Amen! Men and women are both agents of God's redemptive work for humanity. From my perspective, this use of men and women by God is most beautiful when men and women's complementarity is in view. I agree with the assertion of the linked article, "Hierarchy and the Biblical Worldview" that the neo-platonic notion of the analogia entis or the "great chain of being" is pagan in origin and it has been abused to represent women as lower on an ontological totem pole. Sad! I take a different response, however, as I'm sure you know and as I hinted above.
On another note, I finished Sandra Glahn's book Nobody's Mother yesterday and found her work refreshing in its attention to the biblical data, whether exegetical or grammatico-historical. She argues persuasively that Artemis is in the background of 1 Timothy. Usually, I'm uncompelled by that argument, but her use of new inscriptional archaeological data is enlightening. I still don't think there's enough solid evidence to claim Paul was only precluding female preaching in an Artemisian context, especially since, if he was, his alternative would not be "learn quietly and in submission" but "teach humbly and not like Artemis." Nevertheless, the real gem for me was her very persuasive reading of "she will be saved by childbearing" as a potential (there is no evidence of the quote origin per se, but the concept is certainly Artemisian) quotation of the Artemisian cultic literature. Therefore, Glahn reads Paul as subversively fulfilling Artemis's promise by saying it can be fulfilled only in faith in Christ. I.e., ""She will be saved in childbearing" as Artemis promises, if they continue in faith in Christ."
Indeed, page two of a fruitful discussion! I am so grateful to God for the ability to discuss these important things in this way.
Thank you for the very interesting background to the other gods in Ephesus. I haven’t studied that, but from what you say I’d agree that that background is very important indeed. Anytime I hear someone say, “this or that god is what this or that author had in mind” I am sceptical because we all know how polytheistic Rome was. So, your point that there may be other gods / witchcraft at play in Ephesus sounds right on the money. It’s most definitely a fruitful area of study and it seems scholars aren’t giving it its due. This is another reason why I’m very cautious to take an alternate meaning to a text based on such things—we find out new things every day and the evidence would need to be near 100% certain to overturn a traditional interpretation. The Church can misinterpret for a time, but to hold that she has misinterpreted for two millennia would need the sort of evidence that would convict someone in a court of law: “beyond reasonable doubt.” There are lots of reasonable doubts to be dealt with!
In regards to Matt 20:25-26, I think the verb that scholars base their interpretation on is the first one: κατακυριεύω which is translated either “lord it over” or “dominate” in the 9 standard translations I checked. The softest translation is in the KJV which has “exercise dominion over.” BDAG has these meanings for this word “1) to bring into subjection, become master, gain dominion over, subdue; 2) to have mastery, be master, lord it (over), rule.” It seems that this first words helps us understand the meaning of the word you mentioned, the second one in the verse, which is less frequently used in the NT (κατεξουσιάζω). For the latter, BDAG notes that it may inherently have negative connotations: “exercise authority, perhaps tyrannize τινός over someone.” Therefore, I think Jesus’s point in this text is not that there should not be any good authority over one another in the Church, but that the authority must be expressed in a way different from Gentile domineering.
The NT has a lot to say about authority: elders are “shepherds” (1 Tim 3). Shepherds have authority over the sheep, which is why Jesus is referred to as the “over shepherd” (1 Pet 5). Good authority is very present in the biblical data when considering the Church: Timothy is to “command certain ones not to teach a different doctrine” (1 Tim); wives are to “submit to their husbands” (Eph 5); children are to “obey their parents” (5th commandment recited in Eph 5); the elders in Jerusalem made binding decisions regarding circumcision in Acts 15; the author to the Hebrews says, “Obey your leaders and submit to them—for they keep watch over your souls” (13:17). Many more references could be made. The Bible unequivocally teaches that good authority must be present in the Church.
