Women in the church

[Cybelle Hawke]

I do not believe that women are to be made 'submitted' to men. Going that path only provokes rebellion.

It was announced to Eve, mother of all living, by G-d Himself, that man shall rule over her. (Genesis 3:16)

G-d has pointed out the status of the woman crystal clear. Given the previous context (Genesis 3:1-15) this pronouncement is hardly a blessing, let alone a Godgiven right granted to man.

However, these words reflect His decision. This is how it shall be! And Paul does nothing else than base himself on these words of Genesis.

Women should not make the mistake to confuse equal rights with God´s decisive Word. Women are not inferior nor are men superior. A woman is not ruled out nor devaluated, nor is her role insignificant or meaningless. Yet the woman has been put in place.

It does not really matter what qualities women might have and how much more equipped and smart they are than most men (if not all). The female talents and wit are not wasted when she simply performs her duties as a daugther, wife and mother, caring about her family and taking charge of the household, and has no leading or teaching role in church.

These words G-d spoke cannot be put aside by women, nor can they be abused by men to interpret and apply the ruling over as ruling out. But G-d has spoken and that is pretty much the end of trying to rebute it.

Of course, there are exceptions to be found in the Bible and also, in today´s life. And why not? Is G-d bound by Paul´s teachings? When a woman is called to fullfill a leading or teaching role in the congregation / church how can a man, of all creatures, stand in her way? I think it is important that this attitude should be examined.

Yet I support the idea that in general women must realize that G-d has spoken about the status of the female. Exceptions confirm the rule. And may both genders be openminded to Him calling out women to lead and teach, without men falling back on the orthodoxics and women wanting to change the basic foundations.

And as a sidenote, I would like to ask why it is so hard for women to accept her status?

[lilpixieofterror]

Romans 5 is about the respective federal headships of Adam (over mankind as sinners, leading to death) and Jesus (over mankind as saved, leading to life). That sort of "head of household" language would have been very familiar to Romans and Jews alike, and using it of Eve would have been quite odd. 1 Timothy 2, on the other hand, is specifically about women at that point, so the example of Eve, the prototypical woman, seems very reasonable in that context, rather than Adam.

But the point still remains, why would Paul talk about sin entering the world though a women if it would be odd for Romans and Jews to hear that? Maybe Paul might be making a different point then what the 'plain reading of the text' might reveal? Perhaps we should dig deeper and see what we can dig up?

Certainly we don't know all the details about Paul and Timothy and what they were up to that caused this particular letter to be composed. But your argument amounts to, "What if that lost information would completely change what Paul means in verse X?" Well, what if it wouldn't? We can't argue "What if"s. That would literally be an infinite endeavor about each verse. As I said above, I don't see Romans 5 as contradicting 1 Timothy 2, though certainly they have different points and thus use different arguments.

I haven't used any what if's other than bringing up the fact that we have some ambiguity and there has to be more to the story then simply these few verses and in light of the fact that Romans and Jews would find it odd to blame Eve for sin entering the world, what is that saying to us? Likewise, Paul's word choice isn't used anywhere else in the NT and in fact, his word choice that is translated to 'authority' has some rather negative connotations (at least what scholars currently believe, but don't take my word for it, here is what Glenn Miller himself quotes:

Traditionally, authentein has been understood to connote a sense of "domineer" or "to usurp authority" and the term is even associated with murder. Although not all of the evidence and arguments have been fully assessed, two points seem relatively certain. First, the term is unusual. If Paul were referring to the normal exercise of authority, his otherwise constant exousia/exousiazo ("authority/to exercise authority") vocabulary would most likely have been used. The choice of such an unusual term itself indicates that Paul intended a different nuance or meaning. Second,...many uses of the term seem rather clearly to carry the negative sense of "domineer" or "usurp authority." Thus I see the injunctions of 2:11-12 as directed against women involved in false teaching who have abused proper exercise of authority in the church (not denied by Paul elsewhere to women) by usurpation and domination of the male leaders and teachers in the church at Ephesus.
Women, Authority, and the Bible, Alvera Mickelson (ed.), IVP: 1986. Taken from: http://www.christianthinktank.com/fem09.html

I find that quote odd that Paul would choose to use such a word if he is saying that men should be in charge of women and a better way to phrase this, in light of this understanding would be:

'I do not permit women to usurp authority over men'

which changes up the meaning to something totally different and leads to a much different conclusion, he is not saying that women cannot be leaders, he is saying that women shouldn't be usurping authority, which of course they shouldn't. If Paul wanted to make it clear that men should be put in charge of women, he would have used exousia, exousiazo, or kyrieuo not authenteo. This is yet another reason I do not find your argument to be very powerful or very convincing. There is simply not enough data there to make such a claim and the fact we find women leaders of the early church and Paul mentioning them by name is an indication there is yet something else up about these verses beyond the 'plain reading of the text' that people want to take this verse as being.

