Thanks Michael, for your informative session. A genuine question: how can we tell if the Bible is trying to assimilate the world and which part is not? P.s. I was raised in an egalitarian family that adopts the cultural reading of 1 Timothy. But I find it confusing to define which is cultural and which is not, in the Bible.
Thank you for this! I'm on this trajectory with you but can't quite get there as regards ordination. I suppose I really need to understand the biblical theology of ordination. Are there any resources you could recommend and could you give a brief (ha) history of ordination as it's now practiced in modern evangelicalism?
Love how having a daughter helped evolve your understanding- women, and men alike, are all people, not theories. 'Spiritual gifts dont come in pink or blue'- great point! It's refreshing to hear someone acknowledge reality. Thanks for sharing!
Contrary to the implication of many English translations, there is nothing in any of the gift/body passages in Rom. 12, 1 Cor. 12-14 and Eph. 4 that would limit any of the gifts, including apostle, prophet, teacher, evangelist, shepherd, leadership, governing, to one particular gender.
Thank you for sharing. I'm reading your book now. Have you heard of Gordon Hugenberger's hybrid Women in Ministry position? It's complementarian in the home, egalitarian in the church. I've found many haven't explored it. Do you have any opinions? He preached a five part series on it at Park Street church in Boston. They're all on RUclips. He also wrote some papers on it. He calls it the "marital view" or "cruciform view." Thanks for making this video. I'm adding it to my women in ministry playlist. - Jonathan
Given the reality that most early churches were house churches, it seems like it could get complicated. I don't think such a view makes the best sense of the household codes, esp. in light of the clear absence of hierarchy in the pre-Fall Creation accounts.
So complementarianism was the default position throughout church history with no female popes, bishops, or priests until the 20th century… but, it isn’t the plain reading of scripture? That seems bizarre to me.
So acceptable forms of slavery were the default position throughout church history, existed and were embraced well into the 19th century in most Christian countries...but it doesn't come from the plain reading of Scripture? That seems bizarre to me. It's bizarre because we messed up. If we got everything right all the time, God's kingdom would already be here. But it isn't--not fully. Not yet!
Hey Mike, I normally wouldn't engage in theological discussion on YT comments sections, but seeing as we met once upon a time at QTC (back in the Bruce Winter days?) I might make an exception. Thanks for your ministry at that time. My question is with respect to the final question you tackled. You responded only with respect to one understanding of complementarianism. Yet I doubt that you'd agree that the plain reading of Scripture has a 'default' complementarianism of any kind, even one which is limited to self-sacrificial headship within the family and church-family contexts. Would you be able to re-answer the question with a less '1950s America' complementarianism in mind?
Just out of interest, is it not speculation when it comes to saying which matters paul roots in nature are cultural, and which ones are perpetual principles?
Mr. Bird, I have struggled with this issue a while, and though my mind is open on it, there are still a couple problems that have prevented me from taking up egalitarianism. Though there are examples of female leadership in the Old Testament, in every case I can think of (like Deborah), it is done in reluctance and is typically a sign of judgement against the men. Leadership aside, scripture is clear about roles. Women, by plain physical nature ( they have breast) are expected to bring up the children and manage their homes. Ministry is incredibly taxing on a persons time. How can a woman manage her home and raise up God fearing children if her time is taken up caring for the church? In our modern times, we have become so hyper aware of potential bigotry, prejudice, masochism, and patriarchies, that anything that even remotely signals a potential disparity in equality is repugnant to us. It is for these reasons, that I think we truly want to see egalitarianism in scripture. Unfortunately, it’s just not biblical, and in EVERY case ( I know of) where a denomination or other organization took up egalitarianism, it was long before they started to ordain homosexuals. If the above is not enough, maybe this will be. Why, in over 2000 years of church history, do we not see women pastors until the 20th century? It seems like the argument for egalitarianism always goes back to cultural context ( since it can’t truly be made from scripture), which is then used to alter the meaning of a particular text. Strange though, we don’t hear anything about this from Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, or other fathers. Are we to believe, that we have a better understanding of ancient Greek and Hebrew culture than they did? With all due respect Mr. Bird, please explain
Hi Mohave, I'd say a few things: 1. Yes, biologically, women are wired to nurture children, but that does not exhaust their skills and gifting, and men should assist in the care of children. So the idea that women don't have time for children could just as well as apply to men. 2. Not all references to OT women leaders are due to male inactivity, sometimes God just uses women. 3. There are lots of women leaders in church history, from mothers to monasteries to missionaries to mystics. Many theologians too. 4. I think there are a lot of women leaders in Romans 16. The question is, why have we not had women in our churches leading like those mentioned in Romans 16 who Paul calls deacons, apostles, and co-workers. Hope that helps. Mike
@ER K I'd say, get over your pride. Scripture is abundantly clear on this. You don't think your boss is better than you, or has more worth, just because he/she is your boss. But if a man is charged with headship over the family, suddenly he is some patriarchal tyrant? I would caution you not to project your insecurities and narcissistic tendencies onto others. You/others can use word games, lawyer tricks, and all manner of hermeneutical gymnastics and it won’t change the fact that scripture is crystal clear on this issue. Having eyes to see and you do not see, still worse, you drag others into your deception.
