Equal In Value And Worth In Whose Eyes
One of the problems with the definitions that complementarians provide is that the definitions aren’t complete enough on the surface to reveal the underlying hierarchical nature. However, when one pushes to get the answers to some difficult questions, the picture becomes a lot clearer
Date: 2009-12-20
URL: https://mmoutreach.org/wim/2009/12/20/equal-in-value-and-worth-in-whose-eyes/
Equality in whose eyes?
One of the problems with the definitions that complementarians provide is that the definitions aren’t complete enough on the surface to reveal the underlying hierarchical nature. However, when one pushes to get the answers to some difficult questions, the picture becomes a lot clearer. The clearer picture shows the complementarian stand to be a male bias inside the pretty outer package of complementarian wording. However, when the veil is pulled back, a contradictory view is shown which views an inequality in God’s design of humanity. In addition, their man-made restriction is also placed on God Himself in how He is allowed to express Himself through half of humanity. Let me give a few of examples of the pretty package and then we will dissect the statements. The examples are all from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW).
Both Adam and Eve were created in God’s image, equal before God as persons… (from http://www.cbmw.org/Resources/Articles/The-Danvers-Statement )
God never viewed women as second-class citizens. His Word clearly states that we are all equally His children and are of equal value and worth before Him. (from http://www.cbmw.org/Resources/Articles/What-Should-Be-the-Husband-s-Role-in-Marriage )
And lastly 1 A. under the Summary of the Complementarian Position:
Male and female were created by God as equal in dignity, value, essence and human nature … (from http://www.cbmw.org/Resources/Articles/Summaries-of-the-Egalitarian-and-Complementarian-Positions )
These statements do seem to be a pretty package, affirming women as equal, however, I would like to point out something that many people miss when they read these statements. The complementarian position says that the male and female are equal before God in value and worth but note that they do not say that women are equal before mankind in value or worth. They are only equal before God. However even in their equality before God, there is a serious issue.
In what way are men and women equal in dignity and worth before God? According to CBMW, it is only in salvation that men and women are equal before God.
…In sum, this verse explains the new status of believers as sons of God and the means by which every believer attains that status, through faith in Christ….Cottrell points out that the question is not whether any of these can be saved, but how they receive salvation… Simply put, the pattern for inheritance under the law was Jewish free males.In the New Covenant, however, something far better than an earthly estate is in view; “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28). Paul’s point in (Gal 3:28) is that everyone who receives the inheritance of salvation receives it the same way and experiences the same justifying results-union with Christ. (from http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-8-No-1/Galatians-3-28-Prooftext-or-Context )
According to CBMW, it is our adoption as sons of God with the inheritance = our salvation. Our equality starts and ends with the CBMW understanding of Galatians 3:28. However, CBMW fails to give the full view of inheritance found in Galatians 4:1 where the inheritance of God’s adopted “sons” is defined as “owner of everything.”
Galatians 4:1 Now I say, as long as the heir is a child, he does not differ at all from a slave although he is owner of everything,
By equating salvation as ending with sonship, and thus restricting sonship to our salvation, CBMW fails to recognize that the inheritance includes the rights to all that God has (owner of everything) with the restriction only in the age of the “son,” not the “gender.” Therefore the inheritance goes far past salvation and into the issue of ownership. Does God’s women “sons” have a right to the ownership of God’s spiritual gifts too? Of course, because the inheritance goes beyond salvation to the ownership of everything! If CBMW wants to withhold ownership of God’s estate from women, then they are saying that women have to stay as children while only men are allowed to be mature sons. An interpretation of the separation of God’s “sons” by gender cannot be established from the text.
The next restriction that CBMW establishes is of God’s Holy Spirit as the gifts that God gives are now gender-based through the classification of roles. In their understanding, roles are assigned as gifts to one gender alone. Spiritual equality then is limited to access to God and an equal standing before God, not an equal ability to receive God’s gifts or to receive an understanding of God’s word.
Third, even if one grants that equality is in the text implicitly, in the sense that if we are all “in Christ” we are all equal, then it can be understood properly only as a “spiritual equality” that describes equal access to God and an equal standing before God, not an equality of (gifts). (Found at http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-8-No-1/Galatians-3-28-Prooftext-or-Context )
In this understanding of “equality,” God is restricted in the work that He can do through women. His Holy Spirit cannot operate through women in the same way that He operates through men. He cannot gift women equally nor can He give an understanding of God’s Word to a woman without going through a man first. In the complementarian understanding, God has great limitations on what He can and cannot do through women.
I find this limitation of God incredible! In communication with CBMW several years ago, I was told that God does not give a break-through understanding of His Word to a woman. If a woman teaches or writes something that has not been first taught by a man, her insight into the Scriptures cannot be correct. Think about that! God cannot connect with a woman like He connects with a man because God’s understanding in His Word comes only through man.
So while women can reach up to God in an equal way with men, CBMW’s understanding is that God cannot reach down to his female “sons” in an equal way as He does with men. In essence, God is limited in reaching others through men alone. Men then take the insight in God’s word to women and women may act as an “echo” to repeat the insight from the men to others who also cannot have direct communication from God.
God is no longer Sovereign except through the agency of men. Women then must receive their instruction through men because they have no permission to receive from God directly. God simply cannot come directly to a woman and provide her with a unique and insightful understanding of the Scriptures that has not been first delivered to a man. The complementarian view gives an extremely restricted view of God’s ability to communicate with women.
CBMW may say that women have equal value and worth in the eyes of God, however, in reality, their actions disprove this claim as they believe that God cannot communicate insights from his Word directly to a woman without going through a man. Women then are not of equal value as men in God’s eyes if we are to believe the complementarian view espoused by CBMW. The understanding hidden behind their words make their claim that women are equal in value and worth to God is a hollow claim.
The next issue is whether women are equal in value and worth in the eyes of men and women (humanity). While claiming that God doesn’t see women as second-class citizens, CBMW’s restrictions on women definitely sets women up as second-class citizens regarding their value on this earth in the eyes of both men and other women.
In the complementarian view, women teachers must have less value and worth to other women than the value of men teachers, since only men receive from God directly:
While women teachers have less worth than male teachers to other women, it is a whole different ball game when compared to men teachers in the eyes of men as students:
Since men believe that women are forbidden to teach them, the value of women teachers does not just have “less value” to them as men teachers. In reality, women teachers end up with “no value” to the men themselves when men believe the complementarian position that tells them that they have no personal need for women teachers at all.
On the CBMW website where CBMW has answered questions on the Danver’s Statement (the statement which defines complementarianism.) Wayne Grudem makes some very arrogant claims that he makes:
I think it is an indication of God’s favor that the statement has had no change of wording, nor have we felt the need to change the wording, for the entire twenty years it has been in existence. It has served as a “standard” by which people could evaluate their faithfulness to the biblical teaching on this matter…
If CBMW had not published the Danvers Statement in 1988, there would be not one “complementarian position” in the evangelical world, but hundreds, resulting in much confusion, and enabling evangelical feminists to criticize the most offensive expressions rather than having to deal with a responsible, biblically balanced statement that affirms the equal value of both men and women and their differences in roles according to Scripture. (Found at http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-12-No-2/JBMW-Forum-Q-and-A-on-Danvers-Statement )
Apparently, the Word of God alone is not “clear” on the issue of the “roles” of men since there is only confusion when following just the Bible. Apparently, it is only with the help of CBMW and its “Danvers Statement” that one can understand the role of men and women and have these roles clarified. This height of arrogance rivals that of Jehovah’s Witnesses who have stated in the past that reading the Bible alone will take men into darkness, but reading their Watchtower literature will take men into the light of God’s word!
The world has long held that women are valued far less than men. Does complementarianism bring men and women to a place of equal value? Absolutely not! Women cannot be equal in value to God when it is taught that God cannot equally communicate His truth to them. Also, women cannot be equal in value to men who are taught to see women teachers as unnecessary “echoes” totally unneeded for the edification of men. Women then are a secondary class of Christians relegated to “helping” men teach other women who also cannot hear from God directly but must follow men into the kingdom.
gengwall
2009-12-21
Whooooaaaa! 😮 Dave said the “p” word. hey Dave – I sure heard that!
gengwall
2009-12-21
*gengwall puts fingers in ears* “Ahhhhhhhh! I’m not listening! I’m not listening”
Kay
2009-12-21
-)
:-#
Dave
2009-12-21
I think it has been good that no one has asked Cheryl for graphics…but she has been quiet for a few minutes and I am concerned…
LMB
2009-12-21
Hi, Dave. Thanks! I wouldn’t go back there either. Why cast your pearls before swine? Guys can have pearls, right? 🙂
Cheryl Schatz
2009-12-23
Hey Frank, you were missed! I hope you are all recharged up to help deal with Mark when he comes back.
Mark
2010-01-09
★
Hi all,
Hope you all had a great Christmas and New Year!
Cheryl i have a response for that ‘question 1’ from way back so im just gunna post it hear…feel free to move it or whatever. Please know that i wrote it really quickly so i am sort of expecting to be picked up on things i may have missed- i just haven’t got the time atm to put as much research into the question as i like. None the less i’m sure it will create some more good discussion.
Here it is…note that i have gone back and cut and pasted your original question and the follow up answers and questions….then i added my final response.
