Thank you for this article. I'm really looking forward to the next portion of the discussion! (oh, and I hope you don't get flamed too badly, since this topic seems to bring out the worst in some of the posters at this site.)

What got me to review my opinions, and eventually my scholarship was Gilbert Bilezikian's "Beyond Sex roles."
That put me on a tour de force of the scriptures that also led me to other faucets of early church history and biblical studies.

Eventually, I had to do a full review of my "traditional" beliefs and biases about what I thought was "Christian" and overhaul, or dump a lot of what I was taught.
Anyway, an excellent book to kick start* the discovery phase of our faith, and how we are to be followers of G-d.

*Note: Don't just read the book and dumbly nod, "uh-huh, yep, yep, yep!" Take what he wrote, and then do your own study. It'll take a couple of years, but it is well worth the treasure trove of discoveries you'll make about G-d, and the bible...for me, I discovered a neat little thing about G-d, he's not a big fan of Monday's either.

I've spoken with ministry leaders throughout the country who are alarmed at the accelerating "female drain" and wonder what's up. It's simple. Women no longer have to wait for permission to do God's work in a needy world. They're creating amazing avenues of service from scratch. Outside the box and outside the building. Because they're called, because they're obedient to their calling, and because, in this new "flattened world", they can.

Thank you, Bob and Evergreen Community for doing the hard work of intentional transformation. And for being excellent stewards of the gifts God has placed among you, both male and female.

farewell Bob Hyatt.... :)

Dustin shoots... And scores! :)

I am continually amazed at the drift of thinking on this issue over my lifetime. I also believe that you will find Webb's "trajectory hermeneutic" will do great damage to the authority of Scripture in your fellowship over time. I don't expect I'll find many who agree with me in the CT audience anymore, though. CT/Leadership's agenda on this seems increasingly obvious.

Bob, I relate to much of what you write. As is true of many, the complementarian view of gender roles is culturally uncomfortable to me. I've worked with and for women in the workplace, and had no problem with it. I too have studied this issue extensively from both perspectives. But I find the exegetical choices you've made to be less plausible than the opposing interpretations. Try as I may to find sound biblical reasons to accept the egalitarian view, I find myself trying to turn the text inside out and upside down, forcing a square peg into a round hole. The complementarian view may be culturally offensive, but it is biblically coherent and consistent. I'm willing to be convinced but, respectfully, I don't find egalitarian biblical interpretation to be so.

As a woman, I agree with Curt. I attended seminary and tried to read my pre-supposition into Scripture. After all, weren't women the first to hear the good news of Christ's resurrection - doesn't that mean we have the right...After all, weren't women involved in ministry in the book of Acts...I tried to shove that square peg into the round hole. But I could not find any Scriptural justification for shaking my fist and demanding my right to all the same roles as men.

The truth is two fold in my opinion. First, as women we need to be like Deborah. She filled a role that no one was willing to fill in a time when "Israel did what was right in their own eyes..." However, over all wasn't her role to lead Barak back into his role as a spiritual leader? Isn't it correct that in the end Barak is listed in the hall of faith while Deborah lingers in the background as the one who had the grace and strength to encourage him back into his rightful role? I do not see women doing this today. I see us trying very hard to take over these roles, to prove we are equal and in some cases better. Meanwhile, I see fewer and fewer men taking on leadership roles. So, as a woman I find it takes more grace and more strength to encourage men into that role.
Secondly, I do not see men doing us women any good by caving in to our demands. We have proven in culture that we can shake our fists and demand that we assume the same roles as men. Like our cuture, we think that “sameness” in the church will uphold woman’s worth and dignity. But the end result is that we fail to see the dignity and worth in our "isness" in who God created us to be as the nurturers and encouragers so important to home life and Body life. "We need you men to step up to the plate and be men—to be the providers, protectors and fathers that God created you to be. We need you to assume the responsibility of leadership in our homes and communities and to go to bat for women who are abused, downtrodden, oppressed, and forgotten. We don’t need women to be more like men—or men to be more like women. We need radical, counter-cultural men and women who dare to delight in God’s design" (M.Kassian).

I believe that we will see the dignity of women upheld when we embrace our God-given differences—not when we deny them.
And I am woman, so hear me roar.

Jeb, I find nothing in the book of Judges that says Deborah was filling a job no one wanted. Nor do I find that Barak had strayed from his "role as a spiritual leader." As for Curt's statement that the complementarian view is "consistent"--I thought Bob covered that well. The supposition that women who lead in the church are trying to be "like men" is not found in Scripture.

Jdges 4:4-8, "And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time. And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in mount Ephraim: and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment. And she sent and called Barak the son of Abinoam out of Kedesh Naphtali, and said unto him, 'Hath not the LORD God of Israel commanded, saying, Go and draw toward mount Tabor, and take with thee ten thousand men of the children of Naphtali and of the children of Zebulun? And I will draw unto thee to the river Kishon Sisera, the captain of Jabin's army, with his chariots and his multitude; and I will deliver him into thine hand.' And Barak said unto her, 'If thou wilt go with me, then I will go: but if thou wilt not go with me, then I will not go.'

Can someone explain where Scripture says it is the responsibility for men to make more money than women? Where is says that man is the head of the family, or the head of the household?

Even if one accepts a complementarian viewpoint, we ought to criticaliy examine what is actually Biblical complementarity, and what is cultural baggage.

I like this simple statement (which I believe I first read from Scot McKnight)...Women today should be allowed to do everything that women in the NT did.

And in the NT we see women doing all kinds of things - including 1- speaking in church (we know this since Paul told them what to wear on their heads when they did it); 2 - teaching men (Pricilla); 3- planting churches (the many who had churches in their homes); 4 - being missionary pastors (Paul mentions several as his co-workers, not his underlings); and more.

Nate,
I suspect that there are a lot of traditionalists, both male and female, who would prefer to have things remain as they are rather than expand their relationship with G-d and be what G-d designed them to be.
I've seen a lot of capable women actually hide, even suppress their G-d given talents because they were uncomfortable being what G-d made them...so...they hid in tradition, placing an enormous amount of pressure on their husbands to be something that G-d did not design them to be.
I know of one whose wife was extrodinary at organization, and leadership, her husband, a very good father who was extremely patient with the children, and a quite capable cook.
But rather than her being what she was obviously made to be, she forced her husband to be something he wasn't...and so...yeah, misery ensued.
She became overbearing and demanding of him to be something he was not, and he shut down...all the while, she pretended a modesty that was betrayed by her very character.
I think it's sad that this is still happening, and that we're still trying to work through this.
Personally, I think it's just spiritual laziness, but I will have to defer to G-d and allow a certain amount of patience that says it could be intellectual uncertainty.