@@earlychristianhistorywithm8684Sir, I am not making an argument against female leadership. I think history has given us many gifted female leaders. My argument is limited to the church and marriage specifically. We have no scriptural grounds to prohibit the exercise of female leadership outside of the church and marriage. I apologize for not being as clear as i should have been. You are a far more talented exegete than I am, and have probably forgotten more than I’ll ever know. Still, with respect, I think scripture is just not with you on this issue. I still enjoy and am edified greatly by your work in other areas.
@@ERK4Canada I did not mean to be rude earlier, nor do I desire to be so now, but I remind you, “For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.” Ephesians 5:23-25 Yes, we are co heirs and are equal before the father. What does any of that, have to do with headship? You can see scripture is very clear. I ask again, why do you not have a problem submitting to your boss ( female or male), but to submit to a husband suddenly makes you feel unequal? Why does this issue of equality, when specifically within the context of leadership, only seem to rear it’s head in marriage? With respect, this just seems like lawlessnes to me, and it marks a clear lack of respect for the authority of God's word.
What about Deborah in the ot and Miriam. There were mary, is thought of as an apostle to the apostles, and Junia was great amongst the apostle too. Lydia ran a church home 🏡 and the gospel should be shared by all of us to everyone 🩷💚🧡🩵💙❤️💛💜
If complementarianism is a social construct of post war modernity why have oldest Church’s (Catholic, Orthodox, Copt, etc.) excluded women from the priesthood from the beginning, and why did Anglicans only ordain its first woman priest in 1994? It seems that the sociological aspect is tilted toward a modern “feminist” reading altering the default state of men only since the beginning. Otherwise, we would have expected ordained women to be the norm much earlier in church history, and not a modern shift in some communions.
That what Michael is saying, Romans 16 says the *apostolic* tradition allowed women in levels of leadership. Junia an apostle and Phoebe a deacon Prisca a misonary and teacher and Lydia a leader of the first house church in Asia. Women were removed from leadership at the church became institutionalized in the 2-3 century (not positive about that but it sometime after the apostles) and when began to embrace Christianity at a government level. No longer on the fringes of society Christians began to organize more politically and within an already patriarchal society women were driven out of leadership. Complementarianism itself is a relatively new social construct by George Knight III as he reconstructed the argument against women’s leadership in the church. What was originally and historically called *patriarchy* a philosophical view that held women are altogether inferior to men , was nuanced into complementarianism that claims women are equal to men but God ordained to function in a subordinate role. Which ironically leads to the same conclusion of women’s inferiority. *Different but equal* is as much of an oxymoron for women as *separate but equal* is for people of color. Women’s inferiority was the dominate view in the organized Catholic Church. Women’s roles and stays has changed over the centuries and has been anything but consistent. How ever the apostles regard for women and their leadership has remain unchanged in the Bible for all times and many many women found their right to preach doing so quite eloquently and powerfully. There is also archeological evidence of women bishops and headstones with their leadership engrave on them in the times of the early church.
