"Discovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood" set my flourishing back decades. Thankfully no one in my soft complementarian upbringing enforced Piper's feeling that women shouldn't work out (yep, it's in the book) as I loved sports and have been lifting weights for 26 years now. Since I didn't have an inner drive for how to use my academic abilities for God outside the church, I landed on Exercise Science for my bachelor's degree. I ended up staying home with my kids for 7 years, and by the grace of God we all survived. At age 33 as a result of deep pain from loving pastors who were following soft complementarian protocol, God brought Payne's Man and Women, One in Christ to my hands. The Spirit, through this book, illuminated my mind to what God had been telling my heart since I read through the Bible in 6th grade. Such joy! I've since added a minor in Biblical and Theological Studies and have graduated from Seminary. Denny is wrong that (all) women flourish under loving complementarians "doing it right." He is flat wrong. (Try being a woman with intellectual gifts, under your leadership.) Try living not respected as fully adult.
As a single mother, this topic confounds me. I SEE my church slowly dying as three older men lead it and women's voices aren't heard. The women get together and are full of ideas and suggestions, and they have to go hint to their husbands to speak to the elders to get the ideas considered, and the same old things just get done over and over. As a single woman, none of my ideas can even be heard because I don't have a husband to speak to. (I think it's very foolish to exclude women from church leadership this way.) At my previous church, I was on the church board along with some men. We worked together well, in a complimentary way, able to listen and see things from different perspectives. It made the church stronger and better. I wasn't trying to be in charge or tell the men what to do or run things. I just gave suggestions and input, we'd talk it over, and we'd always end up in agreement. If there was anything we weren't totally sure of, we just went with what the pastor thought. It worked so well. And in my home, I have an adult son and a young son...I have no "head" but God. So...what does that mean? Am I supposed to put my son in charge of my house because he's an adult now? I run my house myself. I tell my sons what to do. My adult son makes his own choices and does as he pleases within reason, but it's my house. I wouldn't allow him to live here if he did drugs or paraded women in and out (he doesn't). When I was married, my husband was controlling and abusive...I respected and supported him, but how does our chromosomes make one of us more qualified to lead? He was impulsive and spent us into extreme debt. He turned bill paying and finances over to me, yet would still often spend outside the budget if I couldn't convince him not to...if I was in charge, I would have stopped it. Allowing him to be the head of the house nearly destroyed us financially. I would love to have a husband to partner with me and help me run things...I am not sure I could ever turn everything over to a man at this point in my life. I am not convinced it is even wise to do. Men and women are different, but does that really signify who should lead in all situations? There is no situation I have seen where excluding women from leadership makes something run better. My son was in Trail Life--it's 100% run by good Christian men, and it's awesome. Women at the church started an AHG troop. The Trail Life troop is slowly dwindling and going downhill now that the women are focused on AHG and don't have as much time to help the men with suggestions and support behind the scenes...and AHG is booming and growing. We have more than twice as many girls and leaders, and the program has been around for less time. Does God really want half of his people to not be heard, to not participate in decisions? To have to go through a man to contribute? Maybe He does, and we humans just mess it up...but it just doesn't make sense to me. How does my uterus make me less qualified to think or make decisions or share knowledge?
All good points and this is why I am an egalitarian! Yes, humans messed things up...during the time of Adam and Eve when men and women were equal. It was only after the fall that male headship appeared. And, as you have just shown us, it's a mess! In egalitarianism, people lead according to their giftings. Sadly, a complementarian will listen to your story and do some mental gymnastics, jumping through a circus of hoops to try and defend their position. It really is not that complicated. Men and women are equal. Mutuality is the answer. Lead by your giftings.
Sounds like it might be time for a new church? I don’t find the topic too confounding, but then I’ve been studying it for years. Women can (and should) be in ministry…just not pastors or elders. (I’m Complementarian in my views). I DO think that some of these passages have been used in wrong ways As a single mama, YOU are the spiritual head of your home. And if you have questions on scripture, you can definitely go to a pastor or elder for clarification, but you hold the authority for your home. All through scripture, both old and new testaments, we see both father and mother responsible for teaching their children about God. Fun fact…did you know that Paul mentioned that Timothy “learned these things” from his grandmother and mother? No mention of a father at all. Essentially, it sounds as if you are looking at several different topics, not just one. The topic they’re discussing here, which is the role of women in the church (I really wish they had discussed it a little better…the main question being whether or not women can preach/teach men). The topic of women in ministry at all. The topic of who the spiritual head of the house should be when there is no husband. (This one…this I feel is easier than if you’re married but the husband is an unbeliever or lives like he is. That is MY story and I failed my kids for a bit by not leading them because I thought my husband had to be the one to do it. But a dear MAN pointed out so many different Old and New Testament places where it talked about teaching your children. That was convicting and freeing for me. In fact, even now as a grandma, I have a responsibility to teach my grandchildren about God. (Psalms for starters has some things to say). Is this helpful at all? And good job, mama, for raising your children up in the Lord.
Your struggles with turning your home to a man, and following old Men who won’t listen at church, etc is the exact problem. We as women have power in submission. Our society completely disagrees. Submission is surrender. God commanded that of us women (Wo-Man, of Man) You being a obviously capable and strong woman will always struggle with this. This is something you should give to God. You don’t have to agree or understand but we do need to obey. Men have roles, Women have roles and both are equally necessary and needed. I have a feeling once you accept this position not as lesser than but complimentary in ways Men can not be, the Lord may reveal a Man to your life that is strong enough and Man enough to handle your strength. It’s a mountain to climb, but I promise there is fruit at the top. If being in leadership is important in the church, I’d find a biblical way to serve and be in charge of specific areas. Pray pray pray. God wants to carry this for you.
Also, women raising men alone, has 100% contributed to the societal breakdown. We’ve made Men very soft, and stole their Leadership as their birthright. Again, women are not lesser than.. we are First and Foremost in specific roles. Plus, again, it’s Gods command. We don’t have to understand but we must accept it.
@@Mrs.CGraves Ugh...I SOOO disagree with you on so many points, but we will have to agree to disagree! If just as many women were absent from children's lives, that would also contribute to a societal breakdown, it is just that women tend to stick around the children more. When I was in college years ago, I learned that the number one family configuration in America is single moms raising their children alone. Again, if the number one family configuration in America was single dads raising their children alone, that would also lead to a societal breakdown. We need BOTH moms and dads to raise a healthy child...or GASP (sarcasm)...two dads or two moms. I know a friend who was raised by two moms and she is a lot healthier than many other people that I know. And, I know two married gay men who raised a healthy child together. Take your blinders off ladies and see that men have been constructing rules and laws for centuries that benefit them and oppress women. YES, WOMEN CAN BE PASTORS, MINISTRY LEADERS, CO-LEADERS IN THE HOME, ETC! STOP SELLING YOURSELF SHORT! STOP SELLING ALL OF US SHORT! There are many female pastors who are wonderful, intelligent, knowledgeable, compassionate, and excellent LEADERS! YOU ARE DOING A DISSERVICE TO WOMEN EVERYWHERE BY SPREADING THIS GARBAGE!!!
Dr. Burk mentions the first progenitor as having an implied authority (as the first born), but God reverses that by continually subverting that order(Jacob over Esau, Joseph, David, etc).
@@HonestCitizen-we1mh … actually … primogeniture as popularly understood ( the first born is automatically the heir and leader of the family) is NOT the rule. In ancient near eastern culture it is the father who actually determines who is the “bekor” or first born. It is not determined by the male who is born first. Bekor was more of a status than an indication of a person birth order. And this status was determined by the father. This is why we see in the biblical texts younger brothers being chosen as the bekor rather than the eldest brother. It was an accepted and legal practice in the ANE. Also firstborn status only applied to siblings…and male siblings/brothers at that. Adam and Eve are never portrayed as brothers or as siblings. Only as husband and wife. And primogeniture didn’t apply to husbands and wife. So to apply it to Adam and Eve to teach, support or try to prove male leadership/headship is a misapplication of the ANE custom.
@@Leadeshipcoach The example throughout the old Testament is that God the FATHER chooses whom He choose for His own purposes. Disregarding ANE custom, God installed a headship to the order He has created and equality at the same time. For example, in the Trinity, does Jesus submissive to the Father? Yes of course. yet Jesus is clearly equal to the Father. Women and Men are equal, yet in Marriage, clearly the Bible teaches that Men are the head of that household. In the structure of the CHurch, men are the leaders and are called to the specific office of these leadership and church teaching positions. Paul refers to the creation as God instilled that type of 'order' in creation, in the relationship between men and women in marriage and the structure of the office. "ANE custom' should be disregarded in this case as it is God's order not ANE custom that applies here.
My sister died by suicide rather than stay in her abusive marriage to a "Godly" man. Everyone thought he was a good man, but she said she "felt like a hole" around him. He cheated, brought alcohol and smoking into the home when he promised not to in their vows, blew all of their savings, and expected her to service him whenever he wanted, drunk or not, when she had been an amazing wife, mother, step mother to his four, grandma, and pillar of the children's ministry. All while allowing him to keep his image, even to our parents. I was the only one who knew. So despicable and tragic that this beautiful soul was so tortured she felt she had to take her life rather than face the shame of divorce in the church and "set a bad example" for her kids. THAT was what was in her mind right before she killed herself. We all miss her every minute of every day, and our whole family is devastated. Destroyed. Because of church teaching. How on earth is that Godly or biblical, that a woman and entire family should suffer as she and we did/do because of a selfish, oversexed husband? It's as bad as the Catholics hiding pedophiles in different diocese, only to go destroy more lives. It's about power and greed and it needs to STOP!
