Comments

Hooray for Bill Hybels for speaking up. Driscoll's views are old worn out ones. He should stop trying to beat a dead horse. God calls whosoever will to lead and He gives them the gifts to do it. Deborah is a classic example. My own 7 year trek of training and education for ministry, ordination and the pastoring of 2 churches were at God's direction and affirmed many times over. Women, if God calls you to plant a church or pastor an already existing one, just go get the training & education you need then do it. Don't be discouraged or sidetracked by the Mark Driscolls of the world, instead obey the ONLY One whose voice and opinion matters--God

Amen Carlene. And thank you Bill! I had my own ten year trek of training and education for ordination and ministry. I've done missionary assignments and have been on staff at two churches and getting ready to go on staff at a third. I am obeying God's calling, and God continues to open doors for me to pastor. Honestly, I stopped listening to anything Driscoll said a long time ago.

For anyone who wants to know more about women in leadership roles in the Bible like Deborah (whom Carlene mentioned), I have a series on my blog: Career Women of the Bible.

Careful, Ladies. An emasculation of the faith doesn't do any of us any favors. We need each other to be fully human - male and female. Voices like Driscoll's need to be heard, even if some of his conclusions are rejected. There is some truth here that must not be lost.

What did I or Carlene say that implied "emasculation"? We both appreciate Bill Hybels for standing up for biblical principles. Neither Carlene or I implied that we didn't need both male and female to fully image God and serve the church. We only said that Mark Driscoll's views are not biblical in his regard to women. And to be honest I'm glad someone in the evangelical community is finally holding Driscoll accountable for some of his non biblical principles. So again I say: Thank you Bill!

Hmmm...some interesting thoughts. It is important to always test any calling of God against scripture. And it seems both sides think scripture is on their side.
Also intresting is that many church goers would say things such as the exclusiveness of the gospel (salvation only through Jesus Christ) itself is 'worn out'. Biblical truth is biblical truth. We all have to be wary of relativising the Word of God based on the society around us.

I haven't seen anyone commenting here who is "relativising the Word of God based on the society around us." I am a firm believer in the Word of God-and women pastors, deacons and evangelists.

Interesting that God's Word is clear as day when it comes to the roles of men and women in ministry yet women claim that God calls them to the ministry. This calling is subjective and is false as God would not call women to lead churches when his own written Word says that this is the role for men only. Would God actually go against his own word?
To say that Mark's principles are not Biblical in regards to women not leading churches is nonsense! In 1 Timothy Paul (with apostolic authority) appeals to the created order for men leading churches.
I think women's minstry is terrific, but it should be done God's Way.

Correct me if I'm wrong - but Driscoll isn't saying anything negative about women nor their spiritual gifts. His focus in this message is directed to men.

I'm from Australia and recent statistics have shown that the attendance of men is critical in the future attendance of children. More so than the attendance of mothers. Isn't Driscoll's message primarily concerned with the attendance of men in church?

Whilst I thought the message was a little blunt, as is Driscoll's ways, I didn't necessarily think that his message denied that women do not have any gifts to offer the church.

The strong reaction to Driscoll's video about men being the leaders in the church shows the downward spiral in the church today. The Bible calls for the men to be the leaders in the churches. The only reason that God called Deborah up to be a judge was because there weren't any men with faith to do the job. American Christianity is too cultural and needs to put the Bible ahead of culture and see that men in the church need to step up to the plate. As far as Hybels goes, he's one of the first to quickly water down the gospel message, just to get people into a church building. At least Driscoll understands the Bible message.

Where in the book of Judges does it say that Deborah was only made a judge because there weren't any men with faith to do the job? I'm not trying to stir anything up wit this question. It seems to me that that that inference can be made from the text, but to say that's the only reason she was a judge diminishes her leadership.

Shame on Driscoll for ignoring the many female believers God's Spirit called into ministry in the New Testament: Junia and Mary Magdalene the apostles, Phoebe the deacon, Lydia and Nympha, leaders of house churches, Priscilla the evangelist, Philip's four daughters who prophesied, etc.

And many thanks to Hybels for speaking up for Gospel truth. Downgrading women and blocking their ministry hurts everyone.

Kudos for Hybels for speaking up for the Biblical truth. He is a courageous leader.

Every time I see Christians argue I think of Jesus' prayer in John 17. Disunity is destroying the world's image of our Savior. Please, please stop!

Thanks Shawna. Neither one of us ever implied emasculation. That was something done by the men who wanted to be priests in the temple of the Greek goddess Artemus. And Kathryn made a good observation that neither Shawna nor I were trying to relativize the Word of God based on the society around us. My position has always been that any woman who goes into ministry to prove a point rather than because of a genuine call is nuts. In my case it meant giving up a successful 8 year old business as an entertainment agent.

Deborah was indeed called but to say it was because no man was available reads something into the text that's simply not there--in theological jargon that's called eisegesis. Matthew you are right on. Also in the OT is Huldah the prophetess, whom the king chose over a male prophet to interpret for him. Joshua, Priscilla was a prominent leader in the early church. The fact that she is mentioned before her husband in 3 out of 4 cases is historically significant because that would have been radical for that time--order of name in that time period indicated prominence. Phoebe in Romans 16 is described by Paul as a deacon of the church (there's no such Greek word as deaconess) and he says she has been a "prostasis"(overseer, guardian, protector) of many--including himself. In that same chapter he also names other women church leaders--most notably Junia whim he calls prominent among the apostles. In Joel 2 which Peter recites in Acts, it says in the last days God would pour out His Spirit on both men and women. If a woman's call is subjective then so is a man's. Mine was affirmed in many different ways--even surprisingly by some people who weren't in favor of women in pastoral ministry. When it was time for me to go to seminary, God directed me to go to one halfway across the country. This meant husband, myself and our two kids uprooting moving from our native New England to the Midwest. We said OK God if you'll supply the funds.Did He ever! Over 98% of my seminary education was paid for by grants and scholarships. Also, my husband got the first job he applied for out there, and the first church we visited "just happened" to be pastored by the person appointed to be my ordination supervisor. These and many other doors of affirmation the Lord opened all along the way.

Context, context context is of utmost importance when interpreting Scripture. In 1 Tim.(the whole focus of the book) Paul is dealing with the problem of false doctrine seeping into the church. One source was from those coming out of the temple of Artemus which I mentioned earlier--that was a female dominated religion. Only women and emasculated men could be priests and the women priests lorded their authority (authentein)and superiority over men. They would do ritual slayings of men where it was acted out, but some of the priestesses carried out an actual killing. Paul's prohibition on women having authority over men has to do with women coming out of Artemus worship into the church. He uses that word "authentein" there and no where else in the Bible is that Greek word used when speaking of authority. But we do find that word used in extrabiblical documents to describe how the Artemus priestesses behaved toward men. You have to look at how a word is used in multiple contexts in order to ascertain its meaning. Paul wanted no lording over or false teaching coming into the church and he was right-they needed to learn servant leadership and be taught solid Christian doctrine before they were qualified to teach anyone. The prohibition is situation specific not universal. Jesus even admonished his disciples(and us) that they were not to lord their authority over others. Oh and that next thing he addresses about bearing children, there was a Gnostic sect that held their women in common and if one became pregnant, the fetus was forcibly aborted and eaten to "release the light particles." For Gnostics the human body was an evil prison of the spirit and light inside. Paul had to impress upon women coming out of Gnosticism that bearing children was OK especially when God pronounced his creation of human beings to be "very good."

So Paul has high praise for women leaders in the early church like Priscilla, Phoebe, Junia and others. He also gives women instruction in 1 Cor. 11 about how to pray and prophesy in public. But then we come to a seeming contradiction in chapter 14-women be silent in church-go ask questions of your husbands at home. The section is noted by many scholars to be out of place--it doesn't match with the surrounding verses which are expounding about prophecy. Some say the section is an editorial insertion (the story of how we got our Bible in present form is truly amazing). But others argue that Paul was addressing a specific situation. The Corinthian church was plagued with many problems as anyone reading 1 Cor. can quickly ascertain. Historically, the early church had a lot of single women and widows, so they had no husbands to ask anything of. How then do we make sense of this troubling passage that seems to contradict chapter 11? Well, in that society women were second class citizens and considered men's property, while in the fledgling Christian church, their status was elevated and they were allowed to learn. Apparently it was like the proverbial kid in the candy store, these particular women were so eager to learn that they were obviously dominating the worship time with all their questions, and it was causing disorder. Remember just prior to the passage, Paul mentions that God is a God of order. That these verses are plunked down in the midst of a discussion of prophecy gives us a clue that Paul was addressing a specific situation that suddenly arose. Particularly since he immediately resumes his discussion of prophecy as if he had never stopped.

And one last topic--headship. When Paul uses the word head to describe man/women, husband/wife relationships he uses the word "kephale" meaning "source" hearkening back to the creation account. Had he wanted to maintain societal views of men and women he would have used the word "arche" for head which means over or ruler.

Driscoll appears to be an arche kind of guy, especially when he implies that a husband is entitled to sex from his wife daily. That smacks of a wife as property view. There are women of course who do give sex daily--they're called prostitutes. But to expect one's wife to do that regardless of whether she wants to or not, or can't due to a physical reason (period, childbirth, illness, fatigue, etc.) is not loving one's wife as Christ loves the church.

Again, with Shawna, kudos to Bill Hybels for speaking up for women who are gifted and called by God to ministry in keeping with Gal. 3:28.

Is it the man, the mission, the message or or the Messiah who makes a church? This is the kind of path that leads to Ted Haggard/Jim Bakker/Jimmy Swaggart/Cardinal Law. Driscoll doesn't speak with any of the reverence or humility a slave of Christ should exhibit. He sounds like an irreverent fratboy type who is trying to imitate the shallow Jon Stewart/Bill Maher pop culture. Can you picture Paul instructing young men how to make money and get lots of sex from their wives? Isn't that what Christ crucified is all about, huh?

