women to teach the younger women. (Titus 2:1-5) This is body ministry.

I think the 1 Tim 2:12 thing is in the context of Adam and Eve (a married couple) - and childbearing (something scripturally encouraged only in the context of marriage). How can you take the 'man' and 'woman' of this verse outside of marriage - when the passage is full of marriage references?

We had to confront a so called 'apostle' in an inner city ministry because he used this passage as saying 'he' had authority over 'women' - and could sleep with anyone he chose. That really opened up my eyes to the errors of interpreting this passage to say 'he-s' have authority over 'she-s'. Even wrongly interpreted - the verse says 'she-s' cannot have authority over 'he-s' - not the positive of he reverse.

If you as a man think you have authority over my wife as a woman - you are really messed up. Where we minister at - those are grounds for getting knived or shot.

Some of these threads have little to do with the topic and are more a rant on leadership.

Jesus choosing 12 men, (one who failed miserably, one who denied him, most who ran away as the women stayed) is not determinative in this discussion but is illustrative. Jesus was indeed here to change hearts. Sermon on the mount. etc. Jesus did turn the misogyny of the Jewish world on its ear which is why choosing 12 men makes one wonder. As does Paul's "I do not allow a women to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet." It was his friend Prisca along with her husband who taught Apollos, and he had any number of women in ministry with him. Yet Paul references the order of creation, not culture in making that assertion.

I do not like it or understand it yet there seems to be at least a primacy of male authority particularly in the family and the church. It is difficult to work through and all 3 video segments seem to fall down at some points. How that primacy works out is a matter of love and the Spirits work yet that primacy would yet need to be evident.

There has been a lot of talk about Jesus picking twelve men as the disciples, and the "men" part being significant. It is significant, but not because it means Jesus chose men to lead. There is 12 disciples because of the 12 tribes of Israel, which were named after the 12 sons of Jacob (for the most part), because Jesus is constituting a new Israel, a new kingdom. It's possible that they were 12 men precisely because they are to make us remember the 12 tribes/12 sons and it might not make the same connection were they women.

@Tim, thanks for the enlightening comment regarding the original language used in the Acts passage. That's what I get for not looking it up myself! :-) Really, that passage especially makes more sense as a dialogue.

As an Orthodox, I'm not looking to stress lecturing as THE mode of Christian teaching, and definitely not the kind of role it has had within modern Protestantism. I just note that in the Scriptures there are also discourses given--Christ's Sermon on the Mount, the sermon of Stephen the first martyr, etc. Within Orthodoxy, though our main liturgy is that edited by St. John Chrysostem (the Golden Mouthed, so nick-named for his gifted preaching), the typical homily compared to its Protestant cousins is a fairly humble and brief biblical exhortation on the Gospel, Feast, Saint, or perhaps the Epistle reading for the day (if it happens at all). Since faith is understood first and foremost as a way of life that is learned by living it, most spiritual instruction in the Orthodox context for children takes place within the family as a whole-life experience largely based on the modeling of pious parents and/or grandparents. Within the Church, spiritual instruction takes place through the prayers and hymns of the liturgy, and one-on-one in confession with one's priest or a spiritual "father" or "mother" (i.e., monastic lay person gifted with this ministry), where biblical counsel can be tailored to the actual needs of the person. The Orthodox attitude would certainly resonate with the exhortation of St. Francis of when he said, "Preach the Gospel at all times. When necessary, use words."

@Ruth, regarding the 70 sent out, we are not explicitly told who these disciples were in the NT itself, but we have a fairly early extra-biblical witness (Hippolytus) who lists them as men who became bishops in the early Church. There's material at the link below that describes what is available on this subject, how it came to light, and the relative reliability of the text in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventy_Disciples

As far as I know, the Eastern Orthodox Church accepts Hippolytus' list as authentic (Mt Athos, where the document was found, being a 1,000 year-old monastic republic of the Orthodox Church).

@Tim--re: Acts 20:7 according to my Word Study NT, there are actually two words used for "preach" and "speak" here. The part where Paul continues talking until midnight uses the term "logos" which I believe has the sense of delivering a message. So I think it still makes my first point, but as I said in my last comment to you, I'm not trying to make a case for biblical preaching/teaching always necessitating lecture. Biblically, istm it is not a case of either give and take discussion OR lecture, but is a "both/and" situation. In the context of the NT, and informed by the Orthodox tradition, istm true pastoring, whether on the part of a man or woman, is a whole life mentoring activity where one person as a spiritual parent pours out their life in sacrificial love for another, the spiritual child. In any case, I think that any lecture not offered in that spirit is unlikely to bear good spiritual fruit.

There is no scipture to free slaves. It is the coming of the future Kingdom into this present world. Women are free to be who God calls them to be because it is the future making all things right here and now. I say justice is the order of the Kingdom and women need justice as much as slaves need justice. In the home I love having a coequal to share in the leading of our family. Why are men so insecure that they can not share power with the wife the say they love.

If the pastors in my church loved me the way my husband loves me, I would have no problem with this theory.

Nonsense! Such twisting of scripture is embarrassing for believers.