I am so sorry to hear about your loss. You are right and sadly there are several more examples. Hoping and praying that God would heal your hearts and raise up for Himself a godly generation, teachers who are able to interpret the Scriptures well, and also godly pastors who are able to stand up against any abuse.
I am so sorry. I've heard many conservative Christians (and Jewish scholars, too) say that Adultery, Abuse, and Addiction are all Biblical grounds for divorce. Someone who values their addiction over the vows has broken them (a type of adultery), same with abuse, and obviously even Jesus said that adultery was grounds for divorce. At the very least, nearly every Christian I know accepts adultery as grounds for separation or divorce. It is so hard to feel trapped in an abusive marriage, especially when the abuser is prominent in church. I am so sorry for her suffering and for your loss.
Are you that childish. Sad story but the god of the bibles rules did not cause this result. Your sister's choice in men did. Please stop committing the same sin that got women in submission the first time and in case you don't know that was listening to the devil who tickled eves ears just like Sean is doing now.
@@Andreamom001 All of your many are right as far as divorce but only cheating during the engagement allows remarriage. Sean is leading people into pits,
Dr. Pierce! I was in your Book of Daniel class a year ago. You met with me via Zoom to talk about the dating of Daniel. Just wanted to say you’re an amazing professor and I’m still so thankful for your class. God bless you!
Its his prerogative and suggestion. Is it really though. All in all that passage merely state as general context to follow where God place you. If marriage then stay if not its not bad nor is being married bad or worse than single. One has strength and weaknesses but the other is not better than the other.
And he means celibate when he says single. He says this in the context of the early church, and acknowledges that people need relationships and that celibacy is a special calling.
The early church that Paul was writing to at that time was experiencing extreme persecution (Paul having been one of the main instigators), so it would be logical if everyone, men and women, were dying... to not get married. One of the early martyrs, Perpetua, was a young mother when she was killed. It's true some are called to celibacy like Paul or Jesus; but apparently that's rare. Even the OT prophets had wives. The Bible starts in Genesis with a marriage (and a command to "be fruitful and multiply") and ends with a marriage supper. But if people don't want to get married, lol. Then don't get married. But Paul clearly said it was a suggestion and personal preference.
I am definitely egalitarian! I am glad that I found this theological view that is grounded in Scripture! I finally feel not oppressed, free, and as the equal human being that I am in the church! Praise God!
Thank you for showing how egalitarianism can be held by people affirming scriptural inspiration and inerrancy. Great discussion and really good debate moderation 👍
ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-3HQSlQLYQsE.html Link to Women in Bible, 10+ weekly independent study every Monday. How this helps x #mikewinger
@@lionheartapologetics4914 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-3HQSlQLYQsE.html That's Link for Mike Winger 10 plus weekly part. Hope this link works, never sent one before, that's basic intro, he's 2 indents 2 hour sessions.... in UK weekly 9pm Mondays. He's studied for months. God bless you 🙏 ❤
@@lionheartapologetics4914Here's a playlist, but you could also just find it on his RU-vid channel which is the same as his name. ru-vid.com/group/PLZ3iRMLYFlHuBtpJlwi7F5JYw3N5pKyLC
Dr. McDowell, I'm so grateful for you putting this together. Though I have to admit, I'm so over this discussion. People are dying and going to hell every day and we are still arguing when and where women can share the gospel or teach scripture.
Yes. I agree. The Gospel makes all that is question able and wrong. Many churches emphasize everything but the Gospel. Disappointing and tends to create division..exactly what scripture tells us not to do
Please consider that you’ve likely been looking at this for years. Others of us are either new to the question or we have a pastor who has a position that differs from what we’ve known and we need help getting clarity on what the Bible teaches and how it should be understood. That said, I appreciate where you are coming from.
I think the more apt problem is that people are living as if people are dying and going to hell every day and treat that as if it's a rational or theological or moral or real thing. All as a way to create systems where people can argue whether women can share the gospel or teach scripture. I'm a step further back than you on being so over this magical thinking vs ministry.
And what makes you think that this issue is not related to heaven and hell? Look at the Evangelical and Ecumenical Women’s Caucus (EEWC) for example which started as an organization to promote women's right both inside and outside the church, but end up endorsing homosexuality and focusing on the LGBT issues which resulted in perverting the Church and LEADING IT'S PEOPLE TO HELL! History shows that Christian groups that follow this same pattern, sooner or later drift from focusing upon women’s rights to the endorsement of homosexuality and become LGBT friendly. So don't talk like this issue has nothing to do with heaven and hell.
Interesting that Dr. Burk's points were defended by conjecture of Scripture while Dr. Pierce's were defended by Scripture and context of Scripture. If I wasn't already egalitarian, Dr. Burk's arguments would steer me in that direction simply by his constant inference of human interpretation of Scripture and not Scripture itself.
In my study of learning about mutuality vs. patriarchy/complementarianism and presenting my views and opinions, I have been called names that I am a Satanist feminist, finding things to tickle my ears, my salvation doubted, blinded by satan etc-a real show of true Christian love. When I state how Christian patriarchy with its many rules mostly aimed at women, has morphed into spanking “disobedient” wives and the stories of abused wives who did nothing but submit and obey are in the hundreds, I hear the same old argument that how they practiced a twisted from of patriarchy , not the correct way- My question is, if those who truly believe patriarchy/complementarianism is God’s will for the Christian life what are they doing to help these hurting women and show them Christian love and offer healing? Under patriarchy the only biblical answers seem to be go back to your husband and be more submissive and without speaking a word you will win him to Christ and how God hates divorce-both scriptural admonitions. Yet this advice rarely works--- Why? In fact, from what I have seen the only ones who are stepping up to the plate to offer help and resources to these abused wives are those who believe the bible teaches mutuality-sites such as bare marriage. I wonder how much time do pat/comp believers actually spend in correcting badly practiced patriarchy --- do any of them spend time going to the sites like biblical gender roles that teach spanking wives is biblical -do they spend time correcting them of their errors?
Complementarianism is a false teaching. At its center it supports a two-tiered priesthood based on birthright. But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood... -excerpt 1 Peter 2
Dr. Pierce is great! I am very thankfull for his biblical explantations. Thanks @Sean Mc Dowell for you great channel. I am watching your videos here in germany and fell blessed to hear clear biblical theology!
Notice the faces Burk makes while Pierce is talking. You couldn’t have found a better complimentarian to represent. His smugness is incredibly obvious. Thanks, Ron, for taking on the last remnants of this ridiculous argument. I am utterly amazed this is still being discussed in serious settings like this. You can see that Denny has a lot to lose and this is vitally important to him. Wow. Stunned.
Mmm, that is a bit unfair. His face remains the same throughout, really. It could just be his facial muscular structure looks like that. Best judge his words, not his face :)
We should careful as to what we read into a person’s mannerisms. Listening and responding to what they say is the best reliable information about what they believe.😉🦅
I have seen a church split over these arguments.Tragic! The church we attend(fortnightly) at the moment has a female pastor.I have sat under many male preachers and pastors and all with different gifts and talents. BUT our Pastor is way up there in my opinion with some of the best preachers/teachers I have heard. We attend fortnightly because the other fortnight we are in ministry in a nursing home.
I attended a church with a female pastor once, and she helped the church grow, preached great sermons, and began many programs that reached out and served. I saw nothing that suggested she hadn't been called to the role, nothing to show God was displeased with her or she was doing something against the Bible. I still questioned it because the complementarian view was what I was used to. I am still not certain what the right interpretation is.
@@Andreamom001 I must confess I was saddened when I saw this was up for debate. We give ourselves all these labels and to what purpose? The problem is when we label someone and are anxious because we have a different doctrinal stance to them, we are less likely to hear God speak to us through the other party. We rob ourselves. We would be better off learning how to make Jesus truly our Lord.
@Geoff Thompson Our church was ripped apart by this issue just a few years ago. These type of fractures have been going on since at least the 1970s. Very painful.
Today was not the day for Denny Burk's smirks and bombastic side eye....so wild to think that a phd level scholar cannot sit to openly listen to another scholar who has provided him such a grace.
In regards to Denny’s argument the Artemis cult is not mentioned by Paul: Denny references the cultural context of primogeniture in Genesis 2- yet that is not mentioned AT ALL. Yes it was part of the ANE culture but the author of Genesis does not mention it. Dr Burke assumes it. If we can assume primogeniture as a culture element in Genesis 2 ( though it is applied wrongly) we can assume the culture background of the Artemis cult behind Paul’s words even though it is not mentioned.
