Cheryl, thanks for emphasizing those verses in Romans 14. They certainly help add to the discussion, and I believe you are right on target.

Now, Mike, all I can say to you is that your arguments are really nothing more than slander. You start out by saying, “I’m not saying that “women teaching men” is on the same level as those who are homosexual” and then develop your whole argument based on the assumption that they are, in fact, the same. When you add, “Though I do not associate homosexuals and the gravity of that sin (Romans 1) with “woman teaching men”,” you are saying that women teaching men is a sin. Yet you yourself do not have a passage that says, “Women teaching men is a sin.” Even the verse you use to support your point does not say, “women teaching men is a sin” but only that Paul says, “I do not allow.” That’s a pretty big difference.

There are plenty of lists of sin in the New Testament, most of them written by Paul, and not one of them lists “women teaching men” as a sin. Slander, however, IS most definitely listed by Paul as a sin, in Col. 3:8 and Eph. 4:31. Peter lists it too in 1 Peter 2:1. And let’s not forget that Jesus himself spoke strongly against slander in Matt. 15:19 and Mark 7:22.

This kind of argumentation is nothing more than trying to prove guilt by association. You are reasoning thus: Group A uses these arguments. Group A is clearly in sin. Group B uses the same arguments. Therefore Group B is clearly also in sin. Ridiculous!

Mike, you are the one on the slippery slope here. Your argument has no merit, so you have to attack the people rather than the position.

excuse me Cheryl, but I’m trying to find your posts in here where you quote Ware. I’m having a discussion elsewhere that I could use them and your points as well about them.

you can email me if you like….

WOW! M. Seaver. I’m really rather shocked to read you comparing women teaching men to be comparable to men having sexual relationships with one another.

Would you please explain how women can teach truth and be in sin. Also, at what point does a woman become sinful in teaching this truth. How does that work? If you say it is when a man listens to her, then it is the man who is sinning by listening and not the woman who speaks truth. Then how does one judge what is being taught if it is sinful to hear a woman’s voice teaching. Or you could perhaps seek out a verse where it is sin for a woman to speak in the presence of men. After all if they learned something from her, they would be in sin as well as her …. IMO that is the confusion of this stance.

This sounds very much like an old oral teaching of the Rabbi’s where they claimed that it was an abomination to hear a woman’s voice read the Torah. And that is just preferential bias at work.

All in all , this is not good exegesis. Good exegesis starts with reading something in context. To find the context in the 1 Tim. 2 verse, one needs to read in chapter one where the foundation is laid. …. and so on. 🙂

Mike wrote: “You do not have a passage that says, “Women should teach and exercise authority over a man,” but 1 Timothy 2:12 says, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man….” This is huge difference in our arguments.”

Yes, and there is also a huge difference between “women” plural, in Mike’s sentence and “a woman” in the verse 1 Tim. 2:12. How convenient to change from singular to plural to bolster one’s position.

It appears that he does not understand 1 Tim 2:12 which says a woman should not ‘authenteo’ a man. The matter is, a man should not authenteo another man, either.

This whole concept is, once again, man centered, as we can see by his position. Jesus taught that we are not to want to lord it over others.

I was able to catch a few minutes on the internet while I am at church camp. Not sure how long the connection will last. I am sitting on the front steps with my sweater pulled over my head so that I can even see the computer screen. TL if you still need my help, by Saturday when I am home, I will see what I can do to find all the comments.

Kay & TL good comments! I would also like to add that if we need a scripture to tell us that we may do something good then women will be very restricted indeed. For instance is there even one scripture that says that a woman is allowed to teach women the scriptures? I know of not a single verse that gives women permission to teach the bible to other women. They can teach women to keep house and to love their husbands but where does it directly say she has permission to teach the bible to adult women? If it doesn’t say so, should we be restricting women? Or should we see women as full members of the body of Christ who are allowed to use their gifts for the common good?

What do you think?

I am going off line again as the heat under this little tent is stifling. I should be back on line for sure Friday night or Saturday.

You’re oh, so right, – not a single verse gives women permission to teach the Bible to other women. So, I suppose they overlook that fact the same way they overlook “a woman” in 1 Tim. 2:12 by turning it into “women.”

Cheryl,

Thanks for braving the elements in order to check in!

Frank,

I have been thinking along the same lines and have posted comments on Mike’s blog accordingly –
*Mike wrote: “You do not have a passage that says, “Women should teach and exercise authority over a man,” but 1 Timothy 2:12 says, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man….” This is huge difference in our arguments.”