Elegance:
Exactly.

Jennifer:
It might surprise you, but complementarians would agree with Scot McKnight's statement too. But on your points: 1) No argument. 2) What Priscilla did seems to be closer to evangelism than teaching because Apollos had an incomplete understanding of the gospel. Whatever it was that she did, A) she did it with her husband, so we don't know for sure what part she played in this exchange; B) it was done privately; and C) we have no other indication in Scripture of a teaching role for her. 3) Hosting a church meeting in your home means that you planted the church? This will be a surpass to many people who host small group meetings in their homes. 4) Being a part of a church-planting team makes you a pastor? Really?

And, since I'm asking questions, I would ask Bob why he equates prophetic utterance with leadership? And we are to take Dwborah's role as normative, but divorce her from the context of being the sole exception within the otherwise consistent pattern of leadersh throughout the history of Israel, from the context of Judges with a noticeable deterioration of Israel and a corresponding declining of qualified judges [do we want to also commend the distinctiveness of Samson as a leader?], and the context of the very account which, itself, makes her gender an issue?

It's this kind of loose, speculative eisegesis that reinforces the perception that there is no biblically sound argument to be made for egalitarianism. As I said, I'm willing to be convinced. But I'm not wiling to stand on my head exegetically to see things the way I'd like them to be. If the egalitarian view is the right one, the more we scrutinize it, the more clearly we should see that it's valid. It shouldn't have to rely on speculation and hermeneutical smoke and mirrors.

Point 3 is supposed to read "This will be a surprise . . ." Typing too quickly on an on-screen keyboard. :)

Curt,

At the very least you have to be honest enough to say that Paul mentions the names of many women who have churches in their homes - and he does not list anyone else as a leader. He does not say "The church that Joe leads at Jane's house." All we have is "the church that meets in Jane's house." which could just as easily mean that Jane is the leader.

I'm a church planter and consider it a great joy to follow in the footsteps of my spiritual mothers from the NT who incubated churches in their homes.

Jennifer,

I think claiming that the Bible references "many" women who have churches in their homes is pushing it, but I would readily cite Nympha as an example. That reference definitely wouldn't conflict with your theory. But it doesn't really support it either. It's pretty neutral. And there actually aren't any places where the NT specifies a single leader of a church, so the fact that one isn't mentioned here is not that remarkable.

Curt,

Maybe "many" is pusing it....but considering the culture, even having SOME is huge.

I was talking with a young woman last week who had questions about women in ministry. I referenced one verse talking about 4 single women in the NT who were all involved in prophecy. She's been in church 21 years and no one had ever told here there were single women prophets in the NT. Maybe it's not a "huge" number, but when women's involvement is so trivalized, it felt pretty huge to that girl.

One of the more shocking things I discover as I read discussions like this is the horrific lack of understanding of ancient culture, especially amongst seminary students.
And by lack of understanding, I mean unfiltered by modern biblical referencing.
For example, Paul, wrote to a culture that we, today, are completely and totally unfamiliar with, and yet, we read Paul's letters as if he were writing in the King's English.
Another example is the Greek and Roman, well, the entire Mediterranean basin's culture view of the place of women in society.
Again, we, today, looks at this as if that culture was just like good ol'America today.

Me thinks that some people could do with some studies in ancient social compacts divorced from the prejudices inherited by biblical filters, and actually learn, minus the biases, about the people of those societies, and allow them to speak for themselves without imposing a presupposed definition of their motivations.
I believe that once that is accomplished, you, the reader, will have a better understanding of the culture Paul was writing too, and more importantly, the people he was interacting with.

Amazing that the change just happens to coincide with the "what our community believes" and "Of course we had to deal with 1 Timothy 2:11–12" When we have to "deal" with the clear teaching of scripture to coincide with what we think the illustrations are in the narrative and what our community believes, we stand on very shaky ground.

Thank you, Curt. Keep on keeping on. You are on target and it is encouraging to me.
As a woman, my worth or value is not based in what I do, (what I accomplish, how many degrees I have, whether I can do everything a man can do), it is based in what I be - in my essence or being as a unique woman created by God for His glory. Feminism tells me that it is all about me. I am worried about how others perceive me and labels they place on me. I am uncomfortable with authority, even God's authority in Scripture and I will try to adapt Scripture to meet my worldview or equality.
But as a woman of God, I must take my presupposition and worldview to Scripture and then allow Scripture to mold it and reshape it, rather than to try to force isolated Scriptures to stubbornly defend what I think is fair. It boils down to the attitude of my heart. Am I self focused or Christ focused? Accepting our God given roles does not mean we become meek little mice in jean jumpers and must give up our giftedness. God DOES NOT violate your personality. God redeems it for His glory. I can administrate, lead, teach, guide, and boss around all sorts of people within a Scriptural context. He will equip me for what He has called me to do. More often than not it is in ways I do not plan or even imagine, and with a gift I do NOT think I have. Furthermore, as a woman there are so many needs, so many opportunities with the hurting and hungry all around me. Our youth today desperately need Godly role models. As women there are ways to reach them that men cannot possibly or appropriately do in the same way with the same empathy or love. As women we are called to model the relationship of the Church with Christ. It is not right to abandon the task God has given to us to fulfill a task He has not given to us.

Jennifer,

I absolutely agree with you about the ignorance regarding the widespread involvement of women in ministry in the New Testament. And while we can still find examples of blatant traditionalism today, all of the complementarian churches that I've been a part of have strongly encouraged the ministry of women, with the exception of teaching men and leading men. I know that's the sticking point, but at least it shows that they're not just trying to relegate women to the kitchen or the nursery.

Sheerakahn,

I don't know any pastor or teacher who would disagree with the need to understand the original culture. Unfortunately, that doesn't resolve the differences of opinion.

I've been challenged by the realization that Jesus did defy the Jewish culture when it came to women. He did many things that they just weren't supposed to do. He had female disciples and directly taught them, he entrusted the first news of his resurrection to women knowing that there testimony would be considered invalid by the culture at large, etc. Paul also included women in his ministry team, and speaks often of them as coworkers. But in all of this ministry involvement, spanning much of the NT, we can't point to one unambiguous example that is inconsistent with the restrictions of not teaching men or having authority over them. That's pretty amazing consistency.

Thanks, Jeb!

