"Gender role" theology is a social construct, not sound biblical doctrine

[Carry_Your_Name]

Gender role theology, also known by a fancy long term, “complementarianism”, teaches biblical manhood as masculine, strong and assertive, while womanhood as feminine, weak and submissive. It grants men unchecked authority over women, regardless of merit, experience or other qualifications listed in 1 Tim. 3. It is based on cultural stereotypes and historic traditions, rather than absolute divine mandate, and it's often adopted by conservative politicians and influencers to promote political ideals, rather than spiritual truth from God.

Gender role theology can be traced back to the two world wars when generations of men were sent off to battles; naturally and consequently, women entered the work force to fill up their posts, that wasn't really a choice or some kind of satanic foul play. After the war, soldiers returned to their posts, and those working women were sidelined to inferior positions such as secretary or assistant, they were under social pressure to marry rather than to work, and the vast majority of women were rushed into marriage, up to 90% of adult population were married in 1960, that had never been the norm in history, yet widely perceived as the norm especially by the boomer generation. When women got married, however, they would often be fired from their jobs because they were expected to prioritize their family. Women were deprived of their financial freedom and independence, weren't even allowed to apply for a credit card under her own name until the 70s. The feminist movement was simply a pushback, a rightful demand for equal right to work and property.

That is the historical and cultural background in which "gender role" theory was invented - women were expected to be homemakers, men were expected to be breadwinners, even though women had been breadwinners during the wars. When facing the challenge of feminism, rather than to embrace our sisters into God’s family, to empower them as Jesus did, to liberate them from to the oppressive patriarchy, most churches, especially evangelicals, chose to justify, defend and perpetuate the cultural norm at the time, to maintain the male-dominant power structure with "gender role" theory and “complementarianism” theology. Women are unfairly and unreasonably prohibited from preaching or leading, even though in most modern churches, more women attend church services and participate church activities.

Verses Deliberately Picked out of Proper Context

• God created male and female in his image, as his representatives to steward his creation. In most translations Eve was created as a “helper” for Adam. This title comes with a negative connotation of an inferior status, it gives you the impression that Eve was like an assistant or supporter subservient to Adam; the truth is that Eve was a partner equal and comparable to Adam. God the father is often described as a helper (Ps. 54:4; Ps. 121:1-2; Heb. 13:6); the Holy Spirit is explicitly referred to as the Helper by Lord Jesus (Jn. 14:16, 14:26, 16:7), therefore by no means was Eve inferior to Adam and supposed to be subordinate. Adam was held chiefly accountable for the Fall (Rom. 5:12-13), not Eve. When she was “ruled over” by Adam (Gen. 3:16), that was a curse, the consequence of the Fall, not God’s original design.
• Some of Paul’s writings appear to be excluding women from teaching (e.g., Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church. (1 Cor. 14:34-35) “Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man.” (1 Timothy 2:11-12)) but upon close examination, the CONTEXT was about proper order and behaviors in church meetings, Paul was addressing issues in the early church, not creating a universal rule.
• Eph.5:22-24 is another infamous, often misquoted passage to proof-text the Gender role theology. While wives are told to submit to their husbands, what’s often left out is the next part – husbands should love their wives in a sacrificial way as Christ loves his church. If the husband fails to uphold his end of the bargain, then the wife has to obligation to submit to him, but rather let him go, as it is written: “But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace.”(1 Cor. 7:15)
• Furthermore, Eph.5:22-24 only applies to married couples, so are 1 Cor. 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12 where husband is mentioned, it is a stretch, perhaps erroneous, if you extend them to all women regardless of their marital status. Churches have often taken marriage as the default, while singles, divorcees, widows and others with absent partners are ignored, as they don’t fit in that “gender role” narrative. If they seek advice, they’re usually told to ride what is called the “relationship escalator” and get married, so they can fit into the narrative. This has deviated from Paul’s advice to singles in 1 Cor. 7:25-40, where singles are taught to remain as they are and serve God first, time is short, and marriage is a distraction. Marriage may be a path to middle class life, but not a ticket to salvation, and shouldn’t be idolized as such.

I want you to be without care. He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord—how he may please the Lord. But he who is married cares about the things of the world—how he may please his wife. (1 Cor. 7:32-33)

• Other biblical passages, such as Galatians 3:28, state: “There is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”, suggesting spiritual equality.