Proof texting can help the Bible say whatever we want it to say; so I'm not going to enter that argument! I love the Confession of '67 and how it reminds us that the Bible points to Jesus' life. And Jesus' life points us to God, and is what I choose to use as plum line. THANK YOU BILL HYBELS!

Carlene, my next comments were going to be on Huldah and the 2 Timothy verses. But you got there first, so I'll just say "Amen."

And I always love how these verses in 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 are "interpreted": "The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."

Paul says both the husband or wife can initiate sex or can withhold by mutual consent.

Mark Driscoll's efforts to impress with testosterone-driven leadershp ends up unimpressive, over the top, and unbalanced. True apostles and church planters were/are best identified by their longsuffering/patience and maturity in the faith, two areas that Mark apparently needs to grow in, as do we all. His public complaining about the wasted hours, videos, etc. is an example of this as is his use of coarse and profane language, apparently designed to show how in touch he is with postmodern culture. His yielding to presuppositions of postmodernity in his ministry is less than wise. As an apparently reformed (to some degree) pastor, he would be more God-glorifying by starting with biblical presuppositions instead of always giving first ground to postmodernism in its cultural expressions and then trying to corral and force them into a biblical mold. It's much wiser and biblical to preach the standard of the historic, orthodox, reformed faith and law of God and let postmodernism and its relativistic culture bow the knee to God's Law Word along with every other idol system of our time.

Sincerely,

Jim Fox
Chesapeake, VA

Not much here in the comments that reflect sound exegesis or cogent theological arguments; a lot of "my experience determines truth" and "my verse can beat up your verse" argumentation.

The sad truth is that most people are going to be driven by their own issues and agenda to believe whatever they need and want to believe. As Schweitzer said, we look into a deep well, see a reflection of ourselves, and exclaim, "My Lord and my God!"

Mark Driscoll's ideas of masculinity come straight from a secular "tough guy" culture that is filtered through a grid of biblical interpretation that is fundamentally illogical. How a woman can be equal to a man and yet by the virtue of her womanhood be subordinate to a man is never explained without circular reasoning (the Trinity!). We can debate whether evangelical feminists are imbibed with modern civil rights culture, but if we do we should be at least as willing to look at the silly ideas of manhood that are propagated in the name of "male headship." For those that worry about the so-called "feminization of the church" I would suggest politely that you take your case before God, the one who originally feminized it by making it Christ's BRIDE.

way to go bill hybels. I passionately believe this issue is important and one of justice but I find the argument tiresome so that's all I'll say.

Thanks to Bill Hybels- as a woman in ministry I am frankly weary of this debate rumbling on- I see fruit from my work- know a call to preach and teach ( both sexes!!!). It is good to be stood up for, for a change.

A part of me is very disappointed that Hybels, knowing what Driscoll stands for (and against), invited him to participate in the conference anyway. But another part of me remembers that we can learn from people who are dead-wrong on certain issues (as Driscoll is in his eisegeted belief the Bible does not provide for woemn to be pastors).

So Driscoll chose to denounce what he knew Hybels believes: women can be and are called by God to be pastors and other church leaders. Just what did he expect Hybels to do? Change his mind in the matter just because Driscoll asserted his belief? Sell (thereby implying endorsement) what he believes to be false teaching?

It seems to me that Driscoll has elevated this false teaching to a matter of salvific importance. So be it. Don't expect Bill Hybels, who knows it to be false, to prop up that belief and allow Driscoll to make money from it. Or better yet, remember next time that an invitation from someone with whom you disagree on this issue, does not constitute a bully pulpit for denouncing women in congregational ministryl If Driscoll cannot separate principals for church planting from his bias against women who plant churches, he ought to decline such future invitations. (Though I doubt they will be very numerous now that he's pulled this stunt.) As for the financial losses incurred by Driscoll by the unsold recordings, I have no doubt there are many who agree with him who are willing to spend money to have their ears soothed with these recordings.

This morning, just before going out to give my slaves their duties for the day (see Eph 6:5), I stopped to make sure my wife's head covering (see 1 Cor 11:10) was strapped on as she prepared to leave for the ladies' Bible study at the church.

Come on, folks. When I was 8 years old I asked my father, "why does the church make women on the mission field do all those things they're not allowed to do in churches over here?"

The first person to proclaim the news of the risen Christ was a woman. I see no "tut, tut" in my marginal reference.

You Americans embarrass yourselves when you take pride in the abolition of slavery but want to retain certain roles in the church "for men only."

After doing more peripheral reading on this incident, I realize taht I misspoke. I got the idea from earlier reading elsewhere that Hybels (or his assocation) organized this conference. That is not the case. So it was not Hybels who was in any way responsible for passing out or selling recordings of Driscoll's message.

I do continue to think that by so forcefully emphasizing that church planters are men, Driscoll perpetuated his own false belief that ONLY men are scripturally qualified to be pastors, church planters, elders, etc. I continue to think that Hybels was right to speak out to show that he does not endorse that false belief. The source of the "Hybels rebuke" is Driscoll himself. I don't think good soldiers go fight wars of their own making against their fellow soldiers.

Like it or not, Mark Driscoll, plenty of the people in the church-planting trenches are women, serving the same Lord and Savior you claim to serve. Thank you, Bill Hybels, for acknowledging their God-anointed ministry.

Shawna, that was a great comment about I Corinthians 7. It affirms the equal authority of male and female, as opposed to the "head as authority over" teaching of the patriarchs. Thank you Bill.

“Mark Driscoll's efforts to impress with testosterone-driven leadershp ends up unimpressive, over the top, and unbalanced. True apostles and church planters were/are best identified by their longsuffering/patience and maturity in the faith, two areas that Mark apparently needs to grow in, as do we all. His public complaining about the wasted hours, videos, etc. is an example of this as is his use of coarse and profane language, apparently designed to show how in touch he is with postmodern culture.””

Yep! You got it.

Drisco misses hugely that it is The Message driven by The Holy Spirit that is the priority NOT any man or any woman. It is my observation that churches are failing because they are centering on the efforts of fallible humans and slowly shutting the door to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. We need BOTH men AND women who are actually called by God to ministry and anointed by the Holy Spirit, and able to hear and heed the Holy Spirits urgings.

I was directed to this video through an organization that affirms the place and calling of men and women in ministry based on their gifting.
I am shocked that this man, Driscoll, is as influential a leader as I hear he is.I have never heard of him before - but I have heard of the church. There are so many things that I find offensive about this video. I kept thinking - didn't he preview and edit this thing. Most of us will do that even in our blogs and emails to make sure that we aren't offensive.
He started out with talking about how most of us perceive pastors in the ministry - nice guy, can set up chairs, take B.S. but we don't think of him as being a scrapper, holding his ground, fight heretics, nut jobs, weirdos, the lady with the tamborine and the guy with the rapture charts. These men have to be "manly enough" to put these people in their place and it doesn't appear that there is room for them in "their" church!!
Wow - I don't read anywhere in the Bible of Jesus treating people like that. In fact he loved the unlovable, cast demons out of the nut jobs, never lifted a finger against anyone; he probably adored the fact that the women wanted to express her love for him with the tamborine. Yet these "church planter men" - pastors" should be other then Jesus??I don't buy that.
Then the comment about 60% of all Christians are female and he's "glad" the ladies love Jesus!!! But it isn't good enough cause if you want to win the war you have to have these men AND you have to know what to do with them. You have to take these 20-something derelicts - pardon me but I know of lots of young men, in our churches and out of the church - who are not living any type of the life that he is describing. Driscoll claims that you have to get these guys and teach them. They want to know how to get married, have sex "at least once a day" with their wives (that was one of the comments that I thought he might want to edit) - make money - buy homes - have children how to pay their bills etc. etc. Aren't a lot of those "civilian affairs"? Actually they all need to FORCED by Gods grace to be the kind of men needed for Gods work and for God's Kingdom.
And there you probably have some of the reason why men - 20, 30, 40 and 50....something (and women) don't want to have anything to do with the church or Christianity- There is so much stereotyping its pathetic.How the men should act, what the women should do, the children need to be this and that. Were we not created unique, called to greatness, made in His image? Male and Female?
I believe this type of preaching in the church has chased away many a searching person by laying out the rules to "join" or "lead" the club.
I found this video sad - not only for women but for humanity!

As the director of a Christ-centered residential program for homeless, delinquent and troubled boys I have both a comment on and a criticism of this video. First, we need to all be able to eat the meat and spit out the bones. I have yet to hear an infallible minister speak. This man has passion and some very good points, while he obviously gives little thought to the weight of his words. As for men, over 90% of the boys in our program have either never met their father, or they would be better off if they never had. It is imperative that men return to their duites, quit asking women to raise thir children alone, and walk in the honor that can make them worth emulating.Too few are more interested in golf, fishing, and football than they are in their kids. If nothing else, this is the debate and discussion that I'd like to see come out of this video. As for the women in the church issue, most churches would close if not for the women who have been faithful. I have been blessed by the perspectives of both men and women and our titles and positions are irrelevant without our lives being a testimony of Christ's character. Face it, we need each other.

This comment was left on the CBE Scroll regarding the conference where this started:

It wasn’t Hybels who was responsible for distributing the videos or not. Like Driscoll, he was a speaker at the conference (unlike Driscoll, he appeared in person).

What Hybels did, after an 8-minute video of Driscoll extolling men (exclusively) behaving as soldiers in the “war” of church planting, was to say a couple of sentences about the importance of the contributions of women in church planting. He then gave his own presentation.

It is Driscoll who accused Hybels of speaking against him. Hybels simply spoke FOR the FACT that women are actively involved in planting churches. And his implication on “Resurgence” that Hybels refused to distribute his videos, is false. The organizers of the conference may have actively refused or neglected to…or perhaps people simply didn’t want them. The only clear thing is that Hybels had nothing to do with them not being distributed.

Driscoll claims to have lost money by not having the DVDs distributed. The fact is, he expected them to be distributed, not sold. He lost no money, just viewer/listeners. And he’s more than making up for that through the version available at Resurgence. Anyone whose ears would be soothed by his message can download it if they wish.