I didn't intend to get sucked into this discussion, but there's one more thing I think we should consider in light of the original post. There is one glaring difference in the way Scripture deals with slavery and gender-role distinctions. Laws and guidelines regarding slavery are incorporated into the OT Law and the NT household codes, but it's not defended or taught as an institution. (Divorce is also included in the Law, but Jesus makes it clear that this was a concession.) But distinctive roles for men and women are directly taught in Scripture and tied to both the created order and to us being a living illustration of the relationship between Christ and the church (which seems to require, by necessity, one party in leadership and another following that leadership). We can't just try to find ways to explain away the instructions. We have to be able to show how the passages make more sense according to our view.

Thanks, Curt. That makes total sense. I love the picture that is created and can't wait for the fulfillment of Scripture when Christ returns. Stay strong!

Curt,

And yet, women in the bible taught and led men. You are asking women today to have less freedom than women in the NT had.

Thank you for this article. I wrestled long and hard w/ this topic. I even *tried* to accept the comp position despite knowing since I was 3 or 4 that I was called to ministry and seeing far more bad products of comp theology in marriages than good.

That effort was a failure, but I absolutely did not want to go against scripture or even be in danger of going against scripture. Therefore, I was ever so picky about exegesis and did not like the simplicity of some of the egal materials I originally read (having long since decided that the comp materials I'd read were not, imo, decent exegesis).

Eventually, I, too, found a lot of confirmations in Sarah Sumner's work. Indeed, the way God had led me in studies of Ephesians was very similar to her systematic theology.

I found her critiques of comp ideas in application too mild however, and in the end, I got over my own prejudices against the egal camp (discovering that most of egals were not, in fact, about some sort of selfish "power" but about the mission of Christ), found their theology (if not EVERY piece of theology) the most satisfying (and ultimately convincing), and became a full-fledged egal. I also found taking an overt stance on it to be more necessary to in the face of the church and cultural issues I was coming up against--for the sake of others.

Wherever you end up, God bless you in the process, and thank you for your openness. I pray earnestly for many to join you on this walk....

Thanks, Jeb. You, too!

Jennifer, I don't agree (obviously. :) Can you point me to one single, unambiguous example of a woman teaching or leading men in the New Testament? I'd love to see it! But I haven't been able to find it. And the examples the egalitarians present all rely on speculation (. . . this could mean that . . .) or examples that aren't really examples of teaching or leading (such as prophecy or being a part of a ministry team). Can you point me to one clear example?

If not, am I not simply advocating the same range of ministry opportunities that the NT does?

I think the simplicity of the woman question...is to ask the gospel question.
Was the death of Christ enough to cover the sins of both Adam and the woman that Adam named, Eve?
Second question; does a woman have the same gifts of the Spirit? that a man has?
Ok, do we have a yes, yes?
Then a woman, whose sins, including Eve's 'deception', are covered, ought to be able to exercise whatever gifts the Holy Spirit has given her.
Simple. Like the gospel. Like His great love and mercy. Simple, but able to change the world.
Sisters, don't exchange the gospel for a role. You will die a slow and painful Spiritual death. I know. I did.
But my Saviour and Beloved came and got me. And He reminds me every day that I can choose to be free in Him, or die that same slow death and be accepted by other 'Christians' who want to pretend that 'submission' by women is a Christian 'principle', when it was and is a product of the fall.

First off, leadership in the NT is a ministry spiritual gift to be exercised in plural, it is not an office (except for the 12) and it is certainly not singular. We also see the Kingdom expanding outward from about 120 Jews in Jerusalem to include others. One needs to be a disciple (follower) before one can lead others.

So we see inclusion of Greek speaking Jews, then Samaritans, then God fearing gentiles, then pagan gentiles into the Kingdom in Acts.

And what are the leadership ministries, I see these as deacon and elder/overseer. Of the latter, the gifts are apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor and teacher, perhaps the latter 2 are combined. The point is it is not just a single pastor as found in many churches.

Junia was an apostle and Phoebe was a prostatis, which is someone that stands in front and represents a group. The verb form is used to describe leaders. Also the many co-laborers of Paul, Paul did the work of an apostle, so his co-laborers did the word of an apostle.

Of course, masculinists try to find ways to weaken or deny all of these in various ways, including inventing names that never existed such as Junias.

Elizabeth:
The problem is that the gender-specific roles in the NT (after the pouring out of the Spirit on the church) are tied to the created order, not the fall.

Don:
I agree that it's silly to try to deny that Junia is a female name. The text isn't entirely clear that she is numbered among the 'apostles,' but that seems to make the most sense. But the NT uses the word apostolos in different ways, sometimes as an Apostle of Christ, other times someone who is part of a missionary team. Which is true of Junia? We have no way of knowing. To assume a leadership role for her in this passage, and then use the passage to establish leadership roles for women in the NT is circular reasoning.

I think it's likely that Phoebe was a deacon (not just generically 'serving'). I don't have access to my lexicons, but as I recall when I studied this, the weight of the scholarship seems to support a meaning for prostasis as a 'patroness' [the word being a feminine version of the word for patron]. This certainly fits the context much better. Either she led others and led the Apostle Paul(!), or she provided patronage for others and for Paul. Which is the more natural reading?

Again, interpretation based on speculation or exegetical square pegs being forced into round holes.

(Btw, I agree with you about the plural leadership of the NT churches, although I would differ as to the limitation of office to the 12 and your connection of the gifts in Ephesians 4 specifically to elders/overseers.)

Gregg said, Amazing that the change just happens to coincide with the "what our community believes" and "Of course we had to deal with 1 Timothy 2:11–12" When we have to "deal" with the clear teaching of scripture to coincide with what we think the illustrations are in the narrative and what our community believes, we stand on very shaky ground.

I suppose Paul was in the wrong, then, when he considered and "became as" the cultures he was ministering to in 1 Cor 9:19-23. Or maybe when he said that wives ought to submit to their husbands so that the gospel message would not be hindered in the surrounding patriarchal culture (Titus 2:5), his reasoning was all wrong. It should never be about how the Christian message is viewed by the culture. Being "right" is more important than people for whom Christ died. Maybe we should travel back in time and correct Paul on his mistake.

Or maybe we could understand that patriarchy was part of the cultures Paul had to deal with, and understand that this was a shared cultural assumption, not a divine endorsement of patriarchy by God. Maybe what we're doing today is capitulating to an ancient cultural norm, mistaking it for a divine mandate when it was simply something Paul was accommodating.