Because sexism is far older than complementarianism. In fact, complementarianism would’ve looked like a nice thing in comparison to the sexism of old. It’s a prettier, sneakier version
@@clopez6819 A really intertesting book to read is "The Hidden History of Women's Ordination" by Gary Macy. In digging through old manuscripts of church law and ceremonies, he finds many indications of women in high leadership roles (deaconesses, presbyters) in the church up to the ~10-11th century. Another intesting thing he looks at is how the meaning of ordination changed over time. It originally had a very wide meaning used for anyone taking any position to serve a church - a person could be ordained as door greeters. However in the 12th century a reformation that conslidated church power in the ordaination of preists and bishops together with the rediscovery of BC roman philosphy (e.g. aristotle and his low view of women) resulted in the church pushing women out of these leadership roles.
You're forgetting that the default state was before sin, not after. Prior to The Fall man and woman worked together on the same equal footing with no one but God as their leader. A product of sin was male hierarchy as is clear in Gen 3:16. It is the fallen state, not the default, and Christians should not be embracing the fallen world as Gods design of humanity.
Is it your position that it's merely a coincidence that Titus was dealing with the same 'local problems' in Crete that Timothy was in Ephesus? It seems to be a bit disingenuous to mention one without the other and assume it's merely local.
Some frequent ways to avoid the clear teaching of Scripture: Categorize the teaching as only dealing with that culture. A second way to dodge application is to categorize it as applying only to that local area. If a person ignores the historic teaching, interpretation, and application from the apostolic age until now, any difficult or burdensome interpretation and application can be avoided. Should this be the goal, or should living the historic faith, once for all handed down to the saints be the goal? (Jude 1:3)
The goal should be to imitate the Bereans. The goal should be to understand Scripture in order to follow it properly. The goal should be to recognize that the supposed "plain" and "clear" meanings of different passages conflict, and to find the best ways to harmonize them.
If the early church, and the NT itself bears witness to women in church leadership, then your argument is akin to saying we shouldn't have listened to Luther on justification. And v15 - women saved through childbirth - is not at all "clear" (for that plain reading would contradict salvation by faith alone) and so we ought to have enough hermeneutical humility to recognise that maybe the whole passage - to which that verse belongs - is not as "clear" as we might assume. Sometimes what seems "clear" is just our own assumptions brought to bear on a passage.
I'm also a "convert" from patriar... eh, "complementarianism," to use the PC term, and for me the initial nudge came from conflicts between the "plain sense" (in most translations) of 1 Tim. 2:11-12 vs. Acts 18:26, and 1 Cor. 11:5 vs. 14:34-35.
Maybe the easiest thing is to simplify houses of prayer. You have the pastor/priest/minister (male), baptize, preach. Woman be respected as our fathers daughters, and will be instrumental in our father in heaven. Just purely out of respect off the consequences from the fall. And the pattern of old testament ie, noah, moses, samual, Cyrus Jesus , his disciples, even paul, still chose 7 men to shepherd the flock . I do believe God uses women, absolutely 😊. But I'd rather play it safe, as it sit on my conscience far to much. As a complementrian. The consequence of the fall, 1 Job, satan up and down earth baing allowed to test one's faith, and then the part in revelation, the curse lifted in revelation 21. That is my conclusion, weighed heavily on my conscience. It's a very difficult one. maybe we should be striving for our relationship with Jesus, than chase after ordinations, leadership positions in church. The true church is in the one where the father has reveled the truth of the messiah to Simon Peter. Only god can check our hearts.
Would you say the same for people who are enslaved or trafficked? "They should strive to follow Jesus, not worry about becoming free from the control of others"? I know God can work and move in any situation, but surely as Christians we can do better? If history has taught us anything, it is that we can! Even though most women are not treated poorly by husbands or church leaders (though some are!), patriarchy is still patriarchy, just like slavery is still slavery--it's putting one human being above another indefinitely and immutably. I believe this grieves God's heart deeply.
It depends on what Paul's purpose was in citing that reference. You seem to be assuming his purpose was to universalize the instructions, but he doesn't say that.
@@johnygoodwin3441 That's an interesting spin on what I said. I think his point was probably along the lines of "Be careful to not be like Eve, who was misled." There may well also have been a refutation of some aspects of Asian Artemis worship, and/or early proto-Gnostic beliefs, both of which sometimes espoused female primacy. But my main point was that it is not at all clear that Paul's point in adducing the Creation narrative was to universalize his instructions -- especially given that 1:3 specifically points to situations in Ephesus, and that 2:8 seems to direct the only explicitly universal instruction to MEN.