Why does it seem to me that most of the people who are offended by Driscoll's video are women? The Apostle Paul made it quite clear that to be an elder in the church, one must be the husband of one wife. That tells me that it should be a man. I believe women have their place in church planting, but not at the head of it. It should be the men, who are to be the spiritual leaders in the home and in the church, the body of believers.

Mark Driscoll is correct. "Selection of 'the man'[or men] is extremely important". And this will be the downfall of the Church, not selecting the right men to be in leadership.

And we can see that the men in the Church have not been selecting the right men - look at all the fallen, shameful male pastors who have embarrassed Christ in front of the whole world. So, the right men have not been selected. Of course, if women are not included in the leadership process [as Timothy's mother and grandmother were in teaching Timothy the Scriptures], then there will be no right men left in the Church: this includes Mark Driscoll.

Listen to the way Mark Driscoll speaks: the slang "park it", the swearing (B.S.), the twisting of the analogy of soldier. These are signs of wrong leadership - he should read the Scriptures. If you listen to other male pastors this flippant, smart-mouthed, worldly talk is one of the first signs of men not on the right track.

And who will be left in the Church in 2050? - not the end of the Church as Driscoll predicts, but the steadfast women who worship Christ. The same ones that were at the cross when the men hid; the same ones that were first at the tomb when the men did not believe; the first to Evangelize; the ones that Christ Himself included in the Church when the 'men' tried to exclude them.
To the One, True God of all Creation, be the Glory, forever and forever. Amen.

Chris writes: "The Apostle Paul made it quite clear that to be an elder in the church, one must be the husband of one wife. That tells me that it should be a man."

Chris,
the reason Paul writes this is because so many men had MORE than one wife. He was speaking to the men who wanted to be elders, but had 2,3,4,7 wives. So, he was telling them, NO, you can't be an elder unless you only have one wife. He was letting all the polygamists that they couldn't be elders because of their ungodly behavior. It has nothing to do with only the man being the only one to be an elder.

Quit Twisting the Scriptures! Please!

Jesus Christ is the Head of any church planting; church planters are supposed to be his faithful followers.

And you might find it interesting, Chris, that they've found WOMEN'S tombs that had the exact same inscription that you're claiming automatically means "only men": literally, "one-woman man." In other words, it's idiomatic for a sexually faithful person (male or female). That might also correlate to the "Likewise the women" that follows the supposedly "only men" scriptural standards for elders and deacons.

Unless women cannot be Jesus' disciples (and we know that's not true), we can't automatically say that because descriptions show us men, women are forbidden to do that which Scripture never forbids them to do (i.e., serve at God's calling as teachers, pastors, elders, deacons, etc.) For that matter, we ought not to forbid God from issuing such calls, either. God has a delighful habit of ignoring and contradicting such extra-biblical restrictions.

“The Apostle Paul made it quite clear that to be an elder in the church, one must be the husband of one wife. That tells me that it should be a man.”

Especially for Paul, a very astute and clear thinker, that would be a huge “beating around the bush” manner of saying that elders would be men. The fact is that the phrase “one woman man” is a colloquial phrase that means being a faithful type of person in relationships. Even today it means the same thing in almost any language. When we hear someone praised that he is a one woman kind of guy, we are saying that he is not a philaderer but is always devoted and faithful to his mate, if he has one.

As a Christian single woman who is actively participating in the church, I say Amen to this Driscoll video. Frankly, single men in the 20s AND 30s are largely missing from the church. After graduating from high school youth group, they do disappear. Yes, I do know some great single Christian men in their 20s who are participating in their churches. But, for the most part, there will not be enough active Christian men for the current number of active Christian women in the church to marry. In ten to twenty years, we will see the effect of this - there will be a declining number of Christian families. The alternative is for these single Christian women to go bar-hopping with the foolish hope that they will be able to drag these former youth group boys to church (unlikely!).

"But, for the most part, there will not be enough active Christian men for the current number of active Christian women in the church to marry." Chany

Unless, of course, we go back to that "...had 2,3,4,7 wives..." thing that Janet was talking about.

Chaney, the solution is not the "boys club" that Driscoll is advocating. It's an authentic community of Christians, radically different from the world around them, who take seriously Christ's call to love God supremely and love neighbor as self. Not "love self" to the point that god is re-made into a "macho guy" human image. The world sees through that, as does (thankfully) the majority of the church.

Mature leaders need to insist that we ALL--not just the men--are responsible for reaching people and drawing them to Jesus Christ. Gasp--it might just be some of those over-represented Christian women in the church who do that!

Sorry I misspelled your name, Chany.

I don't agree with Driscoll on a lot of things, but on this I humbly agree that he is right. The Bible is pretty clear on this issue. How many of you are reading the Bible to find out what you want it to say, instead of humbly asking the Lord to give you understanding. I hope this verse does not describe you...

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to THEIR OWN DESIRES, BECAUSE THEY HAVE ITCHING EARS,
they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth and be turned aside to fables. 2 Tim 3,4

May we all humbly ask God for understanding while we read His word.

I'm sorry, but really Driscoe is the one preaching and teaching fables.

Lets see what my authority says today about this subject...
(considering we must ALL AGREE that our total and final authority is scripture)...

1Cr 11:1 Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.
1Cr 11:2 Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.

1Cr 11:3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.

Well, looks like the man is in submission to GOD and Messiah and woman to GOD, Messiah, and man. Therefore, obviously the woman should NOT be the head of the church. I guess I agree with scripture yet again. How about you?

Let us all go back to the "beginning" and look in chapter 3:16 and do a quick word study on the word "desire" and see where that takes you. If you don't see it ask that the Lord God would give you unction and then be humble and submitt to that truth, and if you still don't see it you may not be able to discern the truth and if that is the case you may need to repent and get saved so that you can see. Also is the man called to be the head of his wife, the head of his home? Yes, he is...so do you not think if The Lord God has made it this way to function properly in the home that it would really only make since for it to be this way in the gathering of His people and not shifting roles? I do believe that women can teach and lead but only children and other women...when women begin to rule over or take the head role over men in the home and in the church it causes confusion and gets outside the will of God and we end up having these types of discussions. This is the way God designed it and we need to submitt unto Him.

"1Cr 11:3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. "

Just curious, who was the widow Elizabeth Elliot under submission to as a missionary?

Who was the 'head' of Mary Magdalene?

Forget complaining about Mark Driscoll. The problem here is that Mark follows the God of the Bible and believes that Jesus is the God-Man and Mark follows His teaching and examples.

Face it, the Jesus of the Bible is a real 'backwards' God-Man.

Not only did God choose to incarnate Himself as a Man, out of all twelve of his apostles there wasn't a single female.

Maybe, ya'll should censor Jesus.

Maybe, ya'll should call Jesus bad names and boycott Him.

Whay ya'll need to do is hold out for a different god that is a hermaphrodite and equally embraces both sexes in the ministry.

You're not going to find that God in the Bible. So rather than complaining about it, you should go and start your own religion, with your own god, and your own Bible.

Chris Rosebrough
ExtremeTheology.com

In fact, I challenge someone to find a scripture that contradicts 1Cr 11:3! Woman are not meant to be the head of a church... Brock has the right points.

I would like to comment regarding the use of 1 Cor. 11:3 to prove male-only leadership in the church. First of all the word translated "head" is the Greek word "kephale". Now in modern English the word "head" is commonly used to denote "authority" or "boss". However, it is incorrect to assume that a word in one modern language has the same exact meanings in another ancient language. Remember that the actual function of the brain inside the head was not known in the 1st century. Ancient Geek lexicons list many possible meanings for the word "kephale" some of which include:

The top or crown
Extremity
Source of a river
Mouth of a river
Origin
Starting point
Completion/Consummation
Base

Also, Dr. Catherine Kroeger wrote an extensive article showing how the ancients used the word head in figurative speech: http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/free_articles/free_articles.shtml

The biggest dangers Christians face in interepreting the word "kephale" to mean "boss" is the position in which this places Christ. If the woman has the man as her "head" and this means that women are subordinate to and live under the authority of men then this also means that Christ is subordinate to God and lives under the authority of God. (Paul wrote this in the present tense, not while Christ was in a human form.) This would conflict with the basic Christian doctrine of the complete equality of the Trinity and also conflict with Christ's statement that He has all authority in Heaven and Earth (Matt 28:18). If Christ has all authority today, is equal to God in ALL aspects and IS GOD then how could God be Christ's authority.

When we consider the full semantic range of the word "kephale" we can see that Paul was referring to origination not authority. Christ is the "source" of every man/person because we all come from him. Woman came from man. and Christ is from God (the God head). This also fits with his later statements in the chapter regarding the origination of woman from man.

Another point to consider is the context in which verse 3 appears. The topic of discussion in Chapter 11 is about proper head covering/hair lengths during worship and prayer times. The topic is not about who can be a leader. The word "elder" or "bishop" or "pastor" is never mentioned. The only time the actual word "authority" is mentioned (v. 10)it is the authority the woman posesses over herself - she is the one who posesses authority over her own head.

To interpret the word "head" in verse 3 as only meaning "authority" damages the complete equality of Christ within the Godhead, takes away Christ's authority, and makes him something less than FULLY GOD.

I have studied this topic for many years and also teach on this subject.

I THANK GOD for people like Bill Hybels who has the courage to stand up and support his Christian sisters who God has called to leadership positions.

The Bible does not state that the man is the "head" of the household or the "head" of the church. The word "head" was not used in ancient Greek society to refer to a person in a leadership position.

"Head" had numerous figurative meanings and it is perfectly acceptable to translate this word with the meanings of "source/origination/completion" in the Bible. These definitions fit the context in which the word appears and also do not damage the complete equality of the Trinity.

To be consistant one would have to eternally subordinate Christ in order to justify the subordination of women.

The wonderful thing about the Bible is that you don't have to have a doctorate to read it. It's straight forward and with common sense and prayer for God to give understanding any man or woman can understand it. Obviously through Pauls epistles it's clear that a man is the head, this does not downgrade women at all, they have important roles as well, but in different areas. Those fighting this principal seek to use worldly wisdom and every other form of societal wisdom. The only truth is the word of God, not human reasoning.

