The Presumption of Complementarianism
Should women be elders/overseers in local churches? That, in a nutshell, is the question that separates so-called egalitarians, who would say yes, from so-called complementarians, who would say no. (I say ‘so-called’, because lots of people who represent each of these positions think the terms are unhelpful and a bit annoying – but until new terminology emerges to the satisfaction of everybody, I’ll stick with the existing labels).
This isn’t the only issue that egalitarians and complementarians debate, but in a conversation where there are countless different positions and nuances, it’s the clearest area of disagreement; you’d be very unlikely to find a self-identifying complementarian who argued for female elders, or an egalitarian who didn’t. Stating the question like this has the added benefit of avoiding endlessly confusing discussions about ‘women in ministry’, ‘women preaching’, ‘women in leadership’ or whatever, when what people are actually talking about is whether women should be elders/overseers in local churches. I, for one, passionately support and encourage women in ministry, prophesying, deaconing, worship leading, preaching, teaching, leadership, missionary work, church planting and so on – as, I would argue, the New Testament does (Luke 24:10; Acts 18:26; 21:9; Rom 16:1-16; 1 Cor 11:5; Php 4:2-3; 1 Tim 3:11; Titus 2:3-5; etc) – but I still believe that only men should be elders. This post is a brief attempt to explain why.
My claim, building on my previous two posts on myths and facts in this debate, is that those who submit to the authority of God in Scripture should operate with the presumption of complementarianism. That is, the default setting of an evangelical ought to be that women should not serve the church as elders, and the burden of proof rests with those who would argue that they should. This burden of proof may or may not be met – that is exactly what the discussion is about – but unless it is, we should function as complementarians on the question of eldership. This is a very controversial claim today, but I make it for four and a half reasons.
Firstly, there is the presumption of obedience. Simply put, this is the hermeneutical conviction that, because of the shape of God’s big story in Scripture, we should assume that instructions addressed to New Testament believers are for us to obey today, unless we can be sure that they are not. I summarised this idea in my series on Scripture a few months ago:
Taking all these ideas together, then, I am arguing for something like a Five Act Play view of God’s story, and a commitment to obeying the imperatives addressed to new covenant believers, with the exception of commands clearly related to specific individuals (e.g. 2 Tim 4:13) and commands which clearly applied for a limited period (e.g. Matt 10:5-6; Acts 15:19-21). In a handful of cases, this may mean finding different physical symbols to express the spiritual reality the scriptures were highlighting. But usually, it will mean nothing more than hearing the words of God, and putting them into practice. Kind of like a man who built his house on rock.
So when we come across an instruction like “I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man” (1 Tim 2:12), we operate with the assumption that we are to obey it, unless it is clearly limited to specific individuals or a specific period of history. We don’t ignore it until we’re persuaded that it applies to us; we follow it until we’re persuaded that it doesn’t. So unless it can be clearly shown, from the context, that Paul was aiming his instruction at some individuals and not others (like his “fetch the parchments” in 2 Tim 4:13), or that he expected it to be superseded within a few years (like Jesus’ “go nowhere among the Gentiles” in Matt 10:5-6), then we should assume that we should obey it. Even if, as with head coverings and brotherly kisses and the like, this requires translating the externals into our contemporary culture.
Secondly, there is the presumption of history. All other things being equal, if a debate is underway within evangelicalism, and the church through history has almost universally been on one side of the debate until the last few decades, then I would argue that the presumption ought to be that the church through history has been right. Previous generations of believers had the Holy Spirit in their midst, and read the Bible carefully and faithfully for centuries, and almost all of them concluded that women should not be elders/overseers in local churches; this carries weight, particularly since, as CS Lewis pointed out, older writers are often very good at pointing out ways in which our modern perspective can miss or even distort things in Scripture. That does not mean, of course, that the weight of opinion in church history has always been right (Luther springs to mind, along with many others). But it does mean that when the new idea comes along, the burden of proof rests with the new idea, not with the old one.