[RBerman]

But the point still remains, why would Paul talk about sin entering the world though a women if it would be odd for Romans and Jews to hear that? Maybe Paul might be making a different point then what the 'plain reading of the text' might reveal? Perhaps we should dig deeper and see what we can dig up?

Paul's point in 1 Timothy 2 is not that "sin entered the world through a women." Paul doesn't even mention sin (or its origin) in 1 Timothy 2. Where did you get that idea?

I haven't used any what if's other than bringing up the fact that we have some ambiguity and there has to be more to the story then simply these few verses and in light of the fact that Romans and Jews would find it odd to blame Eve for sin entering the world, what is that saying to us? Likewise, Paul's word choice isn't used anywhere else in the NT and in fact, his word choice that is translated to 'authority' has some rather negative connotations (at least what scholars currently believe, but don't take my word for it, here is what Glenn Miller himself quotes:

Traditionally, authentein has been understood to connote a sense of "domineer" or "to usurp authority" and the term is even associated with murder. Although not all of the evidence and arguments have been fully assessed, two points seem relatively certain. First, the term is unusual. If Paul were referring to the normal exercise of authority, his otherwise constant exousia/exousiazo ("authority/to exercise authority") vocabulary would most likely have been used. The choice of such an unusual term itself indicates that Paul intended a different nuance or meaning. Second,...many uses of the term seem rather clearly to carry the negative sense of "domineer" or "usurp authority." Thus I see the injunctions of 2:11-12 as directed against women involved in false teaching who have abused proper exercise of authority in the church (not denied by Paul elsewhere to women) by usurpation and domination of the male leaders and teachers in the church at Ephesus.
Women, Authority, and the Bible, Alvera Mickelson (ed.), IVP: 1986. Taken from: http://www.christianthinktank.com/fem09.html

I find that quote odd that Paul would choose to use such a word if he is saying that men should be in charge of women and a better way to phrase this, in light of this understanding would be:

'I do not permit women to usurp authority over men'

which changes up the meaning to something totally different and leads to a much different conclusion, he is not saying that women cannot be leaders, he is saying that women shouldn't be usurping authority, which of course they shouldn't. If Paul wanted to make it clear that men should be put in charge of women, he would have used exousia, exousiazo, or kyrieuo not authenteo. This is yet another reason I do not find your argument to be very powerful or very convincing. There is simply not enough data there to make such a claim and the fact we find women leaders of the early church and Paul mentioning them by name is an indication there is yet something else up about these verses beyond the 'plain reading of the text' that people want to take this verse as being.

In fact, "I do not permit a woman to usurp authority over the man" is exactly how KJV renders this verse, but its point is that a woman teaching in the church is necessarily and inherently usurping a role which God has not given her. That was clear enough in KJV's day but, as your example shows, not in our own, which is why modern translations clarify the matter by omitting "usurp" so that it's obvious what Paul was really forbidding:

ESV I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man
HCSB I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man
NIV (1984) I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man
NIV (2011) I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man
NASB But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man
NET But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man.

Your coment about "women leaders" is vague and overly broad. Obviously gifted women will use their talents in the church, under the headship of the male (ἀνήρ, Titus 1:6) officers.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Actually I said:



Nature is not offered as proof; in fact nature can't be offered as proof as to what is actually said in the Bible... I merely am pointing out that the Bible speaks of different roles....and that nature shows real differences between men and women; the same can not be said about race.

The fact that God has different roles for men and women, and the fact that men and women ARE different, should not be shocking....because God is not arbitrary in His design or His commands.

So no argumentum ad circulum here....

You have only drawn your circle bigger and pounded the desk.

You assume your position and say that even nature supports it. But when challenged you point back to your assumption. If you can't see how that is classic circular reasoning, I can't explain it better. Maybe you should find a man to explain it to you since you think we wimmin are naturally deficient in the explaining area.

Female or not, I do not know that you have no idea what a red herring is or you wouldn't have used that term. I didn't introduce an irrelevant topic. That is what a red herring is. I found a definition written by a man that said so.