I did not watch this when it was first released because I saw only men discussing this and assumed it would be mainly about limiting the role of women in the church. But, I really appreciated Dr. Pierce’s ability to recognize the vast range of scriptures regarding women on the Bible. They were prophetesses, judges, business women, and even lead home churches. Jesus doesn’t limit a woman’s role. In fact, God affirms a woman by making a woman the first witness to the resurrection. The church needs women in all roles
Great discussion! Thank you for facilitating it! I'll just reiterate a few other comments I've seen already, it would've been nice to see women included as a part of this discussion ❤
@@SeanMcDowell Hi Sean! Here are a few egalitarian, complementarian, and neutral Christian women you could invite who specialize on this topic and are highly knowledgeable on scripture (authors, Bible scholars, professors, and commentators): Aimee Byrd (complementarian, wrote “Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood”) Cynthia Westfall (egalitarian and Bible scholar, wrote “Paul and Gender”) Beth Alison Barr (historian, wrote “The Making of Biblical Womanhood”) Lynn H Cohick (neutral?, writes commentaries on NT, and “Women in the World of the Earliest Christians”) Kathy Keller (complementarian, wrote “Jesus, Justice, and Gender Roles”) Michelle Lee-Barnewall (neither, wrote “Neither Complementarian, nor Egalitarian”) Elyse M. Fitzpatrick (neither, wrote “Jesus and Gender”) Lucy Peppiatt (egalitarian, wrote “Rediscovering Scriptures Vision for Women”) Marg Mowzcow (egalitarian, and has a great blog on the topic) Mimi Haddad (egalitarian, CBE International President and contributed to “Discovering Biblical Equality”)
Thank you Sean for monitoring this discussion. You are so good at keeping things respectful and objective. While growing up in America, I have been more exposed to the traditional and complementary viewpoints of women and men in the home and church. However, I never knew that certain Christian sects believe women could not teach or preach, and I personally never believe that. Sin is the culprit of all injustice but the traditional and complementary views I believe give more rise to egotistical and toxic masculinity from my experience. I believe the way of Christ is to love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strengh and to love others as yourself. That is the greatest command. If you wouldn't want someone being domineering to you, then dont be so to others. If you want to be respected, then be respectful. If you want to be treated and to be given fair opportunities, then do so to others. In recent years, I am glad to have been exposed to the biblical equality perspective. I am a student of the Bible and love learning and growing. I love these debates and would enjoy more!
I’m a woman, I think God’s word is clear in this topic, there’s no woman pastor, is not her position and I’m totally ok with that, I thank God he has set order, starting from the creation and on, maybe is a secondary issue but the church needs to be clear with this, speak the truth in love because the Bible doesn’t contradict on it
Don't let sin of man be the reason you ignore the scripture. "Husband of one wife" is as clear and direct as the scripture can be on the gender qualification for the office of overseer. Just because we don't like the implication of the role differences doesn't mean God didn't create role differences. I think the egalitarian movement is the enemy's attempt to deceive Christians into ignoring directly stated scripture in place of extra Biblical narratives. I suggest you go back and read all of 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians and Galatians. Time and time again scripture places an order of authority on the man in his household and in God's household. The modern feminist movement has infiltrated the hearts and minds of people to question "did God really mean?" with regards to the interpretation of these passages. This sort of questioning, in my opinion, goes right back to the fall. The one thing God told us not to take and eat of, we wanted. In a practical sense, if we ignore the "husband of one wife", then at that point, we can pretty much let anyone in that role. I don't see why a church wouldn't then logically appoint a gay man or woman or transgender man or woman from assuming that office. And at that point, we're chipping away at other aspects of the scripture. If you do a bit of investigating, you'll see that this is exactly what has been happening. First, a female pastor, then a gay pastor, then transgender. All along the way we ignore significant parts of scripture. Finally there's little differentiation between those churches and something like scientology.
Interesting conversation. I am a complementarian, but I really liked the points that Dr. Ron Pierce brought in. My only concern with the complementarian and egalitarian discussion is that it often reduces to the question, 'Who has authority?' Men only or Men and women. Are we looking at this discussion in the right way and getting the right insights if we are asking the wrong question? Don't get me wrong, the question of authority is an important one. But, it often looks like the only one! Then it becomes a discussion of have and have not - who HAS authority, and who DOES NOT HAVE authority. That is an imbalanced way of looking at things, and I don't believe that that reveals the design of God.
@@rachelroelofs9383 I agree. That was actually my point. The discussions around gender in churches do not (in my opinion) bring it out, in the manner you've written. The focus is on men having authority, NOT WOMEN, rather than mentioning that men lead with authority, and women yield to the authority - in a manner that shows beautifully how leading and yielding are both equally beautiful! When our definitions of authority and submission, when the general way in which it is seen is different, I think, these discussions need to make the emphasis and the focus clear, instead of sounding like, 'I have God given authority, you don't, SO yield'.
@@christinachristopher3869 right now I would describe myself as a "former complementarian". And one of the things I am genuinely puzzled about, logically speaking, is the whole point of male authority. God doesn't make arbitrary rules. It seems to me that the times a husband "invokes his authority" is when he is not treating his wife as Scripture demands. If a wife voluntarily yields then he is acting with HER authority. (If she yields because she believes it is her role to do so it is not voluntary.) If he acts without her consent can we really say he is loving her as he would his own body? Can we really say he is giving himself up for her? If the goal is to become one flesh, won't God bring together those who seek unity in times of disagreement? This isn't necessarily directed at you, but I think it's relevant to the question and you seem open-minded so I thought I'd put it out there.
Thank you, Dr. Pierce. As a ThM grad from DTS, it's rare to find male voices that bring biblical support (with good exegesis) for women teaching bible, theology, doctrine. I've changed my position only in the past few years after being challenged in some texts. I teach theology to high school students in a private school and am honored to do so. I find one of the main reasons this conversation is important because there's a difference between just "hearing" what a woman says and her exegetical and theological insights as having weight and benefit for the church.
amy Since a woman could be a pastor in the Old Covenant, a woman can be a pastor in the New Covenant. Simple really. I suggest my short and free essay on Deborah. Men and women are perfectly equal spiritually. She was a pastor, according to the scriptures. This is how the Judges are described in Chronicles, by God.
@@user-iz8np3vv4i That is completely incorrect. Deborah was a judge. What is the role of the judge. Is that the same as a pastor/elder? Was there an earthly church in the Old Testament? Deborah's role was completely different than the church. If you describe the nation of Israel as the closest thing to the church of the New Testament, was there ever a female in the line of the nation of Israel or Judah? you are making up theology to fit your theology.
@@danielkim672 (In case the reader in unaware, the word pastor and the word shepherd are the same word. I prefer shepherd, because it has obvious meaning to the average person.) Major modern English translations like the NASB use the phrasing ...whom I commanded to shepherd My people... In all places where I have walked with all Israel, have I spoken a word with any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd My people, saying, ‘Why have you not built Me a house of cedar?’ -excerpt 1 Chronicles 17 verse 6 NASB translation Some believe that pastor (or shepherd), is a position that was created in the New Covenant. This is not true. In the Old Testament shepherds are mentioned multiple times. Often in a negative way. “My people have become lost sheep; Their shepherds have led them astray. -excerpt Jeremiah 50 For an entire chapter on worthless shepherds, the reader may check out Ezekiel 34. When the shepherd over Israel died, the people went back into sin. That is because the Judge was the most important spiritual leader of this time period. But it came about, when the judge died, that they would turn back and act more corruptly than their fathers, in following other gods to serve them and bow down to them; they did not abandon their practices or their obstinate ways. -excerpt Judges 2 Deborah, full essay read time: 12 minutes, free, postable
@@user-iz8np3vv4i I do agree that shepard, pastor, elder those are words that are interchangeable in context to the leadership of the new Testament church. Where i disagree is that the same words throughout the Bible carry the same meaning. It is all in context. You are right that the Judge is perhaps the most important person during when Israel was the chosen people. A judge is appointed by God, not by humans. Is there any judge today? NO , JESUS CHRIST WAS THE LAST JUDGE. The roles of Judge and today's pastor is totally different. You will have to twist Scripture to make these two the same. Which is what you are doing, twisting Scripture. The earthly church is not the same structure as Israel. For example, The kings of the old Testament does not have a role today. Judges have different roles than shepards of today. That is just a clear teaching in the Bible.
When we steer away from scripture and more to sociological views using some scripture as a supportive argument, takes away from the context of what the scripture tells us. This is a great discussion on this subject. Thank you.
@@kathyhart3014 I can agree with that. My pastor always said, "CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT!" That said, I believe that God was trying to work (and still is) through a patriarchal society, but it is not what He desires or intends. It's too bad that He didn't just write in the Bible..."Men and women are equal and should co-lead together in the home, church, and society." That would have made things easier on everyone. Maybe He did intend to write that with, "All men (humans) are created equal." But of course, it was mere men who wrote it, so it is bound to get messed up. But, maybe He didn't want to be that clear because, as you pointed out, He was working within that society at the time. It still would have been easier, especially for us women!
Yes, it's about time we start putting some serious holes in the centuries of societal bias against equality. I'm so thankful the Spirit worked through the People of God enough to give us such a ready environment to work in.
@@kathyhart3014 Are you aware the an eye for an eye was part of the judiciary area of the Mosaic law that was the verdict to a specific crime commited and not supposed to be for revenge, and has to meet qualifications for the person to be killed?
I’m not even on the egalitarian side but I wanted to punch Burk in the face. That’s my current problem with my own side. It’s not the position as much as the condescending attitude! It’s why I’m taking a second look at the egalitarian view and I wanted to hear their view directly from one of them. Thank you Sean. Great job.