The verses so vauntingly claimed as "clear teaching" are not really so clearly a divine support of female subordination. There are no words like "never" or "always" in 1 Tim 2:11-15. Eternal, divine mandates are just read into that verse, not explicitly stated. It is claimed that this is because Paul "invokes the creation order." There are other places in his letters where Paul refers back to the creation WITHOUT intending an eternal mandate, like 2 Cor 11:3, where he was dealing with a specific situation in one particular church-- and yet he "invoked" Eve's deception. Hmm. Maybe he didn't mean to set an eternal mandate in 1 Tim 2:11-15, either.

What is the New Creation? Is it not a place where no one is regarded any longer "according to the flesh"? 2 Cor. 5:16. The New Creation is about more than salvation. It's about all having the same status as adopted "sons" in the Kingdom. Gal. 3:28-4:7. None of us are slaves any longer, but we are all "sons." Males and females, Jews and Greeks, are all "sons." No special status, no special privileges.

Perhaps this time the world has it right. "All are created equal" is part of basic Christian foundational truth. Why should the church be the last ones to embrace it?

KR Wordgazer- hear, hear.. VERY well said.

KR (and apparently Bob):

Are you suggesting that Paul's desire for the Corinthians in 2 Corinthians 11:3 would no longer apply to us as well? Is it okay for our pure and undivided devotion to Christ to be corrupted? And if the underlying principle would still apply to us today, how is this relevant? And notice that Paul simply refers to Eve here, he doesn't use the created order to defend a specific instruction as he does in passages dealing with distinction of gender roles.

And if a biblical teaching doesn't explicitly specify "never" or "always" then it's open for us to reinterpret it according to our current cultural understanding? Is that really the hermeneutic you want to go with? Based on what you wrote, what would be the biblical grounds for opposing the practice of homosexuality? I don't recall those passages specifying 'never' or 'always.' And if Galatians 3 nullifies gender distinctions, then maybe the world has it right regarding homosexuality. I don't see any basis in your approach for you to accept one adaptation and reject the other.

And Jesus didn't specify that people can never come to the Father except through him. So maybe that had a limited, localized application too. Maybe it was only no one then who could come to the Father except through Christ. Maybe the world is actually right about this one too. Maybe there really isn't only one way to enter into relationship with God.

Sure Paul contextualized his message and approach to better communicate the gospel, but can you show me any place where he violated a spiritual principle to do so? How far should we take cultural accommodation?

If you apply your method of interpreting these kinds of passages consistently, then you end up with a severely truncated faith. I guess that would leave us open to conform to the worldview of the culture around us. It would definitely be a lot easier! But it's not a road that I want to go down.

Thank you, Bob, for modeling respect for the authority of Scripture as you seek to be a disciple, and make disciples, of Christ.

I, too, changed my mind about complementarianism when I read Sarah Sumner's book. The first step was to let go of my prejudices against egalitarians, whom I had been warned away from as putting culture before Scripture. (I really, really wish that more Christians would take seriously the Biblical instruction not to practice slander.)

The second step was to let go of my 21st-century English-speaking assumptions about the "clear" teachings of certain passages in Scripture. Honestly, my years of submitting to comp philosophy was a good remedy *for me* to cure the feelings of entitlement I entertained before accepting Christ. But I didn't see my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ becoming more Christlike in that regard... simply exchanging entitlement in some arenas for entitlement in others... much like modern business and military organizations. As long as they obeyed those above them on the chain of command, they could "boss around" their subordinates. Rather than wrestling with Biblical teachings against favoritism, they simply claimed favoritism wasn't an issue when "authority" was. These and other exercises in selective "humility" struck me as being more about preserving traditional American culture than about radically following Christ.

The third step, I guess, was simply to trust God to be my Lord, rather than men and women. I am grateful to my mothers and fathers in the faith for nurturing my walk and pointing me toward truth... but having found the Truth who is Jesus, I have to put Him first.

Which does not mean throwing comps under the bus. He accomodated patriarchy before. So I have to wonder whether He is calling egals gently to accomodate it now, especially where it is depended upon as a condition of faith in Jesus (though still a foundation of shifting sand). I still need to practice true submission, recognizing and trusting in God's ability to reveal His truth through all His children, in whom His Spirit dwells. Toward that end, I appreciate the reminders of what men and women typically want, and believe they need. I'm just not willing to stand by silently anymore while men and women who do not fit stereotypical molds are thrown under the bus.

Mutual submission makes more sense when it's not *more mutual* for some than for others.

KR:

One more question, regarding Titus 2:5. Assuming that Paul was concerned about how the surrounding culture viewed Christian marriages, and assuming that this was because of the patriarchal nature of the culture (which of course we have to assume, because the text doesn't tell us), how do we determine that the principle taught is then for the sole purpose of appealing to the culture? The text certainly doesn't tell us this. Is there no overlap between ongoing biblical principles and a desire for those principles to be consistently lived out in public to support the validity of the gospel message?

Does this mean that when Jesus said that they would know we are his because of our love for each other, that this is the primary purpose for his to command to love? Can't something be a permanent instruction and also useful for local witness?

Using this rationale, couldn't we reason that if the moral expectations of the surrounding culture deteriorate enough, then it's perfectly acceptable for a man to sleep with his father's wife (1 Cor 5)?!

I think it's worth remembering that everyone contextualizes the Bible. I don't care how literal you think you read the Bible. not many people take "Jesus answered, 'If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'" literally. They find a way that it doesn't apply to them.

So the argument is not about contextualizing the Bible or not but how passages should be interpreted in light of the context.

Paul mentions several women in prominent places with title we think should be reserved for men, i.e. deacon and apostle. So we have one of two options, contextualize those references and say that Paul didn't means deacon and apostle like it seems at face value and like he meant when he talked about men, or we contextualize that passage that talks about women not having leadership over men and say that something must have been going on for Paul to write that because it isn't consistent with other things he's written.

Also I would point out that those against women in leadership are not consistent at all. The Bible says in 1 Corinthians 14:34 that "Women should remain silent in the churches." If you were really being consistent in the way in interpret scripture, you would enforce that one too. But I can't think of any church that doesn't allow women to speak at all. How do you reconcile that?

Jane:

Most of us would agree that not every statement in Scripture is intended for each one of us. God doesn't expect us to collect Paul's coat, books and parchments and take them to him in Rome! There are specific steps in biblical interpretation that we follow to determine what a passage meant to them then and how it applies to us today. If Jesus intended to tell all of his followers to sell everything and give to the poor, then we'd better do it!

