September 21, 2006
-
Headship? Submission? Leadership? Helper? What does it mean? What does it look like? My way. Your way. Your parents' way. My parents' way. But how are we going to do things at our house? How would God have us do things? These were the questions we asked even in the early days of our relationship. It was from the half a dozen conflicts that came up that helped us recognize pretty immediately that two people who grew up in two different backgrounds had different ideas about everything. We realized that there would always be "my way" and "your way". So the only way it would work is if we were committed to establishing something entirely new together -- by breaking with how things once were, how we thought things ought to be, and choosing to start afresh with something we would call "our way".
So this is the way we do things at our house:
- Marriage is not about giving 50-50, but 100-100. We must give 100% of ourselves.
- When we serve the other, we are really serving ourselves.
- We should never keep a record of wrongs or of rights.- Once we've reconciled and forgiven each other for an issue, let's not bring it back up again.- Just because I do X, Y, Z does not mean that you MUST do A, B, C -- in order to even the score or "make things fair" - and vice versa.- Marriage is not about fairness but oneness.- Our motto is not, "how much can I get away with NOT doing" but, "how much help can I offer and how many ways can I serve the other?"- "Love your neighbor as yourself" applies especially to your spouse.- Housework is a shared responsibility -- it's not one person's sole responsibility and the other is "helping him/her out." We are helping each other out by keeping the house in order.- "Helper" or "helpmate" does not mean "junior assistant" or a subordinate -- but means a companion equal to Adam, given as a gift, specifically to work together with him as his equal partner.- A wife is a wife, not a mother, not a maid, not a housekeeper.- We are "leaving" behind the way our parents did things and the way the world does things, and cleaving to each other - establishing a "family" and a way of doing things in the way God would lead us.- No complaining about housework. Nobody likes housework, nobody!! But it's so much more fun when we do it together with a cheerful heart and servant attitudes.
(Phil 2:14-15)- We need to do whatever it takes to make things work for "us" as a family. If you see a need, then fill it. Rather than saying, "But that's your job", say, "Let me do it for you, I volunteer, I choose to serve." It's our job for our sakes.- Appreciate, affirm one another. Be each other's number one fan!! "I am with you heart and soul."- Respecting each other and our marriage means not slandering, ruining each other's reputations, pointing out our spouse's negatives/weaknesses or "airing out our dirty laundry" in front of others and refraining from passive-aggressive sarcasm or snide remarks which would cut each other down. (Sarcasm is a joke at the expense of another.)- Ephesians 5!!! Headship means sacrificial servanthood. Submission means yielding to the heart of a servant.
Comments (18)
what's up girl ... you had a beautiful wedding. congrats again. the "additional family member" was hilar. i'm sure you've heard this advice a million times, but take full advantage of the non-parent married life for awhile.
I usually stay away from this topic. It's kinda like handling dynamite. I pastor in a denomination that has female pastors. I've worked along side many of them. I empathize with their desire to teach and preach. Doctrinally, I do not agree with the office of female pastors, but for the sake of the greater good, I serve peacefully with these really awesome women. They are really gifted (more gifted than me in a lot of ways) and I respect them a lot. However, this is not an issue of competency.
Just as a way of focusing this discussion can I suggest some ground rules. I think we can all start with the presupposition that whatever God commands or teaches in His Word is what we obey and believe, regardless of whether or not we can make a good argument for or against (specifically arguments that are not exegetical issues). For example, what we feel about the God's personal calling on our lives is pretty irrelevant to this discussion. A personal calling is so subjective and God can use whoever he wants in whatever capacity he wants. All pastors are sinners that God uses. Also, bringing up the difficulty of implementing a command (teaching a particular age group or a specific setting) is also pretty irrelevant to the discussion. Piper and Moo might not have figured out the best way to practice this command, but that doesn't discredit their exegesis. The way you brought up the usage of the word HELPER is very fruitful and insightful. That's definitely something to take into consideration and explore.