Women Played Leadership Roles in Early Christianity

• Deborah (Judges 4-5) was a judge and prophetess, leading Israel both spiritually and politically.
• Shiraph and Puah (Ex. 1:15), two midwives in Egypt, courageously defied the Pharoah’s order of genocide and saved Hebrew infants. In contrast, in Medieval Europe, midwives were specifically targeted, persecuted and killed as “witches” in witch hunt.
• Phoebe (Romans 16:1-2) was called a deacon and trusted by Paul to deliver and explain his letters. The Roman church was instructed to assist her.
• Priscilla (Acts 18:26) was a teacher of theology, instructing Apollos, a man, in the ways of God. She was also greeted by Paul in Rom. 16:3.
• Huldah (2 Kings 22:14-20) was a prophetess who delivered a message from God to king Josiah, which led to the rediscovery of the Law and the restoration of the temple.
• Lydia (Acts 16:11-14), a seller of purple, which was like the ancient equivalent of fashion business mogul, led her household to the Lord.
• Other prominent examples include Queen Esther, Rahab the harlot and Ruth the Moabite. These examples contradict the belief that spiritual leadership is exclusively for men.

Jesus’ Attitude Toward Women

• Jesus broke gender norms by teaching and speaking to women in ways that were radical for His time (e.g., the Samaritan woman at the well, Mary sitting at His feet as a disciple).
• He first appeared to women after His resurrection and entrusted them with spreading the news—effectively making them the first evangelists. Mary Magdalene was the first evangelist who preached the good news to the disciples.
• Many women followed Jesus and sponsored his ministry, some even followed him to the crucifixion (Matt. 27:55-56), whereas his own disciples had forsaken him and run away (Matt. 26:56).
• Nowhere does Jesus say women must be subordinate in ministry.

Church History Shows Women in Leadership

• In the early church, women were deacons, apostles, and prophets. It was later that institutionalized patriarchy erased or downplayed their roles.
• Many modern churches that allow female pastors and leaders thrive spiritually, disproving the idea that only men can lead.
• Male leadership is not a guarantee of sound doctrines and godly ministry, many have been exposed as false teachers or heartless abusers. What the bible says about male leadership – or “headship” is one thing, whether you have a pastor that can actually measure up to that is another. Biblical headship is about responsibility and service, not dominance or privilege. No man is perfect and holy as an angel, absolute power leads to absolute corruption.

Spiritual Gifts Are Not Gendered

• Nowhere in the Bible does it say God only gives spiritual gifts (teaching, prophecy, leadership) to men.
• Singleness is a unique gift (Matt. 19:10-12), marriage is not for everyone. Women with no husband submit to no husband (Rom. 7:2-3, 1 Cor. 7:39-40), and she’d be happier if she remains as she is.
• If God calls someone to ministry, then God has ordained this person with spiritual authority, their biological sex should not disqualify them.

In conclusion, gender role theology is more about tradition, cultural norm and stereotypes than biblical truth, it is counterproductive in today's harsh, unfriendly environment, and it's a disservice to our dear sisters in Christ. The Bible presents numerous cases of women leading, teaching, and holding authority, and Jesus Himself was iconoclastic as he uplifted women rather than limiting them. If God calls someone to serve, no human tradition should stand in the way. Quoting certain passages to discriminate women, disqualify them from teaching and defend it as what God has ordained is taking God’s name in vain. A true and godly church should empower women, not disempower them. Women are not unconditionally submissive to men, neither men to women, but both men and women to Christ, who's the real head of the church.

 

[jonathanbrickman0000]

and the vast majority of women were rushed into marriage, up to 90% of adult population were married in 1960, that had never been the norm in history,

Might want to study a bit more history. For instance, the marriage rates and behavior in the early 1800's, and the 1400's, and the early 1900's. And the theology by which the Victorian churches and many others, in the US and long before, attempted to justify their extreme gender role-rigidity, far more restrictive than the 1960's. And much, much more.

Where in Scripture the word "I" exists, I will suggest that in order to rightly divide, we must consider to whom that pronoun refers.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Where in Scripture the word "I" exists, I will suggest that in order to rightly divide, we must consider to whom that pronoun refers.

Paul made clear distinctions between his advice and God's command, he doesn't take the Lord's name in vain. No offense, but maybe we shouldn't be obsessed with "pronouns" like those crazy leftists, don't you think?

 

[Free]

Gender role theology, also known by a fancy long term, “complementarianism”, teaches biblical manhood as masculine, strong and assertive, while womanhood as feminine, weak and submissive. It grants men unchecked authority over women, regardless of merit, experience or other qualifications listed in 1 Tim. 3. It is based on cultural stereotypes and historic traditions, rather than absolute divine mandate, and it's often adopted by conservative politicians and influencers to promote political ideals, rather than spiritual truth from God.

Strawman and fallaciously begging the question.