If an ASSUMPTION of a "condescending" attitude instead of the actual facts on the position is whats making you switch your view then this is possibly why women should not be the ones teaching at the pulpit. Text does not say women cannot teach thats just wrong, its specific to a leadership role where women are usually not emotionally stable (as you're representing here by wanting to "punch" someone off ur assumption) to lead men. Hence why at a certain age of teenage boys they don't see their mother as a strong enough figure to control them. Hence why fathers are very much needed and you see the results of a single mother households in today's age. The youth is the most disrespectful as its ever been with a complete disregard for God. I think women are not seeing the bigger picture that authority doesn't mean oppression. You can be equal to a man in value as a person yet have a different role in authority. If in any way shape or form in a marriage you are being actually opressed or not treated as a loved woman then id argue its a husband who's allowing sin into his heart which is not allowing him to love his wife as God commands.... alot of women on the comments like what Ron said because it appeals more to them in today's society where women are wanting to take over a man's role and feminism is screaming oppression. Again..emotional. you can even go to scientific studies that show how women make choices based on their emotional part of the brain more often than the rational logical part. Nothing wrong with that though thats why we compliment each other as man and woman. Women have an intuition for things that men do not have. Now is this everybody? No obviously there's always exceptions but exceptions never make the rule.
@doppeekidd Who said it was an assumption? You're the one making an assumption here. He had a horrible attitude! Case in point: saying that the biblical prescription for man's headship in marriage was self-sacrificial. Childish! He might as well have said that his idiot wife is a burden and he'd rather be playing the field. Proposing the naming argument reeks of paganism. Jesus is the logos, not Adam. We've all seen the exorcist: naming the demon gives you power over it. This is not that.
@amyk6403 again, extremely emotional over facts. Whatever your view is, a woman is never going to be strong enough to defend or protect her husband in a dangerous physical situation no matter how willing she might be. Unless she's an mma fighter or something this is just unrealistic. And I use that example because it is a real example when a woman is in danger of physical harm by another man who does she call on ? A MAN. Most men won't go about putting their life on the line for a random woman either but they will for their wife. Which is why as men we are commanded to love our wife as Jesus loved the church and what did jesus do for the church? Died for us. So idk what "pagan" practice u speak of u possibly didn't even read what I was arguing.
@@doppeekidd I was referring to his argument about naming, not your comment. Which of my statements seems emotional to you? And, would it make a difference to you if any of my comments were completely devoid of emotion. How, exactly, would you determine the absence of emotion? How would you define "assumption?" The original comment was made by observation, not by assumption. Theologically speaking, can you explain to me how a man's ability to protect his wife relates to male headship? Specifically, how is this contract related to any biblical principle, whatsoever?
Christian patriarchy, as in all patriarchy secular or otherwise, is still male patriarchy. In Christ we are not divided, rather we have distinctions. These distinctions are physical within intended and purposeful sexual roles for creating the family and proper balance within Christian marriage. However, it must be remembered that in Christ we are undivided. The authority of Christ is our headship model, and because of Christ both men and women should not condone the sustained dominance of men over women which has continued throughout the centuries from Greco-Roman codes of the ancient world. As it has been said, the only thing about the so-called "complementarian" movement is that it is only complimentary to the man. This plain distortion of scripture from its specific context and intended audience has taken many voices out of the Great Commission in Church ministry and has damaged many a Christian marriage. Gal. 3:28 and Romans 16 always comes to mind when confronted by those who oppose women in church positions of leadership, authority in teaching and preaching. Would the advocates of patriarchy then oppose Deborah or Junia or Phoebe or Priscilla or Mary Magdalene or even Corrie ten Boom from their calling to serve God? After all, didn't God call these women (and many more) for His service to further the Kingdom of Heaven? That's the real question. And God has plainly answered it.
Suggesting that the model of 'the man is the head of the family' is pagan oriented dismisses the entirety of Scripture, but whatever makes folks feel better about melding common politics with Scriptural truths.
Sorry but I have to keep asking questions, so if women were supposed to be silent then why were they included in spreading the Word because spreading the Word is teaching!?
This statement by qpaul was not made in the context of sharing the gospel. This should be a huge hint. The statement however you interpret it does not negat the great commission offered by Christ. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think the verse in question ever usurp the message given to all followers of christ.
@@MrDreadEnd you are correct…the statement made by Paul mentions strictly in church, not in general. It saddens me that so many choose to ignore this and decide that Paul is applying across the board when it comes to sharing the gospel.
@@Bible33AD Thank you for asking. I hope I give an answer that makes sense to you. Each of us, as followers of Christ, have been the command to go and make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:19-20). That’s what sharing the gospel involves. And 1 Peter 3:15 tells us to “always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you…”. This is a command given to all believers. Preaching (being a pastor/shepherd) is a very different thing. It is among the different spiritual giftings that God has given through the Holy Spirit. Scripture makes it clear that not everyone is given the same gift. And pastor/elder comes with a very specific qualifier that it is only men. It’s a spiritual headship thing and, to be honest, a gift that comes with strong consequences if you teach in a way that leads others astray. Pastors, and teachers in general, are held to a higher accountability than others. Notice i didn’t say that women can’t teach God’s Word. I honed in specifically to where the “battle”, the debate ends up landing. Too many women hear “women aren’t to be pastors” and translate that to “women aren’t allowed to teach”. That’s not at all what’s being said. For myself, my giftings have shifted a little over the years and I have tested strong in the “shepherd” gifting. It goes alongside my desire to teach and encourage younger women. But it does not qualify me to be a pastor/elder because …I’m not a guy. 😉 But I see it when I lead small groups in my student ministry. I see it when I disciple others, even my own grandchildren. I hope I answered your question on the difference. Interesting to me is the fact that it’s the only spiritual gift that women tend to get up in arms about.
Sean, great and fair leading on such a difficult topic. Love John Wesley, who was 250 years before his time on so many things. Slavery and equality of women. My simple thought is this. When you have solid biblical fundamental teachers and believers in scripture disagreeing on topics like this, with both pointing at the scriptures, it boils down to a philosophical understanding, and It certainly isn’t a Gospel issue. Therefore, we have to look at reason, what is rational, so as to not get bogged down in cultural by letting this topic determine the nature of God. So, it has never made sense to me as to why “truth” is determined by genitalia/gender. Truth is grounded in God and the Word. Reason leads us to include both Man and Woman to fully represent God’s leadership and perspective. Mark my words, churches in the next 25 years that segregate women (as being Biblical) will hurt the Gospel, or at least hurt their cause, and will become an “unnecessary distinctive distraction”, and will become a minority among minorities. When I heard Florence Littauer preach from Philemon in College, it became clear to me, rationally speaking, that there was no moral wrong doing going on.
I would just say that God knows that men and women are different, and have different roles. Is the role of mother less important than role of father? Of course not, so why would the role of quiet servant be less important than speaking teacher in the Church? Paul said in 1 timothy 2 that it was eve who was deceived, not adam. Adams sin was allowing eve to usurp his role as decision maker. He should have stepped in as the leader and put a stop to it but he allowed her to take that role. And so there is a danger in allowing that role to be usurped- for the woman! And although women are of course capable of amazing things and teachings (Elizabeth elliot is the first to come to my mind) they are used in different ways than speaking out with authority roles in the Church. Just to throw in a couple of my cents 😊
@@chelseabarker2250 you are a good writer, and I would say that is way worth more than 2 cents 😜 Thank you for your thoughtful respectful response. If you are a woman, should I listen to your truth? Just teasing 😂 The Artemis cult can’t be under played here. This is a necessary hermeneutic to get actual context and meanings of scripture, especially when we only have one side of the equation (Paul’s response). This Artemis cult had the woman created first then man, and man was the deceived one (read it for yourself). How can anyone just ignore this historical truth about this cult? That would be a derelict hermeneutic. Eve was deceived in a different way than Adam. They were both guilty and were both wrong together. It says in Gen 3:6 that when Eve took and ate, Adam was “with her”, and he ate, “and both their eyes were open.” Adam listened to “untruth” from his wife, that is the point in Gen. They Ruled together, and Adam listened to untruth (regardless of who it happened to come from), when he knew it was wrong. We can’t read into this text anything else. The point is a “gotcha” moment for Paul against this Artemis cult. That’s it. Paul is correcting their incorrect “Fall account”. This cultish culture of how women treat men was bleeding into the church. Women were teaching abusively. We have taken this text and we have abused it, and have punished women by it. It makes no sense at all, that a woman can’t teach truth to a man, and they did in the NT church. Someone needs to show me how a woman teaching a man truth of God’s word is somehow morally wrong?? It’s incoherent. It’s arbitrary. I have no problem with physiological Roles, but when the role is mutual leadership, and mutual submission, and joint collaboration, then this idea of “decision maker” is an issue of truth regardless of who decides. I saw my Dad, all my childhood pull this power play on my Mom. It’s smelled wrong then and it does now. My wife and I make Godly choices together. If we are not clear together about something important, we don’t do it. We move as one. The way the complimentary approach is, if you play it out in the actual world it is egalitarian. Lol. I lay my life down and listen to my wife. I can’t act selfish and trust my own heart. we are in this 100% together. Like the trinity, God, my wife and I.