This goes back awhile in your entry, but I took a look at Dora Wang’s exegesis of 1 Tim. 2:11 and in my opinion she has translated a lot of those words rather liberally. I’m just another Westminster grad, but I think we should be on equal footing here. The word for “permit/allow” has been used in extra-biblical Greek writings with the force of “to command”. This word can have some of the connotations that she described (“to permit at this time”), but it is not the ONLY way it is used. It’s kind of a leap to insist that it should be translated in this way. If I said, “I do not permit people to murder others for entertainment purposes,” you could not automatically assume that I have conditioned this command to an appropriate time.
If you go back a few verses, you’ll see that Paul’s command to the men is addressed to “men in all places” (not specific to any cultural inclination). Then when he speaks to the women, he starts off by saying, “likewise”, as a way of addressing how women should worship in all places. If Paul wanted this command to be merely conditioned upon a time or unusual circumstance, here is where he needs to state it clearly. It’s a natural progression of thought that Paul is not just addressing the women in that church.
The historical context that Dora pointed out is interesting, but this does not in any way make her interpretation conclusive. I have seen so many places in Scripture where interpretations are so diverse due to so many historical contexts that people dig up. In the end, it seems better to let Scripture interpret Scripture. I think this is a big stretch to assume that Paul’s statements were polemical and not a reference to the creation order and male headship. I don’t agree with the “adam was more educated” argument either, but that is not the only argument for male headship.
To be honest, I don’t have my Kittel or a complete LS dictionary with me, but I could not find her translation of “authority” as “instigate crime” in any of the lexicons I was looking through. If she is going to insist on that translation, she has to make a really good argument for why it should NOT be translated according to its most frequent usage.
Last thought … headship (or head) can NOT be translated as submissive sacrifice. At least, it’s not one of the definitions in any of the lexicons I’ve seen. In all the lexicons I’ve seen, it does carry the meaning of superior rank when used metaphorically. I do agree with you in the sense that Paul is telling men to use their authority to serve in the same way Christ used his authority to serve. Biblical leadership is authoritative and servantlike.
Here's the deal though. I don't believe all teaching from females needs to be a threat to male headship. I sit comfortably under a lot of female instructors and teachers on spiritual issues. I'm glad that you will continue sharing the gospel and your insights with all people. However, a pastor's office does require a lot of "headship" qualities that you will need to think seriously about (as you are).
Wow … it’s getting way too late. If I have the time, I’ll comment on some of the other stuff Dora wrote, but you might be sick of all this bantering. Anyway … I hope this helps you process things a little. It’s making me think through this issue too. I guess it was inevitable for my line of work. Blessings.
very good thoughts ninjoelo. I really arppreciate your post. I think your comment brought up a lot of good points in Dora's exegesis. I am curious though, if it's a sin for women to be pastors? I guess it really comes down to this practical application right? (I'm thinking out loud here)...if it is indeed a sin, then we should condemn this practice and not compromise. You mentioned that you serve along side with other women pastors, so I assume that you don't view it as a sin. But yet you don't agree with this practice as biblical....so if it's not a sin but yet not a biblical practice, then what does that mean?
good stuff--this will make your family shine before the Lord and before men *and* women. =)
kanfood ... urm ... fidget ... i guess my short answer would be yes. Under the circumstances, it is a sin. I'm not sure if it's proper xanga etiquette to make huge posts on someone else's blog, but my real response would be almost as long as my last post. Mrs. Maryann, my apologies. Let me know if you want me to refrain next time.
Yes, I believe it goes against what God had intended for the church. Fortunately or unfortunately (haven't decided yet) I'm not in a position to make these kind of changes in our denomination or church. If I had a say in it, I would not make the pastoral office open to women. NOT because they are less competent or less educated in any way, but simply because God decreed this order in the church.
However, life is not always full of black and white choices. I've felt that God has called me to the congregation I am pastoring and I think the greater good is to serve peacefully alongside those who are there with me. I don't believe this makes me an accessory to a crime.
Should we condemn this practice and not compromise? I don't know if I've just gotten soft over the years, but this is not a soteriological issue. I don't think the gospel is threatened in any way. In light of this, I think we should deal with false doctrines according to how heretical and damaging it is to the gospel, the church and the family. If our church started teaching that Jesus was merely an angel, I would be kicking and screaming.