@Norrin777Radd Based on Paul's two arguments from genesis I think it's very clear that he is stating a lot more than 'Eve was misled', you have conveniently ignored the bit where Paul says that 'Adam was formed first, then Eve'. God did that for a reason
Read the four gospels and the book of Romans very carefully. Make sure your translation does not write women out of the church by calling Phoebe a servant instead of a deacon. In Romans 16, Paul commends Phoebe, a deacon of the church of Cenchrae who was a prominent leader in the church. To commend means to be the letter’s courier and the one Paul sent to publicly read the letter of Romans in each house church in Rome. Prisca started early churches in her home. Make sure Junia, an Apostle (Romans 16:7) who was in prison with Paul and prominent among the Apostles has not been changed to Junias (a man’s name). Ten women are named as helping Paul form the early churches. Read Romans 12 and I Corinthians 12 where Paul talks about the gifts of the Spirit given to the church for the edification of the church. Each person should use those gifts in proportion to their faith. Paul never qualifies any of those gifts with gender. If there is a person regardless of their gender who has been given a spiritual gift and we do not allow that person to use it in proportion to their faith it is harming the church.
There is not really good support for women in ministry. Not in the OT and NT. You need to explain this interpretation and church tradition away violently.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks Mike, very helpful. Yet another reason not to stop a Romans sermon series after chapter 8?
Very helpful! Exploring and studying also church governance lately!
Very insightful- thank you so much!
Thanks Michael! I’m reading and enjoying your book now. Preaching on women in ministry as well (women in the kingdom). Your work is helping me.
My pleasure.
Thanks Mike!
Thanks Michael, for your informative session. A genuine question: how can we tell if the Bible is trying to assimilate the world and which part is not? P.s. I was raised in an egalitarian family that adopts the cultural reading of 1 Timothy. But I find it confusing to define which is cultural and which is not, in the Bible.
Can we have an answer to this please? :D
Thank you for this! I'm on this trajectory with you but can't quite get there as regards ordination. I suppose I really need to understand the biblical theology of ordination. Are there any resources you could recommend and could you give a brief (ha) history of ordination as it's now practiced in modern evangelicalism?
William Witts book Icons of Christ is stellar
Love how having a daughter helped evolve your understanding- women, and men alike, are all people, not theories. 'Spiritual gifts dont come in pink or blue'- great point! It's refreshing to hear someone acknowledge reality. Thanks for sharing!
Glad you liked it Lily!
Contrary to the implication of many English translations, there is nothing in any of the gift/body passages in Rom. 12, 1 Cor. 12-14 and Eph. 4 that would limit any of the gifts, including apostle, prophet, teacher, evangelist, shepherd, leadership, governing, to one particular gender.
Thank you for sharing. I'm reading your book now. Have you heard of Gordon Hugenberger's hybrid Women in Ministry position? It's complementarian in the home, egalitarian in the church. I've found many haven't explored it. Do you have any opinions? He preached a five part series on it at Park Street church in Boston. They're all on RUclips. He also wrote some papers on it. He calls it the "marital view" or "cruciform view." Thanks for making this video. I'm adding it to my women in ministry playlist. - Jonathan
Given the reality that most early churches were house churches, it seems like it could get complicated.
I don't think such a view makes the best sense of the household codes, esp. in light of the clear absence of hierarchy in the pre-Fall Creation accounts.
@@Norrin777Radd Thanks for your response to my response! Hadn't thought of the household church aspect. Will mull it over.
So complementarianism was the default position throughout church history with no female popes, bishops, or priests until the 20th century… but, it isn’t the plain reading of scripture? That seems bizarre to me.
Default position? No, biblical teaching? No, majority opinion? Yes.
The church has never supported egalitarian view . It has always been Patriarchal. It is the default poison. Read the church Fathers/ Pope's . 😊
So acceptable forms of slavery were the default position throughout church history, existed and were embraced well into the 19th century in most Christian countries...but it doesn't come from the plain reading of Scripture? That seems bizarre to me.
It's bizarre because we messed up. If we got everything right all the time, God's kingdom would already be here. But it isn't--not fully. Not yet!
Hey Mike, I normally wouldn't engage in theological discussion on YT comments sections, but seeing as we met once upon a time at QTC (back in the Bruce Winter days?) I might make an exception. Thanks for your ministry at that time.