As feminism has destroyed the family unit in this country, so is it now seeping into our churches.

1 Timothy 3
1This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

deja vu

This morning, just before going out to give my slaves their duties for the day (see Eph 6:5), I stopped to make sure my wife's head covering (see 1 Cor 11:10) was strapped on as she prepared to leave for the ladies' Bible study at the church.

Come on, folks. When I was 8 years old I asked my father, "why does the church make women on the mission field do all those things they're not allowed to do in churches over here?"

The first person to proclaim the news of the risen Christ was a woman. I see no "tut, tut" in my marginal reference.

Those whose ultimate purpose is to restrict women from obeying God, are quite skilled at twisting Scripture to "justify" their misinterpretations. That, however, does nothing to prevent God from continuing to call and equip women as GOD chooses, and should do nothing to hinder faithful women from obeying God rather than such self-serving human beings.

Really, they're presuming to dictate to Another's servant that she is not permitted to do that which God requires of her. Not an enviable position to be in, really. Who will be judged more strictly, do you suppose? The woman who obeyed God, or the man (or woman) who sought to thwart God's purpose by calling good, evil (that is, saying her obedience to God is in fact disobedience)? I find that obeying God is a full-time endeavor. I really don't have time or leisure to tell a fellow disciple of Jesus Christ that I know better than God how God is calling him or her. Perhaps we all need to be busier about the Lord's call on our own lives, and trust God more to tend to our brothers' and sisters' calls. I know for a fact that not all those who say, "Lord, Lord, see these sinful sisters preaching and teaching and leading in your name--I must tell the world how evil and itchy-eared they are for doing these things!" are speaking at the urging of the Holy Spirit. They pick and choose which principles of Scripture to demand of all people, and which to restrict to men only, and they hold everyone responsible for acting, not at the motivation of the Holy Spirit, but according to their own proof-texted interpretations.

Ever notice how many times, after the (allegedly) "men-only" descriptions, Scripture follows with "Likewise the women"? When we rip passages out of context, we miss such things. When we force the Bible to conform to our traditions, rather than conform ourselves to the living truth of Scripture, we are forced to proof-text. We miss vital meanings such as "a head and a body are one flesh, indivisible," and "we are all joined as one in CHRIST, our living Head." We must not divide either our marriages or our churches into a human leader and follower(s). CHRIST JESUS is our Head! We dare not unmake the marriage unity metaphor into a prescription for hierarchy. That is how the pagan Greeks ordered their relationships. Jesus made it plain that it was not to be so among his followers. Yet how religously popular it is to clamor for men to be the rulers over their wives, and rulers of "their" churches! Sadly, we prefer the consequences of the Fall to the New Creation in Jesus Christ, who IS the (sole) Head of the church.

So thanks but no thanks, you who would lead your fellow disciples astray into the hierarchies this world loves so much. I'll keep listening to Jesus Christ, who continues to speak through the holy Scriptures and through the Counselor whom he promised would lead us in all truth. Long ago I promised to follow him and I will continue to do.

Mary,
There have been quite a lot of people who felt God was leading them to do something in life, and it turned out it wasn't God leading them but their own will. When we feel God leading us in our lives, the first thing we should do is to discern whether or not it is according to the scriptures, because feelings can mislead. The Bereans were noble because after they recieved a sermon they would go home and check the scriptures to make sure what was being said truly lined up with God's word. Shouldn't we also if we feel God is leading us in some area, check out God's word to make sure it is not our desire and it really is God's will. I feel the word of God is clear on the subject of men only being pastors. If you look at from a literal, common sense approach it seems a no-brainer, if you infuse emotion based logic, what feels right for me type of post-modern thinking then perhaps your view is arrived at. I am not trying to attack any woman who is in the ministry, but I will not compromise the truth of the word of God, to satisfy politically correct attitudes. I pray that the Lord's will be done in your life and I hope you will do the same for me.

The wonderful thing about the Bible is that you don't have to have a doctorate to read it. It's straight forward and with common sense and prayer for God to give understanding any man or woman can understand it. quote - Derrick

It's interesting you say the above with complete assurance. You believe the way you interpret the Bible is flawless because you have common sense and God gives you understanding! Do you have any idea how arrogant that sounds to all these God fearing people who hold a different opinion? And there are many!!

You believe this way because its how you have been taught to believe. This is the same problem now as during the cruel and terrible time in American history when slavery was justified. It took many brave and courageous people to stand up and say - even though we've been doing this for a long time - from the beginning of time - it is WRONG!!Some things MUST be RETHINKED!!

At one time I believed all that I had been taught about gender roles, and that women were not to be leaders, as the absolute truth.The problem with this is that no denomination agrees on how much leadership, if any, a woman can have.Obviously she can never be "over" a man and it is a man (men) who will decide how much is ok. Interesting though that for years these same denominations have sent women over seas to be Leaders. Many of them run the whole show and the same churches support them - the women are leaders - call them what you will; they are teaching, instucting and discipling men, women and children in other countries. I can't help but ask why our NA women can be sent to other countries and lead "those" men. Are "they" on a lower rung of the hierarchal ladder?

If you take away the gender hierarchy and allow Gods people to operate as they are gifted then that is what I would call straight forward and common sense. In Christ there is no Jew/Gentile; slave/free; male/female. Its so simple!!
These were some the questions that really challenged my thinking. I thank ministries such as CBE and God's Word to Women for being faithful to the church.I am so glad that many people put their necks and jobs and social status on the line to bring about change. People will always fight change - some never will change.

Although many people use 1 Tim 3 to justify male only leadership, the subject of this passage is not men but "anyone". Mr. Hamrick posted these verses yesterday. However, the version he posted was an English translation.

The actual Greek text shows the subject of this sentence (verse 1) as "anyone" (Greek word "tis"). This word is not gender specific and means "anyone". Although the English translation uses the masculine pronoun "he" and masculine possessive adjective "his" the original Greek text does not actually contain any male pronouns or male possessive adjectives. Paul addresses this statement towards "anyone" desiring to serve as an overseer not just to males. So you need to take your English Bibles and cross out the word "man" and replace is with "anyone" and cross out "his" and replace it with "one's own" in order to make it more accurately reflect the original Greek text.

Now we are still left with the phrase "husband of one wife". This may appear to some that only men can be overseers since it is only appropriate for men to have wives. However, if we look later in the passage when Paul speaks of ministers/deacons ("diakonos" in Greek), we find a similar phrase (v. 12) regarding the "diakonos" to be the husband of one wife. This would also make it appear that a "diakonos" had to be a man. We know that Phoebe was a "diakonos" at the church in Cenchrea (Rom 16). This same exact word "diakonos" is also used to describe Timothy and other male ministers such as:

Others who are described as “ministers-diakonos”:
o Christ, Romans 15:8
o Paul & Apollos, 1 Cor. 3:5
o Tychicus, Ephesians 6:21
o Epaphras, Col 1:7
o Timothy, 1 Thes. 3:2

Since Phoebe was a "diakonos" and a female it would have been impossible for her to fullfill Paul's requirement for a diakonos to be the husband of one wife since she could never be a man.

Phoebe could never have been the "husband of on wife" according to the requirements 1 Tim 3 but yet was still a "diakonos" and her ministry was clearly supported by Paul.

The phrase "husband of one wife" was actually an idiomatic expression used to define a person who was a faithful spouse. (It was generally men who were the cheaters - not the women.)

Read below for a similar example when Christ gives qualifications for those who want to be a follower:

Luke 14:26: "If any one (tis) comes to me and does not hate his (heautou=his or her) own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his (heautou=his or her) own life, he cannot be my disciple.

- According to the above passage, to be Christ’s disciple one must hate his wife. This requirement would disqualify women from discipleship because women do not have wives. If we apply the same interpretation style that traditionalists use for 1 Timothy 3:2 to Luke 14:26-27 it would mean that only males could be disciples/followers of Christ.

- Christ did have female disciples and we are all his disciples. Christ addressed this to “anyone” (just like 1 Timothy 3:1 does) so it is not gender specific. The word “wife” (gune) is being used generically to speak of one’s spouse (if they had one). This passage was not meant to exclude females or single men from being disciples/followers of Christ. In the same way, 1 Timothy 3:1-13 is not meant to exclude women or single men.

REMEMBER: The NT was written in Greek not English so we have to always look to the original language and culture in order to understand what was acutally said.

We could go on like this for a long time, but I just ask everybody to pray ask God for understanding and read 1 Timothy 2:13,14. Paul points all the way back to creation to show how God designed man and woman to be. All differences in opinions aside, I pray for all you that the Lord's will be done in your lives, and I hope that you would do the same for me. All glory, honor, and praise be given to God our father through Jesus Christ our Lord!

canucklehead you said it when you exclaim "deja vu" and repeat your original post, guess I'll follow suit after one comment.

Derrick, while no one needs a doctorate to read the Bible, to interpret it correctly means you have to know something about the context, situation being addressed, background, and yes even literary form among other things. Otherwise for example, we'd have a lot of eyeless and handless Christians running around, because after all, Jesus said pluck out your eye and cut off your hand if they offend you. Jesus was using the literary form known as hyperbole, which is using extreme examples to make a point.If you are familiar with Middle Eastern culture at all then you would know that this is a common practice among Middle Eastern storytellers and Jesus was one of the best. Hyperbole is not meant to be taken literally, rather it is an effective literary tool.

Besides women in the early church already mentioned in some of the previous posts, Priscilla was a prominent leader in the early church. The fact that she is mentioned before her husband in 3 out of 4 cases is historically significant because that would have been radical for that time--order of name in that time period indicated prominence. Phoebe in Romans 16 is described by Paul as a deacon of the church (there's no such Greek word as deaconess) and he says she has been a "prostasis"(overseer, guardian, protector) of many--including himself. In that same chapter he also names other women church leaders--most notably Junia whim he calls prominent among the apostles. In Joel 2 which Peter recites in Acts, it says in the last days God would pour out His Spirit on both men and women. If a woman's call is subjective then so is a man's. Mine was affirmed in many different ways--even surprisingly by some people who weren't in favor of women in pastoral ministry. When it was time for me to go to seminary, God directed me to go to one halfway across the country. This meant husband, myself and our two kids uprooting moving from our native New England to the Midwest. We said OK God if you'll supply the funds.Did He ever! Over 98% of my seminary education was paid for by grants and scholarships. Also, my husband got the first job he applied for out there, and the first church we visited "just happened" to be pastored by the person appointed to be my ordination supervisor. These and many other doors of affirmation the Lord opened all along the way.