How damaging is this issue to the church ... i don't know. I'm still sorting this out. I have my opinions about this, but I'd rather not share them unless I've given more thought to it; which probably explains why in practice, I'm pretty diplomatic about this whole thing. Again, if God called me into a different position within this denomination, I would lead it according to my doctrinal convictions.
Something to think about: In judges, Israel lived in a period where even the appointed judges just kept getting worse and worse. They became more cowardly and wicked. It got to the point where God raised up Deborah to do the job that the guys were totally botching up (please finish reading before you call me a bigot). After hand-holding Barak into battle, Deborah says, "the honor will not be yours, for the Lord will hand Sisera over to a woman." This is not a way of saying, "Look, even a girl can do a better job than you." But it was said to rebuke the guys for not stepping up to the positions of authority and leadership that they were supposed to hold. Perhaps this says something about how God operates when men aren't stepping up.
So ... why bring this up? If you look at today's mission field. Women are responding to this call in far greater numbers than men are. In the mission field, women are serving in pastoral positions because men are no where to be found. Are these women living in sin? I'm not sure if the answer is really that black and white. (Was it a sin to lie, when people told the Nazi's that they weren't hiding any Jews in their house?) To be honest, part of me is saying, "Go girls!!!!" I don't know how much I really believe this, but until the guys step up to the plate, maybe women should be telling the cowards to step aside.
Now, I've probably offended everyone. Anyway ... as you can see, I'm having difficulty figuring out how to apply these principles. But again ... the main issue is, What does God's Word say about headship. I think exegetically, the clear principle here is that men should take the headship roles in the family and church and we should do whatever we can to encourage this.
Thanks ninjoelo! I really appreciate the time and effort that it took for you to write the long answer!
ninjoelo, I appreciate your thoughtfulness and insight into this issue. Unfortunately, none of us are experts regarding this issue, but we do have to deal with it in our churches.
Regarding the issue of the verb permit. I've read some papers about it, and the point is not to say that it cannot be read as a command. The point is to open up the possibility that it could be read not as a command. Most people read it and automatically assume that it is a command, so we're arguing against that automatic assumption. Most people do not read it and assume that it is not a command.
Regarding "men in all places" comment, I do believe that Paul's policy was for all women not to speak in church. That's not the question. The question is whether that was just his policy or if it was a command for all time. When Paul says "she must be silent," we know for a fact that this was not a universal command. In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul allows women to speak. Therefore if "she must be silent" is not a universal command, why is it that we assume that "teach or have authority over a man" is a universal command. I would say it's not a universal command because there are many examples in the bible, in Paul's own interactions that show women teaching and teaching with authority. (Priscilla being the notable example.)
Regarding the authenteo or whatever the word for authority. What I've read says that its really confusing what this word means. Like we know, this word only occurs here in the New Testament. I read an article that says that this word only occurs three times before Paul used it in all the extrabiblical texts that we have. Of course it is used thousands of times after Paul used it, but only 3 times before. One of those times it is clearly a negative verb. Two others are neutral. So it could be a neutral verb. We really don't know. There is a possibility however that it is a negative verb.
Lastly about the headship thing. We shouldn't be looking up headship in a dictionary. That's not this issue. It's not the issue of the definition of the word. The issue is that Jesus REDEFINED that word so many times throughout the New Testament. The concept of leadership and authority is turned upside down all over the bible. Jesus defines the word for us when he says the first will be last and the last will be first. It's all over the bible, there would be too many places to refer to it.
On top of that, NOWHERE in the bible does it say that headship is both positional and spiritual authority. Whenever Jesus refers to leadership, he always refers to servanthood and responsibility. He never refers to a position. In fact Jesus said that the positions at his right and at his left are not his to give. This part is VERY clear and it is a mistake to take the dictionary definition and say that because the dictionary defines the word in a particular way, that Jesus is defining the word in that way. Again, the bible is the authority, not a lexicon.
