Egalitarianism Vs. Complementarianism

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Something to consider:

3 that aged women likewise be reverent in demeanor, not slanderers nor enslaved to much wine, teachers of that which is good; 4 that they may train the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be sober-minded, chaste, workers at home, kind, being in subjection to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed:

I think the use of "aged" women and "train" in this translation (ASV) is due to the reticence to use the term "elder" and "teach".

Still, Paul is charging these aged women to teach or train the younger women.

So my question is this. Paul gives explicit criteria for selecting elders, deacons and even widows who are to be enrolled in church care. Where does he give the criteria for selecting these elder women who are to train others if it is not the same section in Timothy where he explains how to select elders?

Notice the part about being in subjection to their husbands. This means if the husband is an elder his aged wife who could be considered an 'elder' to the women in their care are not qualified to lead a church. The elder woman teaches the younger women to be in subjection as she herself is. The egalitarian view of equality is wrong. This rules out both a single aged elder female leading a church and also a married female whether she is an elder to the younger women or not.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Notice the part about being in subjection to their husbands. This means if the husband is an elder his aged wife who could be considered an 'elder' to the women in their care are not qualified to lead a church. The elder woman teaches the younger women to be in subjection as she herself is. The egalitarian view of equality is wrong. This rules out both a single aged elder female leading a church and also a married female whether she is an elder to the younger women or not.

Interesting take. I have a different view, but definitely, your interpretation fits neatly into mine.

12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of the body, being many, are one body; so also is Christ... 23 and those parts of the body, which we think to be less honorable, upon these we bestow more abundant honor; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness; 24 whereas our comely parts have no need: but God tempered the body together, giving more abundant honor to that part which lacked;

So I would ask you a few simple questions.

1. In the church, which are our comely members, the brothers or the sisters? (Hint -- anyone who is married knows there is only one right answer).

2. On which members has Paul bestowed more abundant honor, the brothers or sisters?

3. Which members have no need? (This is a little tougher to understand but as your earlier post about how brothers refuse to go to churches that seem "too feminine" suggests, one of these requires their ego to be stroked and for one there is no need).

4. Which members are "lacking" in the church -- brothers or sisters?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Interesting take. I have a different view, but definitely, your interpretation fits neatly into mine.

There is some overlap in our interpretations. I don't see a major issue if the woman is considered (honorary) elders as long as the woman is in subjection to her (real) elder husband, as the Scripture says. I do not see a strong case for equal male-female eldership or women-only elders. The language in the original Greek or in our English translations does not allow for it.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of the body, being many, are one body; so also is Christ... 23 and those parts of the body, which we think to be less honorable, upon these we bestow more abundant honor; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness; 24 whereas our comely parts have no need: but God tempered the body together, giving more abundant honor to that part which lacked;

So I would ask you a few simple questions.

1. In the church, which are our comely members, the brothers or the sisters? (Hint -- anyone who is married knows there is only one right answer).

2. On which members has Paul bestowed more abundant honor, the brothers or sisters?

3. Which members have no need? (This is a little tougher to understand but as your earlier post about how brothers refuse to go to churches that seem "too feminine" suggests, one of these requires their ego to be stroked and for one there is no need).

4. Which members are "lacking" in the church -- brothers or sisters?

The reason why Paul bestowed more honor on the sisters is because the woman is the weaker vessel (1 Peter 3:7). It is because they are the weaker vessel that they are suited for being elders to the weaker women (young women) but not to the men and women (the whole church).

There is another point which I believe makes the egalitarian viewpoint highly unlikely and it is that menstruation was a taboo topic in many cultures including Judaism and early Christianity which prevented women from leadership in various church rituals due to ritual impurity. This would have ruled out a young woman being considered for church leadership:

Ezekial 18:6 he....neither hath come near to a menstruous woman,

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There is some overlap in our interpretations. I don't see a major issue if the woman is considered (honorary) elders as long as the woman is in subjection to her (real) elder husband, as the Scripture says. I do not see a strong case for equal male-female eldership or women-only elders. The language in the original Greek or in our English translations does not allow for it.