Question and Dialogue
You said
1. Is it a “sin” for a godly Christian woman to teach correct Biblical doctrine to men in the church? Yes or no? If you would answer my question in a clear manner, then we can understand your stand.
Then i answered…
1. No according to your question. I think it is a sin for a woman to hold the office of elder and pastor / teacher which involves the regular spiritual leadership and preaching of the word.
Then you responded…
So you admit that it is not a sin for a woman to teach the Bible to men in the church? Okay, then. Let me take this a step further. How many times is a woman allowed to teach the Bible to men in a church before it might become a sin? May she teach every Sunday? If not, where is the Scriptural “law” that defines the number of times a woman may teach before she enters into sin.
Then i responded…
1. I have said all along that men and women teach each other in various ways. So for example if a woman prays or prophecies (in the spiritual gift of the NT) sense then of course she will ‘teach’ a man something. However the office of elder should only be held by men. That was my point.
Then you responded…
You did not answer my questions. I am not concerned that men and women can teach each other in “various ways”. I am asking about a gift of teaching the Bible for the benefit of the body. Since you say that women may teach men, I am asking how many times is a woman allowed to teach the Bible to men in a church before it might become a sin? May she teach every Sunday? If not, where is the Scriptural “law” that defines the number of times a woman may teach before she enters into sin? Would you please answer the questions that I actually ask instead of answering questions that I am not asking? I think that my questions are appropriate because God does gift His women with the ability to teach His Word. I am asking questions about how that can possibly be a source of sin.
Okay that was a restatement of question #1. Please, Mark, I would really like an answer to my questions especially on #1.
My final response…
In order to answer these questions we need to understand what Cheryl meant by ‘teach’ and who has that resposibilty. I will show how scripture requires that the overseers are resposibile for the teaching or preaching of the word in church, and how that is different to other forms of ‘teaching’ that i believe women will be gifted in and told to use to build up the church.
I believe that scripture teaches that men are only to hold the office of an elder (presbyter, episkopos). 1 Tim 3 outlines the characteristics and resposibilty of an elder…
“The saying is vtrustworthy: If anyone aspires to wthe office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Therefore xan overseer2 must be above reproach, ythe husband of one wife,3 zsober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, ahospitable, bable to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but cgentle, not quarrelsome, dnot a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity ekeeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for wGod’s church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may fbecome puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by goutsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into ha snare of the devil. ”
Paul also further expands on the resposibilties of the overseers in 5:17
“Let the elders zwho rule well be considered worthy of adouble honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. ”
Here we see that elders both oversee and direct the affairs, but also some, not all are responsible for teaching and preaching. This is often where the distinction is made between a ‘ruling’ elder and a ‘teaching’ elder.
In Titus 1 we again see more about the resposibilites of elders. Note again that only ‘men’ can be in this role.
“This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and pappoint elders in every town as I directed you—6 qif anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife,3 and his children are believers and not open to the charge of rdebauchery or insubordination. 7 For an overseer,4 sas God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not tbe arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent uor greedy for gain, 8 but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, vand disciplined. 9 He must whold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in xsound5 doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. ”
Here Paul further qualifies that they must be able to rebuke false doctrine by sound knowledge of good doctrine.
Now it is my opinion that since we are talking about a ‘church’ scenario and this is what the letters of Timothy and Titus are addressing (an already established church), the gifting of apostles, evangelists, prophets (Eph 4:11) are not to be understood as having the same responsibility for the ‘teaching’ and overseeing of the church as the elders do.
Therefore to come back to the original question, the ‘teaching’ I think Cheryl is implying is the ‘preaching’, therefore NO, a woman should not be fulfilling that position. That responsibility falls onto the elders of the church, who Paul very clearly indicates are to be men of sound doctrine who oversee the affairs of the church.
Now to further expand on my point, being that men and women ‘teach’ each other in various ways. 1 Corinthians 11 teaches us that women can pray and prophecy in the church. Now to me, that would involve some form of ‘teaching’ to men in the congregation. However it is not the same ‘teaching’ as to those who are called and gifted to be elders of the church.
Also in relation to the ‘prophecy’ of the New Testament, it has to be understood that we can not relate it exactly to the prophecy of the Old Testament. For example the OT prophets spoke the very words of God, with full authority, and ultimately it was recorded as scripture for us. The prophecy of the NT does not seem to function this way. Note in 1 Cor 12 Paul seperates the gift of ‘prophecy’ to the gift of ‘teaching’
“Now qyou are the body of Christ and individually rmembers of it. 28 And sGod has appointed in the church first tapostles, second uprophets, third teachers, then vmiracles, then wgifts of healing, xhelping, yadministrating, and various kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But zearnestly desire the higher gifts. ”
Not only that, but the prophecy Paul describes in Corinth is one of spirit guided utterance that needs to be tested.
“Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others vweigh what is said. 30 If a revelation is made to another sitting there, wlet the first be silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets (1 Cor 14:29- 32)
Again also note that the prophecy Paul speaks of in Corinthians is for believers not unbelievers. The OT prophets spoke a message of repentance for idolatry etc (unbelievers). This is not the same as the prophecy of the NT- the NT is for the ‘church’ to encourage and strengthen each other.
“Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign2 not for unbelievers but for believers. ” ( 1Cor 14:22)
Therefore it is evident that we should not stress to much on the continuance of prophecy of the OT to that of the NT. There seems to be variable differences. Paul expects woman to be gifted in this way and allows them to use that gift. However the gift of elder is only ever spoken of in relation to men, and men should only be in a position of oversight of the church and the teaching and preaching of the word.
Cheryl, now in relation to me showing you where a ‘law’ is that tells us how many times a woman can teach, I hope you can see that I have no intention of answering this question because it is not what I have said. What I am saying is this. The ‘teaching’ or ‘preaching’ of the word must only be the responsibility of the elders who the bible says are to only be men. I believe women may ‘teach’ in the sense of prayer and prophecy and singing etc but this teaching and gifting is different from that of the elders.
Look forward to your comments/questions
Cheryl Schatz
2010-01-09
★
…continued…
Mark,
you said:
Also in relation to the ‘prophecy’ of the New Testament, it has to be understood that we can not relate it exactly to the prophecy of the Old Testament. For example the OT prophets spoke the very words of God, with full authority, and ultimately it was recorded as scripture for us. The prophecy of the NT does not seem to function this way. Note in 1 Cor 12 Paul seperates the gift of ‘prophecy’ to the gift of ‘teaching’
You are implying that a woman may have the gift of prophecy but that the manly gift of teaching is higher as it is separate. But God has not limited the gift of teaching to men and in the NT church Paul says that the one who is gifted with speaking is to speak as the very words of God. Paul here lumps the speaking gifts (prophecy, teaching) to speaking forth the Word. Those who have the gift of prophecy as just as encouraged to speak forth the very oracles of God as the ones gifted as teachers. There is no separation as if one is a higher gift than the other so that one is only an encouragement while one is manly preaching.
You said:
Not only that, but the prophecy Paul describes in Corinth is one of spirit guided utterance that needs to be tested.
Here you are implying that only those with the gift of prophecy need to be tested and those who have the gift of teaching the body are not to be tested in the same way. But that is not true. Paul said that we are to “test all things” and the Bereans are praised for even testing the Apostle Paul, one of the greatest teachers God has ever given.
You said:
Therefore it is evident that we should not stress to much on the continuance of prophecy of the OT to that of the NT. There seems to be variable differences. Paul expects woman to be gifted in this way and allows them to use that gift. However the gift of elder is only ever spoken of in relation to men, and men should only be in a position of oversight of the church and the teaching and preaching of the word.
Again you make a serious mistake by equating elder with one of God’s gifts. The elder is never listed in the lists of gifts and prophets can be elders, teachers can be elders, apostles can be elders, etc. What you don’t deal with is the gift of teacher that is in the very list that you quote. Can women be gifted teachers in the body of Christ teaching correct Biblical doctrine to men and rebuking error? There is no secondary gift of teaching that restricts women from using their full gift as teacher.
The error that you continually make by saying that only elders should teach and preach the word is that the Bible never says “only” nor does the Bible list a restriction on gender for teaching or preaching or protecting. A “pastor” should be a shepherd protecting the sheep, but pastor is never ever restricted to males. It is one of the gifts given by the Holy Spirit and not put into a list where gender, race, social standing or wealth restricts the operation of the gift.
You said:
Cheryl, now in relation to me showing you where a ‘law’ is that tells us how many times a woman can teach, I hope you can see that I have no intention of answering this question because it is not what I have said.
The problem is that you are redefining “teaching” to something less than the full gift of God. Where is “teaching” listed as a gift but as a lesser gift for women?
By redefine teaching as a lesser gift for women, you can now state that only men are allowed to teach and preach in the church and this kind of “teaching” is a higher teaching that is only allowed for one who has been ordained an elder, but you have failed to show that there is a secondary gift of teaching and that only those who have been ordained as an elder are allowed to teach.
Secondly if only men are allowed to teach and preach, then by doing something that is not “allowed” women must by necessity be in “sin” for doing that is not allowed. What I have been asking you all along, are women who are gifted by God as “teachers” (only one level is identified not a primary gifted teacher and a secondary subordinate gift of teacher) and women use these gifts for the edification of the entire body of Christ as Ephesians 4:11-14 show as well as 1 Peter 4:10- 11, are these women who do what you qualify as not allowed actually in sin?