Thirdly, there is the presumption of specificity: the more specifically a New Testament passage addresses an issue, the more weight it should be afforded in deciding what to do about that issue. This should be common sense, really; there are two passages in the NT that clearly address the question of who is qualified to serve as an elder/overseer in a local church (1 Tim 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9), so these should be the starting point for determining who is qualified to serve as an elder/overseer in a local church. (Not that you’d know this from reading the two heavyweight tomes on this subject, mind you: Piper and Grudem’s Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and Pierce and Groothuis’ Discovering Biblical Equality have fifty-five chapters and two appendices between them, on a wide variety of biblical texts, yet none of them focus on either of these. What is all that about?)
The point is: both of these passages list their qualifications on the assumption that the elder/overseer will be a man. I find it hard to believe that, if God had wanted women elders/overseers in the church, he would have inspired the two passages that address this topic most directly to include several specifically male qualifications (faithful to his wife, managing his household well, keeping his children submissive), with qualifications for women coming later in each case (1 Tim 3:11; Titus 2:3-5). And I also think it improbable that this would have cropped up in two separate letters, had it not been standard practice (Paul includes almost identical requirements for villages across Crete as he does for the Artemis-worshipping metropolis of Ephesus). So in our church, when appointing elders, we pretty much go down these lists, and if someone fulfils all the qualifications - above reproach, faithful to his wife, managing his household well, not a lover of money, not violent, and so on - then they are qualified to be an elder/overseer. If they don’t, they aren’t.
Fourthly, there is the presumption of compatibility; the principle that statements which were compatible in Paul’s mind can and should be compatible in ours. If Paul felt able to (a) commend women deacons and co-workers, and celebrate the truth that in Christ there is no male or female, and yet also (b) urge that wives submit to their husbands, and women not teach or exercise authority over men, then it would appear that he did not see (a) and (b) as incompatible. That is, it does not work as a counterargument to complementarianism to say (as is so often said), ‘But in Paul’s gospel, there is equality between men and women.’ Of course, there absolutely is; but for Paul himself, this was not incompatible with insisting that particular roles be played by both genders in the home and in the church. If we were to parachute into Ephesus or Crete in the 60s and observe the churches there, we would presumably see communities in which men and women were esteemed as completely equal in the gospel, as well as communities in which the eldership authority rested with men. If Paul did not see those two as impossible to reconcile, then no matter how strong the cultural pressures, neither should we.
Fifthly, there is the very subjective, nebulous and touchy-feely presumption of counterculturalism (which I highly doubt to be a real word). This one won’t persuade anyone intellectually, I’m sure, but I’ll throw it in because at an emotional level, it may resonate with many. My idea here is that when two ideas within mainstream evangelicalism are in opposition to each other, all other things being equal, the more countercultural of the two – the one which the contemporary culture regards as the least acceptable – is likely to be correct. I say this because those on the unpopular side of the debate are, in all probability, only holding to their position because they are convinced it’s what the Bible says, whereas those on the popular side of the debate have not just their conviction about Scripture, but a host of other advantages when it comes to attracting people, evangelism, contextualization and cultural engagement, which may in some cases skew their interpretation. (The very laudable desire to end up with a Bible that is not sexist, for example, could cause people to raise the bar higher for complementarian arguments than for egalitarian ones, and I suspect it sometimes does). Put differently, I can imagine that many advocates of complementarianism, and young earth creationism, and [insert culturally unthinkable theological position here], would emotionally prefer not to hold the view they do, yet they do so anyway out of biblical conviction. That obviously doesn’t mean they’re always right – it might just mean they’re weird – but it nudges me towards presuming that they are, in cases where I’m not sure. And it certainly makes me very nervous of mocking them or attacking them for it; I don’t think 1 Corinthians 11 means Western women today should wear head coverings, but when I go to churches that do, I find myself filled with respect for their commitment to live biblically in the face of unpopularity.
Taken together, and with significantly more weight on #1, #3 and #4 than on the other two, I think these four and a half presumptions – of obedience, history, specificity, compatibility and counterculturalism – add up to the presumption of complementarianism. Egalitarians may be right that God wants women to be elders/overseers in local churches, but I think the burden of proof rests with them, and despite encountering many excellent people and many excellent scholars, some of whom are good friends of mine, I am not persuaded that they are. I will continue to listen, read, talk and write, and I am always open to further discussion, but for the moment, I will continue to pray that my daughter will prophesy, lead, teach, preach the gospel, lead worship, plant churches and reach nations – but not that she will be an elder. And I think she’ll be OK with that.