Context, context context is of utmost importance when interpreting Scripture. In 1 Tim.(the whole focus of the book) Paul is dealing with the problem of false doctrine seeping into the church. One source was from those coming out of the temple of Artemus--that was a female dominated religion. Only women and emasculated men could be priests and the women priests lorded their authority (authentein)and superiority over men. They would do ritual slayings of men where it was acted out, but some of the priestesses carried out an actual killing. Paul's prohibition on women having authority over men has to do with women coming out of Artemus worship into the church. He uses that word "authentein" there and no where else in the Bible is that Greek word used when speaking of authority. But we do find that word used in extrabiblical documents to describe how the Artemus priestesses behaved toward men. You have to look at how a word is used in multiple contexts in order to ascertain its meaning. Paul wanted no lording over or false teaching coming into the church and he was right-they needed to learn servant leadership and be taught solid Christian doctrine before they were qualified to teach anyone. The prohibition is situation specific not universal. Jesus even admonished his disciples(and us) that they were not to lord their authority over others. Oh and that next thing he addresses about bearing children, there was a Gnostic sect that held their women in common and if one became pregnant, the fetus was forcibly aborted and eaten to "release the light particles." For Gnostics the human body was an evil prison of the spirit and light inside. Paul had to impress upon women coming out of Gnosticism that bearing children was OK especially when God pronounced his creation of human beings to be "very good."

So Paul has high praise for women leaders in the early church like Priscilla, Phoebe, Junia and others. He also gives women instruction in 1 Cor. 11 about how to pray and prophesy in public. But then we come to a seeming contradiction in chapter 14-women be silent in church-go ask questions of your husbands at home. The section is noted by many scholars to be out of place--it doesn't match with the surrounding verses which are expounding about prophecy. Some say the section is an editorial insertion (the story of how we got our Bible in present form is truly amazing, go study that). But others argue that Paul was addressing a specific situation. The Corinthian church was plagued with many problems as anyone reading 1 Cor. can quickly ascertain. Historically, the early church had a lot of single women and widows, so they had no husbands to ask anything of. How then do we make sense of this troubling passage that seems to contradict chapter 11? Well, in that society women were second class citizens and considered men's property, while in the fledgling Christian church, their status was elevated and they were allowed to learn. Apparently it was like the proverbial kid in the candy store, these particular women were so eager to learn that they were obviously dominating the worship time with all their questions, and it was causing disorder. Remember just prior to the passage, Paul mentions that God is a God of order. That these verses are plunked down in the midst of a discussion of prophecy gives us a clue that Paul was addressing a specific situation that suddenly arose. Particularly since he immediately resumes his discussion of prophecy as if he had never stopped.

And one last topic--headship. When Paul uses the word head to describe man/women, husband/wife relationships he uses the word "kephale" meaning "source" hearkening back to the creation account. Had he wanted to maintain societal views of men and women he would have used the word "arche" for head which means over or ruler.

In his new book "Eat This Book," Eugene Peterson (author of The Message)says this: "How we read the Bible is as important as that we read it and it can get us into a lot of trouble if we don't do it rightly. An enormous amount of damage is done in the name of Christian living by bad Bible reading. That's why it's not sufficient to place a Bible in a person's hand with the command 'Read it." That's like putting a set of car keys into an adolescent's hand, giving him a Honda, and saying 'Drive it.' and just as dangerous...The danger is that, having our hands on a piece of technology [and print is technology], we can use the Word ignorantly, harming our lives and the lives of those around us, or that, intoxicated with the power that the technology gives us, we will use it ruthlessly and violently. We pick up a Bible and find that we have God's Word in our hands-our hands. We can now handle it. It is easy enough to suppose that we are in control of it, that we can use it, that we are in charge of applying it wherever, whenever, and to whomever we wish without regard to appropriateness or conditions."

Recall in Luke the scholar who tried to trip up Jesus by asking Him what seemed to be a perfectly legitimate question-"What must I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus answers with the question "How do you read this" rather than "What have you just read?" As Peterson noted there was nothing wrong with the scholar's knowledge of Scripture, but something terribly wrong in the way that he read it, i.e. the HOW of his reading.

Of course I'll pray for you, Derrick, and I thank you that you are willing to pray for me. I would ask you to trust that God's will IS being done in and through my life, though it's quite obvious from your words that you don't believe it is.

I don't seek God's will in a vacuum. I am a part of a vital, God-honoring congregation of men and women who also seek God's will. Through our study and worship and fellowship together, we are community, with Christ as our Head. We discern together how God is leading us, individually and as a church.

It could almost be amusing how many times I've read men who blithely tell women that if they'd just read the Bible, they'd realize that it's not God calling them, it's just their "own will." No, it is not. Left to my own will, I'd please myself. No way this introverted lover of books would step outsider he comfort zone. But due in large part to my love of THE Book, I engaged in exhaustive study to "prove" to God and to myself that God couldn't possibly be calling me to a ministry of leadership in the church. The trouble is, God didn't stop calling, and the Bible ripped away every self-serving excuse I tried to manufacture, all based on the tradition that "women can't be leaders in the church because the bible says so." No, it does not. It gives us all, men as well as women, many examples of men and women who led God's people through the ages, men and women who dared to say yes to God. Holy Scripture gives us many illustrations and principles and examples, some general, some using men as to illustrate, and some using women, to show us what faithful, holy living and faithful service to the church looks like. It's all there for ALL of us, without the pink and blue boundaries worldly traditions have tried to impose upon it. God doesn't honor those boundaries. Rather, God speaks through the very pages of the Scriptures, challenging any and all willing to admit they don't know it all already, willing to humble themselves to the will of God. I say again, it's high time we looked more carefully to our own obedience than to falsely telling others their obedience is sinful.

"I feel the word of God is clear on the subject of men only being pastors." Derrick

so what? the word of God is clear on scores of things North American Christians choose to ignore in the comfort of our suburban megachurches; let's talk about America's worship at the shrine of capitalism and materialism - let's find out how clear Scripture is on that?

Why is it we never hear debates over questions of context on Jesus' teaching regarding treatment of the impoverished and disenfranchised? It's b/c we want to placate our guilt by arguing over bogus "crucial" issues like this man/woman thing. As if 2,000+ years of church history has settled anything in that regard.

My God, how arrogant can we be?

I just viewed Mark Driscoll's YouTube video and was highly offended by his filming of this video in a military cemetery. I am from a military family, and this shameless exploitation of "sacred ground" should not have been used for his misguided, misogynistic, fundamentalist views of of church planting and leadership. The sooner that the women at Mars Hill Church reclaim their brain cells and realize the distortion Driscoll's interpretaion of Scripture, the sooner his influence will dwindle. And in my opinion, that day cannot come too soon. Truth and Love will win out.

"My God, how arrogant can we be?" Nice Blasphemy there canucklehead...

I previously asked for at least one verse that would override 1Cr 11:3. Instead of a verse I notice emotions and pride.

Another challenge that I garauntee will not be found to be contradicting anywhere else in THE BIBLE... 1Cr 14:34 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.

Why are you as "bible believing christians", not taking this verse to mean that women are to be silent in the churches, let alone attaining a pastoral position?

I pray there is at least one that is persuaded with truth through the scriptures and love considering these verses.

I mean come on guys... if we cant agree on this one...

What's to "override," Chad? A wife is her husband's metaphorical body, just as he is her metaphorical head. They're one, indivisible. And what an elegant play on words! As in Greek (but less frequently used in English), "head" in English can mean "source," as in "head" of a river. Christ is the source of us all (not only men). So we have both the head+body metaphor, as well as the source metaphor, in the one "disembodied" verse you pointed.

What is the contextual purpose of 1 Cor. 11? To provide for order in worship. How remarkable that you disembody 1 Cor. 14:34 and claim that women must be silent in worship, when 1 Cor. 11:5-16 gives distinct instruction that women, like men, must attire themselves appropriately when they pray and prophesy in worship.

You've illustrated perfectly the danger of prooftexting extrabiblical traditions. You ignore the context of the verses you claim support your preference (in this case, for women to consider themselves subservient to men and for women to keep silent in worship), when the contexts show such preferences to be decidely non-biblical.

Chad,as Mary has pointed out if you interpret 1 Cor 14 to mean a woman must always be silent in church then you make it contradict 1 Cor 11 where Paul is allowing women to pray and prophesy. If you look at the context of 1 Cor 14:38 the section is about ensuring that the meetings were orderly. You will also see that the women are told not just to be silent but to ask their questions at home. Given the surrounding context, the most obvious meaning - and one which doesn't contradict Paul's earlier statements in 1 Cor 11 - is that the women are disrupting the service by asking questions that are inappropriate. Hence the instruction to ask them at home. Possibly they are questioning their husbands during the meeting or asking questions of others. However the behaviour is disruptive and disgraceful. The word that is translated disgraceful can have the sense of going against custom and so bringing shame - presumably in this case to their husbands.

It is then simply an instruction for the women to stop acting in a way that is disruptive in the meeting and brings shame. It is not an instruction for women to be silent at all times in church.

Mary,

You are obviously passionate about women and their roles in the church. I respect you for your convictions. When I read 1 Timothy 3, I read a list of requirements for eldership/pastorship that I believe the Lord intended for Men only. I grew up in a church full of women who were in leadership positions. I have a great deal of respect for what they did. Mostly, the men were on their butts making their wives do the work. When I moved away and found a new church, I was shocked to find a place where men lead and men served by example. Marriages and families were transformed. People were flocking to this church because their was something "different". I think that difference was what people saw in our leaders. They saw the leaders of our church humbly living out 1 Timothy chapter 3. I believe whole heartedly that the downfall of the church in our culture is the lack of male leadership and accountability. That is what I think Driscoll is trying to change. That doesn't mean women don't have spiritual gifts, or that they aren't an integral part to the success of a church plant. He is saying that the only way we can succeed in the future is if men be the men that God has called them to be in the bible.