I'm a complementarian, and I have no problem with women in the NT (or today) being deacons---or apostles if we accept the range of meanings that this word has in the NT and view them as those sent out by a church for some ministry. Neither role intrinsically includes teaching men or having authority over them. (Most complementarian churches I know of have women deacons.)

We know that 1 Cor 14:34 isn't instructing absolute silence in the meeting because of Paul's instructions in 1 Cor 11. Both sides make this clarification btw, so this isn't just a complementarian observation. We could stop there because, whatever the passage means it doesn't mean complete silence unless Scripture is contradicting itself. But what does it mean? When we look closely at this section of chapter 14, there's actually an interesting pattern:

If someone is going to speak in tongues in the church gathering:

1. There should be only two or three, one at a time.

2. There has to be an interpreter.

3. If there's no interpreter, then the tongues speaker should remain silent---not meaning absolute silence but that they should refrain from speaking in tongues.

Corresponding to that, if someone is going to prophecy in the church gathering:

1. There should be only two or three, one at a time.

2. The prophecy must be evaluated.

3. The women are to silent---which we know from chap 11 is not an absolute silence. Many feel this is instructing them to refrain from voicing an evaluation of the prophecy, which would be showing public leadership. This is very consistent with other passages on gender roles in the church.

Whether you accept this interpretation or not (not all complementarians do), since the context of 1 Corinthians shows that this is not an absolute silence, then there is nothing inconsistent with women speaking publicly in complementarian churches.

I posted but it did not show up. What is going on?

I posted but it did not show up. What is going on?

It's a masculinist plot! :)

@Verity. I've wrestled w/ the issue of cultural contextualization in embracing egalitarianism myself, particularly as it relates to the mission field. Thus I appreciate your mention of it. Additionally, I've thus far only ever been a member of moderate to strong comp churches, although I know that I cannot remain there. Sometimes this requires being incognito, and sometimes it opens the door to influence gentle change (as I did in one church.) Also I suspect that if/when I start a church, I'd present both models and challenges to each, much as Greg Boyd does. In other words, I see bridge-building as important, even amid having a clarion voice (as I feel is very important in this day). Aida Besancon Spencer notes in her concluding comments on pg 213 of Global Voices on Biblical Equality:

"A dilemma for Christians exists when Scripture appeals to Christians to accommodate society in order to evangelize (e.g., 1 Pet 2:13-15; 3:1). But, where does accommodation for evangelistic purposes clash with the Christian's need to be prophetic and countercultural [and here she references the earlier essays by evangelical scholars in India and Africa]?"

G4368 prostatis
Thayer Definition:
1) a woman set over others
2) a female guardian, protectress, patroness, caring for the affairs of others and aiding them with her resources

This is another def. for what an overseer/elder does, but it is denied by masculinists.

Also, the ECF wrote that Junia was an apostle, a church planter, which involves teaching to anyone who would listen. Again the word of God is limited by masculinists to somehow restrict this.

I figured it out, it chokes on Greek letters!

On prostatis, with a plural leadership, there is absolutely no problem with Paul saying that Phoebe was a leader of him. It is when one thinks that the NT model for a church is a singular leader (e.g.,one pastor) that one might never think that.

Curt, you demonstrated my point exactly, which is that in interpreting passages you look at both biblical context as well as cultural context. But for some reason those against women in ministry seem to think that while those contexts exist for other passages they don't for the one about authority.

Deborah, I appreciate your spirit and the balance you're seeking in addressing this issue. The quote you end with shows the challenge for all of us in speaking the truth in love.

Don, I still don't have my lexicons handy, but even assuming your definition there's a pretty wide range of meanings there, and a lot of them don't correspond to the role of elder/overseer. Why do you assume the leadership definition? You're opposing practically every English translation that exists. Are they all wrong? All part of a vast masculinist plot? :) Personally, I need more than a "this could mean" to see a contradiction of (or a need to reinterpret) much less ambiguous passages.

The meaning of a benefactor/patron/helper fits the context much better, especially when we factor in the play on words. Paul is telling them to parastete her because she has been a prostatis to many, including himself. It makes much more sense to me that he is saying to help her because she has been a great help to many, and had helped him---and apparently the vast majority of Bible translators feel the same way. When you plug the meaning of 'leading' into this wording it seems really awkward (not the concept of her leading, but the flow of the sentence). If you want to overturn all current translation of a wording, you should have some very convincing evidence for your alternative, and I just don't see it.

Plural leadership in the NT is true of the 12 leading the Jerusalem church, and of elders leading other churches. I don't see any other examples of Paul acknowledging others as leading him. Even in Galatians when he speaks of meeting with Peter, James and John, he's careful to say that he conferred with them, not that they led him. Also there is nothing to indicate an apostolic leadership for Phoebe---in the sense of a capital 'A' Apostle of Christ. If she had the role of an elder/overseer (which I just don't see) she still wouldn't have led Paul.

I think your interpretation is too problematic and unnatural to the context. And it is decidedly not unambiguous.

http://www.sbl-site.org/publications/article.aspx?articleId=830

says

The verb form of prostatis, proistemi, occurs eight times in three different contexts in the New Testament. These contexts include church leadership (Rom 12:8; 1 Thess 5:12; 1 Tim 5:17), household management (1 Tim 3:4, 5, 12), and the practice of good deeds (Titus 3:8, 14). For the purposes of this article, the first context, proistemi in church leadership, will take priority in my analysis.

The basic problem/challenge is that we are not the original recipients of these letters in the NT. The original recipients knew the immediate context, they knew the status of Phoebe whatever it was, the status of Junia and Prisca, etc. So it did not need to be spelled out to them. But we are left with clues and masculinists CHOOSE to interpret these clues in a masculinist way.

So Phoebe is a deacon and a deacon is to be a "one woman man" so this obviously needs to be interpreted in a generic sense as "faithful spouse" but some masculinsts simply decline to see it so they can continue their masculism.

And when something is perhaps ambiguous in Scripture, one shold fall back on more basic principles, like justice.

Jane, even if you disagree with the conclusions of complementarians, I don't think it's at all fair to suggest that they're ignoring the contexts of the passages on authority. Actually, I've seen more substantive discussion of the historical and cultural contexts from the complementarian side, which is part of what convinced me of the validity of that position. Many of us just remain profoundly unconvinced by egalitarian hermeneutics.

