As always, if I've overstepped please let me know and I'll retract.

p.p.s. #2 should be 14:34, not 14:3.

Racel said..."In his second letter to Timothy, the Apostle Paul writes, “I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.” (I Timothy 2:12) This little verse has made big waves in the evangelical culture, and "all my life I’ve heard it used to enforce restrictions on the positions women can hold in church leadership. And yet, just three verses before this one, Paul says, “I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works…” (I Timothy 2:9)

Many times people believe that women have always been put behind men in all aspects of life until resent days. But throughout history women have played important roles and have been given the same rights as men. There have been queens of empires ranging from Egypt to Asia to England. Even throughout the old testament you can see the important roles that women played.

BUT from the beginning God has placed men in authority over women. Adam over Eve. King rather than Queen (even though other nations at the time had queens). The twelve tribes of the brothers rather than the daugthers. The high priest had to be male, as well as the priest.

Paul writes to Timothy with this knowledge, and we must remember that the Holy Spirit lead Paul to pen these words in 2 Timothy. The role of women in the church is also mentioned in Titus, Corinthians, 1 & 2 Timothy. And remember...Timothy and Titus are the pastoral epistles...they teach us about how to organize the church body.

God has always placed men over women in regards to spiritual roles. This doesn't mean that men are better than women...we just have different roles.

Jason, I like your historical approach to the gender role issue. "from the beginning God has placed men in authority over women." Even though Paul did write in a cultural context, I think you present a great example of how the concept can be shown to transcend time periods. It is important to consider historical factors and not use scriptural passages as proof texts for agenda.

I would disagree that "throughout history women have played important roles and have been given the same rights as men". It is more accurate to say that some women have been given the rights of some men. In general, women have been in a subservient role to men in all cultures throughout all history (even today in most cultures - at least to some measurable degree). That is, I think, what made and continues to make powerful women so intriguing - they are anomalies.

DanTheMan! Good to hear from you.

Palmer's take (and Myers', later) was that yes, all rhetoric is, to an extent, manipulation (or at least has the potential for it). As such, it's the responsibility of the rhetor to ethically present his argument (e.g., Gorgias). Part of presenting an ethical argument is to not use rhetorical fallacies if you can help it, and if you can't, then find a different position to defend.

This isn't a good forum for an in-depth back-and-forth discussion, but I'll do what I can. Plus I keep wanting to get into the issue with Jason and Chris, but I'll avoid that as completely fruitless.

I'm open to a third way on the paragraph I referred to... it's not meant to be a false dichotomy. In my mind, either she simply doesn't understand the differences between the verses (which I don't believe) or she does and she's acting as if she doesn't (which I don't want to believe). What am I missing here?

If using a "literary voice" is code for "hyperbole that I don't believe but am using to get my point across" then I guess that's a valid third way... I don't think it's wise but at least it's not dishonest. Are there other options that I'm missing?

I think I understand what you're saying, but I'm simply suggesting that the third option is one that's more basic and innocent.

As you know, for good writing it's important to start each new thought/paragraph differently. If you start every paragraph with "I think..." or "I wonder..." things get drab fast, to avoid that writers work on voices that don't read that way. Hence the literary device.

Wouldn't you have to make some fairly negative and broad assumptions about Rachel's intelligence, character, and attitude to suggest the only two options for that paragraph are naivety or deceit? I mean, seriously... where does that leave it?

However, on the flip side, all you have to assume is that she's not ignorant or malicious and then you're left with at least one more (and in my mind the more plausible) option of it being a part of a literary device. At that point I guess you could split hairs and say she should have used the word "wondered" instead of "marveled" but... for real...

At any rate, good to see you on the site! I'll let you get back to the subject, I know you've thought quite a bit about the issues she brought up, and I'm interested in reading what you have to say.