Amanda,
I read your post, and I can appreciate what you are saying from your experiences. I don't want to get into interpretations of the 1 Timothy verse because I think it has been addressed very effectively above. However, I can see some flaws in the logic you come to as a result of your experiences. You saw female leadership handled ineffectively, and you then saw male leadership handled effectively. You then drew the conclusion that female leadership is always ineffective and that leadership should always be male. Those conclusions are not the only options here. There is still the option that humble, God-ordained female leadership is effective, just as humble, God-ordained male leadership is effective. For instance, if you were to be true to your conclusions, you would rise up against the leadership structure in my church in which we have five humble God-ordained male pastors and one humble God-ordained female pastor. You would (I'm assuming) deny God's calling on our female pastor and disallow her from following the purposes God has for her. This would deprive the people of our church the blessing of how God is using her. The fact that our culture has a need for male leadership and accountability does not negate the fact that God uses women as well as men in a variety of positions, including church leadership, for His benefit and glory. I think Christians need to be very careful when they stand in the way of a person following their true calling from God.

What I'm passionate about, Rob, is for God's people to be free from this world's restraints, including the patriarchy so many read into Scripture, to obey God's callings. Men, women, children...all must be free in Jesus Christ to obey God! It's really not difficult, except when people who don't even know them and aren't even part of their churches deny God the right to call and equip them as God chooses. 1 Timothy 3 in no way requires that elders be men, only that elders be people of inimpeachable character and maturity in Jesus Christ. I really do think it's time for people to stop remaking the Bible's descriptions and examples into "pink vs. blue" rules that deceive women into thinking that God never calls women to congregational leadership. God does, often, and hasn't yet ceased to do so simply because people are, despite the scriptural and historical evidence, saying otherwise.

But then, we know from God's observation to the woman in Genesis 3, as well as plentiful biblical narrative, that men WILL seek to rule and control women and women will turn to them anyway. What's so sad about it is that we settle for the full effects of the sinful fall, yet we're offered new life in the freedom of Jesus Christ. We can do all that God calls us to do, whether we're men or women. Forcing unbiblical restrictions onto women, such as refusing to allow them to pursue God's calling to church leadership, will in no way force heedless men to somehow fill a leadership gap. If a man is willing to lead only if he can do so in a male-only leadership system, then just how obedient is he really being? Is that truly the picture of the mature, godly elder Paul portrays to Timothy?

its so funny to me to read the arguments of the patriarchs. why does it always come down to "well I READ the Bible in plain and simple English and you just need to PRAY more to stop sinning and leading people astray by preaching the gospel!" its really quite funny in a ironic sort of way, that the arguments have to end there instead of engaging in the text. but anyway....

I had to comment on the "feminism has destroyed society" comment. It so makes me laugh. its a thought based on fear and completely missing the point and viewing everything in a vacuum. What exactly do you hate about feminism sir? do you hate the fact women can vote? would you prefer that women could not hold jobs, inherit property? would you like to make it illegal for women to work outside the home? would you like a Victorian ideal of a house bound sexless angel? Just curious. If you want to read an interesting societal commentary of the day, try reading some Ibsen.

I can also only assume the feminist destroying society comment is directed toward abortion, which it usually is. The fact is the early feminists saw abortion as an abomination against women and children and a failure of society that women would feel the need to end their children's lives. The problem that I see with the prolife movement is the focus on guilting the mother out of ending her pregnancy, when its so much more than that. it requires internal change of many collegiate universities to have a parenting friendly/don'tloseyourscholarshipifyougetpregnant campus. It requires real social support. it requires the incredibly conservative Christian college community to not expel their pregnant young women and making it known if they do get pregnant, their schooling will not end. It requires Christians actually putting their love into action and grace overriding sin.
but we seem to be a FAR way away from that if we can't even recognize women as people.

After viewing Driscoll's attempt to impress us with his vulgar video presentation, it frightens me even more that this man has a church with a huge percentage of college-educated women falling for his bravado. If you listen to him closely, there is something much deeper and deadly going on in this man. He has a deep hatred for women that is glaring. His wife needs prayer. I hope that this video will expose him for who he really is--a self-made, self-appointed, pompous, profane pastor.

Mary...you said
"But then, we know from God's observation to the woman in Genesis 3, as well as plentiful biblical narrative, that men WILL seek to rule and control women and women will turn to them anyway."

Could you please explain this?

Thanks

@ All,
I may have this discussion a bit confused, it may be because I do not have complete understanding of ALL truth. So I would like to bring up the main point our lord was driving home. The gospel/good news of the coming kingdom of GOD/Heaven/Judgement. I think that this is the MOST important understanding we should have considering if we do not understand the kingdom then we will not enter into it on Christs return.

This may sound a bit cliche... but this is the purpose of my life... to preach the kingdom to every creature on earth.

cheers,
chad

Sure. God told the woman that the man would rule over (dominate) her and she would turn to him regardless. The Bible is full of examples of this sin.

Jesus loves the little nut jobs
All the little nut jobs in the world
Red, Yellow, Black and White
They are precious in His sight
Jesus loves the little nut jobs of the world!

Pastor Driscoll - Jesus loves the nut jobs of the world. Can you?

Mary...with respect, I do not understand what it is that you are saying. Could you try and expalin further?

Thanks

Yes, it is important never to compromise on the gospel, that Jesus came and died for our sins once and for all, so that we can come back into relationship with God. However, every generation has its battlefield, where the line is drawn on an issue and compromising on it – means compromising on God’s word. One of today’s big issues is women teaching in mixed congregations, and now homosexuals being ordained (I lump these two together since the same arguments are being used for both).
As someone stated, the ideal was Genesis – God gave man the authority to teach woman, and both had authority over nature. The problem of course occurred when the Serpent convinced Eve to convince Adam to sin, and Adam was too weak to stand up for God’s word. What we see here is the reverse of the natural order instituted by God.
Which leads us to Eve’s curse – she will desire to rule over man – yet man will rule her.
God has used examples of fallen people, he has used calamities for his purpose, murderers, prostitutes, pagan kingdoms and so on – this doesn’t justify their sin, but rather demonstrates God’s providence. So too Deborah, asks Barak hasn’t God commanded him to lead – she is a reluctant leader, not a model of the Kingship that we see in the Old Testament, or that demonstrated by Jesus, and the ‘male’ apostles.
So too Paul is explicit, about man’s headship 1 Tim 2:12 not allowing a woman to teach or have authority over man, quoting the Genesis ideal to justify his position. He goes on to be explicit about the elders being male. This does not mean that women are second class citizens, they are equal heirs but have different roles in church. Paul also commands Titus to teach the older women to teach the younger women to love their husbands, 1 Peter 3, talks about wives submitting to their husbands – how can this occur if she is ‘pasturing’ and in authority over her husband.
Good on Mark Driscoll for staying true to God’s word, despite the fact that God’s word can be a stench to the non-Christian. Paul too kicked heads when writing to the Galatians and Corinthians, Jesus too spoke harshly to the hypocrites, and tore up the marketplace in the temple, would you believe it, Jesus and Paul also came under criticism for staying true to God’s word.
We too have our own Driscolls here in Australia – and guess what – when you preach God’s word in an uncompromising manner, the church grows – our society needs to hear God’s word, not some white washed politically correct version. It’s funny how the third world is picking up this uncompromising gospel, whereas we in the west don’t want a Jesus who will come back and judge. Please don’t water down God’s precious words.

Matthew 5:22 NASB
But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother ,"Raca (meaning empty headed or good for nothing)shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever shall say "You fool," shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.

I know that Pastor Driscoll did not call anyone a fool. But the name calling he does do in this video equates to calling people fools. I pray that he understands that this is not Christ like behavior.

Andre,

It appears that you are calling those who disagree with you "hypocrites". Am I understanding you correctly? Name calling does not glorify God.

You have an enormous amount of hostility towards those who don't agree with you on the woman issue. There are others with similar conservative views on womanhood who don't have the same hostility you do. Are you sure your hostility is serving the purposes of God. You might want to rethink your anger and what purpose it serves. In my case, your anger has served to turn me off to you.

To the gentlemen on this forum who have tried to convince us of the importance of male dominion over women - I want to share the following verses:

Luke 14: 7-10
7When he noticed how the guests picked the places of honor at the table, he told them this parable:

8"When someone invites you to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, for a person more distinguished than you may have been invited.

9If so, the host who invited both of you will come and say to you, 'Give this man your seat.' Then, humiliated, you will have to take the least important place.

10But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, 'Friend, move up to a better place.' Then you will be honored in the presence of all your fellow guests.

Mark 9:33-35
33(V)They came to Capernaum; and when He was in (W)the house, He began to question them, "What were you discussing on the way?"

34But they kept silent, for on the way (X)they had discussed with one another which of them was the greatest.

35Sitting down, He called the twelve and said to them, "(Y)If anyone wants to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all."

Gentlemen - serving Christ is not about having authority over women. It's about taking the last place, and being willing to serve others.

Here's a great verse that summarizes what it means to be a follower of Christ:

35(AG)James and John, the two sons of Zebedee, came up to Jesus, saying, "Teacher, we want You to do for us whatever we ask of You."

36And He said to them, "What do you want Me to do for you?"

37They said to Him, "Grant that we (AH)may sit, one on Your right and one on Your left, in Your glory."

38But Jesus said to them, "You do not know what you are asking. Are you able (AI)to drink the cup that I drink, or (AJ)to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?"

39They said to Him, "We are able." And Jesus said to them, "The cup that I drink (AK)you shall drink; and you shall be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized.

40"But to sit on My right or on My left, this is not Mine to give; (AL)but it is for those for whom it has been prepared."