———————————————————————————————
Andrew’s next book, If God Then What? Wondering Aloud about Truth, Origins and Redemption, will be released in April, published by IVP.
Comments
Commenting is disabled in this entry
By Harman Bhogal on 25/01/2012 at 11:48
Thanks for this Andrew: I think that one of the issues that needs to be addressed is what does complementarianism really look like? So: how do you reconcile ‘I, for one, passionately support and encourage women in ministry, prophesying, deaconing, worship leading, preaching, teaching, leadership, missionary work, church planting and so on ...’ with “I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man” (1 Tim 2:12)? Are women only allowed to preach/teach/minister to other women? Or is their role similar to any non-Elder male in the church? To say that women can do anything in a church except become Elders is true, but the flip side of this is that not all men are qualified to become Elders and indeed will never be Elders. However, they are (in principle and in practice) allowed to preach on a Sunday, teach doctrine and so on: is Eldership really the only restriction placed on women, or does this extend to how they operate more broadly and to their interaction with men?
By Mike Lewis on 25/01/2012 at 13:38
What if your church doesnt have neccessarily an eldership structure?
In my church we have 2 pastors, a husband and wife. They are not referred to as elders but they both pastor the church, lead the church, share the preaching, have vision for the direction of the church. We are part of the hillsong network if that helps. Would you describe Brian and Bobbie Houston as elders of hillsong? I think they would say that they are both Pastors of Hillsong.
By Pete Thorne on 25/01/2012 at 14:40
Thanks for those thoughts Andrew and thanks Harman for asking the question that I think complementarians need to address, so what do women do?
By Larry on 25/01/2012 at 15:07
I think it is interesting, and perhaps a bit unfortunate as it tends to distract from your argument as a whole, that you added your 1/2 reason of counter-culturalism. The interesting part of it, to me, is that you could turn that argument on its head and say that, up until about 100 years ago the so-called “egalitarian” position was largely counter-cultural. Not until the 20th century have we seen things like the right to vote and serve in the military, and, yes, women pastors (or elders?), become realities for women (and thus “cultural”).
By Andrew Wilson on 25/01/2012 at 15:57
@Harman: good question! I’ll be looking into that question more in next Wednesday’s post.
@Mike: my guess is that in the Hillsong model, the “senior pastors” (often a husband and wife combination) function as the equivalent of the biblical office of elder. But I may be wrong!
By Andrew Wilson on 25/01/2012 at 16:18
@Larry: I don’t think that’s unfortunate at all: 100 years ago, I suspect most churches did need to become far more egalitarian in their theology and practice! That’s precisely the point I’m making: when countercultural biblical positions are urged, we need to take them seriously, because they are so unlikely to be motivated by popularity or acceptability. As I said, though, it’s only half a reason :0)
By Jez Bayes on 25/01/2012 at 17:58
Mischievous awkward questions:
1: Is there a clear Biblical NT instruction to only ever appoint male Elders for all time, or simply an account of what happened appropriately in any credible organisational structure in that cultural context?
2: Why are we so firm on the practice of male Elders, which is seen by some as being rooted in its cultural context, yet so weak on head covering for women, which is founded on a non cultural timeless argument in the NT?
3: As stated earlier, how can women teaching/preaching be justified when clearly ruled out by some NT texts?
4: Why is male headship in marriage, or male headship and accountability in the creation story, never appealed to in church leadership teaching in the NT? It would have been easy and clear, but it’s an argument that’s not there.
5: If we disallow women teaching, how do we justify women teaching children?
6: Is there a danger that having such a solid and consistent position as a movement tends to prevent us from really asking questions of the text, and failing to think these things through?
If so, thanks for this thought provoking post!
By Andrew Murden on 25/01/2012 at 18:39
Thank you for an interesting article. I too like Jez am interested in your comments on head covering particularly as the NT justification is timeless and the practice countercultural at the time, for at least some societies living around the Mediterranean.