Here's a quote from that staunch ultraconservative Clark Pinnock:

"The issue is not just whether there is way to make verses such as 'Wives be subject to your husbands as is fitting in the Lord' (Col 3:18) and similar texts say something other than they seem to say. It is the practical problem of getting people at large to believe that they do. The radical feminists and the traditionalists both argue that such texts are not feminist in content, and I suspect that their view, agreeing as it does with the 'plain sense' reading so widely held, will prevail and not be successfully refuted by biblical feminists. Of course, the biblical feminist interpretation is possible; the problem is that it does not strike many people, either scholarly or untutored, as plausible." (From "Women, Authority & the Bible,"ed Alvera Mickelsen.)

I have to pull myself away, neglecting my duties. Thanks for a rousing discussion everyone. God bless you all!

Curt, thanks for extending grace to my differing view. As for Pinnock, I'm just starting a book by him (today in fact) and did not yet know his stance on women. (Glad for the heads' up.) But I do know he is a conditionalist. I suppose this puts him in good standing w/ the relatively gender-traditional (I think Joy was challenging some of that later on) C.S. Lewis, but it is interesting to see him labelled as "ultra-conservative." I'm always fascinated when theologians can be very open in one or more areas generally considered "dangerous" by much of the conservative evangelical camp yet be closed in an area that I find so well-supported (and imo, generally w/ ease, actually, certainly w/ greater ease than something like a conditionalist stance) in scripture. I'm perhaps even more fascinated by who different camps are willing to claim as theirs... which positions they are willing to put more weight on and which they are willing to overlook. Anyhow, I have a soft-comp-and-conditionalist theologian expressing romantic interest in me, so I guess this is sort of hitting home. Perplexing (to me)....

Then there are Pinnock's open theist views... (which I am less open to than his conditionalist views).

I'm not trying to stir something up, actually. I'm just perpetually in wonderment at this animal of doctrine and the politics of it--particularly when it seems like the gender card trumps others you might not expect it to.

All best,
Deb

Curt,

It occurs to me belatedly, given the seriousness of your posts and my extreme fatigue today that "staunch ultraconservative" is likely tongue in cheek. Most of my commentary stands, however.

All best,
Deb

What I see masculinists doing sometimes is expousing partial truths and this is a way to deny what the whole counsel of Scripture proclaims.

P.S. I do not see the term masculinist as pejorative, simply an accurate description of those that believe in gender hierarchy. I am egal and believe the genders complement each other wonderfully as part of God's plan, but the term complementarian is not descriptive of thier beliefs of gender hierarchy. Why not be a plain speaker, why obscure things?

"What I see masculinists doing sometimes is expousing partial truths and this is a way to deny what the whole counsel of Scripture proclaims.
P.S. I do not see the term masculinist as pejorative, simply an accurate description of those that believe in gender hierarchy. I am egal and believe the genders complement each other wonderfully as part of God's plan, but the term complementarian is not descriptive of thier beliefs of gender hierarchy. Why not be a plain speaker, why obscure things?"

Well, said, Don! Or, rather, it is a falsehood to say (by implication of labels) that most egals do not believe in gender complementarity on multiple, even mysterious, levels. Comps do not have some sort of monopoly on this, and depending on the strength of their views, they may work very much against it--in sort of making the woman a child who doesn't get to live out of her fullness or in otherwise restricting her gifts and their womanly expressions (and the spectrum of what can rightly comprise "womanly," for research suggests these gender tendencies are far more like bell curves that largely overlap than like Mars and Venus). I really believe it is only as the genders are equally yoked in strength of voice and gifting that we'll see the true fruitfulness of our gender complementarity.

I come at this from maybe a slightly different perspective.

As I see it, in the incarnation God became human, and at the crucifixion Jesus died for all humans' sins as the last Adam, and through the resurrection Jesus became a life-giving spirit, the New Creation, the New Human, in whom all who believe in him are, whether Jew or Gentile or slave or free or male and female, and with whom they all are clothed.

Christ is the kephalê of the church, which is his body and his bride. All the members of the body, regardless of gender, are to grow up into him who is the kephalê, and to help all the other members do the same according to the gifts and grace Christ has given them.

Not "roles," but charismata and charis.

There is not "male" and "female" here, but Christ, who is over all, and through all, and in all. For from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh, for if anyone is in Christ, there is a New Creation.

Male priests don't have stand over us and for us in persona Christi as they do in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches. We reject this sacerdotalism in favor of the priesthood of all believers who are in Christ; why continue its vestige under the guise of "male-only" pastors and elders?

If these are the implications and realities of the New Creation, we should not be judging and restricting God's Spirit and how He gifts and builds His church according to the flesh and according to appearances. There is no "male" human nature that Christ exclusively took on, or "male" sin nature that Christ separately nailed to the cross. Human is human and sin is sin; in Christ, gender is irrelevant. Which qualities or fruits or gifts of the Spirit are male? Which are female? Which aspects of the nature of Christ can only be exercised and expressed in the church by males? If nurturing and caring for the church, his body, are priorities of his, then an argument could be made that females are better suited to lead and pastor churches than males.

My two cents, anyway. Praise God you and your church are, from my perspective, seeing things according to the New Creation and not according to the old one and according to the flesh.

There are all kinds of masculinist teaching that simple cannot be found in the Bible, like the idea of gender roles in the new covenant, as the word role is never found, or the idea that the husband is priest of the home, again not found in Scripture, or the idea that the husband is head of the home, again not found in Scripture. But if you are taught and believe this unScriptural "truths" then one will read the Bible thinking that the Bible teaches them.

Bravo, Eric!

I note that Curt has already left the discussion, but this is the first opportunity I have had to address his specific questions to me, so I will go ahead and do so, one at a time, for anyone who is interested.

First question:

"Are you suggesting that Paul's desire for the Corinthians in 2 Corinthians 11:3 would no longer apply to us as well? Is it okay for our pure and undivided devotion to Christ to be corrupted? And if the underlying principle would still apply to us today, how is this relevant? And notice that Paul simply refers to Eve here, he doesn't use the created order to defend a specific instruction as he does in passages dealing with distinction of gender roles."

No, I would not ever say that there is NO application of any verse to our lives today. But there is a difference between a direct and an indirect application. If Paul is giving a command to be observed for all time, then there is a direct application. But in 2 Cor. 11 Paul is speaking about a particular situation that has arisen in a particular church at a particular time. The application to us, then, is indirect. Paul is not concerned that we, 21st-century readers of his text in English, might be deceived. He was concerned that his readers in 1st-century Corinth might be deceived. He was afraid that others were coming into that church and preaching "another Jesus whom we have not preached." We need to apply this in being careful ourselves lest the same thing happen to us-- but we cannot, in good conscience, say that Paul actually was addressing his words to us, here and now. If his words were timeless commands, then he would be telling us, here and now, to stop judging him as less than other preachers who are coming into our congregations today and claiming their teachings are better!