You have answer “no” in the first place only because you have chosen to redefine the gift of teaching. Instead you state that teaching results from many things including singing. But I am not talking about what may end up as teaching but about the actual God-given gift of teaching.
What I am saying is this. The ‘teaching’ or ‘preaching’ of the word must only be the responsibility of the elders who the bible says are to only be men. I believe women may ‘teach’ in the sense of prayer and prophecy and singing etc but this teaching and gifting is different from that of the elders.
This is your opinion but it is not a Bible rule. You will have to show where God has stated that He will not gift women with doctrinal teaching for the entire congregation that will feed them and protect them. If God meant that a woman is not allowed to teach the church and not allowed to protect the church then He should have said it. A prohibition is a serious issue and God is never ambiguous on sin.
If a woman is Spirit-led and Spirit-gifted, where in the Scripture does God give the right to men to silence the working of the Holy Spirit? Is it possible that men have taken the “right” to protect the congregation and are instead of protecting from the wolves have turned aside to protect the body from the Holy Spirit’s work? Is this not grieving the Holy Spirit?
Mark
2010-01-10
★
Hi Cheryl,
Thankyou for your reply. A few observations.
I have to disagree that i failed to answer the original question. What i attempted to do was distinguish between the different gifts because i felt your question was a little broad. So i tried to demonstrate that the oversight ruling and teaching is different to other teaching like prophecy. If you continue to feel that i haven’t answered the question i fear it is based purely on our understandings of the various type of ‘teaching’ or gifts given in the NT.
I agree with you that an elder is not a gift, and like you stated an elder is someone qualified with other gifts.
Now you seem to think that i believe there are 2 gifts of ‘teaching’, one manly and more important than another. This is not true. I do believe that there is a gift of teaching. I also believe that there is a gift of prophecy. The difference is i don’t believe that the gift of prophecy commended for women by Paul in 1 Cor 11 is the same gift as that of teaching in Eph 4:11. Paul numerously distinguishes between the 2 gifts which is all i am doing. I’d be interested to know if you distinguish aswell since i have heard it several times used on this blog in an attempt to prove that ‘prophecy’ is not different to teaching. Now what is interesting is you think that i am saying that ‘teaching’ is higher than the prophecy. However does Paul not list prophecy before teaching and instruct us to desire the ‘higher’ gift.(1 Cor 12:27-31). It seems that you feel that teaching is the higher gift and it is unfair if a woman is not aloud to be a pastor, when infact a woman with the gift of prophecy has a higher gift than that of a teacher.
Cheryl i am also intrigued why you feel that the issue of eldership is not important in a discussion about teachers. This is perplexing since several times Paul instructs that elders are to teach and protect the church. Is it that you think elders have nothing to do with teaching?
It is hardly a comparison to say that the first witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection were ‘preachers’ in the same sense as someone at a pulpit. These have no correlation biblically.
“Are you saying that only men are allowed to “rebuke false doctrine” and that only men are to have “sound knowledge of good doctrine”?”
No i am not, i simply quoted the bible which instructs elders to do this- it is part of their responsibility.
“There is no such “gift” as elder. And the “gift” of teaching is not limited to males. Why do you twist the words of Scripture and remove the gift of teacher and add the gift of elder? Why do you make the gift of teaching to have two levels when there is no such division in the Scripture? Is it possible that you have to change the Scripture in order to fit your own bias? Should we be listening to you as a “teacher” when what you say about the gifts isn’t found in the Scripture? Are you gifted in giving out Scripture doctrine just because you are a male? If you are gifted why does your teaching not match up to the inspired Word?”
This is an interesting paragraph. I will assume it was because you were stressed with your husband. None the less i have not once twisted scripture. I quoted scripture which clearly shows that one of their responsibilities is teaching and that the bible only ever instructs men to be elders. I then said how i think that the gift of propechy is not the same gift as teaching. Now why is that twisting? If you can show where i was twisting please do. Please show me where elders do not have a teaching responsibility. Please show how women are included in eldership. Please show how prophecy and teaching are the same gift?
“I noticed right away that you said “it is my opinion”. Mark, this is part of the problem, in that you put your opinion above the clear Word of Scripture.”
Wow, enlightening! Isn’t any exegesis or interpretation one’s attempt to explain a passage. The last sentence i will just ignore for now, because it is hardly a fair comment considering all the discussion we have had together. Let me be very clear, i hold a very high view of scripture. Just because i don’t agree with you Cheryl does not make me someone who is more interested in myself than the truth of the bible.
“There is no separation as if one is a higher gift than the other so that one is only an encouragement while one is manly preaching.”
Not in Ephesians 4 does Paul call one higher, but he does in 1 Cor 12. You must look at all relevant passages not just Eph 4 and 1 Pet 4 because that seem ‘universal’ to you. But in terms of ‘manly’ that is a distinction you are making.
“Here you are implying that only those with the gift of prophecy need to be tested and those who have the gift of teaching the body are not to be tested in the same way.”
Not at all. IF you read it again what i am saying is that the prophecy of the NT is not the same as the prophecy of the OT because it is spirit led utterance and is instructed to be tested. I said this to show how it is wrong to make a large correlation between the prophecy of the OT and the NT which some egalitarians do in an attempt to enforce female pastors. Of course all things need to be tested. Please read me more carefully.
Also i never said that men have a higher gift than women. This is a very wrong assumption you continue to make. Like i said above, prophecy is a higher gift, the very gift Paul expects women to have. If you realised this you would not be saying that i am making men more important than women. This is an issue i think you need to deal with within yourself.
Anyhow i have tried to give you an answer to your question. We have gone far and wide to try an answer it extensively so i hope you feel i am trying to explain my views to you. I will begin to look at question 2 in more detail and post a response soon.
Mark
2010-01-11
★
Cheryl,
Yes i did feel you were harsh or frustrated and i understand that, but i still do not believe that i am throwing a low ball or presenting logical fallicies. Very briefly i will respond in a hope to answer some of your and others questions. Your original question was do i think a woman can teach good doctrine to men. Now i felt this was a loaded question because ‘teach’ is a broad use. IF you meant pastor, then no, if you meant teach in prophecy then yes. It is only in your last post that you made it clear that you meant the spiritual gift of ‘teaching’ from i presume Eph 4. So i will now look at that.
In terms of the ‘higher’ gifts 1 Cor 12:27-31 further expands on Cheryls point. Paul clearly instructs the Corinthians to ‘eagerly desire the greater gifts”. And more than once is the listing of gifts given as apostles, prophets, teachers…
Now about Eph 4. Is it a gender restricting gift of ‘pastor-teacher’. Note the greek word ‘poimenas’ (translated pastor in Eph) is the only instance in the NT where it is translated this way. Every other translation is ‘shephard’ or ‘Shephard;. For example Jesus is the ‘good shephard’ (Jn 10:11). Now compare this shepharding with Pauls exhortation of the ELDERS in Acts 20:28 to ‘shephard the church of God’. We begin to see that the gift of a pastor-teacher is officiated in the office of an elder. Now since again Paul only instructs the men to be elders it must necessitate then that a pastor-teacher will be a man and not a woman. It is vital not to read Eph 4 on its own ignoring all the other texts. By doing this i feel Cheryl that you have come to wrong conclusions on giftings.
Finally to respond to a few of your queries about my personal position. No i am not an elder. In fact the church i have been attending don’t even follow the biblical pattern of leadership in this way. This is something i have been wrestling with myself. However i do believe those who ‘teach’ in the sense of preaching at church should only be men who either are the pastor/elder or younger men training and gaining skills in that area.
In terms of prophecy, no we don’t have women or men prophecying in the church. I am in no way an expertise on the matter of gifting, and looking into it more closely is something i would love to do in the future in terms of searching out the different views as to whether certain gifts ceased at the completion of the canon. But like i said i need to do more study in this area before commenting extensively on cessationalism.
It is interesting for me Cheryl that you think by restricting a woman from being a pastor for arguments sake, that makes men higher. Why do you feel this way. After all only women can have children yet society does not make that a prejudice distinction.
My hope Cheryl is that your frustration may be a conviction about the position you hold regarding the gender debate. You say you are interested in only the truth and you know what i do actually believe you, i pray you come to see it.
Cheryl Schatz
2010-01-17
★
Mark,
You mention my lack of Greek exegesis on Eph 4:11. Well let me enlighten you so that we can be on the same page. The grammar of Eph 4:11 some claim follows Granville Sharpe’s rule that says when one article is used for two nouns where they are joined by and “kai”, that they refer to the same person when the nouns are persons. For example Jesus is Lord and Savior, where Lord and Savior both refers to one person – Jesus. However this doesn’t apply to Ephesians 4:11 where spiritual gifts are listed with no person listed.
There is also no “office” listed in the Greek. This is an addition to the text. Rather there are two separate gifts listed together as a close association of functions between two kinds of ministry gifts. Yet they are separate gifts as 1 Cor. 12:28 shows teachers alone without the mention of pastors.