Unfortunately, as you point out, this clear biblical teaching has been hijacked, as Glahn points out, by neo-platonic / Aristotelian conceptions of femininity as a deformed masculinity. That is, the Church took the good biblical teaching and assumed it meant that women were ontologically inferior. But, as Glahn must concede, there was always a minority report who held to true biblical femininity as not ontologically inferior, but just functionally distinct, as nature itself teaches.
Therefore, as you point out, the language of “serving” is a very good one when considering good, biblical authority. As a pastor, my primary role is to serve my flock. I must also lead them, but this leadership should be modeled after Jesus who was a servant-leader (e.g. washing the disciples’ feet). This does not negate leadership, but it refocuses it in a biblical frame rather than a Gentile one where leaders are permitted to “lord over” or “domineer” their people. Unfortunately, the Church has often failed that test and has indeed allowed—and even encouraged—leaders to lord, rather than serve.
I think you’re on the right track in the sense that leadership should look more collaborative than it does. But I do not think this means that ὑποτασσω and words like it do not mean “submit.” We submit to God everyday but it is a beautiful, even collaborative thing! The Church must do the same.
Grace and peace to you my ontologically equivalent and spiritually superior sister in Christ!
Indeed, may the Lord give you peace and fresh vistas of His love, Bonny. I totally understand and don't expect you to feel the need to defend your pastorate here. This is just an opportunity for those interested to discuss this important question. May the Lord bless you and your family. I pray the Lord gives you His comfort in this extremely difficult time.
Thank you so much for this comment, Kathy! I really appreciated the historical context regarding the 1960/70s WIO debate. Indeed, women are just as gifted and important to the church as men!
I wonder, however, if it's true that we need women in leadership to avoid abuse. That seems to me to paint male leadership in a demeaning light, as if men can't but be abusive without women by their side. What about single men? Churches where women aren't available to lead? Are they doomed to be abusive? This is my response to your statement: "The lack of women in any leadership positions was named as an important part of what prevents abuse from being taken seriously. My experience in Safe Church work confirms the importance of having both women and men in leadership positions to deal effectively with abuse within church communities."
To your third point, it sounds like you're saying complementarianism is unjust toward women. Is that correct? Perhaps I misunderstood your third point. But if that is what you meant, again, I find that demeaning to God-honoring people—both men and women (like John Piper and Jackie Hill Perry)—who are complementarian. In my experience, complementarianism is very just toward women because it honors the roles God has given them (raising children, teaching women and children, and serving the church in non-teaching roles, etc. etc.).
Finally and most importantly, though you raise excellent pragmatic arguments for your position, I think pragmatic arguments are always secondary to Scripture. If God says, "Don't do it," but we think "doing it" is better for us, that doesn't excuse not following Scripture. Hence, the main topic of this post is hermeneutical, not pragmatic. As an example, your argument that the fruit of women in office is good fruit is the exact same argument proponents of same-sex marriage use. They say same-sex marriage is good for the church, so we should do it. But again, the argument is about what God says, not what we think it best for us.
Thanks again for engaging and may the Lord bless you as you serve His church.
Hetty, I know this can be frustrating for some. I regret that it is. My prayer is that we all settle into the roles God has given us and we flourish under His will which is always best for us. Also, though I'm not among them unfortunately, I know many men who are just as empathetic and caring as women! For example—Jesus! But, I don't know any men who can bear a child. That is a God-given task only women who are called to do it can fulfill.
Hetty, I understand that frustration. Also, I'm not saying you should have a baby. I'm saying the roles of men and women in the church are different. Though we disagree over the extent of the difference, biology requires you to agree that there are some things essential to the church that men cannot do, like have babies (no babies, no more church militant). To that extent, we have some agreement. Of course, this assumes you agree that only women can have babies.
Kathy, I apologize for misunderstanding you. I thought you indicated men are incapable of preventing or acknowledging abuse. But now I understand your point is that it is easier to acknowledge abuse when women are present to receive reports. I agree with that! But, remember, women don't need to be pastors to be on staff or serve as volunteers as abuse of power reporters, etc. Also, male pastors can improve in the way they present themselves so that women will feel more comfortable reporting abuse to them. Though this may be difficult in some contexts, it is the biblical standard (abuse was reported to the apostles, cf 1 Cor 5) that make pastors should strive for.