(he accused me of a red herring in his post before he went back and edited it)

[Phat8594]

You assume your position and say that even nature supports it. But when challenged you point back to your assumption. If you can't see how that is classic circular reasoning, I can't explain it better.

Dizzle,

I never put forward "nature as proof" of anything. I merely pointed out that nature shows real differences between men and women....

Its a non-sequiter to think that this proves what the Bible says. The Bible says, what the Bible says, irregardless of what we see in nature. And what I said was that one can find basis for differing roles in the Bible.....I simply never offered proof of that. So yes,,, as of now I have made a statement (basis found in Bible) without giving proof.

If you want to talk about the proof, that is fine....

Female or not, I do not know that you have no idea what a red herring is or you wouldn't have used that term. I didn't introduce an irrelevant topic. That is what a red herring is. I found a definition written by a man that said so.

(he accused me of a red herring in his post before he went back and edited it)

If you think I am talking down to you because you are a female....I am sorry. I do not think women are less intelligent, capable, etc....just so you know.

The reason I originally put in the red herring was because you brought up the point of nature being used as proof of whats in the Bible, when we were speaking about differences in race and differences in sex. It sure seemed as though you were trying to avoid the topic at hand.

But perhaps I was wrong, and you'd be happy to answer my prior question and explain why you think differences in sex are the same as differences in skin color.....rather than just accuse me of circular reasoning without actually engaging me in dialogue.

You might find that what I believe...and what you seem to think I believe are quite different...

[Phat8594]

And as a sidenote, I would like to ask why it is so hard for women to accept her status?

It say's right in Genesis 3:

16 To the woman he said,

“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be for[f] your husband,
and he shall rule over you.”

That desire isnt a loving desire...but rather a desire to rule over (IOW women have the temptation to rule over men...which makes Paul's words all the more relevant).....anyways its the same "desire" just a couple sentences later in Chapter 4:

So Cain was very angry, and his face fell. 6 The Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted?[b] And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for[c] you, but you must rule over it.”

In other words Cybelle, I think sin is to blame.

[Dee Dee Warren]

You stated what you believe. I didn't assume what you believe, and I responded, and pixie responded, and you simply reasserted. That was it.

[Phat8594]

You stated what you believe. I didn't assume what you believe, and I responded, and pixie responded, and you simply reasserted. That was it

So then what part were you responding to? What is it that I believe that is so offensive or wrong? That sex is different from race? Or that I think there is basis in the Bible for roles? Or that I think that nature speaks to differences between men and women? After all....thats pretty much all I said....

[Phat8594]

Submission has different connotations and understandings in their era Phat then they do today

Submission is the most recent translation, and thus probably most accurately reflects the true meaning. Of course, a lot of people today take submision to mean blind obedience.....this of course is ludicrous and without base.

and the Bible has lots to say to husbands as well.

It sure does. And I think there are a lot of men who harp on the "submission of women", yet totally disregard their responsibility, which is to love their wives as Christ loved the church.

Do you think loving your wife as Christ loves the church and being willing to give your life in her defense is an act of submission or not? If you say yes, that means husbands need to submit to their wives just as wives need to submit to their husbands.

Biblically speaking...I think it is an act of submission to God, but an act of love towards the wife...its not submitting to the wife. Self-Sacrifice is certainly involved, yes (and lots of it)...but I wouldn't define it as submission as it is here in 1 Timothy, or as it is in Ephesians 5. In other words, I don't believe Christ submitted to the Church, but Christ definitely put the interest of His bride (the church), above His own comforts.

A husband has to know his wife and put her needs and wants before his own and a wife needs to know her husband and put his needs and wants before her own. That is what the entire context of Paul's message points out and what I've seen of my own marriage, when one of us puts the needs of ourselves above the other, that is often when issues result, but as long as we remember whom we put first, things work out great.

Certainly a husband needs to listen to his wife and put her needs above his own....as I stated above. But this is not the context of Paul's message. The context of Paul's message in 1 Timothy is most likely in response to women usurping men; the fact that Paul uses Adam and Eve as a proof for His point, shows that although his message is given within a cultural context, he obviously feels that the principle on which he bases his proposition goes all the way back to the beginning of creation.

And yes, I would agree that when marriages are based on love and are other centered...things tend to work out better. But certainly as almost every married couple will attest to, sometimes you just won't agree with a particular decision or direction to go....so who gets the last say? Paul's advice is practical as much as spiritual.

