I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. (1Ti 2:12)
Not too long ago I had a small "debate" with my sis if female could be ordained Elder/Pastor. For the record, I subscribe to the Complimentarian view but I LOVE my Egalitarians brothers/sisters too.
To set the record straight, this post has NOTHING to do with my own church's stand on female eldership, which in practice, is more of the Egalitarian camp.
Below are some objections I faced when I shared my viewpoints on my Complimentarian stand with a few others, and my own PERSONAL convictions written in the spirit of love & truth:
1) Aiyah, that was at THAT TIME lah...when women were uneducated & without status lah! Now what CENTURY already?!
My answer:
I would agree that women had lesser education & lesser status relatively speaking in the 1st century. But that is NOT a reason for Paul's command. We know from Acts and Paul's epistles, that women played active roles in the early church. In fact, quite a number of them received good commendations from Paul. The church was "counter-culture" in that sense - treating women right, and not looking down at them.
Some have suggested that the specific command was isolated to Ephesus only (or Corinth) due to the presence of some hyper "ill-mannered-loud-mouthed" women who likes to disrupt the Sunday service. That could be hypothetically true but unsound for a simple reason - Paul's command specified women in general term instead of focusing at an ill-mannered bunch. In all his epistles, whenever rebukes are necessary, Paul would spell out specific charges/corrections against/needed the persons (often with names mentioned, eg Phi 4:2) which wasn't so in verse 12.
And perhaps foreseeing future generation (especially those after the feminist movement) making a row over this restriction, Paul based his "I do NOT permit..." reasoning all the way back to Genesis! How ODD!!!
For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
(1Ti 2:13-14)
To me, by anchoring to Genesis, Paul voided any speculation on his part that his command was influenced by culture, sub-culture, or social mores. Clearly Paul was appealing to a DIVINE order ordained by God Himself from the very beginning. So unless u think Genesis' accounts are mere myths, my advice is, that reasoning still stands and is still applicable EVEN in the 21st century.
2) Aiyo, u DUNNO Priscilla & Aquilla meh?
My answer:
"Priscilla" is perhaps the next MOST common objection to a male-only Elder role. On the surface, "Priscilla" literally destroys this seeming male-chauvinist male-only foolishness. However, I beg to differ. Let me explain.
Next to (the) Mary & Mary Magdalene, Prisiclla is perhaps the next MOST POPULAR woman in the early church. Her name is mentioned several times in Acts & Paul's epistles. And NOT without a good reason.
Priscilla & Aquilla spent more than 3 years with Paul in Corinth & Ephesus through thick & thin. They were faithful partners/servants in Paul's ministry. I can only imagine the number of hours Priscilla must have had sitting under the preaching & teaching of Paul... on the road, on the ships, in churches, on busy street markets... Gosh, what a privilege!
In fact, Priscilla was so skilled & knowledgeable that she & her husband were able to... expound unto him [Apollo] the way of God more perfectly (Acts 18:26)!!! Not only that, Priscilla & Aquilla's homes were among the earliest "house churches" (Rom 16:5, 1Cor 16:19). So Priscilla was not just well taught, knowledgeable, loved, respected but EXPERIENCED. If EVER there was a female who is qualified to be a female Elder, Priscilla would come out TOP - 1st century or 21st century!
And YET when Paul wrote to Timothy he seemed to discount/ignore the fact that Priscilla was in Ephesus (2Ti 4:19)... Not only that, Paul continued his letter to young Timothy on MALE Eldership appointment & their necessary qualifications without the slightest hint of the position been open to females. Neither in 2Timothy nor in epistle to Titus.
Was Paul doing INJUSTICE to Priscilla? To the many other godly women in 1st century churches? Was Paul "under pressure" by 1st century Jewish/Greek culture to appoint male elders only? Was Paul an ungrateful male chauvinist? Or was Greek language lacking "gender-inclusive" pronouns & nouns? What do u think?
Women were admonished to be in the teaching ministry (eg, Titus 2:3-5) but not in the capacity as an Elder. Priscilla was the best example.
3) Aduh, if God CALLS a female to be an Elder WHO ARE U to say NO?
My answer:
This objection is perhaps the most "sensitive" one. I do not doubt the well intention & needs behind many of these "callings".
I thank God for all the God fearing, God loving women who are active in ministries. God knows how much we need them. Praise the LORD for their faithfulness & labour. But biblically & historically speaking, the case is 100% for male eldership. From OT to NT, all priestly roles were males. All the Apostles were males. All the early church elders were males.
Well, is God then a "male chauvinist"? Obviously no. But He certainly has His purpose & will in this "role play" setup. Just like husband/wife role:
For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.
(Eph 5:23-24)
But how come God "seems" to call many women to step up onto eldership role? Well, one popular opinion is that the males are not "answering" God's call... To a certain extend, I do agree. The feminist movement that brought out "the man in the woman" also brought out the "woman in the man" it seems. Nonetheless, if God could raise children from stones for Abraham... "girlie men" isn't a good excuse.
Does God "repent" in His ordained purpose & function for man & woman? Can His calling be contrary to His revealed will in the Bible? Are the interpretations of Complimentarian camp scriptural? Are there rooms for any possible approved "exceptions"?
These are not "easy" questions to answer for sure. But at this moment in time, personally, I am only trying to be faithful to the clear instructions presented in the Bible according to the best of my understanding.
4) Err...Ben, u are making a mountain out of a mole hill lah...
My answer:
Personally, I would certainly agree female eldership is a subject of MUCH LOWER significance/importance than, say, the doctrine of God, the doctrine of Jesus Christ, the doctrine of Salvation.
From what I know, Egalitarian movement is a relatively "new" movement (mid 1900s). But as in all things, Bible says a little leaven leavens the whole lump, so the underlying danger here is on the Authority of the Scripture been undermined/compromised - bit by bit - by culture, by man-made tradition, by worldly philosophy. Therefore, IF indeed female eldership is erroneous and not according to the will of God, then the church must arrest the error EARLY and realign - irregardless how counter-culture or how unpopular it is.
Either way, the church should be mature enough to test all spirits, be like Bereans, have the love for truth, the humility for correction and to be teachable...
All for the glory of God.