Travis - Yes, I did write the article on BWC. I'll be posting a link on this site soon. Thanks for reading! Your encouragement has served as confirmation that I should write more for them...and get paid lots of money for it. ;)

Micah and Mitch - I just wanted to let you know that I wasn't trying to set a trap or anything by framing the post in the way that I did. Mostly I was just trying to generate interest in the subject by asking open-ended questions and highlighting the fact that cultural hermeneutics is a complicated subject. Webb does a very comprehensive job at analyzing these passages carefully, and I think you will appreciate how he handles them.

But he too opens the book by posing the question, "Why do we believe some verses are cultural and others transcultural?" Why do we pick and choose the way that we do? He uses a range of examples, including the ones used above, without providing answers right away.

I was trying to do the same thing, focusing on passages that I find particularly troubling.

I apologize if you felt it wasn't fair.

Looking forward to future dialog on this subject!

I think you raise some excellent point in this post. I think one of you main points of application you make is that the church seems to choose certain sins to dicipline or preach against while ignoring others. I agree. Homosexuality for example is often targeted while gossip is often ignored. I am concerned though that the solution that you occasionally hint at and others come right out and say is that therefore we should swap them. We should leave homosexuals alone and go after gossipers. Or, we should show "grace" to everyone and let homosexuals be homosexuals and gossipers be gossipers and just hope that someday God will accept whatever we offer. I believe the Bible teaches that homesexuality and gossip are both wrong and that believers in Jesus Christ should shun both.

That's just one example, but there are many. Laziness, gluttony, divorce, pornography, rebellion agains authority, and disrespect to parents, among others, have also not been dealt with much by the church. This is not a hermeneutic issue though. If you ask the church if these things are wrong and sinful, there is overwhelming agreement that they are. The issue is emphasis. The church has emphasized sins that most people in the church are not committing because it is safe to do so. It is a scathing indictment against our pastors for not preaching the full counsel of God out of fear that people will leave their churches for others. Our pastors should continue to preach that homosexuality is sin but should mostly emphasize the sin that is in the church when they are teaching the church. I think we both agree that many times, pastors take the easy way by preaching against sins that most in the church are not committing.

You raise many good questions about culture and transcultural teaching. Struggling with these issues is nothing new, the Jerusalem council kicked off the first of many important discussions about this issue in the book of Acts. There is a great danger in your approach however to this topic. For instance, if the only scripture we had on the topic of women and men's roles was found in I Timothy 2, then I would be right there with you. However I Tim. 2 is written after all the OT teaching on men and women's origins, roles, interactions, and history. It is written as a cultural application of a transcultural principle. The principle is that men are to provide leadership as the fulfillment of God's purpose for them. The cultural application of this is that women should not teach men in the church. You can't take one or two verses and then accuse the church of picking and choosing while you ignore the rest of scripture that speaks about the principle from which the comments in I Timothy are derived. This is why we must know the Bible throughout. We must study it so that with good exegesis we can derive from it the principles that allow us to faithfully apply its teaching to our culture.

Banning homosexuality, was not a cultural application for OT Israel. We know that in several ways. 1. It broke the established framework of Genesis where God created male and female humans and animals of all different kinds and called them good. 2. God then commanded them to be fruitful and multiply establishing a principle of offspring as the natural consequence of the fulfillment of God's purposes. 3. The repeated admonition in the NT, not only to abstain from homosexuality, but from all forms of sexuality apart from God's ordained plan (#1) that brought forth God's natural consequences of blessing (#2). There is a clear principle that teaches homosexuality is a moral rebellion against God's ordained order and purpose, not just a one-time cultural restriction.

We find nothing else in the Bible about a menstruating woman abstaining from sex, about crossbreeding cattle or plants, or about not getting tattoos. Therefore we do not apply those to the church today because they don't violate God's order or purpose for us, nor are they repeated by Jesus or the apostles in the NT. The Jerusalem council made clear that much of the OT did not apply as a mandate for believers, though they did allow that not all things were beneficial withing that culture and therefore some things should be avoided because they created cultural problems needlessly even if they were not morally.

I do not wish to prolong this so I will close by simply stating some principles I see in scripture and how they apply.