I'm grateful for your work in understanding and ostensibly contributing to the work of ensuring justice for women. It is sorely needed and a God-honoring pursuit. Again, however, I don't think women need to be ordained for this to occur.
To your third point, I agree the CRCNA wasn't motivated by feminism in the 1960s and following. However, one question I have is why it just so happens that the Church never really thought about women in office until 1960s feminism. Do you attribute that to coincidence?
Finally, what about what the Bible says? To repeat an above post, Though you raise excellent pragmatic arguments for your position, I think pragmatic arguments are always secondary to Scripture. If God says, "Don't do it," but we think "doing it" is better for us, that doesn't excuse not following Scripture. Hence, the main topic of this post is hermeneutical, not pragmatic. As an example, your argument that the fruit of women in office is good fruit is the exact same argument proponents of same-sex marriage use. They say same-sex marriage is good for the church, so we should do it. But again, the argument is about what God says, not what we think it best for us. If a Christian is convinced that the Bible prohibits the ordination of women, do you think the pragmatic argument you make (i.e. look at the fruit) should outweigh the scriptural argument? What would you say to someone (like me) in that position?
I’ll try to focus on some highlights and respond where I have the most pressing question, or think a response would be most suitable to all the wonderful comments you’ve provided. In regards to this post, two things stand out.
First, you said, “I believe tradition of man/elders has elevated authority, power, titles, hierarchy, degrees, institutions at the expense of the Spirit & ALL the gifts especially prophecy (for both men & women), at the expense of the one another commands/principle, at the expense of the priesthood of all believers, at the expense of Jesus saying we (men & women) are not to "lord it over"/exercise authority over in the Body of Christ.”
To which I mostly agree! I think the Church, whatever the gender of the officer, has the unfortunate capacity to stifle the work of the body. I’ve also noticed that much of this stifling is bottom-up. That is, many people are content just being spectators and not, to use John Wimber’s phrase, “doing the stuff.” But, our difference lies here: I think the solution to this problem is a proper understanding of the priesthood of all believers. I think the CRC has endorsed a “dominee” understanding of pastors as if they are the only people allowed to pray, speak about the gospel, or teach. This is unfortunate and unbiblical. From my perspective, women should be empowered to teach women and children, share the gospel, pray for everyone in person or when absent, publicly share what God is doing in their lives, and yes, even share a prophetic word in submission to the elders if the woman (or man!) feels led. In sum, yes there’s stifling but I think the solution is in broadening our understanding of what lay Christians can do, not broadening our understanding of the pastorate. Ironically, from my perspective, the latter merely continues the unhelpful trend of intimating that only pastors, whether male or female, “can do the stuff.”
Second, you say, “Rob mentions that being pragmatic is secondary to God's word... I was thinking about this & I had to laugh... God forming Eve from Adam is very pragmatic! the only time God said "it is not good..." during creation is after Adam was created, when Adam was alone... the only time God said "very good" is after He created Eve! Problem solved! We are mandated to steward/rule over creation together, not over each other!”
I think your point here is that God is pragmatic? I’m not quite sure what you were intending with the reference to God creating Adam and Eve as it relates to the question at hand. Perhaps you could flesh that out a bit?
On the other hand, I noticed that your dichotomy in the last sentence is this: we either rule together or over each other (“We are mandated to steward/rule over creation together, not over each other!”). Unfortunately, this is a caricature of complementarianism that I hear often. A CRC pastor recently told me the linchpin in his becoming an egalitarian was his belief that Genesis teaches men are women are equal. I said I wholeheartedly agree!