By Andrew Wilson on 25/01/2012 at 19:24
@Jez: come back next week, but briefly: (1) what would the former look like, if not 1 Tim 3 / Tit 1? (2) I think we “translate” the symbolic action into our culture, replacing head coverings with modest and gender appropriate clothing, rather than ignoring it or being “weak” (speak for yourself!) (3) See next week on 1 Tim 2:12, but the NT never bans women from preaching. (4) I think it’s assumed. (5) Who is disallowing women from teaching? I think we need to stick to what Scripture is and isn’t talking about. (6) Maybe, but hence these posts! Thanks for your thoughts ...
By Oli Stevens on 25/01/2012 at 22:19
Thanks for this post, and how well it has been set out and each point followed through, I found this part really helpful
” If Paul felt able to (a) commend women deacons and co-workers, and celebrate the truth that in Christ there is no male or female, and yet also (b) urge that wives submit to their husbands, and women not teach or exercise authority over men, then it would appear that he did not see (a) and (b) as incompatible. ”
for me this is the line of questioning scripture that I’m not prepared to cross however unfashionable it may be.
Great to see the heart for your daughter at the end too
By Michael Rundle on 25/01/2012 at 22:57
Ahhh - ‘kephale’ again!!
By Jez Bayes on 25/01/2012 at 23:44
1: True, but you have to admit so would the latter!
Strangely, your final point in the article applies in reverse here, i.e. if within our church culture it’s easiest to believe in all male eldership, then it takes more effort to consider that the opposite might be true, and that it would have been impossible for a C1st Middle Eastern Church to have female leaders, but now it isn’t. Hence the NT couldn’t have demonstrated any other model, but now we can!
NB: I don’t necessarily hold that position, but I do think that it’s an interpretation with more going for it than teaching in our church culture would normally allow.
2: Hmmm, an argument for translating or changing (ignoring?) a Biblical instruction because of its cultural irrelevance? Do we allow that logic very often? Or are we just plain inconsistent, suggesting we justify our preferences more than we realise - baptism: literal; footwashing: symbolic; slavery: a reality of its time now obsolete; over 60s widow’s lists: err, sorry?!
NB: I agree with you, but I’m not completely sure that I’m doing any more than going with the flow of our church culture on this one!
(NB2: I am definitely weak!)
3: Again, I agree, but you can see why it’s the most straightforward literal interpretation of several passages, and again we could have modernised our practice based on our cultural preference, and justified it by reframing the instruction as a ban on distracting chat in a split gender church layout. Convenient?
4: Risky Biblical interpretation methodology that could end up arguing for anything we want to ‘assume,’ allowing church groups to practice their own assumed preferences. Creation order headship is simply never quite directly connected to male Eldership.
5: As far as I know, plenty of churches are, even though I agree with your position. This was even endorsed by Grudem at Brighton a few years back in a piece of very circular logic. If you could clearly nobble that one next week, you will have done everyone a huge favour/stirred up a hornets nest (delete as applicable!)
6: High time this area was provoked into a healthy Biblical debate, and no-one better than yourself to pull the pin out of the grenade!
Finally, has it ever struck you that it’s odd that Paul, usually so definitive in his doctrinal teaching, intersperses his guidance on these issues with phrases like “judge for yourselves”? No-one would take his instructions on slavery as universal approval of the practice, even though he never says it’s wrong. So how is it that his teaching on the role of women is not given the same latitude to move with the times?
I look forward to next week with anticipation and interest ...... and I’m not as woolly as you may think - it’s just that I think our generation have inherited some unclear logic on these issues, and it’s time we thought it all through! Thanks.