@@dgjesdal lol! Well reasoned. I had never understood this about the artemis cult. I suppose you are right that before the fall it was an absolute partnership between God, adam and eve. So is it a result of the fall that we see adam placed as the head of eve? Ive also heard the passage where God says to eve "he shall rule over you and your desire shall be for him" explained that here it is saying the same thing as when God says to cain that sins desire is for him (in other words to rule over him). So it is a curse of the woman to want to rule the man or have his place as the head. I think of Jezebel and ahab, and solomon - there is a power that prideful women can hold over men, to the end of much destruction. There are always extremes in every little system of belief and i think we must strive for a balanced view. Does a woman being strong powerful have to turn men into ruin? Of course not look at deborah and esther. That being said though it is obvious that women are used all the time to teach men. I helped my man cousin come to faith (obviously i didnt do it alone but was able to be used as a pivotal role there) so its true to me that God uses people for good in so many different kinds of ways. I do appreciate your view and think you have it totally right. My husband and i are in the same kind of camp and yet i know we are a minority because there are so many church going men that abuse the role of "head of the house." We need more men raising up in defense of women. More REAL men! God bless you!
@@chelseabarker2250 I’m still a work in progress on this. I’m not sure where I land on the Rule part. I know Jesus led by servant hood and submission. Godly men are what we need, as you said. I have viewed, maybe incorrectly, that “your desire will be for your husband” as a woman’s desire is for a Godly upright man. So I tell men, if you want a woman to “desire” 😘😎😂 you, don’t grab your weight lifting grab your Bible and follow Jesus 😀. Good to dialogue with you. May God bless you both 👍
If we run with the idea that "ezer kenegdo" means helper (which it does), and then therefore the person that they are helping is a leader and to submit to their authority- this would imply that God being a "ezer kenegdo" to Israel was under their authority and they were the leader - which we all understand that would be wrong. Your logic would have to apply both ways.
Only 12 minutes in and I’m already disappointed in Denny Burk. He claims 1 Tim. 3:1 says “If any MAN desires to be an overseer…” This is blatantly false. In the Greek, Paul uses the gender neutral “If ANYONE.” All the other words (besides husband) in the passage are also deliberately gender neutral. Either Denny does not know this (in which case I can’t take him seriously), or he knows and is hiding it (in which case…I can’t take him seriously). The phrase “husband of one wife” is “one woman man” in Greek, and it refers to being faithful to one’s spouse. It is not meant to indicate gender conclusively. If the point of this passage was that elders could be only men, it would have been INCREDIBLY easy for God to inspire Paul to write “must be a MAN.” But this is conspicuously absent. This passage does not specify which gender overseers can be. Denny, please do your research and be honest with people.
I was having a moment there too. 😂 kinda talking back to the screen like, “actually no. No it doesn’t!” And since he seems to know some Greek, quoting it elsewhere, it feels like he is intentionally ignoring what the Greek says here.
@Jesse Lazar You probably meant "one woman man" above here in 1 Timothy 3. Just curious, when 1 Timothy 5:9 says that a female widow could be placed on the support list if she(?) is a "one man woman", is this also a genderless reference, as you argue for in 1 Timothy 3?
@@clarkemorledge2398 in Greek of you are speaking to an all female audience, or speaking just about a woman, you would use the feminine form. If you were speaking about a mixed audience (men and women) it would be perfectly appropriate to use the male form. This is a Greek default, and something we see in English as well. To the Greeks this phrase would not be problematic applied to both women and men. And with the lack of definitive pronouns in The rest of the phrase there is nothing here saying it only applies to men. If Paul was just talking about men I would think he would have led with that. “If anyone wants to be an overseer, he must be a MAN.” (ανδρος) but he does not do that, instead keeping to non gendered language.
@@clarkemorledge2398 ah, thank you for catching that! Yes, "one woman man." The reference in the verse you mentioned is obviously not gender neutral because Paul has already referred to female widows. There is no such gender specific reference in 3:1.
Since November I have shifted over egalitarianism to complementarism. Before November my life was motivated by self. In November I had an overwhelming experience of God's redeeming love and the gospel message suddenly became personal. My identity is in Christ alone. Christ is the head of the church which is his bride. Marriage is reflected in that relationship, and so ministry within the church reflects the relationship between Christ and the church. So leadership has to be male.
Another interesting point on primogeniture: The pattern throughout Scripture is God choosing the second born and least not the first. Example, Abel over Cain, Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob not Esau, Joseph and Judah over the others, Moses...etc. It seems God's concern is not communicating primogeniture as much as it is a call to seek his face and his loyalty to the covenant even with human shortcomings. And he chooses those considered less likely to accomplish his purposes.
As an Asian woman in ministry, I have a MA. in Cross Cultural ministries from seminary. I’m a mother of 3, also a pastor’s wife. This “conversation” without women infuriates me. Not to mention the lack of cultural representation. Women have laboured so so so much for the church throughout history and often are the victims of abuse and sexual assaults from church leaders: Ravi Zacharias, Hillsong, Bill Hybles…etc. Why not flip the narrative : Toxic leadership from white men leadership in churches perpetuates abuse (and the leadership team around them hides the truth) , is it time for them to step down and let women of colour lead the way?
@@tralfazruk1 I don't know about his work. But judging from this, the way it is done, with 3 white men and no women, no women of color, I don't think I agree with this whole western model for ministry and interpretation of the scripture. The things I learned from seminary is so EUROCENTRIC, and barely any non-white male teachers. As if Christianity/history does not happen outside of the western world. Things like Liberation theologies (which MLK endorses) or Eastern Orthodox, were taught as "the fringes". White missionaries are glorified. One REALLY Important scholar to follow is Dr. Vince Bantu. We need to learn and sit under the teachers of Indigenous, Black, non-white teachers. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-zgKgGxBpqJ8.html
Thank you Dr. Ron Pierce, I understand where both parties come from but throughout history women were almost always treated at none brainers and that made the whole of the problem even harder. I want to obey the scriptures and for me one of the things that is a problem in churches as well as in church gatherings, that women and men are separate into two groups. Men, like pastors, elders, etc. are the ones that presume to do the godly will of God to separate the both parties. Listening to women would make a great impact of bringing the two groups, male and female fellowship, together. What you Dr. Pierce said makes more sense to me as a woman, especially because of seeing how our Lord Jesus treated women and included them in all his teachings. Another point I would like to make is that there were women throughout the Bible that taught, for example Deborah who was leading Israel Judges 4:4 (NIVUK) Now Deborah, a prophet, the wife of Lappidoth, was leading Israel at that time. She had to go to war with Barak because he did not wanted to go by himself only if she would go with the army. There are many other examples but it would be too long to write them all down. You already mentioned some from the New Testament which states that this women were in a leading position in the church. Thank you to all three of you
I'd also recommend the book "Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes" it began my journey on the subject, which isn't quite where Dr. Peirce is, but made me modify the positions I once held that sound in line with Dr. Burk.
For me as a women who loves Jesus and the Glorious Gospel that sets all men(women and men) free! That is the issue, what really is being harmed? The message is not being preached! I can preach the same message that a man can, because it is the BIBLE! Why does it matter who? Let us do a role play! I will stand next to my husband and he and I (as a female) will say the same exact words! Jesus loves you! For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son whoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life! The message is being preached all people need to be saved! Why does it matter who’s mouth it came out of? And to your point women can teach and preach the Bible in all situations except the pulpit on Sunday mornings????? What happens when a women’s husband dies, is she the leader of the home? Of course she is! She needs to be the responsible mature loving leader of her house and raise her children in the fear and admonition of the Lord! And here is another good question what does it mean to be a leader? Lay down your life and serve one another in love! Thank you and Jesus is Lord!
I love this so much! When Mary Magdalen, the first person to find the empty tomb, Jesus told her to Go and Tell. Not, "Hey, go get Peter so he can go and tell."
I think the "created first makes you the boss" idea is flawed. That would mean that the plants are to have authority on humans since they were created first.
Right. It's based on "primogeniture," which determines rank among siblings. But (1), they were not "born"; (2) they were spouses, not siblings; (3) that's part of cultural background, not something (AFAIK) *ordained* by God; and (4) a pattern that God Himself tends to intentionally break, several times in Genesis alone.
Hi Sean! Here are a few egalitarian, complementarian, and neutral Christian women you could invite who specialize on this topic and are highly knowledgeable on scripture (authors, Bible scholars, professors, and commentators): Aimee Byrd (complementarian, wrote “Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood”) Cynthia Westfall (egalitarian and Bible scholar, wrote “Paul and Gender”) Beth Alison Barr (historian, wrote “The Making of Biblical Womanhood”) Lynn H Cohick (neutral?, writes commentaries on NT, and “Women in the World of the Earliest Christians”) Kathy Keller (complementarian, wrote “Jesus, Justice, and Gender Roles”) Michelle Lee-Barnewall (neither, wrote “Neither Complementarian, nor Egalitarian”) Elyse M. Fitzpatrick (neither, wrote “Jesus and Gender”) Lucy Peppiatt (egalitarian, wrote “Rediscovering Scriptures Vision for Women”) Marg Mowzcow (egalitarian, and has a great blog on the topic) Mimi Haddad (egalitarian, CBE International President and contributed to “Discovering Biblical Equality)
I thought this was an excellent conversation! It really brought clarity into the complimentary/ egalitarian debate. I appreciated the fairness and respectfulness. I grew up with a complimentarian understanding, but I thought Dr. Pierce brought up a good point that looking at Genesis as a hierarchical structure of men and women, is an inference and not directly stated. I think the I Corinthian passage and I Timothy passage are challenging, because women are both told to remain silent for example and allowed to speak ( prophesy) all within I Corinthians 14 for example. The context and instructions is unclear and appears contradictory at times, in both these passages. I think the real issue I have with complimentarianism is such a strong emphasis on women’s roles and neglecting so many passages where women are active in prophesy, evangelism, as a deaconess, ministering with Jesus et. I think it really misses the heart of God towards women and the emphasis theologically of women not being in certain roles in ministry has caused a lot of harm rather than good.