No complementarian believes men and women aren’t equal in their inherent value, or that men should “rule over” women. Rather, complementarians believe that women should willingly submit to the delegated male authority of the church. If women reject this leadership, they are free to do so. The picture is of willing submission and loving leadership, not unwilling submission and ruling over. Furthermore, **women do participate in the creation mandate to rule creation.** We are all prophets, priests, and kings. Women rule over creation with men, but they do not lead men, according to the comp. view. This is analogous to our position with God—we rule over creation as we follow God. For women in the church, it’s the same relationship. Hence, Paul says, “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman…” (1 Cor 11:3).
Thank you for this article! Among the things mentioned, we can also be workers in the harvest, seeking to call people to repent and believe in Jesus. That is the core mission of RGM, the CRCNA, and the Church! The time of waiting we are in is for the purpose of bringing God's elect into His Kingdom.
“Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now commanding men that everyone everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He determined, having furnished proof to all by raising Him from the dead.”” (Acts 17:30–31, LSB)
Hi everyone. Since it's not in accordance with Network guidelines to discuss women in office under this post, since the post isn't about that, I've created a separate post where we can engage on that topic. I would value your contribution if you'd be willing to share your thoughts on that page. Here is the link:
Hi Bonny, thank you for your comment. I am sorry my use of gender-specific language wasn't to your liking, seriously. This is a difficult situation. I am genuinely interested to hear your answer to this question: After prayer and searching the scriptures in community, I have come to the conclusion that the Bible teaches that women cannot be pastors. My position is not rare and it is fully accepted by the CRC, alongside your view. Do you think I should go against my conscience—which says women can't be pastors—and write as if I do not believe that? Or, do you think The Network should edit my writing to reflect something contrary to my conscience?
Posted in: A Christian Discussion on Women in Office
Amen! Men and women are both agents of God's redemptive work for humanity. From my perspective, this use of men and women by God is most beautiful when men and women's complementarity is in view. I agree with the assertion of the linked article, "Hierarchy and the Biblical Worldview" that the neo-platonic notion of the analogia entis or the "great chain of being" is pagan in origin and it has been abused to represent women as lower on an ontological totem pole. Sad! I take a different response, however, as I'm sure you know and as I hinted above.
On another note, I finished Sandra Glahn's book Nobody's Mother yesterday and found her work refreshing in its attention to the biblical data, whether exegetical or grammatico-historical. She argues persuasively that Artemis is in the background of 1 Timothy. Usually, I'm uncompelled by that argument, but her use of new inscriptional archaeological data is enlightening. I still don't think there's enough solid evidence to claim Paul was only precluding female preaching in an Artemisian context, especially since, if he was, his alternative would not be "learn quietly and in submission" but "teach humbly and not like Artemis." Nevertheless, the real gem for me was her very persuasive reading of "she will be saved by childbearing" as a potential (there is no evidence of the quote origin per se, but the concept is certainly Artemisian) quotation of the Artemisian cultic literature. Therefore, Glahn reads Paul as subversively fulfilling Artemis's promise by saying it can be fulfilled only in faith in Christ. I.e., ""She will be saved in childbearing" as Artemis promises, if they continue in faith in Christ."
Posted in: A Christian Discussion on Women in Office
Hi Bev!
Indeed, page two of a fruitful discussion! I am so grateful to God for the ability to discuss these important things in this way.
Thank you for the very interesting background to the other gods in Ephesus. I haven’t studied that, but from what you say I’d agree that that background is very important indeed. Anytime I hear someone say, “this or that god is what this or that author had in mind” I am sceptical because we all know how polytheistic Rome was. So, your point that there may be other gods / witchcraft at play in Ephesus sounds right on the money. It’s most definitely a fruitful area of study and it seems scholars aren’t giving it its due. This is another reason why I’m very cautious to take an alternate meaning to a text based on such things—we find out new things every day and the evidence would need to be near 100% certain to overturn a traditional interpretation. The Church can misinterpret for a time, but to hold that she has misinterpreted for two millennia would need the sort of evidence that would convict someone in a court of law: “beyond reasonable doubt.” There are lots of reasonable doubts to be dealt with!