Yes, and there is also a huge difference between “women” plural, in your sentence and “a woman” in the verse 1 Tim. 2:12. Why the change from singular to plural? 1 Tim 2:12 which says a woman should not ‘authenteo’ a man. The matter is, a man should not authenteo another man, either. This is only time authenteo is used in the New Testament. This whole concept is, once again, man centered, as we can see by your position. Jesus taught that we are not to lord it over others.
Mike wrote: “Though I do not associate homosexuals and the gravity of that sin (Romans 1) with “woman teaching men”
Why not? If it is sin then it is sin. If it is wrong then it is wrong.*

I wish you would post your remarks and questions regarding Col. 3:15-17. It has been on mind to ask him if he believes women are allowed to sing in mixed gender worship services, given the fact that ministering in song is basically the same as singing a sermon or Bible lesson as you expressed

I would also like to know what litmus test Christians give to determine the exact moment a boy turns into a man?? – I mean heaven forbid it should happen half way through some boy’s Sunday School class being taught by a woman or his mother.

What Mike is doing is what I call helicopter theology or cut and paste. He is not reading Scripture in context or according to how it was written. He is lifting out these 8 Greek words and allowing them to mean whatever fits his thinking.

But if we read in context following the flow of context of the author, we have to acknowledge first the whole thought in that instance which was that Timothy was to let the woman learn. Then we need to back up into chapter one and see that Paul was concerned about those who were trying to teach, but really didn’t know the Scriptures. They were involved in fables, endless geneologies, and debates instead of loving from a pure heart. They were likely legalists since Paul reprimanded them about the law being for sinners if used rightly. (which should give pause in this subject). He then goes on to admonish all to pray instead of fighting – inferred by lifting the hands without wrath)

And so on……

We also need to take into consideration the fact that within a very short time of this epistle Paul has said that women should consider whether to pray and prophesy (prophesy was also considered to include teaching – not mystical speaking only as we do today) with their head covered or not. He also praised Prisca for her teaching, Phoebe for her leading, and other women for their leadership.

To think that Paul flip flopped back and forth on the subject is sloppy thinking IMO.

Also, we have to take into consideration the whole of Scripture. The whole of Scripture has Deborah teaching the Torah in the course of her administration of Judge over Israel, of which she was appointed by God. God does not flip flop back and forth over whether or not He will use women in speaking forth His Word.

There is so much more to show that it simply is not feasible to think that Paul could possibly set down a new law that women cannot teach men or exercise authority over them. And then the really crazy part is when people interpret an order of creation (Adam was created before Eve) to mean men can teach/lead and women cannot. LOL besides being absolutely contrary to how God does things, to believe that, means that for 4000 years God forgot that’s what He meant by creating the male first and went ahead and used women to teach and lead. ?????

All one has to do is to learn to read Scripture in context instead of helicoptering verses and pieces of verses out of their flow of thought and out of their relationship to the whole scheme of things.

🙂

It’s been my experience that the two biggest hurdles people have to get over in order to understand what Scripture teaches on this issue are the meanings of kephale and “a woman.” Because with that resolved, the “cherry picking” of verses out of context (helicoptering) totally breaks down.

Good point. That is probably why those who promote gender hierarchalism flat out refuse to really consider what kephale actually means in context and ignore completely any meaning to Paul’s deliberate shift from plural to singular.

Great suggestion Frank, I too concluded that 1 Tim 2 was all Mike had to hold onto (see my comment on his blog).

The only prob with the argument you suggest is that he will probably go where Grudem goes (concerning Ephesians 5:21) and say “one another” does not mean “everyone to everyone”, but “some to others”. In other words, Colossians more accurately says “some should teach and admonish others”!

Grudem, naturally, is wrong! My contribution to our Blog Conference starting in a few days deals with this if you are interested in checking it out (how was that for a plug!). I cannot speak so much for Mike, but it appears that some comps you cannot tie down with logic, because logic is not what is of greatest importance, maintaining the hierarchy is 🙁

I fear you’re right, Dave. It seems that some men are so threatened by the idea of women in any sort of ministry (other than in the kitchen preparing/cleaning up after Communion or church suppers, or in children’s ministry, up to a certain age, of course) that they will do anything to keep that from happening. This includes intellectual sloth, dishonesty, insults, and deliberate divisiveness. Why can’t they just admit that for a lot of them, the real issue is that they’re afraid that the women will do a better job in leading than they will, and they’ll be replaced?