Although some seem to want to remove the gift of teachers in Ephesians 4:11 and make the term as a adjective instead of a noun (i.e. teaching pastors), The Pillar New Testament commentary says:
it is more likely that the terms describe overlapping functions (cf. 1 Cor. 12:28–29 and Gal. 6:6, where ‘teachers’ are a distinct group). All pastors teach (since teaching is an essential part of pastoral ministry), but not all teachers are also pastors.
As far as Paul’s not listing “some” and only one “the”, Paul expressed the gifts in lists in ways that also removed numbering for some gifts and removed the word “then” from before some gifts.
1 Cor 12:28 And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues.
Notice that Paul lists “first, second, third” and then drops the numbering system. For miracles he lists “then miracles”, “then gifts of healings” and then Paul removes the “then” and just lists the gifts. Does this mean that all the gifts are now residing in one person because they are without the ordinal?
So as far as Ephesians 4:11, there is no direct evidence that Paul is referring to one person, but there is evidence that there is a connection between Pastors and Teachers and that they have a similar function. Both teach God’s Word, but a teacher does not necessarily have to have a pastoral ministry to be a teacher.
You said:
Again pointing out that a pastor is a shephard, and likewise so is an elder, what do we have here in Ephesians?
The Bible doesn’t say that an elder is a pastor. Just as someone can teach without being a teacher so an elder can do pastoring without being the gift of pastor. There is a difference between the noun pastor and the verb pastoring. They are not the same. And no where does the Scripture call an elder a pastor. An overseer may be pastor but also may not be. Sometimes God gifts Christians with multiple gifts and sometimes He does not.
You should not claim that i am noodling under an assumption of yours. I am not ‘noodling’ with the text, rather the complete opposite, being faithful to it.
It is not faithful in my opinion to disregard the gift of teacher in Ephesians 4:11. The passage does not say pastor/teacher without the conjunction. The conjunction makes the two gifts as separate even though they have a close association of functions. But to deny that a person can be a teacher in Ephesians 4:11 without that person having to be a pastor is defining away women whom you apparently deny that God can choose to gift them as pastors for the edification of the church.
You fail to correlate a shephard to an elder, thus removing Pauls teaching on eldership which has a massive bearing on any leadership discussion.
The Bible never correlates a shepherd (noun) to an elder. If doing shepherding (verb) makes one a shepherd, then teaching through prophesying must also make one a teacher. But you deny that prophesying is teaching so you have a big problem because you are inconsistent.
Also we have been talking about the gifts of the Holy Spirit and not leadership per se. The question is whether the Holy Spirit has the freedom to gift women to be pastors or teachers or any of the other gifts if He so desires. Those who say that He cannot gift them because they are women will have a problem with denying the Sovereignty of God. God is God and we cannot tell Him who He can gift with what gift.
Now I would be interested to know whether you consider the “teacher” in 1 Cor. 12:28 to be a lesser kind of teacher than in Ephesians 4:11? If so why do you have degrees of the gift of teacher? And why would Paul list teachers as third in the list of gifts while pastor doesn’t even show up in the order of gifts?
Also why do you think that Paul said “pastors and teachers” instead of “pastor teachers” or “pastoring teachers”? Why make a distinction between the gifts if they are fully connected without distinction?
I look forward to your responses.
Cheryl Schatz
2010-01-17
★
Mark,
You said:
Now about 1 Cor 12! First of all i don’t believe it is a less ‘teacher’ than Eph 4. Second the reason why Paul numbers the gifts and instructs the corinthians to desire the higher gifts is because they are more beneficial to the church, where as the corinthians over-realised eschatology and emphasis on ‘tounges’ was misguided.
So the gift of “teacher” in Ephesians 4:11 is equal to the gift of “teacher” in 1 Cor. 12? Then is a woman allowed to be gifted by God to be a “teacher” of the church? If not, why not?
Also Paul does not talk about “eschatology” as a lesser gift? I am not even sure what you mean by that. Paul makes it abundantly clear in 1 Cor. 14 that any gift that benefits all is the higher gift. Speaking in tongues without an interpreter benefits only the speaker so it must of necessity be considered the least of all gifts unless it is combined with the interpretation. Then it too becomes the higher gift.
Now many scholars believe that that the apostolic and prophetic gifts ended at the completion of the canon. LIke i said previously this is something i have not done alot of study on.
Those who have this view must deal with the issue of the doing away of knowledge. Only when knowledge is not needed will the gifts not be needed for the edification of the church. If we can do away with the gifts that God has given to some members and we say that these are not needed for the body, then we fall into the trap of arbitrarily deciding on our own wisdom what is and isn’t needed for the body. But God is the ultimate Sovereign ruler who decides on what we need. When he gifts a person with the gift, then obviously it is still needed.
Some believe that evangelists and pastors fall under the banner of ‘teacher’ because of Eph 4 listing. From what i have read on this i would somewhat agree.
This is your problem again. You attach “teacher” to another gift so that there is one less gift that can be given to an individual. If “teacher” must be attached to another gift and we then define that other gift as not being available to one gender, we have in essence removed the gift of “teacher” and replace it with an amalgamated gift belonging to men alone. This is essence is exactly what I have been saying all along. When you amalgamate a gift you remove it as a “gift”. It becomes a hyphenated gift without the power of the gift alone. But this is necessary to do because many men are determined that God gives males alone certain gifts and they alone are privileged with an “office” and “authority” and “kingly rights”.
What ever the case i do believe in the gifting of ‘teacher’ but do not believe it is the same as a prophet.
I agree. Teacher is not the same as Prophet, but one can be a Teacher and a Prophet. One can also be a Teacher and an Evangelist. One can have more than one gift. But each gift is unique in its own right and to attach it to another gift without allowing it God’s power on its own, is not correct NT doctrine.
This statement amazes me:
Finally to answer your final question. I dont know why Paul said Pastor and teacher rather than the other alternatives, im not Paul. What is clear though is that they are seperate gifts but should be understood as closely tied together. The two gifts are similar and both vitally important for the ministry of the church.
If you now admit that pastor and teacher are “separate gifts” then why do you say that a woman cannot be a teacher in the church because she cannot be a pastor or elder?
You said:
We shouldn’t mash the two nor should we seperate them extensively.
What do you mean by not separating them “extensively”? This isn’t clear? Do you mean that we cannot separate them at all? Do you mean that one can be a teacher but not a pastor as long as one is male, but the two must not be separated if one is talking about a woman so that a woman cannot be a teacher because she is not to be a pastor?
pinklight
2010-01-17
82 con’t
but the two must not be separated if one is talking about a woman so that a woman cannot be a teacher because she is not to be a pastor?
Bingo.
Mark
2010-01-18
★
Hi Cheryl,
You asked me as one of your hard questions “Do you or do you not believe that Ephesians 4:11 gives “teacher” as a gift for the body of Christ?”
The short answer is of course. However i do not think it should be separated from the gift of pastor for the reasons i have given already, the greek doesn’t allow for it. The two are so closely correlated so that when you talk about Eph 4 and say pastor, you also think teacher. Likewise you say teacher, you should also think of pastor.
And again you asked me “Secondly do you believe that “teacher” is not a gift on its own but must be amalgamated with pastor so that only pastors can be “teachers”?
I do believe that in Ephesians the two are enormously close knitted together, but i would not say only pastors can be teachers. I think a pastor is a teacher, likewise an evangelist is a teacher. This is how i believe we should understand 1 Cor 12 when it lists ‘teacher’, but neither pastor nor evangelist are listed.
I agree with this “Yet there is only one gift of “teacher”. There are not different levels of “teacher” although there may be different kinds of “teaching”.
“Yet in discussions with you, you seem to continually stress that a woman is not allowed to be a teacher because pastors are the ones who are given the responsibility of being teachers in the church. Have I misunderstood you?
Sort of! I do not believe that women are given the responsibility of oversight of the church or shepharding, and therefore they should not have the teaching responsibility of those in that position (pastors and elders).
You asked “Are women allowed to be “teachers” in the church?”
Now it is important to remember that we are discussing the bible not what ‘I’ allow or disallow. Perhaps you mean do i believe the bible teaches that women will be ‘teachers’ in the church, then i would say no. The reason being the resposibilty of the gift and its correlation to the gift of pastor which i believe the bible teaches are for the men of the church. Now i have no doubt that you will disagree with me on this but remember that the gift of ‘apostle’ was only ever given to men aswell.
You said “Related gifts that are related by function does not negate the separation of the gifts. “Pastor” is not “teacher” although a Pastor can also be a teacher. A pastor using teaching in the function of the gift just as one who prophesies uses teaching in the function of their gift. Do you agree or not?”
I disagree in the fact that i believe a pastor is a teacher aswell. The very gift of a pastor necessitates an ability to teach. The catch phrase “they are a good pastor but a bad teacher” i disagree with. Someone who shephards the flock but doesn’t teach is an elder. Someone who shephards the flock and teaches is a pastor in my opinion. Now about a prophet teaching i cant say because i have never seen this gift before, but i have no doubt it did have elements of ‘teaching’ in it as it was inspired by the spirit for the early church. Have you ever seen a prophet?
“Actually using such a term distorts the NT teachings which show that there is a common “class” of Christians. All Christians are brothers in Christ and no one can lord it over another and because leaders are to be servants, there is no such thing as “offices” which would divide the body into clergy class and laity. Christians are one class not two.”