In regards to Matt 20:25-26, I think the verb that scholars base their interpretation on is the first one: κατακυριεύω which is translated either “lord it over” or “dominate” in the 9 standard translations I checked. The softest translation is in the KJV which has “exercise dominion over.” BDAG has these meanings for this word “1) to bring into subjection, become master, gain dominion over, subdue; 2) to have mastery, be master, lord it (over), rule.” It seems that this first words helps us understand the meaning of the word you mentioned, the second one in the verse, which is less frequently used in the NT (κατεξουσιάζω). For the latter, BDAG notes that it may inherently have negative connotations: “exercise authority, perhaps tyrannize τινός over someone.” Therefore, I think Jesus’s point in this text is not that there should not be any good authority over one another in the Church, but that the authority must be expressed in a way different from Gentile domineering.
The NT has a lot to say about authority: elders are “shepherds” (1 Tim 3). Shepherds have authority over the sheep, which is why Jesus is referred to as the “over shepherd” (1 Pet 5). Good authority is very present in the biblical data when considering the Church: Timothy is to “command certain ones not to teach a different doctrine” (1 Tim); wives are to “submit to their husbands” (Eph 5); children are to “obey their parents” (5th commandment recited in Eph 5); the elders in Jerusalem made binding decisions regarding circumcision in Acts 15; the author to the Hebrews says, “Obey your leaders and submit to them—for they keep watch over your souls” (13:17). Many more references could be made. The Bible unequivocally teaches that good authority must be present in the Church.
Unfortunately, as you point out, this clear biblical teaching has been hijacked, as Glahn points out, by neo-platonic / Aristotelian conceptions of femininity as a deformed masculinity. That is, the Church took the good biblical teaching and assumed it meant that women were ontologically inferior. But, as Glahn must concede, there was always a minority report who held to true biblical femininity as not ontologically inferior, but just functionally distinct, as nature itself teaches.
Therefore, as you point out, the language of “serving” is a very good one when considering good, biblical authority. As a pastor, my primary role is to serve my flock. I must also lead them, but this leadership should be modeled after Jesus who was a servant-leader (e.g. washing the disciples’ feet). This does not negate leadership, but it refocuses it in a biblical frame rather than a Gentile one where leaders are permitted to “lord over” or “domineer” their people. Unfortunately, the Church has often failed that test and has indeed allowed—and even encouraged—leaders to lord, rather than serve.
I think you’re on the right track in the sense that leadership should look more collaborative than it does. But I do not think this means that ὑποτασσω and words like it do not mean “submit.” We submit to God everyday but it is a beautiful, even collaborative thing! The Church must do the same.
Grace and peace to you my ontologically equivalent and spiritually superior sister in Christ!
Rob
Posted in: A Christian Discussion on Women in Office
Indeed, may the Lord give you peace and fresh vistas of His love, Bonny. I totally understand and don't expect you to feel the need to defend your pastorate here. This is just an opportunity for those interested to discuss this important question. May the Lord bless you and your family. I pray the Lord gives you His comfort in this extremely difficult time.
Posted in: A Christian Discussion on Women in Office
Thank you Bev for this and the other comments! What I've read so far is very interesting and thought-provoking. I hope to respond soon!
Posted in: A Christian Discussion on Women in Office
Thank you so much for this comment, Kathy! I really appreciated the historical context regarding the 1960/70s WIO debate. Indeed, women are just as gifted and important to the church as men!
I wonder, however, if it's true that we need women in leadership to avoid abuse. That seems to me to paint male leadership in a demeaning light, as if men can't but be abusive without women by their side. What about single men? Churches where women aren't available to lead? Are they doomed to be abusive? This is my response to your statement: "The lack of women in any leadership positions was named as an important part of what prevents abuse from being taken seriously. My experience in Safe Church work confirms the importance of having both women and men in leadership positions to deal effectively with abuse within church communities."