As for "using the created order to defend a specific instruction," Paul does that elsewhere too, in 1 Cor 11, to defend the clearly cultural matter of head coverings. Again, there is an application today-- but it is not that women all need to cover their heads in the same way women in Corinth did. The reference to the created order did NOT make Paul's specific instruction about head coverings a timeless and universal command. The application today is, again, indirect. What that application is, is debated even today-- but very few churches today require that women cover their heads.

Ok, here's the other question Curt raised:

"And if a biblical teaching doesn't explicitly specify "never" or "always" then it's open for us to reinterpret it according to our current cultural understanding? Is that really the hermeneutic you want to go with?"

No, that is not the hermeneutic I use; you misunderstand me. I use the context of the whole of the Scripture in order to determine whether the teaching is timeless or culture-based. In the case of the restriction of women, this is a case where a few, isolated texts, read in a restrictive manner, appear to contradict the counsel of the whole of Scripture. The number of women Paul praised who appeared to have leadership responsibilities is one such area. Then there are all the verses that define the nature of the "New Creation" (also known as "the Kingdom of God"). Verses about practical living (such as marriage counsel) or church conduct during meetings, must be read in light of verses about the nature of the New Creation-- not the other way around. The verses that talk about the nature of the Kingdom are universal in their emphasis on the removal of fleshly considerations such as economic status, race or gender, when it comes to participation in the New Creation-- and this is NOT limited to "salvation only" as some would like us to believe. There is nothing in the Scriptures that would say a believer who came in as a freeborn Jew would have more rights to spiritual gifts or leadership callings than a believer who came in as a Gentile slave. Jesus told Martha it was "better" for Mary to sit at his feet as a disciple than to work in her traditional role in the kitchen. Peter quoted Joel's words that the Spirit was poured out on "all flesh, on My sons and daughters." "We regard no one according to the flesh" means exactly that. There are no freemen-only gifts. There are no Jewish-believers-only gifts. And there are no males-only gifts.

My hermeneutic is based on whole counsel of Scripture trumping proof texts; on the context of the passage determining its timelessness or lack thereof, and on understanding shared assumptions between original author and original audience, in order to better determine authorial intent.

In regards to this:

"Sure Paul contextualized his message and approach to better communicate the gospel, but can you show me any place where he violated a spiritual principle to do so? How far should we take cultural accommodation?"

This is exactly what I'm talking about. There is an apparent spiritual principle about "not regarding according to the flesh" in the New Covenant. The way you are interpreting the verses violates that principle. No, Paul did not contextualize to the culture in such a way as to violate this principle-- rather, his teachings should be interpreted as ways to bring the Kingdom INTO the culture, without being so disruptive as to, as we would put it today, "turn" the listeners "off." Hence, his words to husbands should not be read as encouragements to take advantage of the authority the culture gave them, but to lay their power and privilege down as Christ laid His own power down when He submitted to being crucified. (Eph. 5:25) Wifely submission is set within a paradigm of mutual submission of all believers to one another (Eph. 5:21).

In every situation, the spiritual principle is upheld within the accommodation of cultural norms. The spiritual principle of "there is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female, for we are all one in Christ" is no different.

Ok, final question:

"One more question, regarding Titus 2:5. Assuming that Paul was concerned about how the surrounding culture viewed Christian marriages, and assuming that this was because of the patriarchal nature of the culture (which of course we have to assume, because the text doesn't tell us), how do we determine that the principle taught is then for the sole purpose of appealing to the culture? The text certainly doesn't tell us this. Is there no overlap between ongoing biblical principles and a desire for those principles to be consistently lived out in public to support the validity of the gospel message?"

Yes, there is an overlap between ongoing biblical principles and consistently living out a Christian life in public.

"Does this mean that when Jesus said that they would know we are his because of our love for each other, that this is the primary purpose for his to command to love? Can't something be a permanent instruction and also useful for local witness?"

Since God is love, I would not view Jesus' command as pragmatic only, but based upon the moral character of God. That this is also useful for local witness is a side issue.

"Using this rationale, couldn't we reason that if the moral expectations of the surrounding culture deteriorate enough, then it's perfectly acceptable for a man to sleep with his father's wife (1 Cor 5)?!"

Here, you are not distinguishing morality from cultural practice. Unless you believe it is somehow morally wrong for a woman to do something which, when a man does it, is a good thing, then the question of women preaching with authority is not a moral question. The question, then, is whether a practice which is not immoral in and of itself, is being prohibited in a timeless and universal way.

As far as wifely submission is concerned-- submission of all believers to one another is set forth elsewhere in Scripture as an act of love. No egalitarian that I know of, debates whether wives should be submissive. The issue is whether husbands ought not to be submissive too. The issue is also whether the wife's submission entails her necessary subordination to his authority. The moral goodness of submission does not change. But this does not mean the old cultural structure in which she was under his authority, could not change to one in which she is his fully functioning equal. When the cultural structure has changed, as it has today, should not the moral good of mutual submission be exercised within the new cultural struture-- rather than dragging forward the first-century cultural structure as if it, itself, were the moral good?

I hope that addresses the issues raised. I'm sorry I was so late getting to them.

The 'Word of God' in the mouth of a man, woman, child, or even a donkey is still the 'Word of God'. Submitting to 'one another' is out of reverence for Christ that is in the other person. (see Eph 5:21).

If you divide the world up into men/women/children/donkeys then chances are you're going to miss the 'Word of God' most of the time. Is Christ divided?

The 'Word of God' is that which really has authority on this earth - not really man, woman, child, or donkey. (see Matt 28:18)

If you limit the 'Word of God' to the person who stands up on Sunday with their little exposition or discourse - then you really are living in the dark ages. The 'Word of God' might exist there, but my experience is - more often than not - He doesn't live there.

So then we're left with finding Christ in 'one another'. Which by the the way - is where He left a big portion of Himself. I submit myself to the teaching of a woman when the Lord hits me between the eyes with something she says. I've had 3 year olds rock my entire world. (I've not had a donkey talk to me yet - but if one does - you bet I'll listen).

Curt,
The male first doctrine cannot be supported by order of creation. If this is so, then animals ought to rule over man.

As a woman in ministry, I'd like to address this: "Sure Paul contextualized his message and approach to better communicate the gospel, but can you show me any place where he violated a spiritual principle to do so? How far should we take cultural accommodation?"