Randplaty, since you have mentioned over and over again that headship/spiritual authority does not equal positional authority, i am very interested to know... what is your definition of spiritual authority (regardless of gender)? What does this look like in a church? Do you believe in any sort of leadership at all, those who oversee and shepherd the body, those who make decisions for the good of the people and help move the body in some direction?
i'm sorry, to clarify... i completely understand your definition of a spiritual leader being a servant. my question is, what does it look like in a church (in practical terms)? shouldn't the leader also have other responsibilities as mentioned above and passages like 1 peter 5?
thanks mary ann, for initiating & letting us use ur site for debate. it's helped me study this topic deeper
sup randplaty & ladyarmsworthy ... i think you raised a good question. What does authority in the church mean to you? What are the roles of a deacon, elder, overseer, etc. Do you believe they exert any type of positional authority.
With the word for "permit". Just to clarify, I did say that it was a possible definition, but Dora stated it a lot more strongly than just a possible usage. She was arguing that this is the way it need to be translated. That was what I was responding to.
Yes, you brought up a good point about Priscilla. I'll look into it. To tell you the truth, I'm not sure how much the Bible reveals about her role in the church, but I'll definately study it before responding.
For the word, authenteo, I'm not sure what paper you have been reading, but there is a wealth of extrabiblical literature that uses this word. The lexicon that I looked at sited over twenty other sources. Keep in mind that a lexicon doesn't try to site every source in existence either. This word was a well used and well understood word. The definition in the latest Danker lexicon defines this word to mean: "to assume a stance of independent authority, give orders to , dictate to." It does not offer the definition that Dora submitted. Even if this were a viable definition, her translation does not make any sense. "I do not permit at this time for women to ... instigate crime toward men." I don't mean to be a wise-guy, but what in the world does that mean? When is it okay to instigate crime against men? If never, then she needs to retract her definition for "permit". If she wants to keep her definition for "permit at this time", then she is saying that there are times when it's okay for women to instigate crime against men. The whole thing doesn't make sense to me. It's a total stretch.
Yes, I agree that Jesus redefines leadership, but not the way you have spelled it out. He clearly tells the disciples that worldly leadership uses it's power to serve themselves. He told them to use their leadership to serve others. But that does not negate the idea of positional authority. The apostles had great responsibility and authority over the church that Jesus left for them to lead. Jesus never meant to redefine leadership by negating any positional leadership. He redefined the goal of leadership: to serve others.
Man ... I'm late. gotta go. I'll look into the other stuff you brought up.
continuing the discussion about authority ....
Randplaty, I think you over stated your case about the use of headship. You also have to separate what Paul and Jesus said about these issues. Jesus isn't the one using the term "head" to describe authority.
Paul is the one who talks about headship as a positional authority. Ephesians 1:22 talks about Christ as head of the church in the sense that all things were put under his feet and appointed to him. That is positional authority. Col. 1:8 talks about Christ being the head of the church in terms of his supremacy and preeminence. That is positional authority. Col. 2:10 states that Christ is the head over every power and authority. That is positional authority. In Eph. 5:23, Paul uses the exact same word to describe a husband's headship over his wife, just as Christ is the head of the church. There is overwhelming evidence that Paul speaks of headship in the manner of positional authority and he uses it to describe male headship.
I'm not sure why you feel like using a Greek lexicon is irrelevant to this discussion of what headship or leadership means. These linguists take into consideration how extra-biblical literature treat these words AND also how these words are used in the Bible. These are men and women who have devoted their lives to the study of these words.
You really need to rethink the way you define leadership and headship. I don't think you have given any real exegetical evidence for your definition. Servanthood and positional authority are not mutually exclusive in Scripture. Especially since the disciples and apostles practiced and prescribed positional authority when they founded the early church.
3 posts in one day ... sorry for being so geeked out over this. It dawned on me that I forgot to talk about the Priscilla thing. I looked up every passage that referred to her. (Acts 18, Rom 16:3, 1Cor. 16:19, 2 Tim 4:19) If I'm missing any relevant passages, please let me know.