Take the plank out of your eye and you will see that labels divide. Read the word forget the labels. The only dividing need is divide the word of god in the truth of scripture not some egghead with a diploma. The spirit of god will teach you if you pray and submit to his direction.
My understanding of 1 Corinthians is that Paul is actually challenging the writers of the letter who are frustrated with some particular women.. He is not placing restrictions on women but is addressing an organizational problem. He solves the issue with specifics on how to deal with the chaos of too many speaking at once. It was Roman law that women could not vote, speak in public, etc. - Paul believes that Roman law does not have a place within the congregations. Reading Scripture at face value with our contemporary eyes can lead us in all kinds of directions. I've been taking courses through Israel Bible Center online for several years now which has helped my understanding of the times and cultures of the Israelites and Jews. I find the lecturers intellectually honest, with no agenda other than to understand Judaism/Christianity/the Bible better. It is very Jewish to debate and not agree all of the time - the lecturers are not dogmatic, something I greatly appreciate because I don't find that to be true in our Christian culture nowadays. ( There are also magazine articles, interviews with experts in different fields, podcasts through Cyndi Parker, etc. You can even ask questions in the courses - and will even get a response!)
@@cynthiagee948 I hope you didn't pull a brain muscle with that massive over reach. The fact that you call intellectuals honest shows a lac od discernment. They have a religion of worshipping their self-aggrandizing minds. You are not searching for the truth your searching for confirmation of your bias. You hit a home run for confirmation of your bias but whiffed on what the truth is.
@@tralfazruk1 Ha ha! Nope, didn't pull a brain muscle. Not intellectuals honest but being intellectually honest - meaning studying, being interested in accuracy, debating, etc. And, where I got this understanding of the passage was from some men who study the ancient Jews and others who lived in a very particular time and culture . I encourage others to understand Scripture from the viewpoint of the ancient's eyes, not merely from our own contemporary eyes. It is really quite fascinating and fun.
Ron Pierce is brilliant and Biblical, and I do not believe Denny had a Biblical argument. I also believe it's somewhere in the middle . . . such as reflected in the book, "Neither Complementarian Nor Egalitarian". I also prefer the term "mutualist" rather than egalitarian.
Denny's examples of biological differences between men and women were ability to bear children and difference in strength. How does he get from these to who should lead in the church and the home? He failed to establish any logical connection.
@@clarkemorledge2398 I agree. I think, though, that he used this kind of argument because he's trying to establish some concrete reason that women would be unfit for leadership in the church and home. He's already decided that the reason can't be ontological because he affirms ontological equality between men and women. The only alternative is that reason is physical differences, so he brings up some of these. Since these are real differences, some people may find them compelling if they don't think hard enough to realize there's no connection. So he's kind of trapped himself into having to rely on such arguments.
@Prey R I'm not even looking for a debate, just genuinely curious... How would being primary caretakers for children favor a trait in women that makes them more easily deceived?
My concern about all of this (aside from the exegetical issues) is that by having a future with two different types of churches, egalitarian and complementarian, is that we have built into the system yet another barrier that keeps the churches from being united. Even if more churches go egalitarian, complementarian churches are not going to go away. That point of division just seems really sad.
I agree. The division is sad. But it may also be unavoidable, as long as reasonable Christians continue to disagree on such things. There are many such barriers already which won't be going away any time soon, such as views on when to baptize and what the essential significance of baptism is. Likewise, in my own family, when I visit some of their churches, I am disbarred from taking communion in their church because I'm not a member of their church and I haven't passed the initiation rites their churches require for people to receive communion. On the other hand, the churches where I am a member both practice open communion, but my relatives would refuse to take it, even though they would be welcomed and permitted to do so. So, is division sad? Sure. But there are still other ways to be unified and to love people. It used to really discourage me, too, but my aunt reminded me that if God is still sovereign that He can continue to work through all of us, despite these differences. Our disagreement on these matters is not ultimately a threat to God, even if it may pose a public relations challenge (perceived or otherwise) with people who are not Christians, since it may influence how we represent God to the world. On the other hand, since the world is not a monolith and since God orchestrates all such encounters among different kinds of people, it may very well be that different kinds of representatives are needed for a complete ministry. And one day, God will show us all where we've been getting it wrong, even if we have to wait until Jesus comes back. But we don't have to be perfect before we can start serving or introducing people to Christ.
I don't mean to be blunt, but by definition of you take a negative position (complimentarian) against a statement, there will be less agreement. Likewise if I said, " look all those churches who believe Jesus rose from the grave, why can't they just agree with all atheists and Muslims?" It's not a problem as much as how taking a negative view (negative in the form of eg: water isn't wet) by necessity of the laws of logic says that were will be less agreement.
@@jatozzie8623 Thank you, but I do not understand your reasoning here: Both complementarians and egalitarians all claim to be Christian. Neither atheists nor Muslims claim to be Christians. The issue I am addressing is the unity of the church. Churches divide over the Lord's Supper, baptism, so the complementarian/egalitarian divide is yet just another reason why Christians do not stand united together. Do you mind please rephrasing your argument?
I don’t see how you can exegete a text without taking into account a proper hermeneutic. Knowing the details of this Artemis cult that is a problem in Emphasis, and mentioned in Acts, why do we try to exegete this with the elephant in the room? It is almost counter point by counter point in opposition to the Artemis cult. How can we possibly interpret first second and third John without understanding Gnosticism?
"Separate but equal" is not an easy sell, especially when you apped to that, in effect, "we're equal, but we're in charge and you have to what we say," and that women need to obey their husbands' commands and suggestions like they'd obey the Lord Himself.
In those days, church was where everybody (men/women) sat in a circle, sharing their word of knowledge, wisdom with a few elders leading the teaching. Now, for 2000 yrs, since Augustine brought the monologue into the church. we have 1 man giving a monologue. As long as I'm edified, i don't care about a woman or man teaching
I wish Denny wouldn’t have this little grin on his face while Pierce is making calm logical points. I guess it’s better than having an angry look, but it kind of smacks of ‘I know better’. It’s like he’s not taking the other arguments seriously, in the same way Sean is.
Highly interesting conversation! Thank you for posting this. It would be highly interesting with two woman who have opposing views to have the same conversation. I appreciate it being identified this is a secondary issue… not being related to Salvation through Christ alone, the deity of Christ, etc. I’m grateful to Dr. McDowell for his ministry.
Failure to include women on a topic central to the lives of Christian women belies the assumption that women have nothing of relevance or import to say on the matter.
It would be nice if you invited women to a discussion on such a topic. I am 100% egalitarian. I spent most of my life in churches where there was no difference in gender roles when it came to ministry. And only one year in a complementarian church that gave me the feeling as if I wasn't a true part of the congregation because I was a woman and needed men as intercessors between me and Jesus. Maybe it is not the message that they want to send, but that is the bad fruit of believing in male leadership only. A few thoughts: I notice often in such conversations womanhood gets reduced to motherhood. There are plenty of women in the world who do not have children, who might not even have a partner. Womanhood is about more than just motherhood, but as you think about that, you'll see that there is little difference between Biblical manhood and womanhood, as we are all in the end called to become more like Christ. On the topic of creation order, I think it is important to consider that the story might imply that Adam was not exclusively male before the woman was made. The distinction between man and woman is only made after the separation. God takes the side of the human to craft the woman. That means it used to be a part of Adam. He was essentially an androgynous, asexual being without the woman. In the story. But it's also a story that doesn't align with the reality of how sex developed. I guess, one can also only be a complementarian if one denies evolution. And I simply also believe in evolution.
Amen. Even aside from the evolution debate, everything you said here stands true. The Hebrew tsela, translated "rib" taken from Adam is better translated "side."
If I could say, as an evangelical who is moving toward the Catholic faith, this debate, while a good one, demonstrates to me the need for a magisterial authority. Great discussion, brothers, thank you!
Also in Ephesus at this time the goddess Artemis was identified with the Egyptian goddess Isis. The Isis cult was very popular in the Greco Roman world. Why? Because it was taught that Isis made women equal to men and enabled women to rule over their husbands. I agree with Dr Ron Pierce that this lies behind Paul’s statements.