The principle of modesty -- In I Timothy Paul tells women to not braid their hair or dress in fancy clothes. In that culture and time, such dress drew attention to oneself, leading others to focus on that woman's beauty, power, etc. It's pretty obvious that women wearing a braid today will not get the same result. However, women wearing provactive clothing that show off their bodies or flaunt their wealth in our culture today would certainly be guilty of not being modest (again, a principle found throughout scripture).

sorry . . I've got to run so I'll have to leave it there. Hope this is a helpful response as to why the distinction between cultural and transcultural. It isn't based on one or two verses but on principle's taught throughout scripture that give the background to those verses. Thanks!

... that "menstruating woman abstaining from sex, about crossbreeding cattle or plants, or about not getting tattoos" are all direct prohibitions of worship behavior in Ba'alism. These are things you do to worship Ba'al.

The more we discover about the religious practices of the pre-Joshua Canaanites, the more sense some of the weird OT prohibitions make sense. Basically God doesn't want false gods (possibly demons?) named in his Law, but he goes through and names every behavior used for worshiping them and forbids each behavior one at a time.

This is partly to prevent the people from falling away, but moreso about keeping Yahweh-worship "holy" and "set apart" by preventing syncretism (i.e., 2 Kings 21:7).

"Plus I keep wanting to get into the issue with Jason and Chris, but I'll avoid that as completely fruitless."

what's that about?

I'm saying that I don't really want to get in a back-and-forth argument on a subject where neither of us will change our position. It's almost impossible to produce more light than heat in a comment thread.

No personal insult was meant, although after reading it again it sure didn't come across that way.

My apologies, man.

To be honest, I actually prefer a pastor who is also female. Weird that for so many decades in the U.S. women made up the majority of our congregations but couldn't be in charge.

Full disclosure, I'm a member of an Episcopal church led by a priest(ess). :)

I suppose I was more interested in hearing from people who were criticizing female leadership. I actually enjoyed reading your response Micah and found myself taking notes for later debates. :)

What if for a moment, though, we supposed that the conservatives are in fact interpreting the verse how it was meant to interpreted by the early Christians. Would we be okay with saying that perhaps, the Bible was just plain wrong in this instance? :)

@matt:

That was pretty impressive, giving the argumentative nod to Mitch and then explaining you completely disagree. I liked that.

I, though, whole-heartedly agree that homosexuality is not a sin and agree that one can "biblically" (whatever that means) reach that conclusion. Like Micah said in reference to Baal worship, I think Paul address homosexuality in a similar fashion. What we understand as homosexuality today would be different from their understanding of it, when it was linked to pagan worship from which the Christians, many of whom were converts from that tradition, were to remain separate from.

Which verse(s) are you referring to Micah & David? I think that despite your conclusion Micah, this is far from a settled case of conservatives just being wrong.

Also David, if you are defining women's roles within the church pragmatically, I won't argue with you about quality women being pastors of quality churches. Arguing that someone must experience something before being able to talk about it is silly though. Experience may verify the validity of something or teach at a deeper level, but it is not required to have knowledge of the subject.

I happen to think that the Bible declares the mind of God about the subject of men's and women's roles. Thus the discussion of proper interpretation of the Bible, even while disagreeing about our interpretations can be a helpful discussion. Simply arguing that some church's work well with women as pastors is not convincing to me or to many within the church that start their framework of God, man, and the church with what the Bible says. For me, revelation should trump pragmaticism every time. What God thinks is the starting point, how I feel about it is irrelevant since it's His world, not mine.

I say this to point out that many who feel strongly that women should not be pastors don't really have a personal feeling about it one way or the other. We simply are trusting that when we read the Bible and understand it to say that men and women have different roles it's because God has chosen complementing roles as the way we can most glorify Him. Functioning properly within our roles, it is beautiful to see diffferent gifts we have working together in unity. Thus if you're interested in changing our minds (those of us deeply entrenched in the Bible), you'll have to do it hermenutically, not pragmatically.