41(AM)Hearing this, the ten began to feel indignant with James and John.

42Calling them to Himself, Jesus said to them, "You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them.

43"But it is not this way among you, (AN)but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant;

44and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all.

45"For even the Son of Man (AO)did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

The heart of Christianity is not about having authority, but about being a servant.

And one more verse from Jesus:

Matthew 5: 5
Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.

If you want to serve Jesus, find out what he means by "meek."

God knew that the man would seek to dominate the woman, and she would turn to the man even though he would dominate her. Nowhere in Scripture is this called a good thing, yet we have example after example of men dominating women in Scripture. As with so many other aspects of human existence, the Bible shines an uncompromising light on our sinful behavior and shows us the more excellent way that we ought to be living instead. No matter how prettified the term by which we name this practice, human beings seeking to lord over other human beings are sinful. That goes for the practice of patriarchy, which though it is described in many Scripture narratives, is never commanded or prescribed for those who profess to follow Jesus Christ. Even today, we have people glorifying patriarchy and portraying it as a Christian practice, when in fact it is the practice of men dominating women. No amount of "baptizing" a such a sinful thing makes it holy. And so today, we have women falling for the lie that tells them patriarchy is godly and good for them. It's good for no one, least of all the men who may think it benefits them. It tells a sinful world that the church is little different from their own practices. It tells them that Christians require women to be subservient to men simply because they're women. It tells them that men are fit to rule over women simply because they're men. Sinful this world may be, but not stupid. Men know deep inside themselves that they're no more inherently fit to rule than women are, and women know that they're no less inherently fit to rule than men are. The real evidence of genuine Christian discipleship is when we do as we ARE commanded in Scripture: love one another, subject ourselves to one another, respect one another, defer to one another. That's when we're actually behaving differently than the world does; that's when they'll see our actions matching our stated beliefs.

Andre, you've got so much wrong about the Genesis 2-3 narrative that it's difficult to know what to address, and I really don't see much evidence that you're especially interested in getting it right.

First of all, the man and the woman were TOGETHER when they sinned. "Her husband, who was with her" is how we know this.

The man was never given "authority to teach the woman," for this is never stated or implied or otherwise communicated to us in the text.

The woman is never said to have "convinced the man to sin."

The man's sin is not that he was "too weak," the man's sin was the same as the woman's: disobedience to God's command. He compounded his sin by blaming his sin on the woman's very existence, which he further blamed on God. For her part, the woman compounded her sin by blaming the serpent for her disobedience.

The text never claims that the woman "desired to rule over the man." It says that her desire would be for her husband, literally, that she would "turn to" him. And note that the man (and subsequent generations of men) was never commanded to rule over the woman. The "turning to" the man and the ruling/dominating the woman, are both sin. God never calls either behavior good. God showed us that the woman will look to the man, rather than God, as ruler; the man will usurp God's place and presume to rule over the woman. Both were, and are, sin.

Skipping to your NT prooftexts, note that one who pastors is never said to be "authorities over" those whom God calls them to pastor. To claim otherwise is to have a grossly distorted understanding of the shepherd's service to the flock. Just as wives are told to submit themselves to their husbands, so ALL believers (including said husbands) are to submit themselves to one another out of reverence for Christ. To refuse to submit to another believer, in effect, is to demonstrate disrepect to the Lord who came among us not to be served, but to serve.

I refuse to compromise on that. No one of us is greater than our Master, the Lord who bought us each and all at the highest possible price. He gives none of us the license to usurp his place in our fellow believers' lives, no matter what the likes of Mark Driscoll say. He in no way taught us to institute a hierarchy of "authority"--actually, a worldly kind of religiously correct power game--in which men rule over women. Just because the church has largely accepted this sinful model for centuries, and been impoverished because of it, does not make it God's will. Scripture shows us very clearly that it is not to be so among us.

If there are any of you that are really hungry to learn something new, different, refreshing rather then just argue old points of view there are really great websites that you can go to and read article after article, written by learned teachers who have researched scripture and history to gain a knowledge and understanding of what Biblical Equality is about: cbeinternational.org. is one of many. The humble and right spirit that is presented there is indeed refreshing. So many of you have humbly and graciously labored in this blog post to try and point the way to thinking in terms of biblical equality. It is a much needed voice in the church today and I believe that for the church to move forward into this new era we must be willing to let go of some very old - celebrated - ideas that we have put up to high on pedestals.
When the church makes a move into new territory it scares the heck out of those who for some reason feel that they must defend the old traditions. Jesus was a BIG controversy in His day. He challenged their world in a way that was not appreciated by the religious leaders of the day. The Pharisees had no regard for him because he was "out of the box". He was a radical thinker and doer. He could never convince the Pharisees of their error (or to admit their error) because they were too protective of the "truth" as they saw it - and yet the Truth stood their right among them - and showed them how to live the truth. Jesus broke down every barrier and wall that they had worked so hard to erect. When He went against their system - they hated him.
My observations of this Blog post is that each side is trying to convince the other side that they are right. Neither side is willing to give an inch. Many that are now Egalitarian thinkers once were in the Patriarchal camp and they still love and serve God with all their hearts - they have been changed and see scripture in a new light and quite frankly they are not going to walk back to the hierarchal way of thinking. They've come away from the old.
So the old school side (hierarchalists) say things about their brothers and sisters in the new school (egalitarians) like
- you are washing down the word
- you’re adopting cultural thinking
- this thinking is a kin to homosexuality
- this is slippery slope into the world and all its evil ways
and so on all the time indicating that somehow we have lossed the way, the truth and the life - when we believe that we have never been so alive and excited about the possiblities within God's Kingdom when we are all operating with in the Holy Spirits gifts and calling.

To those of you that are of the Hierarchal mindset - Don't you ever just wonder about what God meant when.(you fill it in)...in the Bible. Or what about that very gifted woman that you know. Maybe she should be exercising that gift? She might teach the men something too!
Don't you just wonder, on occasion about those things that don't fit into the neat little package no matter how hard we try to shove them in there. Or is the Bible always about absolutes in your mind. Does it always have a pat answer for everything?
If you've lived awhile; been in a marriage or serious relationship,owned your own business, had a few kids, seen a loved one suffer or lost a loved one; suddenly the Bible's very precise, systematic answers are NOT anymore. Do you wonder and ask God - Why? - What did you mean when....? Do you think to yourself - maybe I don't know it ALL and there's room for my thinking to be changed.

I hope so.

Some people here have said that the Bible says this or Genesis says that. But it's hard to know what they are referring to. Perhaps from now on if anyone says something is in the Bible they should put the scripture in their post. That's what I do. Put the precise scripture and it's reference. Then others can check it out for themselves.

Preach it, KarenT!!

Teach it, JAP!

Thump the pulpit if you need to, Mary!

It's no wonder that so many churches...in particular those LED BY WOMEN, have fallen in to gross sexual immorality and the condoning of sin and idolatry at all levels (some led by men too but that's another apostasy)... (Deborah was raised up because of the male being emasculated and following what the Lord called him to do)... WOMEN in charge is a sign of judgment and wrath ...read the word (all of it, not the buffet style pick and choose the verse I like), Believe and LIVE (as opposed to staying in blind dead sin which leads to hell).

For it was EVE THAT WAS DECEIVED, not Adam...

Run from the deception ladies, look at your broke homes, your corrupt children, the monsters and evil you have brought on your communities and REPENT!!!

Bill Hybels!!! man thats rich for Mr Starbuck Church to be running is mouth off about Mark..If Bill's being neagtive about something that implies it must be solid hilarious

Donaa,

I attended a church pastored by a woman for many years. Some of the elders were women. There were many men in that church. The church never fell into any type of sin.

Now I go to a church with a male pastor, but several female elders. There are many men in this church also. And this church also has not fallen into sin.

Where are these churches pastored by women that have fallen into sin. I've never heard of any or known of any.

Sorry for the triple posts above everyone!

Andy,

Bill Hybels didn't say anything bad about Mark Driscoll. Evidentally after Mark's video was shown Bill Hybels gave his message. At the beginning of his message he said a sentence or two about women's talents being involved in church planting or something like that. Follow this link to see what tallskinnykiwi has to say about the situation. He was actually there and heard the remark.

http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com/tallskinnykiwi/2007/05/mark_driscoll_a.html

Andre said:

So too Paul is explicit, about man’s headship 1 Tim 2:12 not allowing a woman to teach or have authority over man, quoting the Genesis ideal to justify his position. He goes on to be explicit about the elders being male. This does not mean that women are second class citizens, they are equal heirs but have different roles in church.

ACTUALLY THIS DOES MAKE A WOMAN A SECOND CLASS CITIZEN!! If one class of citizens has authority over another - the ones that are under the authority are second class citizens.

I don't understand why those churches that teach that men have authority over women in the home, church and sometimes society just don't admit that this makes women second class citizens.

If you have more power because you are a male rather than a female, you are a first class citizen. Women are second class citizens because they have less power. That's the definition of what a second class citizen is - you have less power. If the church is going to teach that men have authority that women don't they also need to teach that women are second class citizens.

That doesn't mean that women's work is less valuable. It just means they don't have as many rights as men do, and as such are second class citizens.

If a church really believes that only men are allowed to have authority and/or teach mixed groups - the church should encourage women who have these gifts to take them outside the church. Since they won't be allowed to use their gifts in the church, the church should re-direct them to places where they will be allowed to use them.

Women who have the gift of leading and/or teaching mixed groups need somewhere to express these gifts. If the church won't allow them to express them there, they should express them someplace else. I don't mean they should leave their churches, but rather that they should do their volunteer work outside of their churches in organizations that don't put restrictions on them. A woman can serve the Lord just as much outside the church as inside the church. In fact, she can serve the Lord better outside the church if she has the gift of leading/teaching mixed groups. This way these talented women won't have the gifts God gave them wasted.

To those ladies who have the gift of leading and/or teaching mixed groups,

If your church tries to redirect you from using your gift of teaching and leading mixed groups to only teaching and leading women's groups - you really ought to take your talents elsewhere because they are not letting you use all of your giftedness.

