I modified my last post btw, in answer to the O.P. My reasons are very similar to RK as I studied over this scripture for a very long time last year (gosh it might have even been before that) while in conversations on another forum. Because men are predominant authority still (in some churches) but mostly in society at large, I find that it is a man that has the power to place women in positions of leadership most of the time, and that this should be done in accordance with their God given gifts, abilities, education and character to build up the church and to glorify God. This is like a covering, and it is not a usurping. This was an original thought when looking at this scripture that might satisfy both parties..I would have to actually look up the conversations at this point to remember it all. I am not used to women Pastors, but I am not used to much any more. I know the Christians that are my friends are mainly women. We all have our own ministry (of reconciliation) in some form or fashion. It would be nice be in step with a church again at some point, just has not happened so far.
Incidentally, I've never gone to a church where men were the majority. There have been (and are) a lot of wives without their husbands.
I think it's a huge presumption that men can't or shouldn't learn biblical truth from women. I think that's my biggest hangup about the interpretation of "don't let women teach Scripture to men, ever". The hinting that we're somehow less intelligent and less able to understand Scripture properly, and that our husband's can't learn from us. In reality, my husband and I learn "God stuff" from one another all the time. Why would you rob a husband of benefitting from his wife's insight of Scripture? As far as not letting women have authority over men in church -- I honestly can't recall many instances where I've heard or read about women abusing authority in churches (and that's with women being the majority in attendance). My pastor growing up was a woman, and she did just fine. On the other hand, our news are rather full of men abusing their authority in our churches and ministries, on a national and even international news level. Evidently we're concerned about the wrong problem for the wrong reasons. Like worrying about crooked pictures on the wall while the house is on fire ...
Indeed. I have heard some use that label [Jezebel Spirit] to say something negative about a woman in authority without them actually doing anything bad except for being in authority.
As much as I appreciate all the commentary, I find it interesting that most of it is still attempting to interpret the passage in light of our experience and our expression of man/female relationships, instead of trying to understand exactly what instant threat that Timothy was dealing with in Ephesus that required Paul to give him some rather harsh instructions. We often start and the end, thinking that we are then going to work backward.
RK I fully agree with your understanding of that passage in light of the issues at the time historically. Still discussing as a whole isn't a bad thing to me. ???
I understand that, and in light of the background context, Paul's instructions make perfect sense. However, it seems, that nowadays they've taken on a life of their own, bereft of the original context. These days Paul's instructions might apply to churches elsewhere in the world that are dealing with female goddess-driven fertility cults (perhaps in India or other such cultures with many gods and goddesses similar to the Greek/Roman pantheon), but not in the American churches at large, where women in general are being kept on a leash that is entirely unnecessary, if not outright wrong. On that note, if Paul was writing to American churches today, he might have a thing or two to say about the celebrity culture that's invaded churches where we've elevated ministers to celebrity status and hang on every word they say and/or write, along with the love of fame and money that's led to a dire abuse of biblical financial principles and the sucking of funds from the hands of needy people, for the sake of self-enrichment of greedy "ministers of the gospel". For example -- and that's just the tip of the iceberg we're dealing with these days. Paul would have an absolute field day dealing with the brouhaha that calls itself "Christianity" in our country today.
Wikipedia actually has a good description of the views. They list three. Complementarianism - men and women have different but complementary roles and responsibilities in marriage, family life, religious leadership, and elsewhere . . . Complementarianism assigns primary leadership roles to men and support roles to women—based on their interpretation of certain biblical passages from a Complementarian perspective. One of its precepts is that while women may assist in the decision-making process, the ultimate authority for the decision is the purview of the male in marriage, courtship, and in the polity of churches subscribing to this view. Egalitarianism - maintains positions of authority and responsibility in marriage, religion, business, and elsewhere should be equally available to females as well as males. Male chauvinism - a generalized bias that in most situations men are of significantly greater value than women. Great description. Great distinctions. On the internet all sorts of repudiations of complementarianism are refuting male chauvinism. Category confusion is an easy logical fallacy. I've committed it many times myself.
And perhaps feminism is supposed to = egalitarianism? At least that is what I have heard from others.