The verb translated as "exercise authority over" (authenteo) is only used here in the NT, and its meaning is HOTLY contested.

TWO things that ARE sure about its meaning--it is NOT the normal word for "authority" (exousia), "exercising authority" (exousiazo), or "power" (kyrieuo); and it is NOT a 'good' thing (suitable for ANYONE to do--even males!)...

This argument doesn't actually hold much ground. Firstly, "excercise authority" is agreed upon by most scholars as the best translation....particularly because the few occurances that are closest in time (of writing) and nature to that of 1 Timothy have the meaning of "have authority over" or "have dominion over". Secondly, the idea that if Paul wanted to say "excercise authority over", he would have used the word "exousiazo" is somewhat of a stretch; Pauls 3 other uses of the word, hardly put it on the category of what is considerd common Pauline vocabulary; furthermore, it is well known that the vocabulary of his pastoral epistles is distinct from his vocabulary in his other writings.

Oh, you are quite correct there are differences in terms of physiological and psychological there is no denying that. It is too bad that none of that magically means that women shouldn't be teachers, unless you can explain how having a vagina, less facial hair, and a more emotional bent (this is a tendency, but I've known plenty of women that are not feeling types and plenty of men that are) means women can't be teachers or leaders

And I have yet to claim as much. I merely pointed out that nature shows that men and women are different. Therefore, it should not be shocking if God reveals different roles for the sexes through His written word. Surely, IF God reveals different roles for the sexes, we can at least agree that God is not arbitrary in His decision to do so...

Or Paul is addressing something else and you're basing your entire view upon a bad interpretation of the text that quite frankly isn't as well supported as you think mainly due to the different cultural connotations that existed in the first century and today.

Nope...those are the issues that Paul is addressing. Certainly we can agree that the letters must be interpreted within the context (cultural, literary, etc.) in which they were written....however, you have yet to give any strong exegetical reason to take this differently than it has been taken for thousands of years within Orthodox Christianity...

IOW, you can't just say "what you believe isnt as well supported as you think, because there are different cultural connotations", without giving basis for those connotations (i.e. why submit is a poor translation into modern english...etc.) or why those connotations change the meaning. In fact, I could say the same thing back...and all we have done is assert without real exegetical reason.

[lilpixieofterror]

Paul's point in 1 Timothy 2 is not that "sin entered the world through a women." Paul doesn't even mention sin (or its origin) in 1 Timothy 2. Where did you get that idea?

Just comparing the general ideas RB. What Paul doesn't say, but implies is just as important as what he says. 1 Timothy 2 is saying that it was the women that was deceived, correct? So what does that imply about women.

In fact, "I do not permit a woman to usurp authority over the man" is exactly how KJV renders this verse, but its point is that a woman teaching in the church is necessarily and inherently usurping a role which God has not given her.

I do love assertions and how RB asserts (without evidence) that a women teaching = usurp authority. So does that mean that a women teaching in the house is 'usurping the authority' of her husband? Does that mean that women teachers the world over are 'usurping the authority' of men the world over? What makes the church any different then these two applications? Why is it ok for me to teach my children something, in my own home and not be 'usurping the authority' of my husband, but when it is in a church, all of a sudden I would be 'usurping the authority' of the church? Do you see how absurdly illogical and totally dumb your position is yet? What gives a church the magical powers that women cannot teach in the church, but we can teach our children the same things in our home that we would teach them in a church?

That was clear enough in KJV's day but, as your example shows, not in our own, which is why modern translations clarify the matter by omitting "usurp" so that it's obvious what Paul was really forbidding:

ESV I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man
HCSB I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man
NIV (1984) I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man
NIV (2011) I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man
NASB But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man
NET But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man.

Your coment about "women leaders" is vague and overly broad. Obviously gifted women will use their talents in the church, under the headship of the male (ἀνήρ, Titus 1:6) officers.

Nah, you just want to believe what you want to hear and ignore all the evidence against your position. You want to base your belief upon a word, which has an unclear meaning. You want to directly ignore the fact that the Bible clearly describes women leaders in the early church and Paul even greets these women in his letters. So were they 'usurping the authority' of men? Finally, can you please explain the magical properties that means I can be a leader in my work place, in school, or in my community and am not 'usurping the authority' of men around me, but suddenly when we take this to a church, I am? Does this sound very logical to you RB? It is quite revealing though that you simply ignore the information I have presented and keep with your same tired assertions over and over again without really addressing anything I have brought forth.