JAP,
You talk as if the church is a building...

By reading the above posts, one could conclude that those for women in positions of leadership are using emotion as their measurement tool. I urge you to read all the posts again, and notice how many times those of us who view scripture as being against women in leadership roles and base our belief on scripture are responded to with posts that are vitriolic and insinuate that we were trying to somehow attack their ministry. We were just trying to have a rational discussion based on the scriptures, and we are told that we are questioning their "experiences" and "God's calling" on their life. How can you have a logic and Bible based debate when your dealing with that type of emotion based thinking. For those of us who see what the Bible clearly says on this issue with God given common sense we might as well stop trying to prove our point here in this post. Logic and emotion are two different thought patterns. One warning to all. If you try to discern the word of God with just emotion, you risk encountering verses that will sting unless you find a way to twist it to your liking. Their will always be men who want to keep women down for discriminating reasons which is wrong, the men (and women) who have posted here and do not agree with women in positions of leadership are not that way, they just want to obey the word of God, whether it fits in with their emotions and feelings or not. Nevertheless, I pray for all of you and I hope you'll do the same for me. Regardless of our disagreements, all glory, honor and praise to God our father and Jesus Christ our Lord!!

If a woman is under her husband's authority, wouldn't it better for women not to marry at all? She would have a much better life being single where she is able to have control of her own life.

Brock,

I'm talking about the church as if it's a local congregation.

Derrick,

As for your remark:

By reading the above posts, one could conclude that those for women in positions of leadership are using emotion as their measurement tool.

I totally disagree with this statement of yours. I feel you are absolutely wrong in your opinion on this.

JAP,
I humbly point out that you just illustrated my point. To quote:

"I totally disagree with this statement of yours. I FEEL you are absolutely wrong in your opinion of this"

Emotion based thinking is all about feeling, experiences. And when your depending upon how your feeling or what you have experienced
it is all subjective, it's a false truth that continuously changes shape. As Christians I hope we all agree that the only truth lies in God and the word of God. If you don't agree with my assesment of the above posts, please show me with scripture or facts/examples from the above post. Anyways, I truly pray for the Lord's will to be done in all the particpants who posted on this subject lives as well as mine. Let's all thank the Lord for being in a country where we are free to worship Him and let's pray for our brothers and sisters in Christ who are facing persecution in other countries.
God bless,
Derrick

Any and everyone...could we agree on that from the bible we see that the husband is to take the head or lead role in the family. Not that his role is any more important but just different in the way our God has designed family structure. Can I get an Amen or not?

Brock wrote:

'could we agree on that from the bible we see that the husband is to take the head or lead role in the family'

I don't see the Bible teaching this. There are two instances where the husband is described as the head of the wife. Is Paul describing the way things were in the 1st century or the way things should be. Certainly the first, but I don't see any evidence for the second.

Secondly what does 'head' mean? Possibly authority in Ephesians 5 but again I would see that as describing the way things were then, not how they should be forever. In 1 Cor 11 what is on view is shame and honour. Paul establishes that everyone has a 'head' and they should bring honour to their head. Here the meaning of prominent would fit better for 'head'. the only place authority is mentioned in that passage is in verse 10 and there, as has been pointed out earlier, it is the wife's authority - unless you want to translate the Greek construction differently to the way it is translated everywhere else in the New Testament.

Finally, nowhere in the NT is the husband instructed to lead his wife nor is he told that he has authority over her. Even when it is obvious from the text that women are causing problems (eg 1 Cor 11, 14) there are no instructions to the husbands to make sure that their wives change their behaviour. If male leadership is so important why isn't it mentioned. Do you really think that there were no husbands in the 1st century who allowed their wifes to run the family? Has human nature really changed that much in the last 2000 years?

By the way, I used to hold the complementarian view - being in Sydney what else did I hear? I changed my views on this because the arguments for the view became less convincing the closer I looked at them and seemed to be making too many assumptions about the passages and so distorting them.

Donaa - I too, along with JAP, am curious to read the names and locals of these churches that have fallen into deep and gross sin on account of women leadership. Could you also please quote the place in scripture where by you make this comment:

"WOMEN in charge is a sign of judgment and wrath ...read the word "

I don't believe I've ever seen that on the buffet table in my bible but I would like to take a closer look if it is in fact there.

and your final quote
"Run from the deception ladies, look at your broke homes, your corrupt children, the monsters and evil you have brought on your communities and REPENT!!!"

Wow - at the risk of getting all emotional I feel - or should I say I discern - that there is something else going on here. We are not talking about radical secular feminism when we claim that men and women are to share in the giftings of the Holy Spirit and have equal status. I know that when the Holy Spirit gifts a person it is not a man's place, or a womans duty, to deny them that honor and responsiblity based on their gender.
The debate over "one ruling over another" within the races, classes, and sexes is something that needs to be reconciled because it doesn't allow us to fully operate in submission one to another. It doesn't allow us to esteem the other more highly then we do ourselves. Its difficult for the two attitudes to coexist within a spiritfilled Christian and the Church.
Goodnight!

Can't give an amen to that, because that's not scriptural. A husband is called, metaphorically, the head of his wife, while she is referred to as the body--they're one flesh. He's never called her leader, her priest, her commander, her boss, her captain, her chief, or any other similar term for one very good reason: he's her "kephale," not her "arche." Just because we modern English-speakers read "head" and gloss over the context in order to conclude that it means "leader," doesn't make "kephale" mean leader."

So sorry, Derrick, but your "emotionalism" theory is pure bunk. I believe that women who are called by God to congregational leadership, must obey that God. Scripture provides no excuse for such disobedience, and I find both examples of female church leaders as well as a strong foundation for women to serve in church leadership, laid out for us clearly in Scripture.

It's an all-too-common sign of having no solid refutation when one must resort to accusations such as "emotionalism" toward those with whom one disagrees. Having held both opinions and having been convinced by solid study of the Scriptures, I don't find it at all surprising that the best some can come up with is the false accusation of "emotionalism." While I may feel certain emotions over the callous disregard of both women and the will of God on this issue by those who refuse to acknowledge God's prerogative to call women to church leadership, those emotions are not what brought me to or keeps me convinced of the biblical soundness of my position. God alone, speaking through the Scriptures themselves, did that.

Oh, and I recall reading the following recently in this series of comments:

"I feel the word of God is clear on the subject of men only being pastors." [Derrick]

So, what's up with this:

Emotion based thinking is all about feeling, experiences. And when your (sic) depending upon how your feeling or what you have experienced
it is all subjective, it's a false truth that continuously changes shape." [Derrick, responding to JAP's quote, "I totally disagree with this statement of yours. I FEEL you are absolutely wrong in your op"inion of this."]

Or is Derrick the only person permitted to base his argument on "feeling"? Though I must agree to a certain extent: Only by "feeling" can one conclude that the Bible permits only men to be pastors.

Interesting, to say the least.

So, the people here that are taking the positon for women preachers would say that EPH. 5:20-24 was meant for them in that time and really does not apply to us today...is that correct?

(sigh--that HAS been addressed!)

No, Brock. The problem is that to many people, functionally their opinion that only women are to submit in marriage, shows them to disregard Eph. 5:21 when it comes to husbands. They also ignore the actual meaning of "kephale" (head) when they wrongly insist that it means "leader" in this context. And they do violence to the text to rip it out of context like you've just done and then claim that it applies to men in general leading women in general. It does not. It is a part (again, context!) of Paul's radical answer to the hierarchical household codes of his day. Where they were all about the power and position of the paterfamilias, Paul shows that for those who revere Christ, they are to order their marriages and families according to the self-sacrificial love and submission of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 5 and the surrounding context have absolutely nothing to do with the qualifications of pastors. It continues to amaze me that people think so. Only by prooftexting to the contradiction of the text, can you make it say anything about women whom God calls to pastoral ministry.

mary...do not get impatient with I am trying to understand your position...

Mary...forget the pastor leader thing for a moment and tell me what you think from scripture what the role of the wife is in family seting.Also I see your point on the proof textnig Eph. 5 there and that was not what I was trying to do there I was getting at something else...So please forgive me on that...I know and see that this is not talking a about specifically church leadership.

Scripture doesn't assign "roles." People who prefer them, do.

Both husband and wife are called to be one flesh (a head and a body, inseparable, life-giving to each other), both in Christ submitting themselves to one another, both loving one another (as contextually the Scriptures require of us all). In no way is it assigning a "leadership role" to either husband or wife. It describes a unity into which each couple ought to be growing. Dividing them into a leader and a follower is silly and unscriptural.

Wow. Quite the debate. I'm not going to go into the debate of either side. But as a female I've always believed in the headship of my husband and of the male leaders of the church I attend and have attended all my life. The church I attend in Canada (a Reformed church) has always only had male pastors, elders and deacons. Over the past 50 years our churches have not faltered or lost members, we continue to grow. The men in leadership are well trained in exegesis and are humble (for the most part!). The women in our churches lead active lives within the congregation ..just not in 'leadership' roles. We head "Ladies Aid" which takes care of the physical needs of the congregation - the meals, visiting, etc .....I direct our choir and play piano for church services, we have women only bible studies, we do alot of work behind the scenes - heading up committees that "run" the church so to speak, and give aid to our husbands in leadership roles. Our roles are no less important, but we don't NEED to preach and teach over everyone. There's been no uprising, no discontent, nobody unhappy that women aren't in leadership roles. The women are content!
Also - I still believe after reading the arguments about headship, that my husband is head over me and our children. He doesn't "lord" it over me, he doesn't put me down or put me in a subservient role. Rather, we work together. BUT, if we have a disagreement and can't come to an agreement about something vital in our family, his decision will stand over what I want. And that is because as the church is subject to Christ, so I am subject to my husband. I'm not a doormat, and I don't get walked all over. Ours is a relationship of mutual respect - but yet, there is a certain headship that God has given man.
It's interesting that so many women on this forum are so adamant about their positions. I have to wonder ....what is it like in your marriage then? Is there not one person who makes final decisions? What happens when husband and wife are at an impasse? I don't think women need