My question is with respect to the final question you tackled. You responded only with respect to one understanding of complementarianism. Yet I doubt that you'd agree that the plain reading of Scripture has a 'default' complementarianism of any kind, even one which is limited to self-sacrificial headship within the family and church-family contexts.
Would you be able to re-answer the question with a less '1950s America' complementarianism in mind?
Just out of interest, is it not speculation when it comes to saying which matters paul roots in nature are cultural, and which ones are perpetual principles?
Well, that is what the debate is about? Is the discussion of head coverings in 1 Cor 11 cultural or creational?
Mr. Bird,
I have struggled with this issue a while, and though my mind is open on it, there are still a couple problems that have prevented me from taking up egalitarianism.
Though there are examples of female leadership in the Old Testament, in every case I can think of (like Deborah), it is done in reluctance and is typically a sign of judgement against the men.
Leadership aside, scripture is clear about roles. Women, by plain physical nature ( they have breast) are expected to bring up the children and manage their homes. Ministry is incredibly taxing on a persons time. How can a woman manage her home and raise up God fearing children if her time is taken up caring for the church?
In our modern times, we have become so hyper aware of potential bigotry, prejudice, masochism, and patriarchies, that anything that even remotely signals a potential disparity in equality is repugnant to us. It is for these reasons, that I think we truly want to see egalitarianism in scripture. Unfortunately, it’s just not biblical, and in EVERY case ( I know of) where a denomination or other organization took up egalitarianism, it was long before they started to ordain homosexuals.
If the above is not enough, maybe this will be. Why, in over 2000 years of church history, do we not see women pastors until the 20th century? It seems like the argument for egalitarianism always goes back to cultural context ( since it can’t truly be made from scripture), which is then used to alter the meaning of a particular text. Strange though, we don’t hear anything about this from Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, or other fathers. Are we to believe, that we have a better understanding of ancient Greek and Hebrew culture than they did?
With all due respect Mr. Bird, please explain
Hi Mohave, I'd say a few things:
1. Yes, biologically, women are wired to nurture children, but that does not exhaust their skills and gifting, and men should assist in the care of children. So the idea that women don't have time for children could just as well as apply to men.
2. Not all references to OT women leaders are due to male inactivity, sometimes God just uses women.
3. There are lots of women leaders in church history, from mothers to monasteries to missionaries to mystics. Many theologians too.
4. I think there are a lot of women leaders in Romans 16. The question is, why have we not had women in our churches leading like those mentioned in Romans 16 who Paul calls deacons, apostles, and co-workers.
Hope that helps.
Mike
@ER K I'd say, get over your pride. Scripture is abundantly clear on this. You don't think your boss is better than you, or has more worth, just because he/she is your boss. But if a man is charged with headship over the family, suddenly he is some patriarchal tyrant?
I would caution you not to project your insecurities and narcissistic tendencies onto others. You/others can use word games, lawyer tricks, and all manner of hermeneutical gymnastics and it won’t change the fact that scripture is crystal clear on this issue. Having eyes to see and you do not see, still worse, you drag others into your deception.
@@earlychristianhistorywithm8684Sir,
I am not making an argument against female leadership. I think history has given us many gifted female leaders. My argument is limited to the church and marriage specifically. We have no scriptural grounds to prohibit the exercise of female leadership outside of the church and marriage. I apologize for not being as clear as i should have been.
You are a far more talented exegete than I am, and have probably forgotten more than I’ll ever know. Still, with respect, I think scripture is just not with you on this issue. I still enjoy and am edified greatly by your work in other areas.
@@ERK4Canada I did not mean to be rude earlier, nor do I desire to be so now, but I remind you, “For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.” Ephesians 5:23-25
Yes, we are co heirs and are equal before the father. What does any of that, have to do with headship? You can see scripture is very clear. I ask again, why do you not have a problem submitting to your boss ( female or male), but to submit to a husband suddenly makes you feel unequal?
Why does this issue of equality, when specifically within the context of leadership, only seem to rear it’s head in marriage? With respect, this just seems like lawlessnes to me, and it marks a clear lack of respect for the authority of God's word.
@@MohaveAviator no offense taken. We are all brothers and sisters, and can read the Bible differently
Hey do watch Mike winger on this matter .