Sorry for the rant, but that’s what crossed my mind. As far as Mike Seaver’s equating women teaching to homosexuality, that deserves a good BULL! I’m not following his logic, and I refuse to believe that the two can be equated. If he can, with solid intellectual integrity and spiritual grace, show me how, then maybe my BS detector will stop going off. But right now, it can probably be heard a (figurative) mile away. Grrrrrrr.

12 & 14 – Kay and Dave, (“I cannot speak so much for Mike, but it appears that some comps you cannot tie down with logic, because logic is not what is of greatest importance, maintaining the hierarchy is”) you guys made the points that I was going to make! 😛

At the beginning of the debate, I really didn’t think Mike was someone who would go for the homosexual/slippery slope association lines, but, Oh well….

I’m beginning to think you are right – logic is not what is of greatest importance, it’s maintaining their hierarchy. Why else would they want to make something as temporary as sexual gender so important?
I posted this verse on another blog today:
“Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures or the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.” Matt. 22:29-30
it seems to fit here, too.

Thanks for the info Frank…I wished I had read some of that before I prepared my post!

You quote Dawes as referring to “mutual subordination”. I have also read debates before where the words “submission” and subordination” are seen as meaning the same thing or swapped with one another. I have not read Dawes except for what you just quoted, but it seems to me that submission and subordination are fundamentally different. One has to do with the “natural order”, the other has to do with how you “choose to relate” to someone. Would you agree? Because I think that we can submit to one another, but I do not think we can be subordinate to one another…especially in CHrist (Gal 3:28!). Perhaps I am pedantic?

I like Dawes’ thinking on “one another”!

Homosexuality was defined by God as a sin (punishable by death even).

Women teaching men, however, is not described as a sin. The most you could selectively lift from the New Testament only (contrary to 1 Cor. 14:34-35) is that it is disgraceful. Sounds more like a cultural thing to me.

The most that will happen is that we will once again have women like Pheobe, Prophetess Ana, Junia, Pricilla, the four daughters of Philip in Acts, Huldah, Deborah, Miriam (Micah 6:4 — “4 I brought you up out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery. I sent Moses to lead you, also Aaron and Miriam.”), and many others that I am forgetting off the top of my head or who were not named. If they weren’t punished or reprimanded for leading/prophesying to men nor were the men for listening, I don’t think we have much to worry about by following the example of those women now. So where’s the slippery slope again?

‘Nuff said.

Dave, you asked an interesting question about “submission” and “subordination,” which I am not quite sure how to answer. I know that the first is usually understood as one “willingly deferring or yielding to another,” while the other is usually understood as one “willingly placing or ordering oneself under another,” and so are understood to be synonyms and so used interchangably in several articles I have read in the past. Until you brought it up, it did not occur to me that there might be a subtle difference in meaning between the two. So I’ll have to check my English dictionaries and thesaurus and see what I can find out. But, no, I don’t think you’re being pedantic.

Frank,

*”Dawes argues that the context shows that the exhortation, beginning with Eph. 5:19, where we find a series of five participles (speaking, singing, making melody, giving thanks, and submitting to one another), are all dependent on the command to “be filled with the Spirit” (v.18) and give no reason to believe that any of the five participles are directed to only some Christians and not to others. Furthermore, verse 21, with its call to mutual submission (and from which verse 22 gets its verb), cannot be limited to the relationship between husband and wife, but it must be taken as a general Christian ethic addressed to every believer.”*

Excellent find!! I’m very glad you shared this. Do you recall where this article was published? I am interested to see what else Gregory Dawes may have that’s edifying.

“It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.” Phil.1:15-18

To me these verses also fully demonstrate that Paul was not nearly so concerned about >who< was preaching, so long as it was Christ that was being preached. He even rejoiced about it!

“Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”
“Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly be rewarded.” Mark 9:38-41, TNIV

I certainly think these verses may also apply. Someone correct me if I’m cherry picking here.

I’ve been following this fascinating and enlightening discussion/debate all along and just want to say thank you to both Cheryl and Mike, and also to all the commentators who are also adding really great stuff to the conversation. I have to say, also, that it is so nice to have some men here fighting our corner!

I had hoped to get to all the comments on this post, but I have run out of time. There was so much to catch up on after coming back from vacation. For tonight I will just comment on Karen’s comment…I too am grateful for the men that God has sent my way. To see a man fighting for his sister’s in Christ just fills my heart with joy. For those men who have been brave enough to comment here, let me once again express my heartfelt gratitude for your support and your great comments. In the days to come I will be commenting on the posts as I catch up with all that I have missed.