By Andrew Wilson on 26/01/2012 at 07:08
@Jez: (1) I disagree. It certainly wouldn’t have been impossible for the C1 church to have female leaders (Phoebe, Priscilla, Chloe, Junia, etc all seem to have had what we might call leadership responsibilities in various ways), and the basis for Paul’s restriction in 1 Tim 2 is creational, not cultural. (2) That’s simply not what I’m doing (and I hope you’re not!); see the post on hermeneutics I linked to above for my hermeneutical methodology, as well as my post on slavery, which is very relevant to this discussion. (3) No: my point here is that “preaching”, whether kerusso or euangelidzomai, is not restricted by gender. (4) It doesn’t have to be for me to obey it. You just asked why I thought the two weren’t connected, so I told you! Even if they weren’t, I’d still obey the imperative. (5) Again, no: lots of churches limit women from teaching or having authority over men, but that’s very different (again, see next week). (6) Thanks! And the sense of “judge for yourselves” is not so much “decide if you agree”, but “can’t you see?” Thanks for commenting.
By Jamie Franklin on 26/01/2012 at 11:59
Hi Andrew,
I liked reading your post but one thing struck me as a bit odd. Apologies if this has been a) something you’ve addressed in the comments (which I’ve only skimmed) or b) something you’ve addressed in another post (I haven’t read all of your posts on these issues).
That said, it seems to me that this statement: ‘I, for one, passionately support and encourage women in…preaching’ seems to be somewhat at odds with the point of and example in #1, ‘So when we come across an instruction like “I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man” (1 Tim 2:12), we operate with the assumption that we are to obey it.’
If 1 Tim 2:12 says ‘I do not permit a woman to teach…a man,’ then how does your policy of passionately supporting women preaching fit in with this? I assume that you don’t mean that a woman could preach on any subject, in any way to a man and still be obeying 1 Tim 2:12? And I note your reference to your daughter ‘preaching the gospel’.
I expect that many people within our stream will share a similar reaction. Surely complementarians (the subject of your post), is faced with the statement in isolation, ‘I passionately support women preaching’ would a) probably strongly disagree and b) assume that the person making the statement is an egalitarian (not that I’m accusing you of that obviously).
So it struck me as a bit odd for those reasons.
Incidentally, I really like point #5, and I think that you should become a young-earth creationist as a result ;-)
By Andrew Wilson on 26/01/2012 at 12:31
@Jamie: kerusso and euangelidzo don’t mean the same things as didasko and authenteo. It is quite possible for someone to do the first two without the second two, whether Mary Magdalene, Priscilla, Junia or my daughter (once she learns to say more than “dada”, that is).
By Jamie Franklin on 26/01/2012 at 13:23
Thanks Andrew. I’ll have to look into it. Just want to apologise for the awful grammar in the third last paragraph of my post. *Cringing*
By Hugh Griffiths on 27/01/2012 at 17:03
Another good post - stepping closer and closer to the practical issues of gender and leadership.
Although slightly tongue-in-cheek, it’s sometimes helpful to reframe Paul’s instruction “I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man” and move it away from a polarising male/female agenda. The inference I take from by Paul’s rigorous qualifications of eldership is that in practice, “I do not permit the majority of men to teach or exercise authority ..” was also true.
By Mike on 27/01/2012 at 17:49
Thanks Andrew for a well thought through post. I’m interested though in the way you seperate out teaching from being an elder. Teaching seems to be something which Paul says a women shouldn’t do (1 Tim 2:12) but it is something which you say you encourage. How do you understand this verse then??
By Colin Perkins on 27/01/2012 at 23:12
Thanks for this Andrew.
You mention 4.5 presumptions, but is it not the case that you are actually making 5.5, with the additional one being a prior presumption that you have not actually stated? That presumption is that the passages in the NT you have cited (particularly from the Pastoral Epistles) mean what complementarians say they mean. That is the only way you can connect the complemantarian view with submission to the authority of Scripture in the way you have. But you have not demonstrated that this interpretation is valid, and may then, I respectfully suggest, be in danger of presupposing the very point you are seeking to prove (although I accept you have other posts to come!).
Regarding the Titus passage, yes Paul presupposes that elders would be men. But if Plato had been writing to philosophers, or Cicero to politicians, or Galen to surgeons, or Euclid to mathematicians, they would have all assumed they were writing to men…and they would have been right. That is not to say that they were stipulating that all those holding those positions for all time should be men. Is it not possible that Paul’s assumption that elders would be men was descriptive rather than prescriptive…that it was simply the case in the ancient world that those in leadership positions in any role were men, and that therefore his instructions to elders were automatically written to men (because elders were men), rather than prescriptively written to men (because elders should be men)?