[RBerman]

Nah, you just want to believe what you want to hear and ignore all the evidence against your position. You want to base your belief upon a word, which has an unclear meaning. You want to directly ignore the fact that the Bible clearly describes women leaders in the early church and Paul even greets these women in his letters. So were they 'usurping the authority' of men? Finally, can you please explain the magical properties that means I can be a leader in my work place, in school, or in my community and am not 'usurping the authority' of men around me, but suddenly when we take this to a church, I am? Does this sound very logical to you RB? It is quite revealing though that you simply ignore the information I have presented and keep with your same tired assertions over and over again without really addressing anything I have brought forth.

If you are tired of my contributions, then further effort on my part will be counterproductive.

[Abigail]

Abigail, I am not presently an egalitarian, but I just listened to one guy who is the first one who ever gave me pause to think I might be wrong. check out episodes 85 and 86 of the Theopologetics podcast in which Dr. Payne is interviewed.

http://www.theopologetics.com/

My mind was really opened.

Dr. White unwittingly also contributed to my considering that complementarianism might be wrong. In his five hour rebuttal to Matthew Vines defense of "gay Christianity" he pointed out that while Matthew can try to piecemeal argue against the negative verses, he cannot point to any pattern at all of positive presentation. Well, there are plenty of example of positive presentation of female leadership. As a complementation, I would argue they are exceptions... but why are they exceptions? Are they just exception because my system demands that they must be? I am beginning to suspect that is the case.

Separate but equal was crap in race issues, and I am beginning to think it is utter crap when it comes to men and women in the Church. We criticized the Mormons for withholding the priesthood from blacks... yet we think it dandy to metaphorically withhold it from women.

Sorry but having a dingaling don't make you guys that special.

Thanks Dee Dee, I have now listened to both talks (quite long but well worth it)

[lilpixieofterror]

If you are tired of my contributions, then further effort on my part will be counterproductive.

So please produce a single reason why being a women and not a man automatically means I can not be a teacher or a leader in a church, ever? Can you please explain how this logically follows without resorting to the 'plain reading of the text' that you are so trying to hold to here?

[lilpixieofterror]

Submission is the most recent translation, and thus probably most accurately reflects the true meaning. Of course, a lot of people today take submision to mean blind obedience.....this of course is ludicrous and without base.

I’d agree with you there.

It sure does. And I think there are a lot of men who harp on the "submission of women", yet totally disregard their responsibility, which is to love their wives as Christ loved the church.

Which is, in of itself, an act of submission and you are correct.

Biblically speaking...I think it is an act of submission to God, but an act of love towards the wife...its not submitting to the wife. Self-Sacrifice is certainly involved, yes (and lots of it)...but I wouldn't define it as submission as it is here in 1 Timothy, or as it is in Ephesians 5. In other words, I don't believe Christ submitted to the Church, but Christ definitely put the interest of His bride (the church), above His own comforts.

What did Christ do for the love of the church? Did he die a shameful death on a cross? Is that an act of submission in of itself?

Certainly a husband needs to listen to his wife and put her needs above his own....as I stated above. But this is not the context of Paul's message. The context of Paul's message in 1 Timothy is most likely in response to women usurping men; the fact that Paul uses Adam and Eve as a proof for His point, shows that although his message is given within a cultural context, he obviously feels that the principle on which he bases his proposition goes all the way back to the beginning of creation.

I’d agree with you that in that sense, it is some women who are trying to usurp the church and the authority of those in charge, but I do not see the evidence of it being a universal command or in as big of a scope as you think. I have a natural ability to be a teacher and tend to have an ability to get people to listen to me. Does the Bible not tell us that we are given gifts to use for God and if God didn’t want us to use the gifts he gave us, why would he bestow these gifts upon women as well as men? There are many good women teachers and leaders out there and there are many bad men teachers and leaders out there. Plus the history of the city of Ephesus tells us something else too. The city (according to legend) was founded by the Amazon (which was a group claimed to be lead by women), so many women in this city had a tendency to look down upon men, thus the reasons Paul highlights Eve specifically here and not Adam (as he does in Romans). I find that in this, he is making a point to say that women, as well as men, are sinners too and highlighting this fact. That has to be taken in mind with the context of the book of Timothy. Second, we find the early church had women leaders and disciples and even Paul addresses these women in his letters and sends them greetings, so why would Paul contradict himself here? Perhaps there is more going on than meets the eye? Third, if I am a good teacher and leader in other aspects of my life, why can’t I be one in a church? What is the difference between the church and other aspects of our lives? Shouldn’t the church reflect our lives as we live them in accordance to Christ? So if women can be a good teacher and leader elsewhere, why not in a church? Finally, you are basing your opinion upon one word which is not found used anywhere else in the Bible and in fact, is a word that has an unknown meaning.