If we begin with the assumption that Adam and Eve were not only the first man and first woman, but also the first husband and the first wife, it is very scriptural to conclude that Paul's admonition--just as in Jesus' ministry--was not designed to limit women. It was designed to honor marriage.

If we assume the traditional view of male hierarchy to be true, then I have a chronic problem assessing the manhood of any male to whom I must submit given his age, morality, and maturity in faith.

It is a problem I don't have within the marriage institution. I know who my husband is.

Look carefully at Genesis 2 and 3. The Bible points directly to God's view of women as equal image bearers and man's tendency since the Fall to point to gender (as just cause for blame and limitation) instead of to the Image of Christ in me as any man's encouragement to pursue a fruitful working relationship in the cause of the Gospel. And sin explains greatly why people persist in error.

Matthew 22:29 Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God."

I have a refuge for women on my web page (http://seminarygal.com ) because I'm more than tired of all the old arguments.

I'm sorry Curt and everyone else, but considering recent events...I just don't have it in me to go into exacting detail...in fact...I'm just not interested in pursuing this right now.

My apologies to abandon this discussion, but I am burdened by sadness for Japan.
This discussion, as much as it was interesting at the beginning, is now little more than an unimportant distraction to me.
Forgive me for bowing out.
Perhaps another time.

why do Christians make this so complicated. why do people make themselves sound so much spritual than they really are?

the people of Japan need Jesus and they need help. nothing else. quit debating this other crap.

its just a post from some people there...nothing else

Wow! The OP sure scrued the scripture trying to rationalize his cultural bias. It never ceases to amaze me how "leaders" on TV and in print raise their bias over the clear statement of the Bible.

While I appreciate the comments people have made about us needing to be focused on things that really matter like what's going on in Japan and not get bogged down in pointless arguments, this is an important topic. There might have never been one great tragedy that we can point too and count up that has happened because of this theology of women being second class humans, how many women have been abused, raped, killed, sold into slavery because theology of them being lessor is prevalent?

Can we PLEASE stop arguing about this? There are millions of people in poverty and need around the world. Millions who need the hope and love that Jesus offers. Why are we arguing over who gets to go do the work? There are enough broken lives out there for all of us to engage with. Let's state the truth of this argument. It's about power. Do men have it? Do women have it? Can we share it? Really, call it what it is already and move on. People are dying.There is enough death and loss for all of us to speak into and pastor. sheesh! If the time spend weighing in on these blogs (my time included) was spent having conversations with neighbors and helping our communities we would all be better off!

A very thought provoking article. I served as a missionary for two decades working alongside many gifted missionary and national female colleagues. We were too busy with the challenges of our calling to spend much time discussing many issues, including this one. I remember a few years ago at the National Pastor's Conference there was a workshop on this subject. I came into the workshop as a mild complementarian hoping to be enlightened into a more egalitarian position. What I heard was the egalitarian position presented from a politically correct sociological base using a few proof texts here and there while the complementarian position was supported by scripture and well thought through theology. I was disappointed by the lack of substance regarding the complementarian position.
An oft repeated egalitarian point seems to insist that a ‘gifting’ must result in an corresponding ‘office.' I find this an empty point. One is exercise one's gift regardless of place in life.
Somewhat off subject: An incident occurred during the workshop that was instructive. Two young female seminarians were quite outspoken that they were not taken seriously as Christian workers because they were female. As they sat in front of me on folding chairs I had the unfortunate panorama of having two sets of buttocks oozing over their low cut jeans. I lacked the courage to challenge them regarding the reasons for their seeming lack of status.
I look forward to your next posting.

Yes, I agree that the disaster in Japan takes priority over this issue-- but that doesn't mean this issue is going to go away. This:

"Why are we arguing over who gets to go do the work? There are enough broken lives out there for all of us to engage with."

becomes a problem when churches actively shut down people who want to actively help others, because person who wants to help is seen as usurping male power in doing so. Yes, this does happen. A large portion of Christian missionaries in the 19th century were women-- until the churches decided they were out of order and should stay home.

This:

"As they sat in front of me on folding chairs I had the unfortunate panorama of having two sets of buttocks oozing over their low cut jeans. I lacked the courage to challenge them regarding the reasons for their seeming lack of status."

uses the way two individuals dressed on one particular day, apparently to say that any women who perceives a lack of respect in minstry is wrong about her gender being a reason for it. Not so.

It is unfortunate that the egalitarians at the meeting in question, did not present their arguments very well. It is certainly not true that the egalitarian argument is not well-supported by scripture or well-thought-through theology. I recommend Dr. Phillip Payne's "Man and Woman, One in Christ" for a thorough and scholarly evangelical-egalitarian view.

So much good stuff here. Very insightful and well thought out answers! My take on my salvation is very simple at this point. When it boils down to it, and I'm confused, I look to Jesus' example, not necessarily Pauls or Timothy's example. His, being Jesus, actions often did not fit into the social or culturally acceptable. I find Jesus much more approachable as a woman knowing that God is fully feminine and masculine. He created us in His image. Therefor it would make sense that a woman would have spiritual insight that is both beneficial to males and females. We would be remiss to ignore the leading and experience of women in our church. Life is messy and I find that Jesus' answer to that was not black and white, not cut and paste, but always with the intention of acceptance towards his people, always with unconditional love.

Thanks for sharing this Bob. I went through exactly the same process - except as a woman raised in a Brethren church, I was looking for an excuse to get out of the loud and persistent voice of the Spirit who seemed to contradict all the teachings I was raised with. Am now in a Pentecostal context and am constantly confronted with people who are egalitarian but haven't done the theological wrestling of people like Webb. His book was one of the most helpful I found in workign through the issues on both a heart level and a head level. May God continue to lead us into truth!

Am encouraged by the humility of your leadership team in seeking understanding.

Blessings
Tania

Good discussion here!

Poor Priscilla. Although Bible scholars love to teach the shift in roles that occurred between Barnabas and Paul--it later became Paul and Barnabas, showing that Paul had surpassed his mentor in leadership, they just do not like to assign the same principle to the dynamic duo of Aquila and Priscilla. Of the 7 times this couple is mentioned, Priscilla's name is mentioned first 5 times.

I do not believe this is a mistake, do you? I do believe that this couple were dynamic teachers of their house church...together.

For those that said- I'm sorry if you are uncomfortable with the culture of that time, but that is how it is? Well then, you must also believe that slavery is ok because that was clearly cultural. We must realize that Jesus came to bring forth the kingdom of God and be obedient. Not everything was peace, peace when Jesus brought the kingdom, he asked us to continue to bring it forth.