Gender role theology can be traced back to the two world wars when generations of men were sent off to battles; naturally and consequently, women entered the work force to fill up their posts, that wasn't really a choice or some kind of satanic foul play. After the war, soldiers returned to their posts, and those working women were sidelined to inferior positions such as secretary or assistant, they were under social pressure to marry rather than to work, and the vast majority of women were rushed into marriage, up to 90% of adult population were married in 1960, that had never been the norm in history, yet widely perceived as the norm especially by the boomer generation. When women got married, however, they would often be fired from their jobs because they were expected to prioritize their family. Women were deprived of their financial freedom and independence, weren't even allowed to apply for a credit card under her own name until the 70s. The feminist movement was simply a pushback, a rightful demand for equal right to work and property.

That is the historical and cultural background in which "gender role" theory was invented - women were expected to be homemakers, men were expected to be breadwinners, even though women had been breadwinners during the wars. When facing the challenge of feminism, rather than to embrace our sisters into God’s family, to empower them as Jesus did, to liberate them from to the oppressive patriarchy, most churches, especially evangelicals, chose to justify, defend and perpetuate the cultural norm at the time, to maintain the male-dominant power structure with "gender role" theory and “complementarianism” theology.

Strawman as far as biblical complementarianism is concerned. You're basing your arguments in feminist ideology. Be very careful in arguing from culture to the Bible, since the Bible and the Christian life is very often, if not always, counter-cultural.

Women are unfairly and unreasonably prohibited from preaching or leading,

To say "unfairly" is once again begging the question.

even though in most modern churches, more women attend church services and participate church activities.

And this is relevant, how?

Verses Deliberately Picked out of Proper Context

• God created male and female in his image, as his representatives to steward his creation. In most translations Eve was created as a “helper” for Adam. This title comes with a negative connotation of an inferior status, it gives you the impression that Eve was like an assistant or supporter subservient to Adam; the truth is that Eve was a partner equal and comparable to Adam. God the father is often described as a helper (Ps. 54:4; Ps. 121:1-2; Heb. 13:6); the Holy Spirit is explicitly referred to as the Helper by Lord Jesus (Jn. 14:16, 14:26, 16:7), therefore by no means was Eve inferior to Adam and supposed to be subordinate. Adam was held chiefly accountable for the Fall (Rom. 5:12-13), not Eve. When she was “ruled over” by Adam (Gen. 3:16), that was a curse, the consequence of the Fall, not God’s original design.

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (ESV)

This, and perhaps also Gen. 2:20-24, may suggest that both male and female together are the image of God. That would imply that neither is fully the image of God in some sense and so both must differ in certain things that are of the image of God. But put together they are the image of God. In other words, complementarianism.

• Some of Paul’s writings appear to be excluding women from teaching (e.g., Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church. (1 Cor. 14:34-35) “Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man.” (1 Timothy 2:11-12)) but upon close examination, the CONTEXT was about proper order and behaviors in church meetings, Paul was addressing issues in the early church, not creating a universal rule.

What do you mean by "a universal rule"? If he says "the women should keep silent in the churches," does that not make it universal?

• Eph.5:22-24 is another infamous, often misquoted passage to proof-text the Gender role theology. While wives are told to submit to their husbands, what’s often left out is the next part – husbands should love their wives in a sacrificial way as Christ loves his church. If the husband fails to uphold his end of the bargain, then the wife has to obligation to submit to him, but rather let him go, as it is written: “But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace.”(1 Cor. 7:15)
• Furthermore, Eph.5:22-24 only applies to married couples, so are 1 Cor. 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12 where husband is mentioned, it is a stretch, perhaps erroneous, if you extend them to all women regardless of their marital status. Churches have often taken marriage as the default, while singles, divorcees, widows and others with absent partners are ignored, as they don’t fit in that “gender role” narrative. If they seek advice, they’re usually told to ride what is called the “relationship escalator” and get married, so they can fit into the narrative. This has deviated from Paul’s advice to singles in 1 Cor. 7:25-40, where singles are taught to remain as they are and serve God first, time is short, and marriage is a distraction. Marriage may be a path to middle class life, but not a ticket to salvation, and shouldn’t be idolized as such.

I want you to be without care. He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord—how he may please the Lord. But he who is married cares about the things of the world—how he may please his wife. (1 Cor. 7:32-33)

• Other biblical passages, such as Galatians 3:28, state: “There is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”, suggesting spiritual equality.

What does "spiritual equality" have to do with God-ordained roles or authority?

Women Played Leadership Roles in Early Christianity

• Deborah (Judges 4-5) was a judge and prophetess, leading Israel both spiritually and politically.
• Shiraph and Puah (Ex. 1:15), two midwives in Egypt, courageously defied the Pharoah’s order of genocide and saved Hebrew infants. In contrast, in Medieval Europe, midwives were specifically targeted, persecuted and killed as “witches” in witch hunt.

This is Christianity?

• Phoebe (Romans 16:1-2) was called a deacon and trusted by Paul to deliver and explain his letters. The Roman church was instructed to assist her.