And yes, I would agree that when marriages are based on love and are other centered...things tend to work out better. But certainly as almost every married couple will attest to, sometimes you just won't agree with a particular decision or direction to go....so who gets the last say? Paul's advice is practical as much as spiritual.

And is forcing your wife to agree with you and making her do things she doesn’t want to do going to help out and have a love filled marriage or is going to create a rift? I’m sorry, but the whole, “I am in charge because God said so, so you will do this.” Isn’t going to make for a very happy or lasting marriage.

This argument doesn't actually hold much ground. Firstly, "excercise authority" is agreed upon by most scholars as the best translation....particularly because the few occurances that are closest in time (of writing) and nature to that of 1 Timothy have the meaning of "have authority over" or "have dominion over". Secondly, the idea that if Paul wanted to say "excercise authority over", he would have used the word "exousiazo" is somewhat of a stretch; Pauls 3 other uses of the word, hardly put it on the category of what is considerd common Pauline vocabulary; furthermore, it is well known that the vocabulary of his pastoral epistles is distinct from his vocabulary in his other writings.

Then I would suggest that you take it up with Glenn Miller and the scholar he cites and give him those reasons since those are his words, not mine.

And I have yet to claim as much. I merely pointed out that nature shows that men and women are different. Therefore, it should not be shocking if God reveals different roles for the sexes through His written word. Surely, IF God reveals different roles for the sexes, we can at least agree that God is not arbitrary in His decision to do so...

And yet, you have not shown how any of this makes a lick of difference in terms of the ability to teach or lead, but you asserted it and used one verse in the Bible (while ignoring the rest) to try to make your case. I produced a pretty in depth look at Paul’s words, the historical situation of 1st Timothy, the word usage which was chosen in this case, and an analysis of the rest of the bible to see what these words should tell us, in context, to what is being said here. I think you are trying to make Paul say far more then he was trying to say and instead, Paul was addressing a group of women that were trying to start problems in the church in Ephesus and he is NOT giving a universal commandment or word that men must always be in charge in the church and women are not allowed to teach men in any case, period. That is just an absurd position to take.

Nope...those are the issues that Paul is addressing. Certainly we can agree that the letters must be interpreted within the context (cultural, literary, etc.) in which they were written....however, you have yet to give any strong exegetical reason to take this differently than it has been taken for thousands of years within Orthodox Christianity...

You are aware that there were and has always been many women leaders within the church, both in the east and the west, in ancient and modern times, right? Do you want me to name off a few examples? How about the Queens of England, they are not only the queens, but the head of the church, so when are you going to go tell them that they shouldn’t have a women in charge of the church since you are trying to claim that Orthodox Christianity has not had women in charge when just a brief look at history shows that is wrong? Want another example? How about Junia as mentioned in Romans 16:7, did you know that many people think this is a women being addressed as an apostle because the word usage is the feminine and not masculine? Did you know that the Eastern Orthodox Tradition calls Mary Magdalene the apostle to the apostles because she specifically told the apostles about the risen Lord first and thus, taught them something (in fact, stories of her life give her a pretty large role)? I can go on and on, but if your assertion is to be believed, we would have to discount the clear examples that say quite differently than the story you are producing here says.

IOW, you can't just say "what you believe isnt as well supported as you think, because there are different cultural connotations", without giving basis for those connotations (i.e. why submit is a poor translation into modern english...etc.) or why those connotations change the meaning. In fact, I could say the same thing back...and all we have done is assert without real exegetical reason.

I did and you haven’t really produced anything to show why your argument should hold water. What makes women unable to lead at a church, but we can lead anywhere else? How does that work? What makes women bad teachers in the church, but not anywhere else? Perhaps you can explain how 50% of the population is unsuitable for teaching or leadership roles simply based on the fact of their sex and nothing else?

[RBerman]

So please produce a single reason why being a women and not a man automatically means I can not be a teacher or a leader in a church, ever? Can you please explain how this logically follows without resorting to the 'plain reading of the text' that you are so trying to hold to here?

I plead guilty to following the "plain reading of the text" whether or not God gives the sort of reasons that apparently you require before you'll accept his instructions.