To your third point, it sounds like you're saying complementarianism is unjust toward women. Is that correct? Perhaps I misunderstood your third point. But if that is what you meant, again, I find that demeaning to God-honoring people—both men and women (like John Piper and Jackie Hill Perry)—who are complementarian. In my experience, complementarianism is very just toward women because it honors the roles God has given them (raising children, teaching women and children, and serving the church in non-teaching roles, etc. etc.).
Finally and most importantly, though you raise excellent pragmatic arguments for your position, I think pragmatic arguments are always secondary to Scripture. If God says, "Don't do it," but we think "doing it" is better for us, that doesn't excuse not following Scripture. Hence, the main topic of this post is hermeneutical, not pragmatic. As an example, your argument that the fruit of women in office is good fruit is the exact same argument proponents of same-sex marriage use. They say same-sex marriage is good for the church, so we should do it. But again, the argument is about what God says, not what we think it best for us.
Thanks again for engaging and may the Lord bless you as you serve His church.
Rob
Posted in: A Christian Discussion on Women in Office
Hetty, I know this can be frustrating for some. I regret that it is. My prayer is that we all settle into the roles God has given us and we flourish under His will which is always best for us. Also, though I'm not among them unfortunately, I know many men who are just as empathetic and caring as women! For example—Jesus! But, I don't know any men who can bear a child. That is a God-given task only women who are called to do it can fulfill.
Posted in: A Christian Discussion on Women in Office
Hetty, I understand that frustration. Also, I'm not saying you should have a baby. I'm saying the roles of men and women in the church are different. Though we disagree over the extent of the difference, biology requires you to agree that there are some things essential to the church that men cannot do, like have babies (no babies, no more church militant). To that extent, we have some agreement. Of course, this assumes you agree that only women can have babies.
Posted in: A Christian Discussion on Women in Office
Kathy, I apologize for misunderstanding you. I thought you indicated men are incapable of preventing or acknowledging abuse. But now I understand your point is that it is easier to acknowledge abuse when women are present to receive reports. I agree with that! But, remember, women don't need to be pastors to be on staff or serve as volunteers as abuse of power reporters, etc. Also, male pastors can improve in the way they present themselves so that women will feel more comfortable reporting abuse to them. Though this may be difficult in some contexts, it is the biblical standard (abuse was reported to the apostles, cf 1 Cor 5) that make pastors should strive for.
I'm grateful for your work in understanding and ostensibly contributing to the work of ensuring justice for women. It is sorely needed and a God-honoring pursuit. Again, however, I don't think women need to be ordained for this to occur.
To your third point, I agree the CRCNA wasn't motivated by feminism in the 1960s and following. However, one question I have is why it just so happens that the Church never really thought about women in office until 1960s feminism. Do you attribute that to coincidence?
Finally, what about what the Bible says? To repeat an above post, Though you raise excellent pragmatic arguments for your position, I think pragmatic arguments are always secondary to Scripture. If God says, "Don't do it," but we think "doing it" is better for us, that doesn't excuse not following Scripture. Hence, the main topic of this post is hermeneutical, not pragmatic. As an example, your argument that the fruit of women in office is good fruit is the exact same argument proponents of same-sex marriage use. They say same-sex marriage is good for the church, so we should do it. But again, the argument is about what God says, not what we think it best for us. If a Christian is convinced that the Bible prohibits the ordination of women, do you think the pragmatic argument you make (i.e. look at the fruit) should outweigh the scriptural argument? What would you say to someone (like me) in that position?
Posted in: A Christian Discussion on Women in Office
Dear Bev,
I’ll try to focus on some highlights and respond where I have the most pressing question, or think a response would be most suitable to all the wonderful comments you’ve provided. In regards to this post, two things stand out.
First, you said, “I believe tradition of man/elders has elevated authority, power, titles, hierarchy, degrees, institutions at the expense of the Spirit & ALL the gifts especially prophecy (for both men & women), at the expense of the one another commands/principle, at the expense of the priesthood of all believers, at the expense of Jesus saying we (men & women) are not to "lord it over"/exercise authority over in the Body of Christ.”