@Mitch,

No disrespect, but I really don't think I'll be changing your mind, nor do I think you'll change mine. I'm still waiting to hear how I should reconcile the two different creation stories in Genesis, one of which says that God created male and female in God's image at the same time; the other says that God created male, then a bit later, created female from male, to say nothing of the contradictory timelines in the two stories.

You see, when we're talking about the Bible, we all read it selectively, as Rachel pointed out. So, actually, I think that experience as well as scripture should inform our experience. So, yes, I think it is important whether someone has experienced being "led" by a woman. When someone has a conversion experience or is helped through a difficult time or has seen their faith deepened under the leadership of a woman, such passages begin to register a deep *reality* level of dissonance.

Forgive me for being blunt, but aren't you the one who's always railing against the bloody awful postmoderns for not being one with reality or how things really work and with basic logic and such?

When one experiences the presence of God in a church that is led by a woman, what are we to conclude? That God works in spite of the sin of a woman leading? Or is it even sinful? Are we just talking about what's propers? What's more, if we are talking sinful here, let's say this woman leads a life in a pastoral role and helps untold numbers of people find faith in Jesus and has faith in Jesus herself, are we to conclude that since she lived a life outside her "natural and proper role" that she is condemned (obviously she probably won't repent for serving God)?

So, yes, I think it's pretty damn important that we live in the real world not some infintesimally small little hermeneutical world where saying the right things in the correct, systematic way makes us correct.

Would you have questioned my emphasis on firsthand experience, if the subject were say, helping the poor? If I shoot my mouth off about how best to help the poor, yet never leave my comfortable computer desk, would that, at all, register a bit of hypocrisy? Or would it be a bit hypocritical to talk about how marriage is supposed to work if we've never experienced it or weathered serious storms? Or would it be odd to talk about how we are supposed to rear our children, if in fact, we are childless.

Talking about things we don't experience allows us to avoid confronting the complexities, messiness and ambiguities of life.

So, on a different note, assuming that you are correct in all of this, what makes a man a man and what makes a woman a woman?

And what about that difference requires completely segregated, yet "complementary" spheres/roles?

And if these differences are so entrenched and God-given, do you think that men would find it hard to minister to women in certain situations? And conversely, do you think a woman would find it hard to trust a man after having been abused?

Hey man. I wasn't in that case talking about a specific verse; I was talking about the way that the early church saw gender roles. I'd be happy to discuss stuff verse-by-verse with you, if you like, but the plain and relatively un-arguable fact is that a "modern" fundie approach to women in ministry didn't develop until Augustine, and really until almost 1000 AD.

Honestly, a good part of it's just in the last half-century. Most of it's just a backlash against the hyperfeminist movement. Go read conservative commentaries of Timothy from 100 years ago... they'll tend to give a position closer to "egalitarian" than "complementarian" (at least functionally).

David -- the creation account conflict you have is definately not the point of this post. Nor do I even see a conflict so won't be carrying on that dialogue.

Again, you insist that someone must experience something to know anything about it. In doing this, you reveal your bias against rational truth in favor of experiential truth as the pillar of your epistemology. Again I affirm that experience brings a new depth of understanding and validates or invalidates previously held beliefs. However, it is not necessary to know about something. That's like saying that my sons won't learns that the stove is hot unless they stick their hand in it. As a parent, I'm not going to let that happen. I will teach them that they can't touch the stove so they will learn without experience. Your claim is that my oldest son couldn't tell my youngest son not to touch the stove unless my oldest son had already burned himself at some point. I say he could tell my youngest son not to touch the stove because it's hot based not on his own experience, but on the authority of his dad (me). When it comes to biblical truth, those without experiencing certain circumstances can still take a valid position based on the authority of our Father's revelation without having personally experienced it.

I'm glad you brought up logic and the real world. It's good to see that we have agreement. I am not questioning that you had good experiences with women pastors. I've never said that God hasn't used women in pastoral roles to accomplish great good. Just a side note, I don't believe it's the pastor's job exclusively to do evangelism since we're all called to be witnesses, I think it would be great if more women shared their faith and led both men and women to Christ.