Anyway, I'm scratching my head here, because I don't see any passages where it describes her holding any sort of office. The closest implication to this is when she AND her husband invited Paul over to their house to clarify the gospel. Nowhere does it clearly say anything about her having authority over a male or holding any type of church office. It's also important to see that her husband is always included in every reference that she appears in.
Anyway ... I'm going to single-handedly eat up all the xanga memory alloted per customer (if there is such a thing). Good night. Hope I have shed some light on this topic without stepping on toes. I think we are all trying to be faithful to God's Word here.
Re: permit
Well this is not a big point I guess. It's just a matter of emphasis now. But don't you think that the mere possibility that this word does not mean "command" undermines a complementarian reading of 1 Timothy 2. Isn't this very important considering 1 Timothy 2 is basically the cornerstone passage arguing that women cannot preach?
Re:authenteo
I'm not saying that this word means "instigate crime towards men" and this is not a key part of my argument. It may be key for Dora's reading of the text but my point is just to say that the meaning of this word is still unclear. I understand your argument and actually tend to think that the meaning of the word is neutral, but again this is all from things I've read. I obviously have not studied it myself at all. My reference is H Scott Baldwin "An Important Word: Authenteo in 1 Timothy 2:12." He says that there are many instances of the word yes, but only three instances that the word is used before Paul uses it.
Re: Headship
On to the most important point. Now I do not deny that men are given headship, nor do I deny that headship means authority or responsibility. What I do deny, is the connection of headship as giving men a specific right to specific positions in the church.
Jesus is not the one who uses the term head to describe authority no, but Paul is referring to headship in the context of Christ and who Christ is. In order to gain a fuller appreciation of the meaning of the word headship, we need to consider Christ's teachings on leadership and headship. You cannot "separate what Paul and Jesus said about these issues." Christ completely redefines headship.
If Jesus really redefined leadership to simply mean "use leadership to serve" his definition of leadership is not really radical at all. Not to be arrogant or anything, but I could have told you that. Many others throughout history have thought of that very simple concept. Jesus' concept of leadership was much more radical. Jesus says, "If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all" (Mark 9:37). Does it mention anything about positional leadership there? No, rather it mentions the forfeiture of positional authority. A servant is the position that we must take. Jesus doesn't ask us just to serve, but to become a servant. That is a remarkable distinction. Service from a position of power is not leadership the way that Jesus defined it. Rather, we must become a servant. We must become a slave, a bondservant.
This is what Jesus demonstrated in his own life. He could have "served" us from his throne above, but he took the form of a man and gave up completely his position (Phil 2:7). Jesus didn't come down as God with the positional authority of God--though he possessed it--and washed the disciples feet as God. No, he completely abdicated his position and washed the disciples feet as a man. Jesus' favorite title, the one he uses to refer to himself the most, is Son of Man. Clearly Jesus wanted leaders to not just serve, but be servants. Jesus wanted leaders to take the POSITION of servant.
Matthew 20:24-28 is even more clear. "You know that the rules of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you..." Is Jesus contrasting the selfish rule of the Gentiles with how the Son of Man's unselfish rule? I think that's part of it, but that's not the main contrast here. The context of the passage shows that the two brother's were asking for position. The passage never directly mentions selfishness vs. unselfishness. What it does directly mention is a contrast in positions. Slave vs. High Official. Exercise authority vs. serve. This is what is contrasted. Sure, the selflessness element is there, but the main point is to contrast positional authority versus servanthood and sacrifice.
Now on to Paul. Jesus has positional authority obviously. Positional authority and headship can be related, but should not be equated. I do not believe that when Paul uses "head" in this passage, that he is equating headship to positional authority. I believe that when Christians read the word head and they see that the head of a body directs the movements of the hands, feet, whatever, that they assume it means positional authority. Headship is much more complicated and involves glory, authority, sacrifice etc. I don't want to do a wordstudy on "head" because 1. it would be 50 pages long, 2. it would take way too much time (probably 100 hours), 3. I believe it's unnecessary.