I saw many rebuttals to him
What about Deborah in the ot and Miriam. There were mary, is thought of as an apostle to the apostles, and Junia was great amongst the apostle too. Lydia ran a church home 🏡 and the gospel should be shared by all of us to everyone 🩷💚🧡🩵💙❤️💛💜
If complementarianism is a social construct of post war modernity why have oldest Church’s (Catholic, Orthodox, Copt, etc.) excluded women from the priesthood from the beginning, and why did Anglicans only ordain its first woman priest in 1994? It seems that the sociological aspect is tilted toward a modern “feminist” reading altering the default state of men only since the beginning. Otherwise, we would have expected ordained women to be the norm much earlier in church history, and not a modern shift in some communions.
That what Michael is saying, Romans 16 says the *apostolic* tradition allowed women in levels of leadership. Junia an apostle and Phoebe a deacon Prisca a misonary and teacher and Lydia a leader of the first house church in Asia.
Women were removed from leadership at the church became institutionalized in the 2-3 century (not positive about that but it sometime after the apostles) and when began to embrace Christianity at a government level.
No longer on the fringes of society Christians began to organize more politically and within an already patriarchal society women were driven out of leadership.
Complementarianism itself is a relatively new social construct by George Knight III as he reconstructed the argument against women’s leadership in the church.
What was originally and historically called *patriarchy* a philosophical view that held women are altogether inferior to men , was nuanced into complementarianism that claims women are equal to men but God ordained to function in a subordinate role.
Which ironically leads to the same conclusion of women’s inferiority.
*Different but equal* is as much of an oxymoron for women as *separate but equal* is for people of color.
Women’s inferiority was the dominate view in the organized Catholic Church.
Women’s roles and stays has changed over the centuries and has been anything but consistent.
How ever the apostles regard for women and their leadership has remain unchanged in the Bible for all times and many many women found their right to preach doing so quite eloquently and powerfully.
There is also archeological evidence of women bishops and headstones with their leadership engrave on them in the times of the early church.
Because sexism is far older than complementarianism.
In fact, complementarianism would’ve looked like a nice thing in comparison to the sexism of old.
It’s a prettier, sneakier version
@@clopez6819 A really intertesting book to read is "The Hidden History of Women's Ordination" by Gary Macy. In digging through old manuscripts of church law and ceremonies, he finds many indications of women in high leadership roles (deaconesses, presbyters) in the church up to the ~10-11th century. Another intesting thing he looks at is how the meaning of ordination changed over time. It originally had a very wide meaning used for anyone taking any position to serve a church - a person could be ordained as door greeters. However in the 12th century a reformation that conslidated church power in the ordaination of preists and bishops together with the rediscovery of BC roman philosphy (e.g. aristotle and his low view of women) resulted in the church pushing women out of these leadership roles.
@@grimrecka thanks!! I look it up! ❤️
You're forgetting that the default state was before sin, not after. Prior to The Fall man and woman worked together on the same equal footing with no one but God as their leader. A product of sin was male hierarchy as is clear in Gen 3:16. It is the fallen state, not the default, and Christians should not be embracing the fallen world as Gods design of humanity.
Is it your position that it's merely a coincidence that Titus was dealing with the same 'local problems' in Crete that Timothy was in Ephesus? It seems to be a bit disingenuous to mention one without the other and assume it's merely local.
There is no parallel in Titus to 1 Tim. 2:11-12.
Some frequent ways to avoid the clear teaching of Scripture: Categorize the teaching as only dealing with that culture. A second way to dodge application is to categorize it as applying only to that local area. If a person ignores the historic teaching, interpretation, and application from the apostolic age until now, any difficult or burdensome interpretation and application can be avoided. Should this be the goal, or should living the historic faith, once for all handed down to the saints be the goal? (Jude 1:3)
The goal should be to imitate the Bereans. The goal should be to understand Scripture in order to follow it properly. The goal should be to recognize that the supposed "plain" and "clear" meanings of different passages conflict, and to find the best ways to harmonize them.
If the early church, and the NT itself bears witness to women in church leadership, then your argument is akin to saying we shouldn't have listened to Luther on justification. And v15 - women saved through childbirth - is not at all "clear" (for that plain reading would contradict salvation by faith alone) and so we ought to have enough hermeneutical humility to recognise that maybe the whole passage - to which that verse belongs - is not as "clear" as we might assume. Sometimes what seems "clear" is just our own assumptions brought to bear on a passage.