@Excuse me but .. actually… not what I said. I was pointing out the beliefs of the Isis cult. The clear teaching of Jesus is that we are to serve each other ( literally be enslaved to each other). Jesus taught against the ideology that ruled the day that one should “lord it over another” . Rather he taught if you do have authority/ if you are the greatest serve others- following His own example, as one who came not to be served but to serve
@EMB123 …well to a certain extent you are correct. If the Christians within the patriarchal structure hold to and live by the “rules” of the patriarchal structure: then yeah becomes impossible to live out Christ’s example and teaching as His disciples.But I would ask such Christians “Are you really His disciple?” I coach a lot of Christian couples as a pastor and as a coach. I do come across the patriarchal “I’m in charge - you are to obey me woman” mindset from time to time. And I question the husband “Are you really following Christ’s example- when you wife sees you does she see Christ?” I have never had a husband answer me “Yes I am and Yes she does” … and I had one person ( a pastor friend of mine) say to me “Let’s talk about something else” ( I kid you not!). But if someone is truly following Christ , his example and his teaching that person will eschew the patriarchal structure and rules and serve his spouse and lay down his life for her and vice-versa ( this is what I mean by being “enslaved to each other”). This Jesus called His disciples to do and model in the midst of a highly structured patriarchal culture. 😊
Notice how whenever Denny reads into the text, it’s always in _his_ favor. That leads me to give more credibility to Dr. Pierce. I always go back to Susan B Anthony’s quote “I distrust those who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires”.
I ask with full curiousity and respect but why is a topic on women in the church not including a woman on the panel? I see the same issue in healthcare panels where not a single woman is included.
I understand the concern. In the future I would love to do that. These guys are both leaders on the issue and argue the issue biblically. When it’s all said and done, the question we are exploring is textual. Both men and women can engage in that discussion.
When all is said and done, the conversation is NOT simply textual. This conversation has real life implications for the lives experiences of everyone involved.
@@SeanMcDowellIf it's merely textual, how is it the basis for a doctrine that effects the course of women's lives in such a negative manner? And, it absolutely does. The complementarian women commenting on here sound brainwashed. The men's comments are clearly misogynistic, not biblical. I'm disappointed. I can't even.
1 Peter 2 starting on chapter 11 and leading into Chapter 3 is a nice explanation of what the new testament writers meant by authority. Peter talks about how as a slave you are called to respect the authority of your master, whether kind, reasonable or cruel. Which in some ways would fall under domineering. Shortly thereafter, Peter ties this whole thing by stating, "In the same way, wives must accept the authority of your husbands." He, like Paul, speaks about how a woman should not be too concerned with outward beauty and ends in a specific and clear illustration of how Sarah obeyed her husband, Abraham and she called him her master. We all know through scripture Sarah was no wallflower, not only remarkably beautiful but she spoke her mind and had her own ideas. She even got her husband to do what she wanted when it came to having a child. Yet here we have her as an example of what it looks like to respect the authority of her husband. Ishmael is the result of not being in God's ordained order. Isaac is the blessing under God's ordinance. Order within the church and family. There is also order within the trinity. As one, but distinct. Just my 2 cents.
It also seems clear to me that male headship is shown through the covenant of circumcision- God made that really clear didn't He? Women didn't get circumcised. Then in the New Testament we have a new covenant available to all - circumcision of the heart, but the Bible doesn't indicate any change in the woman's role. I love being a woman, living out my God ordained role, being equally valued, in submission to my God & to my husband.
It's interesting to see Dr. Pierce bob and weave. His arguments are culture-dependent over context-dependent. He says Paul is speaking to a specific cultural issue, the Artemus cult in Ephesus, so the prohibition on women teaching doesn't apply to us today (emphasizing culture) the he says Paul is saying broadly women can't teach, not just in church (de-emphasizing the context of the passage which is the ordering of the formal worship gathering) he does this a few times in the debate
I see complementarity in the marriage relationship. Marriage is a gospel foreshadowing of Christ and His bride and those are not the same roles yet they are both beautiful and God-designed.
@@B_Roger Why does your side always blame "cultural values"? Do you really believe that laypeople like me and scholars like Ron, Craig Keener, P.B. Payne, and pastors like Terran Williams are all lying when we say that our study of Scripture is what changed us from comp. to egal.?
Thanks for this debate. Something that confuses me is the definition of prophecy. It's clear a woman is allowed to prophecy - but how can we test prophecy if it's not from Scripture? I keep getting the idea from the complementarians that women can teach as long as they're not teaching from Scripture... So I'm wondering what the content of her prophecy is supposed to be then...I don't believe people are receiving new revelation so it would have to be from the bible in my opinion. I'm genuinely trying to figure it out as I'm at a bible college at the moment that doesn't allow women to teach. We're going through Acts and I tried to get a clear definition on prophecy today but that just ends up in another 'camps' debate. The reason I was asking was precisely because it applies to what women supposedly can or cannot do. Anyone else thought through this before?
I don't know if anyone teaches that women shouldn't teach from Scripture and i think that would be downright silly. We are supposed to teach children and younger women - and not just how to cook and clean lol. See Titus 2.
@@chelseabarker2250 I guess I meant in a college setting. I was talking to my professor after class and he said his wife was allowed to teach at our college as long as it wasn't expounding from Scripture. So she could teach History but no theological classes. Prophecy came up since it was an Acts class, and prophecy happened in the church to a mixed audience. So that's why I'm connecting the two.
@@liesbethvanham5443 Well, I believe that prophecy does still occur today. So, there's that. Also, I really hope that through all your questioning such as this that you find your way out of complementarianism and find freedom. God can use you to preach, teach, and speak Scripture sister!
You may want to go into the verse without the assumption about what prophecy means. In these passages of women prophesying it is often not the prophesy that they are told not to do but the discernment about that prophecy and the prophet (in public that is).
Would have loved this to a go deeper with Junia and Phoebe. If Paul really records a female apostle and sends a female deacon with a letter, in a culture where those sent with a letter taught or explained the letter, and at the same time said they could not do it, then at least some hard complementarians seem to affirm a hard contradiction in scripture.
Pastor Mike Winger addresses this is his long series (I think 9 parts) on this topic. Highly recommend. He has literally spent months reading books and digging into the Word in preparation for this series.
@@lorindadods2549I haven't seen that part of Winger's videos yet, but it is concerning that they are now being upheld as a gold standard on this issue for various reasons, of which are far too long to go into in this comment. But he sometimes misunderstands, misrepresents, glosses over certain things, etc. And he also leaves some things murky such as when a boy is a man, women ministering to high schoolers, how a woman can speak during a Sunday service but still be under authority, teach seminary, etc. For such a long series aimed at answering questions, there is a lot of confusion left that he ultimately chalks up to "tough question, work it out yourself" and maintains all these barriers and hesitations to serving (and also listening to what women might say) for fear they might be sinning by doing so. He also makes unfair swipes at times at egalitarians such as saying they are more concerned with an agenda than Scripture, which is unfair and untrue - many egalitarians were previously complementarians and changrd their mind through study of Scripture and prayer and a desire to follow Jesus. He also ends with kind of turning egalitarians into a kind of boogeyman by saying they make the world hate Christianity, etc. Those kind of comments are very effective at making one resistent to actually hearing what someone might have to say. He sets up the entire series predisposing people to agree with him by saying he isn't telling you what to think, but teaching you how to think Biblically. But he does ultimately tell you what to think. And the problem with such a long series is, he says you shouldn't respond to anything he has said unless you've watched it all. So where does one even begin to engage with that many hours - especially if you have to start with people he has misrepresented or things he misunderstood? I know Terran Williams has started writing some on this. A year doesn't make him the ultimate authority on this and people who also love Jesus with more knowledge of Biblical languages and such and more study and disgree. But now I frequently see people say "just watch Mike Winger's videos" instead of doing the work themselves, going to the source, praying, etc. I will say, as a former comp, too many comps I know say this is a salvation issue and can become rather coarse about it, and I appreciate that Mike says it is a secondary issue and not a salvation one.
Does the smug look that Dr. Burk maintained throughout the conversation bug anyone else? I can see both sides of the discussion, and I think both made an effective argument for their side, but anyone speaking for the church ( or for Christ) should do so with humility, which Dr. Pierce effectively did... JMO
Even with "secondary issues," our choices about how we read scripture speak to our desire to know Him as He wants to be known, not how I want to see Him. Is the Word changing us, or are we changing the Word?
Isn’t the most important aspect of this conversation the fact that we are all required to submit to the Will of God and to love him with all our hearts, all our souls, and all our might? Who holds the positions within the church should be secondary to this and should also diminish the controversy.
I also feel that it is appropriate for men to take the main spiritual leadership role in the world, and for women to have the main role of leading the activities within the household and discipling the children…. Old school? Yes. But it is also the best way to have a healthy functional and stable family life, and no matter what we attempt to do, a healthy and stable family life is always going to be the core component of our community health and our survival. That doesn’t mean that people who live outside that box need to be condemned or punished, but our focus as a society should be on sustaining healthy, functional family units - period. What we are tempting to do today as far as bringing equality and equity to every living sin is nothing more than a dance with the devil that is going to have a catastrophic outcome. The church, now more than ever, should be acting as a sane anchor , always reaching to God for guidance and wisdom ❤
Gosh how funny this pops up on Facebook after I just got done talking about this with a friend and I myself have a few ?s. So I’m saving to watch later! Thank you 😊
it would be really cool if you included 3 women in your panel as well. as it's discussing women's issues i think it's only right to include women. similarly it would be cool to have a panel of 3 women and 3 men discuss men's roles. and to really round it out 3 women panel discussing men's issues just like this video.