Frank, I did a quick check and I can find consistant and fundamental differences between submit and subordinate. Submission has to do with the will of the person submitting, while subordination has to do with hierarchy. Subordination works on the principle of a natural order, strength, authority and power etc.

It seems to me that this is fundamental stuff is we are going to understand what happens in the Trinity. I cannot see any evidence for subordination of the Son, only submission. Obviously this then comes back to how comps view hierarchy in the church and marriage. God created us all equal, and so we, like the Trinity can submit to each other. It is actually impossible for us to be subordinate to one another (in my understanding), because “order” does not allow for you to be “below” me while I am also “below” you. Can’t happen! I would be interested in knowing your conclusions!

Cheryl and Karen, as one of the blokes, it is a joy.

Dave,

Are you an Aussie? I lived in Sale back in the early 70’s.

Cheryl, please pardon this off-topic remark.

Leaders? Hmmm?

Is that a truth for “the body of Christ”
which is not of this world?
Or is that a tradition of men?
Or a tradition of the worlds system?

A movement or a corporation
probable does need leaders.
But “the body of Christ?”

I thought Jesus already had the position locked up.
Or does He need some help? Ishmael anyone?

There seems to be this tremendous
emphasis on leaders, five fold ministry,
apostles and prophets and the rest.

Where is the sitting at his feet movement?
The forsaking all and serving Him movement?
The entering to His rest movement?
The ceasing from our own works movement?
The letting God build His Church movement?

I’ve tried a lot of the movements.
Now when I’m looking for a movement
I eat a box of prunes.

I’m worn out with all the movements.
I’d like to and am laboring to enter into his rest.
Enter into His arms and hear how much
He loves me just the way I am.
Warts and character defects and all.

What would happen if… ?
we had no human leaders in the ekklesia?
What would “the body of Christ” look like?
Would there be a lot less abuse?
A lot less confusion?
A lot less division?

Would Jesus still be the head?

Over 2000 denominations? Hmmm?
Who’s idea was that?

Oh yea, how silly of me.
Wasn’t it leaders? Who thought they had a better idea?

Have you considered the ant?

An ant is small and insignificant.
Or is it?

Go to the ant, thou sluggard;
consider her ways, and be wise:
Which having
no guide,
overseer,
or ruler,
Provideth her meat in the summer,
and gathereth her food in the harvest.
Proverbs 6:6-9

Guide – 07101 qatsiyn from 07096
KJV – ruler 4, prince 4, captain 3, guide 1
1- chief, commander, dictator.
2- ruler (of one in authority)

Overseer – 07860 shoter {sho-tare’}
KJV – officers 23, ruler 1, overseer 1; 25
1- official, officer.

Ruler – 04910 mashal {maw-shal’}
KJV – rule 38, ruler 19, reign 8,
dominion 7, governor 4, 81
1-to rule, have dominion, reign
2- to exercise dominion.

Isaiah 3:12
…O my people, they which lead thee
cause thee to err,
and destroy the way of thy paths.

Isaiah 9:16
For the leaders of this people
cause them to err;
and they that are led of them are destroyed.

Jeremiah 50:6 My people hath been lost sheep:
their shepherds have caused them to go astray…

Jesus took the time to tell his disciples
not to be called master/leader. Mt 23

The Interlinear Bible-
Nor be called leaders,
for one is your leader the Christ.

Phillips Modern English-
you must not let people call you leaders,
you have only one leader, Christ.

Today’s English Version-
nor should you be called leader.
your one and only leader is the Messiah.

The Amplified-
you must not be called masters ( leaders )
for you have one master ( leader )
the Christ.

If Jesus told His disciples not to be called master/leader
and someone calls them self a leader or thinks they are a leader;
are they a disciple of Christ?

If that is our options, “Disciple of Christ” or ‘leader”
Which one do you choose?

Titles become idols and
pastors become masters.

In His Service. By His Grace.

Kay, yep I am an Aussie living in Sydney Australia (I wondered when I referred to myself as a “bloke” if I was being too Aussie).

Dave, which dictionary/thesaurus did you check? I checked my Webster’s New School and Office Dictionary, which gave me the following definitions:

Submit: 1. To yield to the authority, power, etc., of another. 2. To present (something) to the judgment, discretion, etc., of another. 3. To offer as a belief, evaluation, etc.; suggest.

Subordinate: 1. Inferior in rank, value, power, importance, etc. 2. Subject to the authority of another. 3. In grammar, something that cannot stand alone.

