I know that writing in support of egalitarianism in the church is likely to result in much antagonism. I understand why this is so. There is a lot at stake if the case for male superiority is weakened. It has implications for our privileged gender. Many good Christians find forms of complementarianism to make more sense of various biblical texts, though I contend it is often the coherence of their worldview that is being defended, not the major motifs and trajectories of Scripture.
Recently one person accused me of being more concerned with being a “progressive” than submitting to the plan of God for human gender. Such statements can be returned quite easily. It may be that one’s “conservative” views make them blind to the work of God. In fact, someone could aim to be “biblical” like those who argued for divorce on the basis that it seemed permitted freely in Scripture, yet Jesus stated that it was Moses’ response to the hard heartedness of the people (Matthew 19.8; Mark 10.5). So it is altogether possible that Scripture can be inspired to condescend to the place where humans reside.
While I don’t claim to know the mind of the Apostle Paul on many matters I do find some of his prohibitions against the full equality of women in the church to be this sort thing. What it quite amazing to me though is that within the same corpus of writings there are plenty of affirmative statements toward women and their full participation in the church. Sadly, many exegetes of the Pauline Epistles are quick to magnify those statements that seem antagonistic to women that they ignore the others.
One example would be how the same aforementioned person said this: “I don’t think women can be pastors/bishops. The requirements are clear – ‘the husband of one wife.'” He was referencing 1 Timothy 3.2 where a ἐπίσκοπος is required to be married to one woman only. I have a couple preliminary problems with this loose referencing of a proof-text:
(1) I am not convinced that the characteristics outlined in the Pastoral Epistles are universals. I think we should use them as a model for determining the type of people who should lead, but to argue that these epistles aren’t contextual seems misguided to me.
(2) It is common in language, even the English language, to make generalized statements referring to people in the masculine. I could say, “If a Republican is elected President this year I sure hope that he…” This statement may expose a gender bias, but it says little to nothing regarding gender qualifications for the office of the President.
These are immediate observations. Secondary to these points is the short-sightedness of this sort of proof-texting. In v. 8 the discussion has transitioned to deacons (διάκονος). We know little about the ebb and flow of early church government, but it does seem that an bishop/overseer has a more authoritative role than a deacon who is more of a “servant” to the church. As the author addresses the qualifications of deacons he mentions women deacons in v. 11. I know some translate γυναῖκας as “wives” like (surprise, surprise) the ESV, but I see this as an address to candidates who are women deacons. What is quite funny about this is that immediately in v. 12 the author writes, διάκονοι ἔστωσαν μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρες (Let deacons be the husband of one wife.), which is the same statement given to bishops/overseers.
In the Epistle to the Romans, which few doubt as authentically from the Apostle Paul (in juxtaposition with the Pastoral Epistles), a woman named Phoebe is called a sister by Paul (ἀδελφὴ) and she is commended to the church at Rome as διάκονον τῆς ἐκκλησίας τῆς ἐν Κεγχρεαῖς. If she is a “deaconess of the church in Chenchreae” then this is further confirmation of a woman as a deacon. Some argue that διάκονον should be translated “servant” here which is grammatically plausible, but I think such a suggestion is politically motivated. That she has this particular standing in a particular assembly makes it quite evident in my estimation that she has a particular office/role like the deacons elected in the Book of Acts and like those described in 1 Timothy.
So my friend who found the statement “a husband of one wife” to be something that disqualifies women from the role of overseer in the church has failed to notice the same phrase used to discuss deacons soon thereafter and that we have examples of women deacons in the early church.
Let me say one more thing about deacons. Some have noted that Acts 6.3 describes the Apostles as searching for “seven men” to be deacons and men were chosen. While I have disdain for the false dichotomy between narrative and didactic literature I do not think that in the context of Luke-Acts this particular author intends to promote a gender-exclusive role in the church. Of all the New Testament authors that of Luke-Acts is the most egalitarian by far. It is not a good argument to say that this is prescriptive as much as it was descriptive.
the archives near Emmaus 
You’re doing just fine, brother. Keep on.
Randy
I will, thank you!
@Brian: you say “Many good Christians find forms of complementarianism to make more sense of various biblical texts, though I contend it is often the coherence of their worldview that is being defended, not the major motifs and trajectories of Scripture.”
This is true, what you say, but it is true which ever side of the debate one is on!