You have a very negative attitude toward leadership it seems. But i disagree that it is unhelpful using certain terminology to explain things. What would you label elders and deacons as if you dislike the word ‘office’. I definitely agree that leaders are to be servants though. The difference i guess is that i don’t think using the word ‘office’ negates that belief. Also the reality is that we are all called to submit to our church leaders as men who will have to give an account.
“There is no apostolic “office” that was given to the 12. Rather these ones were chosen to be witnesses to the resurrection and were held accountable for the doctrinal foundation of the church”
Maybe you prefer the term ‘chosen ones’ rather than office :-). I have to say i disagree with you on this one. Yes there were 12 apostles chosen as the founding members of the church (Eph 2:20) but i would call this the ‘apostolic office’. The reason being there are other passages which call James and Barnabas ‘apostles’ but they were not ‘apostles’ in the same sense i mentioned above. For example look at 1 Cor 15:7, Gal 1:19, Acts 14:4, 14. Now all these had the gift of ‘apostle’ which means ‘one who is sent with a commision’ yet not all had the resposibilty as the founders of the church. I’d be interested to know if you believe this gift has ceased to be given?
“Really? You pointed to Ephesians 4:11 and tied it to 1 Timothy 3:1. There is no problem with people “shepherding” but there is only one gift of “pastor”.”
You have misunderstood me and i will take the blame because i now see i didn’t explain myself clearly. What i meant was not all elders are pastors. But i do believe they both have the same responsibilty of shepharding the flock.
You said “But all elders are supposed to be teaching”
Now do you mean what this seems to mean that all elders teach or are supposed to be teaching? If so i would say this is contrary to scripture. 1 Tim 3 says a qualification for an elder is that they are ‘able to teach’, but yet Paul says 2 chapters later in 5:17 that ‘elders who rule well are worthy of double honour, especially those who labour in preaching and teaching’. So the assumption is not all will teach yet they should be ‘able to teach’. See the difference? IS this why you don’t like discussing elders because of Pauls correlation between them shepharding and preaching and teaching and that he only instructs men to take this resposibilty.
I have to say that i don’t know why you dodge discussions on eldership. I know you say we are discussing gifts, but it seems silly to discuss gifts that are enormously important for the church without discussing leadership responsibilities. Is it because the two don’t mesh with your view? Are gifts a safer argument for you? Since often gifts and natural abilities are so often confused.
You said “Do you believe that God can gift women as pastors? Or do you believe that God is limited in His work of giving out His gifts? Are you willing to answer this question that has been posed to you many times or are you going to bypass it one more time?”
No i will not answer this question because im not going to pretend i am God. I will answer questions in relation to His revealed truth, but i will not sin by making myself an idol before my Lord. Please direct you questions in a way that is not leading or loaded?
You asked “If I am wrong, then do you now admit that one who prophesies is a teacher?”
No i do not think a prophet is a ‘teacher’ because Paul seperates the gifts. Like i said earlier im sure the NT prophets ‘taught’ things but it does not make them now have the gift of a ‘teacher’ necessarily. Are you now mashing prophecy and teaching after accusing me of doing it?
To my above statement you probably answered it by this
“Wrong, wrong, wrong. I have never said that teaching is the same as pastoring. Nor have I said that prophesying is the same as teaching. We have both agreed that one who prophesies will teach in the act of using their gift, but prophesying is different than teaching just as the gift of Prophet is different than the gift of Teacher. Are you really sure you understand my position?”
I guess it is easy to get confused when we keep using terms interchangeably.
You said “If “teacher” must be attached to another gift and we then define that other gift as not being available to one gender, we have in essence removed the gift of “teacher” and replace it with an amalgamated gift belonging to men alone.”
Are you agreeing with me here that only men should be pastors?
“But this is necessary to do because many men are determined that God gives males alone certain gifts and they alone are privileged with an “office” and “authority” and “kingly rights”.
Cheryl your above comment shows your definite bias and deliberate intent not to understand their position. Unless you realise this, you will never be able to dialogue unhindered. I’m sure the majority of comps aswell as egals believe that waht they say is biblical truth not about authority and kingly rights. Of course people will always be deceived by their own sin and self-righteousness but your above comment really speaks of your position. Now i do understand you better. Please try and dialogue with me without having these assumptions about me.
Finally you asked me “What do you mean by not separating them “extensively”? This isn’t clear? Do you mean that we cannot separate them at all? Do you mean that one can be a teacher but not a pastor as long as one is male, but the two must not be separated if one is talking about a woman so that a woman cannot be a teacher because she is not to be a pastor?”
What i mean is when we come to 1 Cor 12 for example and see the gift of ‘teacher’ it needs to be understood in relation to the other listings of gifts. So in Eph we both agree Paul correlates it to a pastor. So by separating them extensively i mean emphasising a ‘teacher’ as something without keeping in mind Pauls other use of the term. When we read one verse alone and emphasise something about it without looking at all relevant passages we could get in trouble. That is why so many scholars associate a ‘teacher’ with an evangelist and/or pastor. It is keeping the whole bible in view rather than mis-representing one verse.
Enough for tonight. Anyway i want to begin to write a response to question 2 for you.
Speak soon.
Cheryl Schatz
2010-01-19
Mark,
There is more of your post for me to respond to, but I have run out of time today so I will try to finish tomorrow.
Cheryl Schatz
2010-01-20
Mark,
To my above statement you probably answered it by this
“Wrong, wrong, wrong. I have never said that teaching is the same as pastoring. Nor have I said that prophesying is the same as teaching. We have both agreed that one who prophesies will teach in the act of using their gift, but prophesying is different than teaching just as the gift of Prophet is different than the gift of Teacher. Are you really sure you understand my position?”
I guess it is easy to get confused when we keep using terms interchangeably.
Well, Mark, it seems like you are the one using the terms interchangeably not me. I am not the one who says that a teacher is a pastor (or evangelist). A teacher is a teacher.
You said “If “teacher” must be attached to another gift and we then define that other gift as not being available to one gender, we have in essence removed the gift of “teacher” and replace it with an amalgamated gift belonging to men alone.”
Are you agreeing with me here that only men should be pastors?
No I am not agreeing with you. Here again you are using a term interchangeably which causes confusion. I said “teacher”. I did not say “pastor”. You are the one who makes “teacher” as part of an amalgamated gift. The gifts may have something in common, but they are not amalgamated.
Mark, you quoted my comment below and also said:
“But this is necessary to do because many men are determined that God gives males alone certain gifts and they alone are privileged with an “office” and “authority” and “kingly rights”.
Cheryl your above comment shows your definite bias and deliberate intent not to understand their position. Unless you realise this, you will never be able to dialogue unhindered. I’m sure the majority of comps aswell as egals believe that waht they say is biblical truth not about authority and kingly rights. Of course people will always be deceived by their own sin and self-righteousness but your above comment really speaks of your position. Now i do understand you better. Please try and dialogue with me without having these assumptions about me.
Mark, I think you may want to take the time to read the blog post that I gave you the link to on this site. I can tell from your comment that you did not read it. First of all, I said “many men”. I did not say you believed this. You are reading into my comment a personal comment about you, but if you just re-read my comment above you will see that I did not assume things about you.
Also my comment is not about my bias. My comment was about what many comp men have been taught about their privilege. So that you don’t have to page back to the link here it is again http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2008/01/22/the-husband-as-king-over-the-wife/ Also in this post I link to an online chapter at cbmw called The husband as prophet, priest and king here http://www.cbmw.org/images/onlinebooks/buildingstrongfamilies/husband_as_prophet.pdf If you had read this material, I don’t think that you would have made your comment above.
You quoted me and then commented:
Finally you asked me “What do you mean by not separating them “extensively”? This isn’t clear? Do you mean that we cannot separate them at all? Do you mean that one can be a teacher but not a pastor as long as one is male, but the two must not be separated if one is talking about a woman so that a woman cannot be a teacher because she is not to be a pastor?”
What i mean is when we come to 1 Cor 12 for example and see the gift of ‘teacher’ it needs to be understood in relation to the other listings of gifts. So in Eph we both agree Paul correlates it to a pastor. So by separating them extensively i mean emphasising a ‘teacher’ as something without keeping in mind Pauls other use of the term.
So even though Paul mentioned “teacher” without amalgamating it with another gift in 1 Cor 12, we are not supposed to see this as a separate gift but it must be amalgamated with pastor? I do not agree with you that Paul “correlates” teacher to pastor.
Correlate means “mutually or reciprocally related” but that is not true of teacher and pastor. They have overlapping functions but they are not corresponding gifts. They are different gifts that have some areas that overlap in function. It kind of bothers me that you take the words that I use and redefine them by replacing them with different words. This is unfair.
When we read one verse alone and emphasise something about it without looking at all relevant passages we could get in trouble.
What kind of trouble? You mean we might think that a woman could actually have the gift of a teacher? That would only be trouble for complementarians who have already limited God in His ability to gift women at His own discretion.
That is why so many scholars associate a ‘teacher’ with an evangelist and/or pastor. It is keeping the whole bible in view rather than mis-representing one verse.
Misrepresenting one verse? Saying that a teacher is one gift that is not interchangeable with another gift is misrepresenting one verse? Oh my, you have really gone overboard to try to remove women from receiving and using a gift. Why are you so intent on doing this? Does having a woman being a teacher threaten you in some way? If you were wrong in your view, would you really want to know it or are you content with having all the teachers in the church being gifted by God as only men?