A crucial piece of logical reasoning is which premise you start with. Your premise seems to be that your good experiences determine what is right. Your have had a good experience with women pastors. Therefore women pastors must be good and right.

Using that logic, I could also right this little syllogism.

Good experiences determine what is rightand good.
I had a great experience lying my way out of trouble (it kept me from hurting someone else, I didn't get in trouble, etc). Therefore lying is right and good.

I'm saying that God made the world and everything in it. I'm saying that God continuously sustains the world and everything in it. God told us about the world in the Bible, as it is presently and as it was, should be, and will be again in the future. I'm saying that regardless of what works for me right now (experientally), God knows what will work the best to bring Him glory. His declared message is superior to all other messages and He is superior to all other beings. So regardless of how well it works to have women as pastors, you'll have to show me that the clear examples from scripture that teach men as the leaders by God's choice are not really teaching that in order to be persuasive.

I don't want to be right in this discussion just I can proudly proclaim that I'm right and have God figure out. This is how you seem to be framing it. I wish I could agree with you and praise women for leading well! I can't, I'm constrained by the Bible's teaching and seeking to be faithful to God and his word above all. That leaves me in a very unpopular position in our culture of believing that women should not be the leaders. I trust that God will bring glory to Himself through that though it clearly brings scorn from many within my culture.

You ask what makes a man a man and a woman a woman. I'm pretty sure that you know it's a little thing called an X or Y chromosome. Regardless of what the homosexual / transvestite community would lead us to believe, it's a clear scientific line in the sand. I think you misunderstand my views about gender. I don't think that intrinsically women can't lead or that intrinsically men can't nurture (a traditional role for women). I'm saying that regardless of their giftedness, they must use their gifts within the structure of God's plan.

My wife is a very gifted person. There are many things that she does better than me (including carpentry I've discovered lately as I'm trying to screen in our front porch). I've had to learn as the person tasked by God to lead my family, that there are many times that I should allow my wife to use her gifts fully. In doing that, we display unity, I fulfill my role of leadership, and she uses her incredible gifts. Are there times I do things she could do better? yes. Are there times that she pushes her way into things that she should have left me to handle? yes. However she has great respect for me and the responsibility that God has given me to lead our family. I have great love and respect for her, her great talents, and the way that she cares for me and for our family. We need each other, just as God planned it. It's not sexism, it's not oppression, it's faith that God's design is better than one I can come up with.

No one says women can't be in leadership roles. Only that in the family, the husband has a higher leadership role and that in the church, women should not be teaching men. Within that context, they are free to exercise all their decisionmaking, creativity, and unique abilities that God has given them.

I wish that more time in discussion like this were spent discussing the incredible talents, gifts, abilities, and contributions of women now, throughout history, and in the Bible than just the constant complaining that women don't get to be leaders (as if leadership was some prize you win). Let's recognize their God-given abilities and value without diminishing men (i.e. the radical feminist movement)or focusing on the one area God reserved for men.

Micah -- I hope that this clarifies my view. I believe that women have a powerful role to play in the family and in the church. I simply believe that it is within the context of the framework of leadership by men provided in the Bible. I don't know what pragmatism specifically you are referring to about Paul, but Paul always uses the framework God established, His principles, and then applies them (I think you could say pragmatically) to the culture. I don't think my view conflicts with that in any way.

PS I've said way more than my piece so I will enjoy any feedback provided and gladly relinquish the final word to others.

Also, I find it interesting and hypocritical for you to take me to task for the premise of my stance and yet you refuse to engage in a discussion which turns the tables on you.

Absolutely, the differing creation accounts are germane to this discussion. If you base your argument on the Bible as God's Truth (capital T), then a challenge to that premise is, in fact, very much a part of the point of this discussion.

I don't mind that you refuse to engage in that discussion. But saying the differing accounts don't exist doesn't make it so.

For anyone interested, read Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 and create a timeline of when things were created.

Dismissing an idea without engaging with, though, is disingenuous.