To which I mostly agree! I think the Church, whatever the gender of the officer, has the unfortunate capacity to stifle the work of the body. I’ve also noticed that much of this stifling is bottom-up. That is, many people are content just being spectators and not, to use John Wimber’s phrase, “doing the stuff.” But, our difference lies here: I think the solution to this problem is a proper understanding of the priesthood of all believers. I think the CRC has endorsed a “dominee” understanding of pastors as if they are the only people allowed to pray, speak about the gospel, or teach. This is unfortunate and unbiblical. From my perspective, women should be empowered to teach women and children, share the gospel, pray for everyone in person or when absent, publicly share what God is doing in their lives, and yes, even share a prophetic word in submission to the elders if the woman (or man!) feels led. In sum, yes there’s stifling but I think the solution is in broadening our understanding of what lay Christians can do, not broadening our understanding of the pastorate. Ironically, from my perspective, the latter merely continues the unhelpful trend of intimating that only pastors, whether male or female, “can do the stuff.”
Second, you say, “Rob mentions that being pragmatic is secondary to God's word... I was thinking about this & I had to laugh... God forming Eve from Adam is very pragmatic! the only time God said "it is not good..." during creation is after Adam was created, when Adam was alone... the only time God said "very good" is after He created Eve! Problem solved! We are mandated to steward/rule over creation together, not over each other!”
I think your point here is that God is pragmatic? I’m not quite sure what you were intending with the reference to God creating Adam and Eve as it relates to the question at hand. Perhaps you could flesh that out a bit?
On the other hand, I noticed that your dichotomy in the last sentence is this: we either rule together or over each other (“We are mandated to steward/rule over creation together, not over each other!”). Unfortunately, this is a caricature of complementarianism that I hear often. A CRC pastor recently told me the linchpin in his becoming an egalitarian was his belief that Genesis teaches men are women are equal. I said I wholeheartedly agree!
No complementarian believes men and women aren’t equal in their inherent value, or that men should “rule over” women. Rather, complementarians believe that women should willingly submit to the delegated male authority of the church. If women reject this leadership, they are free to do so. The picture is of willing submission and loving leadership, not unwilling submission and ruling over. Furthermore, **women do participate in the creation mandate to rule creation.** We are all prophets, priests, and kings. Women rule over creation with men, but they do not lead men, according to the comp. view. This is analogous to our position with God—we rule over creation as we follow God. For women in the church, it’s the same relationship. Hence, Paul says, “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman…” (1 Cor 11:3).
Posted in: Is Christmas the Appetizer?
Thank you for this article! Among the things mentioned, we can also be workers in the harvest, seeking to call people to repent and believe in Jesus. That is the core mission of RGM, the CRCNA, and the Church! The time of waiting we are in is for the purpose of bringing God's elect into His Kingdom.
“Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now commanding men that everyone everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He determined, having furnished proof to all by raising Him from the dead.”” (Acts 17:30–31, LSB)
Posted in: What's So Hard About Being a Pastor?
Hi everyone. Since it's not in accordance with Network guidelines to discuss women in office under this post, since the post isn't about that, I've created a separate post where we can engage on that topic. I would value your contribution if you'd be willing to share your thoughts on that page. Here is the link:
https://network.crcna.org/topic/leadership/pastors/christian-discussion-women-office#comment-61587
See you there!
Posted in: What's So Hard About Being a Pastor?
Hi Bonny, thank you for your comment. I am sorry my use of gender-specific language wasn't to your liking, seriously. This is a difficult situation. I am genuinely interested to hear your answer to this question: After prayer and searching the scriptures in community, I have come to the conclusion that the Bible teaches that women cannot be pastors. My position is not rare and it is fully accepted by the CRC, alongside your view. Do you think I should go against my conscience—which says women can't be pastors—and write as if I do not believe that? Or, do you think The Network should edit my writing to reflect something contrary to my conscience?