I understand that you will point out that none of the aforementioned men were writing Scripture, to which I would reply that Paul was writing Scripture when he said ‘slaves submit to your masters’. We have to ask whether Paul was seeking to overturn the cultural norms of Roman society or simply to teach 1st Century Christians how to live out their faith within the bounds of that era’s cultural structures. His instructions to slaves strongly suggests the latter, and complementarians need to demonstrate that his writing about women is the former before they connect their position so confidently to the authority of Scripture.
There’s a lot of other points I’d want to make, but I will save those for your other posts…however, I do want to raise the wider point that, far from the burden of proof being on egalitarians, surely it should rest on anyone seeking to say why one group of people should have leadership positions open to them whilst another group should not? History demonstrates that people oppress one another. There’s no need to give specific examples, because history itself is the example: just start with hunter-gatherers and work your way forward. Put a structure in place when one group can take charge and another cannot, and oppression is inevitable (see Milgram’s experiment for an obvious example). I’m not saying that oppression is the goal of complementarians, but I do think that those holding that position need to realise that the burden of proof, writing from a historical and humanitarian perspective, very much rests on them.
By Zak Lacey on 29/01/2012 at 12:44
Massively helpful Andrew thank you!
I’m off to look up kerusso, euangelidzo, didasko and authenteo, and depending on what I find I might be changing my theology! :S
By Sean on 30/01/2012 at 06:09
I suppose the only problem with this view is that Paul does address female elders (πρεσβυτέρας ) in 1 Tim 5:2. And surely μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα is akin to ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή, which is just a reference to marital fidelity. Thus, none of the *qualifications* (whic appear to apply to all Christians (eventually), except perhaps for teaching) apply specifically to men, but could equally apply to women (children are taught to be submissive by their mothers; women are instructed to manage their households, 1 Tim 5:14; be above reproach, 5:7). All of the qualifications listed for leadership in 1 Tim 3:1-7 are applied to women in the Pastoral Epistles. And one would be hard pressed to make the case the elders in 5:17 are specifically male, as the the context has clearly been referring to women and women elders since 5:2.
By Mel on 30/01/2012 at 20:02
Just one question, as there are no comments from women, do you find that in general, it is the men that struggle the most with this topic? (I guess in regards to explaining or correct teaching of it in the church?) or Do you have many women who struggle too?
By the way, I am in complete agreement with you, and I am glad you chose to blog on this topic! :)
By Rob Mason on 31/01/2012 at 10:37
I think I struggle with the question. Isn’t the real question, is it a sin for a woman to preach or teach or have authority over men.
It’s not an egalitarian or complementarian question, it’s a sin or not sin question. If it’s not a sin, then it’s not disallowed. If it is a sin, whatever our position, it’s not something that we should allow. Isn’t it really that simple?
By Donald Byron Johnson on 31/01/2012 at 22:07
What you are doing is choosing to wear blue lenses when reading the Bible. If you want help in learning how to take them off I can help. If you do not, no one can help.
By Rob Mason on 02/02/2012 at 13:10
@Mel it’s an interesting way to phrase your question… If what we’re arguing about is egalitarian v complimentarian, then segregating into male or female makes little sense. If we’re asking are men ‘struggling’ with this question, my guess is the answer is no, I think they’re quite comfortable with whatever position they take. If the question is are men as leaders of their households re-examining whether what we’ve understood and taught is tainted by bias, culture and misunderstanding of translations then that seems helpful, but it doesn’t seem to be your question.
What seems to be observable is that few women have the time or inclination (though the ones that do are often insightful and very skilled) to engage in theological conversations. Perhaps this is a grim sideffect of the complimentarian position, perhaps they’re more focussed on applying what they understand than moving a debate along, or perhaps they simply discuss such matters with their husbands (if they have them)?