I'm also a "convert" from patriar... eh, "complementarianism," to use the PC term, and for me the initial nudge came from conflicts between the "plain sense" (in most translations) of 1 Tim. 2:11-12 vs. Acts 18:26, and 1 Cor. 11:5 vs. 14:34-35.
For context:
ruclips.net/video/5MoOGgOxUcQ/видео.htmlsi=_QnIe6TsZh3knGaX
ruclips.net/video/ABFo9o-hd9o/видео.htmlsi=Npu7vK8FdRdhAHyi
Maybe the easiest thing is to simplify houses of prayer. You have the pastor/priest/minister (male), baptize, preach. Woman be respected as our fathers daughters, and will be instrumental in our father in heaven. Just purely out of respect off the consequences from the fall. And the pattern of old testament ie, noah, moses, samual, Cyrus Jesus , his disciples, even paul, still chose 7 men to shepherd the flock . I do believe God uses women, absolutely 😊. But I'd rather play it safe, as it sit on my conscience far to much. As a complementrian. The consequence of the fall, 1 Job, satan up and down earth baing allowed to test one's faith, and then the part in revelation, the curse lifted in revelation 21. That is my conclusion, weighed heavily on my conscience. It's a very difficult one. maybe we should be striving for our relationship with Jesus, than chase after ordinations, leadership positions in church. The true church is in the one where the father has reveled the truth of the messiah to Simon Peter.
Only god can check our hearts.
Would you say the same for people who are enslaved or trafficked? "They should strive to follow Jesus, not worry about becoming free from the control of others"?
I know God can work and move in any situation, but surely as Christians we can do better? If history has taught us anything, it is that we can!
Even though most women are not treated poorly by husbands or church leaders (though some are!), patriarchy is still patriarchy, just like slavery is still slavery--it's putting one human being above another indefinitely and immutably. I believe this grieves God's heart deeply.
How this can be described as a cultural issue in the light of Paul's creation arguments is just beyond me
It depends on what Paul's purpose was in citing that reference. You seem to be assuming his purpose was to universalize the instructions, but he doesn't say that.
@@Norrin777Radd So the order of creation only had a bearing on current social issues in Ephesus?
@@johnygoodwin3441 That's an interesting spin on what I said.
I think his point was probably along the lines of "Be careful to not be like Eve, who was misled." There may well also have been a refutation of some aspects of Asian Artemis worship, and/or early proto-Gnostic beliefs, both of which sometimes espoused female primacy.
But my main point was that it is not at all clear that Paul's point in adducing the Creation narrative was to universalize his instructions -- especially given that 1:3 specifically points to situations in Ephesus, and that 2:8 seems to direct the only explicitly universal instruction to MEN.
@Norrin777Radd Based on Paul's two arguments from genesis I think it's very clear that he is stating a lot more than 'Eve was misled', you have conveniently ignored the bit where Paul says that 'Adam was formed first, then Eve'. God did that for a reason
Read the four gospels and the book of Romans very carefully. Make sure your translation does not write women out of the church by calling Phoebe a servant instead of a deacon.
In Romans 16, Paul commends Phoebe, a deacon of the church of Cenchrae who was a prominent leader in the church. To commend means to be the letter’s courier and the one Paul sent to publicly read the letter of Romans in each house church in Rome. Prisca started early churches in her home. Make sure Junia, an Apostle (Romans 16:7) who was in prison with Paul and prominent among the Apostles has not been changed to Junias (a man’s name). Ten women are named as helping Paul form the early churches.
Read Romans 12 and I Corinthians 12 where Paul talks about the gifts of the Spirit given to the church for the edification of the church. Each person should use those gifts in proportion to their faith. Paul never qualifies any of those gifts with gender. If there is a person regardless of their gender who has been given a spiritual gift and we do not allow that person to use it in proportion to their faith it is harming the church.
This man promotes a world view that wrecks families.
Doubtful. But frankly, the primary goal should be to follow Scripture, not whimper about potential imaginary consequences.
It probably came along with your general slow march to apostasy. It certainly isn't because of the honest exegesis of Scripture.
There is not really good support for women in ministry. Not in the OT and NT. You need to explain this interpretation and church tradition away violently.