Yes, Scooby. Great comment. I'd give you reps if we had them. So complementarians need to be careful not to slip into chauvinism and not read egalitarians as feminists. Egalitarians need to be careful not to slide into feminism and not read complementarians as chauvinists. One needs to read the most careful thinkers from both sides of the issue. Most importantly, we need to ask what does the Bible really mean, not what do I want it to mean.
This will be really quick, because I'm running for a meeting in a few minutes. And this is, if you will pardon the pun, off the top of my head. As a starter, I reject all the silly arguments about prostitutes and shaved heads and all that stuff. Paul never gives instructions to be concerned about what unbelievers are doing or thinking. 1. Paul clearly praises the Corinthians church for holding traditions he had taught them. He does not call these commands or ordinances. And he doesn't make any command here, not even one of those "This I say, not the Lord" type commands. 2. He wants to make it clear that there is a hierarchy based on creation, but that the heiracrchy begins with God the Father, then to Christ, then to man (as created first), then to woman (who was created for man. The hierarchy is not about quality but about respect for and submission. More on this later. 3. He further notes that IN CHRIST, neither is independent of the other. There is a good argument to hold that this means in marriage and not in general. We must also note that within marriage, Paul also says that husbands and wives are to be subject and in submission to one another (Ephesians) and that individual believers are to be in submission to one another. You can't argue "Woman, submit to MAN!!!!" from this passage without reconciling the truth contained, in even clearer terms, related to interdependence and mutual submissioin. 4. Paul argues for the need of a “covering” of some sort as a symbol of respect for authority, and he angels. 5. In vs. 15, Paul clearly states that a woman’s hair is a covering for her. Nothing ambiguous about v. 15. He has previously tied this back to creation, showing that, in essence, Eve’s hair was a recognition of her relationship to Adam… Eve certainly did not wear a hair net or burka or veil to show "submission". Paul just says that “womans long hair = covering” just as “man has short hair because he should not pray covered.” This is particularly seen in the earlier part of the passage in which Paul says “if she’s going to shave her head, then please cover it.” He never says that women have to wear two covers, (a) her hair and (b) something else. 6. Final verse: If you want to fight about it, you are wasting your time. Women having long hair is her covering, that’s what the churches practice. The real key is in verse 11, which many people want to ignore. This is consistent with Paul’s other teaching, I believe. It really has to do less with hats or doillies or veils than it does to do with the interdependence of all believers IN CHRIST. There are other positions that say otherwise. This is my 2 cents worth.
I would just add that it depends on the feminism in question. The feminism you hear about through the media (the crazy feminists in the 60s - 70s (e.g. Germain Greer, who is oddly rational about a lot of today's issues), and today with '3rd wave' / 'intersectional' feminism) = absolutely, but there are weaker forms that would be comfortable with complementarian thinking so long as women aren't considered lesser-than men for being different.
From what I gather those who use the term do so as a negative regarding these discussions, and that is probably where I go...huh? Or in my mind (I say to myself) Oh, I see, you do not wish women to have the same freedoms as men do. That would just be silly. When I think of feminism I think of women coming out of oppression and suppression they have been under for thousands of years.
'Feminist' is a pejorative in today's usage (unless you're on the Left, of course), given the invention of such things as 'micro-aggressions', intersectionality, etc. Feminism achieved it's goal, so what remains is an empty husk that has nothing to do other than invent offenses and grievances where none exist.
We played the flute for you and you did not dance; we sang the dirge for you and you did not mourn. Ecclesiastes is so correct ... nothing new under the sun.
Well, You both went over my head a little bit. I don't really have a problem with looking at my self to see if prejudices exist and if need to be addressed. That is maybe where the idea of micro-aggressions came from? First time I heard the term. (Or intersectionality) Thank you RK for your post on 1 Cor. 11.
I re-read what the two of you posted and I can say that I believe that it is love that is willing to walk in another shoes to understand the suffering. If there are some who feel the goals have fallen short, that is where they are. I know the problems I personally deal with can be overcome through God. I truly believe He does what He says: Ezekiel 21:26 All the trees of the forest will know that I the LORD bring down the tall tree and make the low tree grow tall. I dry up the green tree and make the dry tree flourish. "'I the LORD have spoken, and I will do it.'" So it is best to remain humble and grateful--regardless. Luke 14:11 For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”