I'll just briefly hit on the few passages you mentioned. I don't think in any of the passages you are referring to does Paul use the word head in terms of positional authority. Head means authority YES, but where does it say "positional authority." In Eph 1:22 Christ is the authority over the church. God has placed everything under his feet. The church is under him yes, but does this mean positional authority? I mean it could be, but I don't think it necessarily is saying so. Paul is talking about the supremecy of Christ. I think we can all agree on the supremecy of Christ and his authority. In fact I do believe that Christ has positional authority, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the word head is used to connotate positional authority.
Col 1:18
Same thing. Paul is saying the Christ is supreme. Again, yes Christ has positional authority as the Son of God, but this passage says nothing of it. It is saying that Christ is supreme. I believe Christ is supreme, but that doesn't mean that men are supreme over women does it? Of course not. The headship is one small part of his supremecy, and this verse does not go into detail about what headship is or what it looks like.
Col 2:10
Again, yes Christ has authority over every power and authority, but I believe Paul is using this word very generally. How do you know that this means specifically "positional authority." Paul says "power and authority" and I believe he is referring to positional authority, but he's also referring to any type of authority. I think he's referring to authority in general. I don't understand how you relate head to positional authority with this verse.
Eph 2:23
As you've pointed out, many of the places where Paul uses the word head in the bible, it says that Christ is the head of the church. Here Paul clearly shows how this headship should be lived out. Nowhere in this passage does it talk about positional authority, rather it talks about the servanthood. "Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her." Feeding and caring, washing her and cleansing her, love. That's what headship is about. Of course there is a semantic range for the word "head" and head doesn't necessarily mean all of these things in every place that Paul uses the word, but specifically in relation to men and women? In the context of men and women, Paul doesn't reallly leave much doubt. He fleshes out exactly what head means right here in this passage. The other passages don't really show exactly what "head" means.
I'm not trying to give "exegetical" evidence to what head means. I'm not trying to do a wordstudy. I have never studied Greek or Hebrew. So I could be incorrect in my interpretation of the word head. I get my arguments from what I've read and what I believe makes the most sense.
I have read as many papers as I could get my hands on about this issue. I believe that the egalitarians have a much more well rounded view of the bible. I am trying to look at the bible as a whole. There are few specific passages in the bible that MAY give some credence to the complementarian point of view, but I believe the overwhelming evidence in the bible suggests that this is not the case. If there are any good complementarian papers or books out there you would like me to read, I'd be glad to read them. I just haven't found any of the complementarian arguments convincing at all. Claiming exclusivity to specific titles and positions in the church? From my walk with the Lord and from reading his word, I have to conclude that Christ would view this as extremely petty.
Even complementarians like Grudem and Piper concede that women teaching in conferences etc is okay. They must narrow down their definition of male authority to very specific positions saying that "regular" "authoritative" teaching from the word is not allowed. Wow, what a distinction. I doubt that you can find those words in the bible.
There are many more examples of women leadership and authority in the bible than just Priscilla. Women prophecy all over the new and old testament. Again, must I bring it up again... Deborah was a judge and no where in Judges does it say that God raised her up just because men were botching it up. Deborah was a judge long before Barak came on the scene. In fact, Deborah was a MARRIED judge and as judge she was the supreme ruler of the land. Was Deborah sinning?
I think we can all agree that men must learn how to serve women. Are we serving them by not allowing them to exercise God given gifts over a few highly disputed passages?
How would this practically play out in a church? Why not? If a woman was the senior pastor of a church, she could direct the vision and lead the men. I don't see how there would be any issue. Of course I believe that positions are necessary for the day to day operations of a church. Women should be able to hold those positions. Headship is servanthood and the sacrifice of a position. If a man told a woman "you are gifted in leadership and God has given you vision; be the Senior Pastor." That would be an example of a man taking his responsibility as head, seriously. He is lifting her up and presenting her as blameless in front of God. He is encouraging her to do what she was gifted by God to do. He is encouraging her to lift up the entire church. He is being the head.
I don't see any practical difficulties in living out an egalitarian view. I see many practical difficulties in living out a complementarian view.
Heheh you posted the comment about Priscilla while I was posting the last comment... so I didn't see it :p.