Whatever the reason, people (not gender specific) are always concerned about where lines are drawn, especially a line that may inhibit a freedom to do something (or be a sin or not), but most are content to not explore whether the line should be drawn elsewhere. In the end, Thatcher’s children (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Thatcher’s_children), may find that our cultural bias is just as strong in colouring how we read scripture in the light of men and women.
By Stephen Harris on 09/02/2012 at 21:03
I think that the wider scriptural context does merit a re-examining of the “plain sense” of these verses, especially with reference to the inclusion of Paul of women within his church planting teams, which you seem to assent to in your hope for women to be “planting churches” (although maybe you would qualify this seeing them as ‘on the team’?)
I wonder, just how do you see women planting churches, and yet not having the authority to be elders?
I appreciate that the argument may well be that teams would plant, appoint male elders and then move on. Therefore, no problem *technically*. But surely pragmatically, whoever is planting the church is equally setting the doctrine - the very issue of course, that you argue is strictly within the bounds of male eldership. Even an autonomous church having been established would still be seeking wisdom, guidance and correction from their founders, and realistically, if the church planter was a woman, I would find it highly unlikely that the male elder would then change to only be open to her instruction on “certain issues”.
Would be interested to get your take on it.
By Andrew Wilson on 13/02/2012 at 17:00
@Mike: I hope my subsequent post on 1 Tim 2:12 answered your question!
@Colin: I laid out my exegetical presuppositions in the “twenty facts” post. And I don’t think the slavery example means what you suggest it means (see “what’s wrong with slavery”).
@Sean: if those referred to in 1 Tim 5:2 are church officers who oversee and teach the whole church, rather than merely (?) older women, I completely concede that. I doubt they are, though.
@Stephen: I wasn’t talking about planting a church alone, but admittedly I didn’t make this clear. Sorry.
By Sean on 13/02/2012 at 18:53
Why do you doubt that is the case? Andrew, on what grounds do you differentiate between πρεσβυτέρoς in one instance referring to an office and in another instance referring to age? Is your assumption concerning the validity of female eldership driving your exegesis? As far as I can see, the options are clear. Either we have to concede that eldership refers to age, and not office, in which case, as even Scrheiner admits the requirements for overseers in 1 Tim 3:1–7 and Titus 1:6–9, including the statement that they are to be one-woman men, does not necessarily in and of itself preclude women from serving as overseers. Or we have to concede that Paul does address female elders in 5:2, and eldership is an office, in which case the case against female elders crumbles.
Sean
By Colin Perkins on 13/02/2012 at 21:07
Andrew: yes, but you laid them out as facts; I was asking for a demonstration that they are indeed factual! (and, again, I accept you had other posts to come - incl. the one you’ve since posted on 1 Tim). Regarding slavery, as far as this post is concerned, I was saying that Paul was seeking to teach Christian households in C1 how to live a life of mutual love and submission within a cultural structure in which certain hierarchical arrangements - the most obvious one being slavery - were non-negotiable, and that we should read ‘slaves obey your masters’ in that light rather than as a once-for-all-time endorsement of the institution of slavery (as it was seen by pro-slavery Christians in C18, for instance). I’m pretty obviously following the ‘Slaves, Women & Homosexuals’ argument here, but taken the slavery example as a stand-alone, how else other than the above could it be interpreted?
By Colin Perkins on 13/02/2012 at 21:08
Doh! Sorry - ‘taking the slavery example as a stand alone’ - not ‘taken’!! Sloppy!!
By Andrew Wilson on 14/02/2012 at 09:18
@Colin: I have a post on trajectories, which addresses exactly this issue, coming out on Thursday afternoon (I think). Maybe resume the discussion there? Thanks, as ever, for your kind and careful tone in your comments!
By Andrew Wilson on 14/02/2012 at 11:10
@Sean: from the context in each case (I don’t think presbuteros is a technical term one way or the other). I only have three commentaries on the pastorals in my office, but all of them (Fee 112f, Mounce 268ff, Towner 245ff) agree that, in context, presbuteros often refers to the office of elder, but in 5:1 refers to an older man.
By Colin Perkins on 14/02/2012 at 11:12
Looking forward to it! And likewise re: tone.