Mark
2010-01-29
★
Lmb,
Good to have you engage in the conversation. Let me respond to your comment.
You said
“Actually it isn’t a stretch at all. In Greek a masculine plural is the grammatical form used for a group of men, or a group of men and women. So the fact that the paragraph starts out specifying the presence of men AND women actually strengthens the idea that the masculine plural in v. 17 is addressed to both.”
What both you and Kay are failing to recognise is the context of the chapter. Although Paul uses the masculine and feminine forms at the beginning of the chapter, this does not necessitate that the plural is even associated 15 verses later. The context must decide this. Are the two addressing the same issue? Of course they are not, clearly the beginning of the chapter is not associated with verse 17. For example we see a similar thing in Titus. Titus 1:5 we again the plural form ‘presbuterous’ because Paul is discussing elders/overseers. In chapter 2 Paul again calls the ‘older men’ presbutas (Tit 2:2) and the older women presbutidas (Tit 2:3). Again the context makes clear that the older men/women section is not in conjunction with the ‘elders’ passage of chapter 1. It is precisely the same as 1 Tim 5. Although the same base word is used the context makes clear that the plural form is not associated with the others. Therefore i maintain to rely purely on the plural form is weak exegesis. IN fact bad exegesis- it ignores the context.
You further stated
“The fact that he has already specified both men and women in vv 1-2, and then spent vv3-16 describing the requirements and characteristics for women leaders in the congregation means that when he gets to the summary statements in vv 17-21 he is talking about the men and women who lead the congregation.”
I disagree. Verse 3-16 have nothing to do with women leaders in the church. Paul is clearly instructing Timothy about widows.I fail to see where the ‘requirements and characteristics’ are for the women leaders. Please point these out! Verses 17-21 are about accusations against elders, not summary statements about the leaders. I cannot see where your line of reasoning nor your interpretation of the passage is coming from. Don’t push for a passage about leaders that is clearly not there.
Next you discussed chapter 3 and insist that the passage is not addressing males only because of the ‘ei tis’ (whoever, anybody). Important to always keep in close mind is context. Does the passage here address both male and female or just male. Although Paul does use ‘ei tis’ the qualifiers ‘husband of one wife’, ‘managing his family’ (related to Eph 5 as the head) aswell as the correlating passage in Titus 1 show us that Paul is addressing males. I have heard others attempt an argument that legally only men could have multiple partners, but this line of argument is very weak. There is nothing in the passage to think that this is why Paul makes the statement- it is assumption based not on the context of the passage. Not only that, when Paul expands on the qualifications of deacons, it is here that a feminine ’gunaikos’ is introduced. Now if women were meant to be included in everything proceeding verse 11 then there would be no need to separate a teaching into a ‘woman’ orientated section. The evidence is hardly worth comparing and to argue against this chapter shows a deliberate ignorance of the greek.
Now finally you said that Paul spends alot of time outlining the qualifications for women leaders. Now contextually what you must be saying is his relation to a ‘deacon’. If you wish to persist that it further relates to elder please show contextually or grammatically why verse 11 should be understood with elders. On top of that why should we translate that gunaikos means ‘deaconess’ rather than women or wives?
Look forward to your response
Kay
2010-02-01
★
Mark,
Let’s talk about context, context, context for 1 Timothy 5. Does your church congregation/denomination “Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband, and having a reputation for good works: if she has brought up children, has shown hospitality, has washed the feet of the saints, has cared for the afflicted, and has devoted herself to every good work. But refuse to enroll younger widows” and instruct them to remarry? If not, why doesn’t your fellowship uphold these?
And if your congregation does uphold to these instructions, who performs this ministry?
Please look at the context. At the beginning of 1 Timothy 5:1-2 presbutiro is used as an adjective for both men and women. Followed immediately by instructions for dealing with an established order of ministry within the church of enrolling widows. Who do you think was performing the ministry to these widows? Might it be the elders just mentioned in the previous sentence? Or do you think it is someone Paul never even mentions who is doing this ministering to widows? Paul then after giving all the instructions is still speaking about the presbutiro in verses 17-20. Or do you think Paul just lost his train of thought and wandered off writing about widows and then went back to writing about the presbutiro?
Please look at the context, the society and people being addressed as well in 1 Timothy and the other epistles. We know false teachers had infiltrated the church. False teachers made their teaching a matter of friction and battling over words (1 Tim.6:3-5) and they are driven by greed (6:5-10). Religions in the Roman Empire included the mystery religions that claimed to give secret knowledge to those who went through their initiations and became members. For instance, in Crete young, married women tended to be left on their own after marriage. A woman would leave her father’s home and move into her husband and his family’s home. There she was never quite trusted because she was brought into the family, and could still have more loyalty to her birth family. These women were separated from the women they grew up with, and thrown into houses with women who never trusted them, let alone helped them learn how to be wives and mothers. Alcoholism was rampant among young women in Crete who could not handle the pressures and stress of married life. These women were also easy victims for religious charlatans. Secret sects along with the priests of Cybele would insinuate themselves into the domestic sphere through these women, and several made a good living ripping these women off. I’m sure you’ve read in history class that Crete was known for its lack of morals in all areas of life.
In Titus 2:3 Paul instructs Titus, the pastor of Crete: “Likewise, tell the older women to be reverent in behavior, not to be slanderers or slaves to drink; they are to teach what is good.” The Greek word used for these older women is ‘presbutidas’.
These elders are instructed “to teach what is good.”Teach is from ‘didaskolos’ which is the word Paul uses to describe teaching the Gospel. Although the instruction goes on to tell them to train the younger women to love their husbands and children, besides presuposition, there is no reason to believe that the younger women are the only ones in Titus congregation they taught. But the young women who were now part of the church had no teaching in morality or how to be wives and mothers. So Paul encouraged the female elders to focus their teaching on helping these younger women learn how to cope with all the responsibilities of being a wife and mother in Crete. This teaching probably included how to fend off the charalatans that preyed on them and their families. Paul wanted these young women to know the truth of the Gospel.
The presbutidas would likely have been older since the Jews would not consider someone to be an elder until the age of 60. After menopause a women had more freedom in the religious and public sphere she was no longer unclean, and she was considered wise because of the many years she had lived. We see this in Anna at the temple in Luke 2 she lived at the temple and prayed everyday. She was probably also a teacher there as well. “Coming up to them at that very moment, she gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem.” vs.38. Notice that Anna “spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption” All, includes men. But you insist that after the Resurrection she would be in sin for doing this? But, why? Mary Magdalene was told by Jesus Himself to preach the Good News to males after the Resurrection.
Mark wrote:”On top of that why should we translate that gunaikos means ‘deaconess’ rather than women or wives?”
Now please consider Phoebe.
“I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae, so that you may welcome her in the Lord as is fitting for the saints, and help her in whatever she may require from you, for she has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well” (Romans 16:1-2).
Paul highly commended and respected Phoebe. He called her a “sister,” “deacon,” and “benefactor” to the church at Cenchreae as well as a sister and benefactor to Paul. The notable thing about diakonos or “deacon” being used to describe Phoebe is that it is the masculine form of the word used to describe a woman. It is the SAME word Paul uses when he calls Timothy and Titus “servants” or “deacons” of their respective churches. Another thing that makes this phrase odd is that Phoebe is called the “deacon of the church of Cenchreae.” This is the only place in the New Testament where ‘diakonos’ is followed by the name of a specific congregation. This is the only place linking a specific person’s ministry with a specific church.
pinklight
2010-02-07
I was re-reading some posts over @ http://www.achurchinryde.com/blog/?p=262 and found the following quote by Cheryl that just kinda hit me:
However if “must be a **husband** of one wife” does not mean literally that one must be a **husband** for a man, then it cannot on the other hand disqualify a woman because she is also not a “husband”. You cannot have it both ways.
Sharp wit Cheryl! So simple too!
*gawking*
pinklight
2010-02-07
And ofcourse if being married is a requirement then so is having children if one is going to be consistent.
pinklight
2010-02-07
Hi Kay!
Some people are only consistent where they choose to be.
Exactly. Kinda funny when ya think about it.
pinklight
2010-02-07
*A female physician is really not a doctor because she is a female*
I can’t find any sense in that view.
pinklight
2010-02-07
I think an explanation for how such a thing can be so should be given by comps.
How can a presbituro not really be a presbituro because one is female?
pinklight
2010-02-07
How can specified married males be referred to as “anyone”? Where do those dots connect?
Mark
2010-02-08
★
Hi Kay,
I am so glad you have responded, and equally glad that you agree that context is important. However you are making a serious error by assuming that ‘presbyterio’ always should translate ‘elder’. Although the office of eldership is based on this word, Paul also uses it to describe simply older men and women, as is the case in 1 Tim 5 and Titus. In the Old Covenant the elders were ‘older’ men, so it is not surprising that the same greek word is used when both talking about the official work of an elder/overseer and both older men/women. The context of both Tim and Titus reveal that what is being discussed is older men/women not the elders. To get this wrong makes one misunderstand the passage. Therefore the NIV correctly translates the difference between ‘older men/women’ and ‘elders’. Also consider the base of the word ‘presbus’ means ‘elderly’. Therefore you are not exegetically interpreting the passage correctly. You have not taken into account the semantic range of the word in the greek.