Why is there not an old testament law laying the foundational truth that women cannot "carry the word" or direct a man to "God's way of salvation," (as in lead)? AND If Jesus is the complete expression of God in the earth then why: A) would the word come into the earth by a "woman," the virgin mary completely bypassing man. B) why would he (Jesus) send a woman to carry the message (the greatest message ever known to humanity) that he has risen, AND C) he allowed Mary (sister of Martha) to sit at his feet as he declared that this would not be taken from her (being taught of himself personally) if women are not anointed to represent God as his ambassadors just as men do in whatever calling God would see fit to call them into? Why does Acts 2:18 read that servants and handmaidens would prophesy (that is to speak on behalf of God because he poured out his spirit on them for a reason)? I mean, if Phoebe is a servant (and that's what men have decided that she is and NOT a deacon even though the scripture says that SHE IS A DEACON) and the scripture also says that a servant should be ready to teach, why is her (woman's) voice stifled? For fear that a man might overhear her expounding on God's word???? Why didn't Jesus just come right out and tell us this and make it clear to us so that there would be no question? And of course there is a question when we look back over the body of scripture and we see countless times that women were in strategic locations and said specific words, and did certain things. Look at the number of times Jesus dealt specifically with women. What a perfect opportunity to put her in her place right then and there. Women were at the cross when all the "deflated" men had left the scene whipped and depressed, women were still there as they were at the tomb. God's word says that his strength is made perfect in weakness and Peter calls the woman the weaker vessel. She is equipped by God to be a helper to man, which by the way the only other helper to man is God himself. Ezer Kenegdo which is defined as a rescuing strength equal and opposite to Adam, this was Eve, "the helper." Women are in good company. Could it be that she also understands the word and can reiterate God's strength love, power and purpose whenever and however necessary to fit into God's plan? Why is Proverbs written as if it were a woman speaking to her grown son yet not usurping his authority? Women are associated with cornerstones in Psalms 144:12, were men ever called cornerstones? But there was one other Cornerstone, Jesus savior of the world. Women again are in good company here.
(I didn't watch the video.) Thanks. you wrote: I mean, if Phoebe is a servant (and that's what men have decided that she is and NOT a deacon even though the scripture says that SHE IS A DEACON) The NIV translation gets it right: I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae. -excerpt Romans 16 A specific woman with a specific position at a specific church. So obviously a deacon. I usually bring up Deborah regarding Complementarianism. I did an essay on her that I've posted a few times. But no one has changed their mind as yet, regardless of the scriptures I've posted. I call it scriptural immunity.
My one point of contention that Dr. Ron Pierce exemplified (though I've seen complementarians do the same) is the hermenuetical approach to scripture. He seems to believe if it's a clear statement to him or to us (in our cultural context and Western understanding) then that is how one builds a theology. However, the bible was not written to us but for us. We should understand the bible through the author's intent and how it's original audience would have received it. This would be the truest layer of meaning and understanding to the text.
@@Norrin777Radd why be afraid of work? Proverbs instructs us to seek wisdom like hidden treasures. That's going to take effort on our part. And work isn't bad. It produces in us good fruit that otherwise wouldn't be won. There's actually an academic response to false confidence called the Dunning Kruger effect. The less people are actually competent, the more confident they sound. What good does it benefit us if someone confidently tells us an incorrect answer? We'll be foolishly led to a grave. But to seek faithful answers will give us life! God truly blesses us as we seek wisdom and understanding. I bless you on your journey!
Can we have a part two, please? We are forgetting all the women who lead and spoke in scripture. All the women leaders that Paul affirmed. On the surface, it would look as if the bible contradicts itself. We as believers know it doesn't, but this needs to be discussed. Thanks!
Go back to scripture and investigate each one at length and you'll come to the conclusion, if you have an open mind and heart, that the women in leadership never once taught men in the church. The closest thing was Priscilla, but what she and her husband did wasn't the same word (didasko) that is used in 1 Timothy 2. Instead they took Apollos aside privately and explained about the baptism of Jesus. No other woman described in scripture taught men in a church.
Rather than picking and poking at the various "AHA! Look at THIS! passages on each side, it might be good to sort out as thoroughly as possible the methods and starting assumptions of each side. I think that would explain some of the differences, and sadly, reveal why finding agreement is unlikely.
@@noobmaster31 Sorry, but there are many of us -- laypeople like me, pastors like Terran Williams, scholars like Ron Pierce, Craig Keener, P.B. Payne -- who started out comp., did the kind of study you suggest, and came to the opposite conclusion.
@@Norrin777Radd but what evidence from scripture would you be basing your conclusion on? Something direct, like the Priscilla example I mentioned above, or something indirect such as "well God wants us to all be equal so ultimately there's no way for Him to not allow women preachers." If the latter, how are you reconciling that with direct contrasts to roles described at length in the Bible, in both the Old and New Testaments, between men and women, and more specifically those differences in a church setting described by Paul in thr NT? Are the separate asks for men and women just a coincidence? Are the separate treatments also just a coincidence?
@@noobmaster31The ones that first got my attention 30-some years ago were the contrasts between 1 Tim. 2:11-12 and Prisca/Aquilla and Apollos, and the contrast between 1 Cor. 14:34-35 and 11:5. I was mostly content with my soft-comp church's explanation for several years, then read a few of the late Gordon Fee's essays in "Gospel and Spirit -- Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics." At the time, I wasn't really looking "for" anything, just being a nerd. Those articles picked the scab, so to speak, and eventually sent me off doing a lot more study. I wish those essays and especially his "The Priority of Spirit Gifting for Church Ministry" chapter from "Discovering Biblical Equality" were available for free online linking. I think the OT is not directly relevant. It was an era that, e.g., tolerated polygamy, which was never ideal. We know from the "any cause divorce" teachings in the Synoptics that God "permitted" certain things that were not the original ideal plan. Temple ministry was not just limited by sex, it was limited by tribe and family, and access to the Temple even as worshipers was limited by status and ethnicity. That Covenant and priesthood have been explicitly supplanted, so we should interpret things in that light. I believe the alleged "separate tasks" and "separate treatments" are mostly overstated. But ultimately, we are not certain about a lot of details in NT churches. It's likely that many, especially majority gentile churches, were organized in "household" patterns, while diaspora churches may have followed the synagogue model. We know that different branches of Christianity today all read our current practices back onto the pages of Scripture, so some "clearly" see the "Moses model" with a single strong "senior pastor," while others see a group of elders making decisions, and some -- relatively few, I think -- see the whole congregation more involved in ministry and decisions. Some still use the term "priests," while others find no NT basis for that.
This is probably the best opposing view presentations I’ve heard. It’s was so focused and succinct on both sides. I think it’s interesting that this usually gets left out of the discussion: women are disciples and women are anointed. Disciples do what Jesus did according to limits of their gifting. If God didn’t want to communicate his authority through women, then he wouldn’t have made them prophets throughout Israel’s history and in the early church. Arguably, the prophet has the most authoritative role in the community of believers.
@Sean McDowell, I want to thank you for once again providing opportunity for good discussion. I deeply appreciate your desire to show how two people of differing thought can can respectful, thoughtful discussion (I wish that many commenters would consider that as well). And I want to thank Denny and Ron both for their time and their study and research. I tend to agree more with Denny. I’m definitely complimentarian. I can see why so many can have issue with that viewpoint though, as scripture has been abused by men over the years…but that’s not on God, that’s on men. And I agree when he says that when men and women live out their roles the way that God designed, it is indeed a beautiful thing. What I don’t understand is how people can get from “I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man” to “women aren’t allowed to do anything (a common interpretation of what egalitarians seem to hear complimentarians say…totally boggles my brain). Anyway. Thank you again for the podcasts you do. And to Ron and Denny…thank you for showing that the body of Christ can disagree with each other, but do it with grace and respect.
@@Bible33AD well, to say that I agreed with Denny pretty much sums it up for me, I would think. Men and women are created equally, with equal value, dignity and worth. But we were given different roles, skills to compliment each other. And that I’m marriage, God placed man in the position of headship, as an example to the world of Christ and the church. Men and women both have a responsibility to study God’s Word and to teach their children God’s statues and commands (Proverbs is a good place to look). Titus 2 tells us that that older women are to teach what is good, to “train younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind and submissive to their husbands”. Proverbs teaches us that a woman can do quite a bit (run a tight ship at home, be productive, entrusted with finances…”she considers a field and buys it”…that “the heart of her husband trusts in her”. That she not only takes care of her home but she reaches out to others and teaches kindness. She is an asset and a blessing to her husband (“her husband is known in the gates when he sits among the elders of the land”…a place where business was done). Note that while it says in Titus “working at home”, it does NOT say that she has to ONLY work at home). Do you have something specific that you’re looking for here? Because I’m not really sure what your fishing for here.
I appreciate Dr Pierce says that an egalitarian theology does not necessarily lead to same-sex affirming churches, but the fact of the matter is that all same-sex affirming churches ARE egalitarian, and the question is then, why?
In regards to Denny Burkes argument of primogeniture. in ancient near eastern culture this only applied to siblings, NO WHERE is it applied in the biblical text to husbands and wives. Primogeniture also has to do with the dividing of the Father’s estate between the siblings with the large portion or a double portion given to the firstborn son. In Genesis 1 the only “estate” is the earth, over which both Adam and Eve are given equal possession and authority over. God does not say to Adam and Eve after Eve is created “Oh by the way in case you are wondering Adam is in charge because he was born first”. No.. after the woman/Eve is created God clearly states “You both have authority and dominion over the earth” no mention is made of Adam being given authority over Eve.