So let me clarify your argument. Are you saying that women cannot be Pastors but can teach and preach? I brought up Priscilla to show that she does in fact teach Apollos. It's true that Priscilla is not directly tied to a specific church office in the bible, so I won't argue that point.
More on headship. If you want a wordstudy on kephale, I'm sure you can find a lot of articles about it. Most of the good arguments I've read indicates that kephale is not a simplistic "authority over" but actually carries a lot of different meanings which are hotly debated. The argument I find the most convincing is that if Paul intended head to simply mean authority, he would have just used exousia. Again, I am not a Greek scholar or anything, I just read the articles. :p
I like hashing this stuff through though. It sharpens the mind :p.
thanks guys for all your input on this topic. my mind is now exhausted and it's time for me to put this issue to rest. i really dislike disagreement within the body. how can we minister together if we hold such strong opposing beliefs? it saddens me. but i guess we have to allow God to convict us personally. and it encourages us to seek and depend on Him all the more =)
of course we can still minister to people even though we have disagreeing view points!
we should celebrate that despite our differences in opinions that we still worship the same God! As long as we are trying to stay faithful to His Word, I think discussions/debates like these are good and necessary - in order for us not to just blindly follow church traditions or interprete the Word with bias. No matter which side of the spectrum you're on, and what issues that you're wrestling with, it's good to explore and be able to defend what you believe in...even if it means disagreeing with some population of the believers. Look at the Reformation - it started with one individual disagreeing with the rest of the church! 
perhaps, it's a good time to remember that we agree on the most important thing: that being Christ has died for sinners and that makes us all brothers and sisters. So, at the risk of sounding super cheesy, Randplaty, you are my brother in Christ. I apologize if my comments were not expressed in love. Let's see if we can discuss this in a more loving way.
"permit" - yes and no. This is is an important passage, but I don't know if I would call it cornerstone. There are a lot of other scriptures that talk about women only teaching women and church offices (teaching offices) having gender as a criteria. At face value, this verse lends itself to a complimentarian viewpoint. Why else has the historical majority of the church interpreted it this way? I think the burden of proof lies with the egalitarian point of view.
authenteo - Mr. Baldwin's point does not seem like a strong argument to me. I don't think he means to say that he has read all the extra-biblical literature and catalogued every use of it. If he is using the same lexicons as most theologians, he is probably only aware of what is listed as examples. He seems to assume that the meaning of the word changed dramatically after Paul used it, yes? That's a pretty big assumption. In any case, I would give more credence to what he has to say if he were to cite an example of an alternate meaning in extra-biblical literature. Even then, you still haven't dismissed a male headship viewpoint. Paul's justification for this command is supported by his reference to the Creation Order just a verse away. We have to seriously take the whole unit into consideration. Again, Dora's reference to the pagan worship is very speculative. It doesn't seem to fit in with Paul's train of thought and it doesn't still doesn't get rid of the meaning of the creation order.
Headship - You seemed to agree with every passage that I cited that used "head" to mean positional authority. I guess my questions would be, why would Paul use this same phrase in the same letter and expect everyone to understand that it means something else. On top of that, there is a reference to positional authority in this verse. Wives, submit to your husband ... just as Christ is the head of the church. Paul has already used this headship tern at the beginning of the letter to refer to positional authority. I think this is a pretty strong argument, don't you?
Jesus' Leadership: Jesus' authority was never undermined in his servanthood and leadership. He possessed it and exercised it in a servantlike manner. One of the major themes in all the gospels is Jesus' authority. He taught with authority, He had authority over the weather, He proved He had authority to forgive, authority to heal, authority to cast out demons, every mircale was used to validate his authority to make such dramatic claims. The gospels are always trying to prove Jesus' authority. In His great commission, He says all authority is granted unto Him, and with that authority He commands the disciples to evangelize. Yes, He laid down His life. Yes, He humbled Himself. That's the radical thing about this whole thing. He had authority and He used it to heal and to bring life. He used His authority to serve others instead of Himself. Even in his death, He told Pilate that no one has the authority to takes His life. Jesus laid it down on His own authority.