The main difference I perceive between the two is, to use the philosohical terms, one involves a voluntary or volitional choice, while the other, being a relation of inferior to superior, is one of necessity which negates any voluntary choice. So I think I agree with you.

As regards the relationship of the Divine Persons of the Trinity, I agree with Athanasius, Kevin Giles, and Thomas F. Torrance: While they are distinct, none is prior to or greater than the other as regards their divine nature and attributes; all are fully and equally God. The submission of the Son to the Father, as our Redeemer and Mediator, applies primarily to the Incarnation. As far as I am concerned, the modern doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son is nothing but an ancient heresy put into new packaging. But is heresy, nonetheless.

Frank, trying to find the correct English word to represent the Grk. is not all that easy. In Grk. hupotassomai (passive) has nothing to do with yielding to authority. Rather it is about arranging oneself under another. Whether that arranging is done voluntarily depends upon whether one is doing so at one’s own discretion (passive) or at the requests of another. Even if at the request of another, it does not indicate the authority of the other. That must be supplied by other words.

“As far as I am concerned, the modern doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son is nothing but an ancient heresy put into new packaging. But is heresy, nonetheless.”

I’ll second that!

Kay, the partial quote from Gregory Dawes book was taken from Dr. Johnson’s article, “A Christian Understanding of Submission: A Nonhierarchical-Complementarian Viewpoint,” which appeared in Priscilla Papers, Vol. 17 Autumn 2003. And you’ll find some more of Dawes material in that article. I would be interested in getting a copy of Dawes’ book, but I find that English books, even when used, tend to be expensive. And TL, thanks for the futher clarification regarding how to translate hypatasso (“submit”) and its cognates

Hi TL…you said,

“In Grk. hupotassomai (passive) has nothing to do with yielding to authority. Rather it is about arranging oneself under another. Whether that arranging is done voluntarily depends upon whether one is doing so at one’s own discretion (passive) or at the requests of another. Even if at the request of another, it does not indicate the authority of the other.”

I was thinking about this and was thinking, the whole thing can get very fuzzy. For starters, if we submit, and it is not voluntary submission, we might be submitting externally in action, but have we submitted internally – in our hearts? Also, if we are “forced” to submit, then does that not imply that the one who is forcing us is more powerful, has more athority etc…which surely leads us back to subordination!

I guess I am just wondering, can submission really be something that is not done passively – at our own discretion?

Frank, I have Webster’s, but I also used other dictionaries when I formulated my understanding of submission and subordination.

Good ‘wonderings’ Frank. The difference is that submission is not obedience even though it can look like it at times. Submission chooses at ones own discretion, rather than another’s. Submission will take into consideration other considerations such as laws (laws are not perfect and can go against God’s Truths). When we choose to submit to a law we are obeying it. Obedience is about a required response. It doesn’t matter if it is willing or not, it is something we must do at another’s insistence.

But even that has interesting nuances. When we choose to obey something we haven’t been commanded, we have (in the Greek & Hebrew thinking) heard and responded on the strength of what we have heard. IOW we have heard something so powerful or truthful that to our understanding it requires our positive response. Or we understand the consequences to be distasteful if we don’t obey or submit.

The only thing that isn’t hazy about it all is the idea that wives should obey every request of their husbands. Such a powerful authority over another’s adult life should never ever been given. It is akin to absolute slavery to be wielded solely at the discretion of the holder. Some like the idea but will wield this power benignly. Others will use it to the hilt. To think that this creates a holy unity means one doesn’t understand holy and godly unity.

But submission in the Grk. understanding is something that anyone can do and all should do. We should all have the attitude that we want to get under and lift one another up and profit one another’s life. In fact, this attitude should be the first requirement of those who want to serve in ministries.

OK…. sorry for the rambling. I just got up. Not fully awake. :^)

Thanks TL, that was helpful!

The whole issue I see with submission is that it must be from the heart – like every other aspect of the Christian life. Paul wouldn’t even need to mention it, if God was making us do this automatically in some way. No, it’s something we are told to do – it’s our choice – it’s not forced. O.K., well, maybe some Calvinists would see it that way. But, why bother to leave any Scriptures for us, if God makes us do everything by His Will anyway???

“But, why bother to leave any Scriptures for us, if God makes us do everything by His Will anyway???”

If women were created for submission and following men as some actually teach, they would as you say do it naturally.

God gave us dogs for that. My dog (gone now) used to follow me every where and would have gone with me every where I went if I’d let him. He never tired of my company, nor of responding to my wishes. Great dog as far as dogs go. 🙂