The ‘pragmatics’ of the situation are that women make great leaders and can lead men well. The ‘pragmatics’ of the situation are also that - due to the traditional cultural suppression of women’s voices for 3950 of the last 4000 years - women could not previously make great leaders as they weren’t under serious consideration for leadership positions.

Given this, it is at least worthwhile to revisit Biblical passages concerning women’s leadership and work through what their context is.

I don’t think anyone is doubting that women make good leaders. Cause it isn’t the issue! Personal qualifications, skills and gifts simply don’t come into it because noone is qualified enough to earn God’s authority. He is free to give it to whoever he wishes.

Dannii Willis - 12 July 2008 12:29 PM

I don’t think anyone is doubting that women make good leaders.

Michael Bull - 11 July 2008 07:12 PM

Women don’t think the same as men. Female leadership focusses on maintaining the status quo.

We’ve come along way since much of society, including historically prominent church leaders, thought women were just plain inferior. Evidently, we still have some way to go…

Hmmm :(

lol, why the sad face Danni?

Question for (ardent) complementarians: Can you conceive of a woman who is unequivocally and absolutely more intelligent than yourself? Better decision maker, better educated, and just all-round smarter? Can you also, honestly, conceive of a whole swathe of women who fit the same description?

Luke Stevens - 12 July 2008 01:26 PM

Question for (ardent) complementarians: Can you conceive of a woman who is unequivocally and absolutely more intelligent than yourself? Better decision maker, better educated, and just all-round smarter? Can you also, honestly, conceive of a whole swathe of women who fit the same description?

Luke

Yes to the first two questions; the third is too vague, but yes, I imagine there are many women who would be so.

But as Dannii has said, that’s not the issue.  I’ve had bosses at work in the past who were not these things - that doesn’t mean I should have been the boss!  The a priori assumption that gifting is the determinative factor in selecting people for leadership is the problem here.  That’s how the world approaches leadership, but it is not how the Bible does.

Bob

Please forgive my ignorance of scripture, but could someone please work through some apologetics for me?

[1] Aside from the ‘broadly symbolic’ indication of the relationship between men and women that God intended (eg. Eve being created for Adam) what are the main passages that relate to women unequivocally not being allowed to have leadership positions in the church?
[2] I have basically only heard ‘St Paul’ and 1 Timothy used in this context - where, in the same section as whoever wrote it says he thinks braided hair and pearls are a bad idea for women he also says that “I suffer not a woman to teach”. To me, this reads like a personal ‘suggestion’ of the author given the context of the times (which was one, I believe, where the early Church was combatting female-led sects of sort of ‘Mary worshippers’, or am I just making that up?), rather than any claim that God (he repeatedly uses the pronoun ‘I’ instead) thinks women are simply not in a position to ever be leaders. Furthermore, the *rationale* behind the position in 1 Timothy would seem to be one that one should reject on the basis of reason today anyhow (ie. that women shouldn’t teach because Eve was the one who was deceived), making it even less reasonable to accept that the advice in 1 Timothy 2 is appropriate for all time, rather than just the author’s personal suggestion to Timothy.
[3] Having said that, I’m sure there must be other more important passages about women not being able to lead, so I’m interested what they are.

There is a big overlap between the thread I am currently posting in and this thread
James,
You are asking a reasonable enough question, though it contains some assumptions that I would not agree with.  You have been engaged in the other thread as well, so you are not unaware of some of the other issues.  I can’t see my way clear to responding at length for at least a couple of days (and maybe that would be pushing us into a bigger discussion than these fora should handle anyway).  Maybe someone will post some helpful links or make some book recommendations in the meantime.
Bob

Sure, Bob. I appreciate your replies. My curiosity can certainly wait to be sated, but I might also go off and do my own research.

For some reason, I just don’t have the energy to work through both these threads from the beginning though and am therefore, unfortunately, probably bringing up issues that have already been covered.

Boy, this thread is really moving along!

In response to my request, Chris A. said this:

The scholar that I have found most helpful is Kenneth Bailey the Presbyterian author and lecturer in Middle Eastern New Testament Studies ... , Dr Bailey has written a most helpful essay “Women in the New Testament:A Middle Eastern Cultural View” which first appeared in 1994, in ANVIL, an Anglican Evangelical Journal for Theology and Mission and can be accessed at http://godswordtowomen.org/women_new_testament.pdf

Thank you Chris for this reference - I’ll have a look at it. Are there any others?

regards, Richard

OK, I’ll attempt a brief reply to James Y. as well:

The only explicit passage about ‘teaching’ or ‘having authority’ is 1 Tim 2:12 (quoting from v11)

11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.  12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.  13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve....  (NIV)

The debates over the translation are voluminous, but I haven’t yet been convinced of the alternatives. (Not to mention the arguments about pseudonymous authorship of the pastorals - of which I have not been convinced by the ‘liberal consensus’.)