Practically speaking, you can not be a leader in the church without exerting some kind of authority, in preaching, marrying people, leading, providing vision, etc. In my opinion, to say that leadership is purely servanthood without any positional authority is not biblical nor practical.
Pricilla and Apollo: Yes, I did cite that passage, but I wrote Paul instead. Ooops. heh heh. So, it's not clear that Priscilla is exerting any type of independent authority or authoritative teaching here. First of all, she was with her husband. Both invited him over. The phrase literally reads, "more accurately exposed the way of God." We don't know who is doing what in what manner. I doesn't seem like a clear passage to base your arguments on.
The Deborah passage is more tricky, yes. It's a narrative and exegetical approaches change. There is a downward spiral in the sequences of judges. Contrary to what is often taught in Sunday School, Gideon was pretty cowardly to keep asking God for signs, when God already ordered him to go out and fight. The last judge is the Nazarite long-haired dude, who broke all the Nazarite vows, slept around with Gentile women and ended up dying a shameful death as he killed the Philistines. There is a strong sense to the anomaly of Deborah's role in all this. Put yourself in a Jewish male's shoes, when you read about a woman hand-holding a warrior into battle. Deborah's statement about the honor going to a woman is a pretty blatant rebuke at Barak's cowardice. Why would she mention a victor's gender, if that wasn't part of her point?
At last, I think this might be my last post. I think I've neglected my family enough. Perhaps, I might comment again if the wife is occupied with other things. I guess Randplaty gets the honor of the last word. Blessing, bro on you and your family. I tell you what, we'll make a bet on heavenly beach front property and God will settle this matter when we both get to the other side. cya.
this is such great discussion -- i want to hear more...
when you guys have time & more thoughts and if feel compelled, pls do write! 
BTW, in regard to this question, "Why else has the historical majority of the church interpreted it this way?" -- I really think that the idea of man ruling over woman came only after the fall -- it was a part of Eve's curse!! part of the punishment! and NOT the way God intended things at the beginning. -- and so ever since then, we have lived in this "fallen world", and THAT is why men have ruled over women, that is why there is hierarchy/patriarchy through history, in culture and society -- and THAT 'fallenness' has seeped into the church as well so that the church too adopted this system of hierarchy without question. Male hierarchy is such the norm!! I think that Christ wanted to establish a new order (which actually was the 'original order' of how things were before the fall) where there is no hierarchy... where men don't rule over women, where positions of leadership are not only limited to men, but to all who have the gift and the calling in Christ.
The other day I woke up thinking about slaves. Nowadays the question of whether or not slavery is 'right' is not even a question. But imagine if you lived during the Civil War times -- if I were a good Christian, then I would search the Scriptures to see what God thought. What I would find is that Paul writes instructions to slaves and their masters. I would then wonder if slavery was ok then since there were provisions made for slaves/masters. Nowadays, we wouldn't even blink if someone said that it was cultural to the time. I think that Paul made provision because slavery was just a part of the culture; perhaps he knew it wasn't right (or perhaps he didn't), but he didn't write the letter to bring justice and change the social system, he merely wrote to teach people how to live in Christlikeness within the system. In the same way, I think that Paul did not write the letters about women teaching, etc, to change the social system of male hierarchy because that was the accepted way of the culture. He merely wrote to teach people how to live in Christlikeness within this system.
I think that one day this issue will be irrelevant. That day will be the day when the cultural norm and the 'system' will not be male hierarchy but equality. That will be the day when even we in the church we be ok with women taking roles of leadership. Perhaps that day won't be til we get to Heaven.
So although I totally believe it is biblical that women should teach and preach and hold positions of leadership, I think that in so many ways the Church at large is not ready for this [Although some churches are. (Check out this denomination's stance on women in ministry.)], and many nonchristian subcultures both western and nonwestern are not either. So meanwhile, if as we seek to reach people to bring them to Jesus, we need to work within this system in order to reach them, then we ought to let the men hold the positions of leadership, but all the while PRAYING that His Kingdom would come on earth as it is in Heaven -- and TEACHING them Kingdom values and Kingdom standards ~ the way things ought to be in Christ.
Comments are closed.