I did not ever intend for my blog to contain something of this nature, but I have grown increasingly frustrated and passionate about this topic.
To preface this: I am still a student, not an expert, and I acknowledge that, as a ministry student, I am personally invested in this topic. However, as a student who grew up in a complementarian church, my foundation was built upon the opposing position, and I feel that gives this argument some extra weight. As a female ministry student in her senior year, I have explored this topic in greater depth than the majority of those who would read my blog.
The complementarian viewpoint comes with one of two implications.
1. That women do not have the capacity to achieve the same or greater amount of wisdom or leadership ability as men.
2. That if a women has achieved a greater level of wisdom or leadership ability than the men in a her church, she should yield to a man with less wisdom or leadership ability.
The frequent expression, "Equality does not denote sameness" used as a clarifier for egalitarians is often a misconception of what egalitarian stand for. I don't think men and women are the same (though I personally think that is largely the result of social construction-but that doesn't effect my argument here), I think they both have unique gifts and personalities. One of the gifts that I do not believe is gender specific is leadership ability. I am arguing for leadership to be given as a role based on individuals ability to lead, not by gender.
Eastern culture, in which the bible was written, looks at rules in a much more fluid way. Where rules are given, exceptions are acceptable and expected. See "Misreading Scripture Through Western Eyes" for more information regarding that. Paul speaks against women leading over men (1 Timothy 2:12), but he also affirms Pheobe, a church deacon, and Junia, a woman apostle (more specifically a highly esteemed apostle.) "Because most people in Mediterranean antiquity were functionally illiterate, those who could read and speak well generally assumed teaching roles, an--with rare exceptions--these were men." (Keener) Men were more likely educated, so it is fitting, though not definitive, to say that Paul's restrictions on women leadership were due to women's lack of education--especially in light of Paul's affirmation of women leaders and eastern cultures outlook on rules.
In Romans 16 Paul greets women alongside many men, affirming their ministry. The word used to describe Pheobe as a Deacon in Romans 16:1 is translated by the ESV as servant. This would be a likely if the word was feminine. The word used is the masculine form of "Diakonos" which indicates a specific title. The name Junia being a female name is questioned. However, why have we questioned Pheobe's authority or Junia's gender? Do we assume it is unlikely because of our understanding of Paul's stance on women in ministry? If that is the case, my previous paragraph holds my argument against that. What other reason did we have to question it other than its lack of alignment with the Churches current theology?
In fact, Paul was one of the more progressive writers of his day. Knowing that, some consider these strong affirmations toward the ministry of the women he greets, which greatly surpasses the affirmation given to the men, in Romans 16, as written with the purpose of breaking down the prejudice against women in that day.
To consider these observations as a mere reliance upon human wisdom over the bible is hypocritical. Human wisdom is always a factor in biblical interpretation, and it is not more so here than it is with complementarianism. It seems irresponsible to favor the factors that affirm the churches past theology over the ones that challenge it. I regard tradition as important, but I do not think tradition holds more authority than scripture. Paul's direction for women to not teach over men and his strong affirmation of women church leaders should be viewed in equal light.
I'll admit I know less about Galatians 3:28 which says: "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." It is undisputed that this passage is speaking about salvation. The thing is- the salvation Jesus brought was not solely for our life after death. Jesus was fulfilling the law left and right, challenging the current ways of life to restore his original creation. Jesus came to break down the wall created through the fall. He promised a restoration of what was intended for creation-- and if man ruling over women was a result of the fall, what does that say about God's intended order and the new promise we are working toward?
Listed with "man and women" is "Jew nor Gentile." The Jews were running the Christianity show- making the decisions over the gentiles. This passage is thought to be a breaking down of that authority gap--granting Gentiles the opportunity to discern truth and guide the church and we are all a product of this change in posture. So why do we see the distinction of "Jew nor Gentile" as a breaking down of the authority gap and not "man nor women."
It is true that groups work best when one person is given authority and I do think it is plausible that God assigned a specific type of person to that position. A common misconception about egalitarianism I've encountered is that women want to either lead over men or co-lead and make joint decisions. I do consider having a leader designated beneficial.
To say that only one view or the other is biblical is condescending. Both sides demonstrate high regard for scripture in their reasoning and both readings of scripture are in part hindered by the readers' bias.
Nothing that I said is definitive proof--but it is sound reasoning grounded by biblical support.
I am open to conversations about this, but not arguments-- and not over the internet.
Further reading:
Keener, Craig S. "Was Paul for or Against Women in Ministry?" Enrichment Journal. The General Council of Assemblies of God, 2015. Web. 4 Dec. 2015. <http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/200102/082_paul.cfm>.
Richards, E. Randolph, and Brandon J. O'Brien. Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2012. Print.