The reason why Paul bestowed more honor on the sisters is because the woman is the weaker vessel (1 Peter 3:7). It is because they are the weaker vessel that they are suited for being elders to the weaker women (young women) but not to the men and women (the whole church).

I don't think you understood my view. I think that Paul bestowed more abundant honor on the brothers because their ego needs it.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There is another point which I believe makes the egalitarian viewpoint highly unlikely and it is that menstruation was a taboo topic in many cultures including Judaism and early Christianity which prevented women from leadership in various church rituals due to ritual impurity. This would have ruled out a young woman being considered for church leadership:

Ezekial 18:6 he....neither hath come near to a menstruous woman,

Unfortunately for that position you are combining the Old creation with the New Creation. In the New Creation there is no male or female.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I don't think you understood my view. I think that Paul bestowed more abundant honor on the brothers because their ego needs it.

That's a novel twist on the Scripture. I don't think Paul told the husbands to honor their wives because their ego needs it. The context is about bestowing honor on the weaker parts not the stronger. Sometimes you come up with strange interpretations and honoring men's egos is not the most obvious and logical interpretation.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Unfortunately for that position you are combining the Old creation with the New Creation. In the New Creation there is no male or female.

In the new creation there is also no marriage. What does this mean for your theory that male elders must be married? You can't pick and choose which parts of the New Creation you want to follow. A church which follows the New Creation idea should have no male or female distinctions, and also no marriage or children either. Until then, the Old Creation is still very much with us.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's a novel twist on the Scripture. I don't think Paul told the husbands to honor their wives because their ego needs it. The context is about bestowing honor on the weaker parts not the stronger. Sometimes you come up with strange interpretations and honoring men's egos is not the most obvious and logical interpretation.

23 and those parts of the body, which we think to be less honorable, upon these we bestow more abundant honor [Paul bestowed more abundant honor on the brothers]; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness [the brothers are "our uncomely parts" though we generally refer to this in the reverse -- sister is the better half, fair sex, etc]; 24 whereas our comely parts have no need [the sisters have no need. Even with Paul giving the chief leadership role to brothers we still have 65% of church members are sisters]: but God tempered the body together, giving more abundant honor to that part which lacked [Paul gave more abundant honor to the brothers by giving them the chief leadership role]

Sometimes there are ugly situations and you need someone to be the "ugly" one (dealing with scam artists, abusive people, wolves in sheep's clothing). In that case the brothers are much more suited to being "ugly" when it is necessary. But for the most part we would like the testimony and expression of the church to be beautiful, in which case the sisters are clearly very well suited.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In the new creation there is also no marriage. What does this mean for your theory that male elders must be married? You can't pick and choose which parts of the New Creation you want to follow. A church which follows the New Creation idea should have no male or female distinctions, and also no marriage or children either. Until then, the Old Creation is still very much with us.

We deal with the Old creation in our testimony to the world. Our families are still old creation which is why salvation is personal, each person has to receive Christ. However, they are sanctified by a believing spouse or parents. But your claim that a woman's menstrual cycle would make her unclean for spiritual service to the Lord is contrary to Paul's word that in the New Creation there is no male or female. Peter also contradicts that with the word that "we are a royal priesthood".

If you are in the Old creation then you are in the sabbath rest and are not suitable for spiritual service. Only those in the new creation are called to be fellow laborers with Christ. But, all unbelievers are in the old creation and many new believers are also mostly in the Old creation. God is not the author of confusion.

In my understanding both brothers and sisters are essential and need to be tempered together. Salvation is very much about families and marriage. Many of those who come into the church need counseling concerning these matters. Many need mentors because they didn't have proper fathers and mothers. But, when you get into the new creation the distinction between male and female does not exist. By that I am referring to the function of the spirit and the gifts of the spirit.