You will note that the argument about Eve is a supporting argument to the command in verse 12, and is not an argument about the contemporary situation, but an argument from creation order. I don’t think you should be writing it off as quickly as you seem to do - but perhaps I misunderstand?

Paul says: “I do not permit ...” - could he just be giving a personal preference? No, the first person singular is also used in 2:1, 8 & 9 - all ‘timeless commands’ as far as most people are concerned. Note also Paul’s mention of his apostolic authority in 2:7, which reminds us that Paul’s prohibition carries significant weight!

Of course this may be the only explicit verse about teaching, but it goes in the same direction as passages on church order (1 Cor 11:3-14; 14:33-34); on the appointment of leaders (1 Tim 3:2ff; Titus 1:5ff); and commands to wives about submission to husands (Ephesians 5:22-32; Colossians 3:18 and 1 Peter 3:1 ff).

As for the significance of the contemporary situation in Ephesus ... certainly there were false teachers (1 Tim 1:3) The only ones named as such are Hymenaeus and Philetus (male names) “who have wandered away from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some” (2 Tim 2:18). Some commentators would argue that since the dominant feature of Ephesus was the great temple of Artemis (Diana) that the city must have had a significant female leadership and this was causing problems in the church as women tried to ‘domineer’ over men. The only problem with this argument is that the feminine domination of Ephesus is yet to be proven. An article by Steven M. Baugh has done a thorough study of the historical evidence and argues that - contra the assertions by many previous commentators - the temple of Artemis was run by several groups of men who were also leaders of the city. The implication is that the argument about a ‘local problem’ has no foundation. Even if it did, there is no indication in the text that this should be a temporary restriction - in fact the appeal to creation order pushes us the other way.

Baugh’s article is found in Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 edited by Kostenberger, Schreiner and Baldwin (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995). This whole book provides a careful critique of many ‘egalitarian’ arguments and an overall argument for the ‘complementarian’ or ‘traditional’ understanding of 1 Timothy 2.

Thanks Richard.  Saved me some work! :-)
Bob

If Robert Ian Williams is reading - I wonder if you could kindly link to the article you’ve mentioned, by John Piper, arguing that in denomination after denomination ordaining women has led to all kinds of heresies?  Would save us all the search.

Meanwhile here’s a trenchant quote by R. Albert Mohler you may have seen before:

“The issues of women’s ordination and the normalization of homosexuality are closely linked. It is no accident that those churches that most eagerly embraced the ordination of women now either embrace the ordination of homosexuals or are seriously considering such a move.  The reason for this is quite simple. The interpretive games one must play in order to get around the Bible’s proscription of women in congregational preaching and teaching roles are precisely the games one must play in order to get around the Bible’s clear condemnation of homosexuality.”

Richard,
If 1 Timothy 2:8 is a timeless command, why don’t we hold up our hands when we pray? this one has always puzzled me.

Richard Blight - 13 July 2008 06:46 PM

You will note that the argument about Eve is a supporting argument to the command in verse 12, and is not an argument about the contemporary situation, but an argument from creation order.

Sure, so what is Paul saying about men and women by referring to the creation account?

I think you can make a powerful case for the inferiority of women in general from the latter half of v14 alone - “it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner”. (Emphasis mine). Indeed, many prominent (male) figures in church history have done so. Women are, from the passage, quite clearly more prone to being deceived and becoming sinners, and are therefore likely to lead men into sin, who are by implication less prone to deception (except, oddly, when taught by women), perhaps due to superior intellect. Therefore, being inherently more prone to deception and sin, women shouldn’t teach. In fact, they should be silent.

It cannot be argued that this was true at the time because of education or a lack thereof, because Paul doesn’t provide any such qualification. Indeed he appeals to the very created order of men & women, so his argument is based on our intrinsic, unchanging natures.

Sound reasonable?

That is in many ways the true traditional understanding, and if you disagree, well frankly I question your orthodoxy.

Personally, I always encourage women to get preggers too (v15), just to ensure their salvation - better to be safe than sorry!