You again make the fundamental mistake when you say things like this…
In Titus 2:3 Paul instructs Titus, the pastor of Crete: “Likewise, tell the older women to be reverent in behavior, not to be slanderers or slaves to drink; they are to teach what is good.” The Greek word used for these older women is ‘presbutidas’.
These elders are instructed “to teach what is good.”
This is most definitely not about the office of eldership. You need to stop looking for egalitarian proof texts that are clearly not there. All you are doing is distorting the meaning of the passage. Paul is expounding good biblical qualities and living for the older men/women of the church. This is not about the office of eldership outlined in 1 Tim 2. It is not about elders in the spiritual governing sense.
By the way i never said this
But you insist that after the Resurrection she would be in sin for doing this?
What i did say is that this should not be compared to preaching in the 21st century. Let me be clear that i see that Jesus cared deeply for women and used them in his ministry. I hold to that, i just don’t agree with the way some egals use this out of context and equate it to the spiritual leadership of the church.
Now about Pheobe the ‘deaconess’. What must be made clear with this argument or debate is that there is no definitive answer. The only two places to suggest women are included in this office are in 1 Tim 3 and Romans 16. And both these texts are obviously debated since women/wives could contextually fit 1 Tim aswell as ‘servant’ fitting in Romans 16. To say this is definitive proof is very misleading to suggest. Let me explain, contextually in 1 Tim 3 to insert ‘gunaikas’ where Paul does is unusual, since the verse immediately afterward describes once again the idea of ‘husband of one wife’. The more natural reading would seem to suggest his intention is the ‘wives’ of the deacons talked about as the NIV translates. However it could also mean as you suggest, namely that women are included in the office of deacons. In Romans we have the same delimma. It could rightly mean that Pheobe is a deacon. But it could also equally mean that Paul is simply describing her as a servant. Paul uses ‘diakoness’ in a nontechnical sense (i.e not referring to the office of deacon but intends to mean servant) in the end of 1 Cor also (1 Cor 16:15). Also Paul uses it in this nontechnical sense in Eph 3:7 when talking about himself. Again in Col 1:25 and 1 Tim 4:6 aswell as many other NT instances where the intended meaning is servant/minister. So the obvious question is which is Pauls intended meaning in Romans 16. Short answer, we can’t be certain because both meanings could equally fit.
What i didn’t like Kay, is that you didn’t make this clear. As people who are more interested in the bible and not our own theologies or ideologies, i believe it is inappropriate to mislead in the way you have. You may accept that it means ‘deaconess’ but you should not say it has to mean this when it may not, and there is good biblically evidence contrary. WE must therefore put ALL the evidence forward to be fair to the bible and to have good biblical discussion.
Now personally i am still undecided and praying that God will help me to know the truth. Evidence to support your view Kay may perhaps be the early church father Pliny, who made mention of them in his letter to Trajan (110AD). But this is something i haven’t looked at in great detail and am undecided on the issue. I just wanted to make clear the actual issue grammatically behing deaconesses and put all the evidence on the table, so to speak.
Cheryl Schatz
2010-02-10
★
Mark,
You also answered Kay that a widow who was older (1 Timothy 5:9-12) could be nothing more than one who needed financial support. I would like to differ with this and tell you why I believe that this passage is talking about a group of women who were in the group for the purpose of ministry in the body.
First of all Paul has made it known that marriage is honorable and that the younger widows should marry. But until they do, if they have no family to look after them, is the church to look after the younger widows financially? Of course!
So why is it a dishonor for older widows who have been supported by the church to marry? It can only be a dishonor if there is a vow that they have taken for ministry and this is the way that the passage has been taken historically.
1 Tim 5:9 A widow is to be put on the list only if she is not less than sixty years old, having been bthe wife of one man,
The term “put on the list” means “to make a selection for membership in a group” (BDAG)
It was not a practice of the church to make women celibate just to receive financial help. But this group was special. They were not just ones who received financial help, but they were required to take a vow to serve the church. Paul talks about their condemnation if they do not fulfill their solemn vow.
1 Timothy 5:12 thus incurring condemnation, because they have set aside their previous pledge.
The Greek word for “pledge” means “a solemn promise to be faithful and loyal, assurance, oath, troth” (BDAG lexicon)
I like the way that John MacArthur shows that these women were recognized for ministry. It is quite amazing for me to read his words because he is a staunch complementarian.
This was not a list of those widows eligible for specially recognized church support (all widows in the church who had no other means of support were; v. 3), but rather those eligible for specially recognized church ministry (cf. Titus 2:3–5). the wife of one man. Lit. “one-man woman” (cf. 3:2,12). –The MacArthur Study Bible
These ones who made a pledge and were brought into a special recognized church ministry were given strict requirements just like overseers. Chrysostom one of the early church fathers says this about the passage:
Strange! what strictness does he require of widows; almost as much as of the Bishop himself. For he says, “If she have diligently followed every good work.”–The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Vol. XIII (454)
Walvoord of the Dalls Theological Seminary also notes the connection between the requirements for these “widows” and for “overseers”:
The Greek here is literally “a one-man woman,” the mirror image of the stipulation for both the overseer-elder (cf. 3:2; Titus 1:6) and the deacon (1 Tim. 3:12),–Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., The Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures.
W. D. Mounce in the Word Biblical Commentary lists off a string of names of theologians who:
“feel that these verses spell out the duties of widows who have been enrolled in an order of widows, duties that include prayer, hospitality, pastoral house calls, and care for orphans. Most in this group argue for a formal order of widows …Lock paraphrases, “You must have an official list for widows in the service of the Church” (57). Ellicott speaks of the widows undertaking “the duties of the presbyteral office” (73; Bernard calls them “women elders,” –Vol. 46: Word Biblical Commentary : Pastoral Epistles (273).
The Evangelical commentary on the Bible also lists these as older women who are in service of the church.
In verses 11–15, Paul indicates that younger widows should not be put on such a list and indicates why (this does not rule out temporary care). Younger widows generally want to remarry and this requires them to break their promise to Christ to serve him and the church as widows.–Vol. 3: Evangelical commentary on the Bible. Baker reference library
It is also noteworthy that another strong complementarian, D.A. Carson also understands that the place of these widows is that of Christian service, not just that of being cared for financially.
5:11–16 Younger widows. The younger widows presented a different problem because of the possibility of remarriage. This excluded them from the official list mentioned in v 9. There is no suggestion here that any younger widow who was poverty-stricken would not qualify for some help. Paul seems to be thinking of those who offer for Christian work (as dedication to Christ suggests; v 11) but who would be placed in a difficult position if they wanted to marry. This is the understanding of their first pledge in v 12, that is their commitment to some kind of Christian work. If they forsook this to marry they would incur censure (judgment). –Carson, D. A. (1994). New Bible commentary : 21st century edition
In fact the inspired words in this passage (1 Timothy 5:9-12) are so strong concerning a specific group of older women who are dedicated to serve Christ and because of their dedication they make a vow of service to the body of Christ and who have very high standards set for them to even belong to this group, has made it quite clear throughout the years that this is a group not of impoverished needy women, but strong women gifted in service who have given themselves to serve the body to such an extent that they have given up the hope of a second marriage, in order to dedicate their lives for service to the Lord and His body.
Mark, if you do care to dispute those who have gone before me in Biblical studies, you will have to explain why these women were forbidden to marry or face condemnation just for receiving support from the church? Are you really willing to contend that the church was instructed to demand celibacy in exchange for food?
Mark
2010-02-12
★
Cheryl,
I understand totally where you are coming from. But unfortunately there are just as many other commentaries to quote in opposition to your view.
Bible exposition commentary
“From the beginning of its ministry, the church had a concern for believing widows (Acts 6:1; 9:39). Of course, the nation of Israel had sought to care for widows; and God had given special legislation to protect them (Deut. 10:18; 24:17; Isa. 1:17). God’s special care for the widows is a recurring theme in Scripture (Deut. 14:29; Ps. 94:6; Mal. 3:5). It was only right that the local church show compassion to these women who were in need. “
“At least sixty years old (v. 9a). A woman of this age was not likely to get remarried in that day, though sixty is not considered that “old” today. Perhaps the verb “taken into the number” gives us a clue. It literally means “to be enrolled and put on the list.” The word was used for the enrollment of soldiers. The early church had an official list of the names of qualified widows, and we get the impression that these “enlisted” women ministered to the congregation in various ways. (Remember Dorcas and her widow friends, Acts 9:36–43?) Paul probably would have told us if they had been officially ordained as deaconesses.
Bible knowledge commentary
” Next Paul offered instruction on how Timothy must deal with the widows in the congregation. Throughout the Old and New Testaments widows, along with aliens and orphans, are viewed as special objects of God’s mercy. As such they are to be taken under the wing of the congregation (cf. Deut. 10:18; 14:29; 24:17-21; Acts 6:1-7; James 1:27). As early as Acts 6 the church had established a charitable outreach to widows. Now about 30 years later the ministry to widows, of whom there were no doubt many, showed signs of being a major burden to the congregation. Paul was therefore eager in this passage to identify those who did not truly need help in order to leave enough for those who did.”