Our world views are a functions of our presuppositions, which act as axioms we build up from to develop a world view. The number of presuppositions we possess as individuals is finite (since we are human). Gödel’s incompleteness theorem says that when we build up an axiomatic system from a finite set of axioms in an entirely consistent way, this system will be incomplete. There will be truths that cannot be reached through reason, but must simply be taken on faith.
One of two things must be true with respect to individuals who possess world views. Either they share the same or similar presuppositions or they don’t. If they share presuppositions, as long as their ability to reason is sound, they should arrive at similar conclusions. Even so, there will still be truths that cannot be reached through anything but faith. If they don’t share presuppositions, they will arrive at differing conclusions, and their world views will collide. (This is why I mentioned the Calvinism/Arminian debate previously in your other post: Calvinist value ‘sovereignty’ in God’s character above all else, Arminians value ‘grace’. Both ‘sovereignty’ and ‘grace’ are properties of God and there is nothing precisely wrong with either, but lacking a common set of presuppositions means these world views will collide.
In the egalitarian, complimentarian debate both world views are legitimate views for Christian’s to hold given their presuppositions. Many good (and sincere) Christian’s exist in both camps, and argue in defence of biblical principles. Neither side is entirely wrong, strictly speaking, but neither side is entirely correct either.
God is no respecter of persons; all fall short of the glory of God. Likewise though, God indeed treats the genders with distinction. So how do we resolve this?
We examine and debate the presuppositions one another holds against the bible in a God honouring way [1 Cor 10:31][Col 3:17] hoping to determine if our ‘subset’ is sound or to influence the conclusions others make. We should never question the motives of those with whom we disagree since if one appreciates that God is no respecter of persons, that appreciation is being held for the sake of the glory of the Lord. Likewise, one appreciates that God has appointed a purpose for all things (including gender) [Pro 16:4] this belief too is being held for the sake of the glory of the Lord.
Why should our liberty be determined by someone else’s conscience? [1 Cor 10:29]
Andrew
I am in agreement with almost all that you wrote. As I’ve stated many times, I have been very patient in dealing with this matter as part of a church family and a seminary family where I am in the minority. Likewise, I don’t deny that their are biblical passages that can be used to support both views. My contention has been that some are overarching and supersede others when creating a more universalized practice for the church while the others provide examples of contextual aberrations.
My one major concern with letting this issue be one that is merely a matter of conscience is that it would become a willingness to allow other men to tell women that they cannot accept their calling and function in their God-given gifting because they are women. While some women may not mind this since (1) they don’t have those particular gifts and callings and (2) they are comfortable with social constructs for their gender this doesn’t mean that this is true of all women. At the end of the day I find the push back necessary because I believe that there are women with callings and gifting whom the church suppress. If this is true then I have two sets of consciences to navigate: (1) then men and women who feel that the Bible doesn’t allow women to do this or that and (2) the men and women who think that certain women have callings and gifting that is being suppressed. Sadly, it seems someone will be offended, so I chose to offend those I see as doing the suppressing since I find no universal reason to prohibit women into full service to the church based on their gender alone.
I appreciate your comments here Brian. I suspect I am actually on the other side from you. What motivates me is a worry that Humanism is seeping into Christian thinking.
I have no issue with ‘equality’. Indeed, I believe men and women are equal albeit distinct before God. I do have an ‘issue’ with feminism (or my world view does at least).
Although I sympathise with all efforts to resist misogyny where ever it appears (including biblical understanding), this sympathy is not blind or limitless.
There is danger (IMHO) in swallowing the ‘equality’ pill if it contains the leaven of feminism (which I see as ‘equality’ corrupted by humanism (with humanism figuratively presented in [Rev 14:8]).
Andrew
Humanistic ideas are a danger, that is agreeable. That said, often we in the church ignore our own cultural conditioning. It is my contention that we have been shaped by a patriarchal culture and this (as you mentioned above regarding presuppositions) influences our reading of the biblical text. This isn’t to deny that some of the passages shaped in said culture reflect those values, but others supersede the culture and call us to reevaluate the ontology of women, not only in creation, but “in Christ”.
As far as feminism is concerned it depends on what feminism is being mentioned. There are misleading and erroneous forms that lead to man-hating or femme fatal sexuality, but there are others that call for us to recognize the full humanness of women and their rights to have dreams, vocations, callings, and careers. This feminism is not foreign to the Gospel as I see it.
what the first commentor said…. good post!