“5:9-10. The “proper recognition” of verse 3 is here made specific. Widows may be put on the list if they meet three primary qualifications. What exactly this list involved is not known. It may have been an official order for service in the congregation; more likely it was merely a roll of those widows who were to receive assistance from the congregation”
A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory on the Old and New Testaments.
“1. an elder—in age; probably not an elder in the ministry; these latter are not mentioned till 1Ti 5:17, “the elders that rule.” Compare Ac 2:17, “your old men,” literally, “elders.” Contrasted with “the younger men.” As Timothy was admonished so to conduct himself as to give no man reason to despise his youth (1Ti 4:12); so here he is told to bear in mind his youth, and to behave with the modesty which becomes a young man in relation to his elders.
The IVP bible background commentary
“Here Paul may refer to widows in general, but he probably refers to an order of widows who served the church, as in second-century Christianity. (Commentators disagree on this point.)
Note the commentators disagree at this point.
Now my opinion again. We cannot be sure what the ‘enrollment’ was. It could be women elders but then we must conclude that then only women (who are widows) over 60 shall ever become women elders otherwise we disobey the bible. If it involves caring for the widows in need, then we have problems with harshness of not allowing a younger widow who was truly in need. Either view has complications. On top of this we have the semantic renge of ‘prebyteros’.
Kay,
You say that widow women elders may be a possibility here. Perhaps but unlikely. Even those who see this passage as women serving the church would not relate this to the office of eldership. This is too long of a bow from the text. The fact the passage is dealing with ‘older’ widows and younger ones, gives all the indication that ‘presbyteros’ should be translated older men/women.
Now relating again to deaconesses. Like i have said before i am unsure whether i believe this is refering to wives or deaconesses. Regardless it does not impact on the office of eldership who are responsible for the overseeing of the church. The deacon does not have this responsibility. You are right to say that there is no ‘gunaikos’ in either mention of ‘elders’ so therefore you rebut your own argument. 1 Tim 3:11 could be either deaconess or wives, but it definitely does not relate to elders? Do you agree?
Anyhow i see we are going around in circles again. Speak soon
Cheryl Schatz
2010-02-15
★
Mark #137,
I understand totally where you are coming from. But unfortunately there are just as many other commentaries to quote in opposition to your view.
First of all if my memory serves me right you didn’t acknowledge that there were recognized scholars who viewed the widows as having a recognized church ministry. Rather it was seen as our own reading into the scriptures that was causing us to see women in ministry rather than supplying for the feeding of these widows. I do not deny at all that the there are some who see the feeding of widows as all that is meant by Paul. However the issue that they all need to deal with, and which you need to deal with, is if feeding of widows is the meaning of Paul’s words, then one must accept that the church had a restriction for those who were cared for to be only those who agreed not to remarry. This is a serious problem to the view and I think that it would be good for you to face this problem head on. Please tell us why widows would have to agree not to remarry in order to receive food? Can you imagine a church feeding program today requiring those who are suffering financial hardships that sends them to foodbanks being made to sign a pledge requiring them to never marry? It just seems ludicrous. Unless one can deal with this illogical requirement for the feeding of widows, you view (and the view of other complementarian scholars) can not be a serious consideration regarding the meaning of the passage. It is not a matter of a stalemate because you have scholars on your side. It is a serious problem that must be dealt with that makes your position untenable. Consider the following:
Bible exposition commentary:
…It was only right that the local church show compassion to these women who were in need.
Notice that they don’t mention why only the local church should only show compassion to those women who agree not to be married again. Why is that? Your quote continued:
The early church had an official list of the names of qualified widows, and we get the impression that these “enlisted” women ministered to the congregation in various ways. (Remember Dorcas and her widow friends, Acts 9:36–43?) Paul probably would have told us if they had been officially ordained as deaconesses.
Here your own source admits that these women ministered to the congregation. The statement that Paul “probably” would have told us if they were officially ordained, this is really out of the context of the letter. Paul is writing a personal letter to Timothy and Paul doesn’t need to instruct Timothy about what “is”. He is instructing Timothy on what to do about qualifications for those who minister. Making qualifications of godliness and celibacy to receive food is never a consistent standard with the church. However having qualifications for Christian service is consistent.
You quote the Bible Knowledge commentary:
It may have been an official order for service in the congregation; more likely it was merely a roll of those widows who were to receive assistance from the congregation
Again your own source admits that it “may” have been an official order for service and they give no reason at all why a destitute widow must agree not to marry again to receive assistance. This is not consistent with Christian charity which makes this view a problem.
You quote from A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory on the Old and New Testaments:
…probably not an elder in the ministry;
Yet this source gives no reason at all why it is “probably”. i If it was a documented fact they would not say “probably” yet they never address the issue of requiring celibacy as a prerequisite for receiving food.
You quote:
The IVP bible background commentary
“Here Paul may refer to widows in general, but he probably refers to an order of widows who served the church, as in second-century Christianity.
Here the source again gives the opposite of what you believe by saying that Paul “probably” refers to an order of widows who served the church. Yes it is a fact that scholars differ on this, but the ones who refuse to believe that there was a group of elderly women who served the church in a special way MUST explain why being fed requires on to pledge celibacy. Just ignoring this problem is not good enough. It must be answered.
Mark, you said:
Now my opinion again. We cannot be sure what the ‘enrollment’ was. It could be women elders but then we must conclude that then only women (who are widows) over 60 shall ever become women elders otherwise we disobey the bible.
The fact that you admit that it “could be” women elders is great for if women elders were totally forbidden in serving the church then this special group of widows would not qualify, right? Yet we don’t need to conclude that only 60+ year old widows would qualify as elders. Remember this was a special group that qualified to be fully supported by the church. A younger woman who would qualify as a “normal” elder and who was married would not need to be fed by the church if she had a husband. The fact that there is one group who was to be fully supported financially does not eliminate another group of women who did not need to be supported. Service and support do not necessarily go together. Paul for instance chose to support himself whenever he could so that he would not be a burden to the church even though he had the right to receive that support.
If it involves caring for the widows in need, then we have problems with harshness of not allowing a younger widow who was truly in need. Either view has complications.
That would not be the case for our view as John MacArthur already said that younger widows would be cared for without going on the “roll”. It is only on the permanent support list of those who would need support for the rest of their lives as they were pledging to remain as unmarried for the benefit of church service, that there would be qualifications for this list. The rest would not be disqualfied except if they had family who could and should look after them before they leave them at the feet of the church to look after.
On top of this we have the semantic renge of ‘prebyteros’.
The context will be the key to what the word means. So now it is time for you to tell us why old ladies who were widows were forced to renounce men as prospective mates in order to receive food?
Even those who see this passage as women serving the church would not relate this to the office of eldership. This is too long of a bow from the text.
First of all there is no such “office” of eldership. Secondly it is very clear from the text that these women were on the “roll” for ministry in the church. Where is the restrictions on their church ministry? Can you show even one restriction to me?
The fact the passage is dealing with ‘older’ widows and younger ones, gives all the indication that ‘presbyteros’ should be translated older men/women.
Unfortunately Mark, this would make the church out to be prejudiced and like the Catholic church, they would be forcing celibacy on certain groups of people. Is this really what you believe?
Now relating again to deaconesses. Like i have said before i am unsure whether i believe this is refering to wives or deaconesses. Regardless it does not impact on the office of eldership who are responsible for the overseeing of the church.
Actually it does impact the issues of elders since deacons were given the same qualifications “husband of one wife” so if this doesn’t disqualify women for deacons, it cannot possibly disqualify women as elders. Remember 1 Timothy 3:1 says that anyone can desire the work of an overseer. If anyone can desire this work, then it is inconsistent to disqualify people either for their gender or their race (which cannot be changed by godly behavior).
You challenged Kay:
You are right to say that there is no ‘gunaikos’ in either mention of ‘elders’ so therefore you rebut your own argument.
The term “likewise” along with the “anyone” proceeding the qualifications for elder leave women squarely within the ability to be in either group.
Mark, you also responded to Kay by saying:
So although you hold to verse 11 promoting female deacons, there is nothing now in 1 Tim 3 to indicate that women are included in the eldership, unless you wish to hold onto the ‘anybody’ and ignore who Paul then qualfies as the ‘anybody’ in the following verses.
Paul doesn’t disqualify the “anybody” from 1 Tim. 3:1 except for moral issues and issues where the person needs to work on to be the godly example that they should be. For example if one is not a good manager of their home, they can learn how to be a good manager and therefore at some place in the future they can realize their goal of being a godly example as an overseer.
Do you actually believe this is about the office of eldership or just widows ministry.
I think we have gone over this a few times, but there is no such “office” of “eldership”. There is “work” of an overseer.
Mark, I do hope that you will be encouraged to think through your position on the group of women that was specifically set up for elderly widows to service the church with their God-given gifts. I would like to encourage you to deal with the issue of celibacy as a requirement for being fed and supported by the church and explain how your position can possibly be considered a church practice in Paul’s day.
Thanks!
Your Tags
Personal labels you apply to any item — separate from system topics. Tags are shared across all databases. Visit /tags to browse all your tags.
...more
Personal labels you apply to any item — separate from system topics. Tags are shared across all databases. Visit /tags to browse all your tags.
...more