She likely delivered the letter, but where does it say she was to "explain his letters"? Where does "letters" come into it when he only mentions her in Romans? You're reading far too much into it.

• Priscilla (Acts 18:26) was a teacher of theology, instructing Apollos, a man, in the ways of God. She was also greeted by Paul in Rom. 16:3.

Priscilla was also with her husband (her "head").

• Huldah (2 Kings 22:14-20) was a prophetess who delivered a message from God to king Josiah, which led to the rediscovery of the Law and the restoration of the temple.

What does this have to do with the topic?

• Lydia (Acts 16:11-14), a seller of purple, which was like the ancient equivalent of fashion business mogul, led her household to the Lord.
• Other prominent examples include Queen Esther, Rahab the harlot and Ruth the Moabite. These examples contradict the belief that spiritual leadership is exclusively for men.

What does this have to do with the topic?

• Nowhere does Jesus say women must be subordinate in ministry.

Nowhere does it say they are equal in ministry.

 

[Free]

Church History Shows Women in Leadership

• In the early church, women were deacons, apostles, and prophets. It was later that institutionalized patriarchy erased or downplayed their roles.

We have one mention of a woman being a deacon and some mention of prophetesses, but where is it mentioned that a woman was an apostle?

• Many modern churches that allow female pastors and leaders thrive spiritually, disproving the idea that only men can lead.

All that matters is whether or not God has ordained women to be in that role. Churches thriving spiritually is also highly subjective; things are not always as they appear.

• Male leadership is not a guarantee of sound doctrines and godly ministry, many have been exposed as false teachers or heartless abusers. What the bible says about male leadership – or “headship” is one thing, whether you have a pastor that can actually measure up to that is another. Biblical headship is about responsibility and service, not dominance or privilege. No man is perfect and holy as an angel, absolute power leads to absolute corruption.

What does this have to do with complementarianism?

Spiritual Gifts Are Not Gendered

• Nowhere in the Bible does it say God only gives spiritual gifts (teaching, prophecy, leadership) to men.

Of course, but it does regulate how they are to be used.

• If God calls someone to ministry, then God has ordained this person with spiritual authority, their biological sex should not disqualify them.

This is fallaciously begging the question--you're first assuming that God actually does ordain women to ministry in which they will have spiritual authority over men.

In conclusion, gender role theology is more about tradition, cultural norm and stereotypes than biblical truth, it is counterproductive in today's harsh, unfriendly environment, and it's a disservice to our dear sisters in Christ. The Bible presents numerous cases of women leading, teaching, and holding authority,

Except that it doesn't, not in the Christian context. As for the OT, perhaps there are other things to consider:

Mat 19:7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?”
Mat 19:8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. (ESV)

Couldn't it be that because there was often a failure in leadership of the Israelites that at times God used women, although "from the beginning it was not so"? Even the, maybe God simply chose women at times because because it was more prudent in the circumstances, but that it doesn't follow that it was to be normative.

and Jesus Himself was iconoclastic as he uplifted women rather than limiting them.

He did, yet he didn't make any of them one of the twelve. They seemed to be helping to provide to keep the ministry going.

If God calls someone to serve, no human tradition should stand in the way.

Nor should human tradition lead one to think that God has called them.

Quoting certain passages to discriminate women,

Strawman.

disqualify them from teaching and defend it as what God has ordained is taking God’s name in vain.

If that were what has happened. If God's word is complementarian, and many think it is, then promoting egalitarianism would be to take God's name in vain.

A true and godly church should empower women, not disempower them.

Of course, and complementarianism does empower women, properly understood.

Women are not unconditionally submissive to men,

Of course not, and complementarianism doesn't teach such a thing.

neither men to women, but both men and women to Christ, who's the real head of the church.

Christ is the head of the Church and a husband is the head of his wife:

1Co 11:3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.
...
1Co 11:7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.
1Co 11:8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.
1Co 11:9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
1Co 11:10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. (ESV)

Notice that once again Paul argues to creation.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/complementarianism-for-dummies/

https://www.crossway.org/articles/5-myths-about-complementarianism/

https://www.9marks.org/article/the-increasing-social-cost-of-complementarianism/

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Strawman and fallaciously begging the question.


Strawman as far as biblical complementarianism is concerned. You're basing your arguments in feminist ideology. Be very careful in arguing from culture to the Bible, since the Bible and the Christian life is very often, if not always, counter-cultural.

You are the one who's been fallaciously begging the question, as you're arguing from purity church culture, which is man made tradition. Btw, aren't you tired of the charge "fallaciously begging the question”? Isn't God the creator of the universe? If you're on God's side, show me some creativity, at least try something else.

To say "unfairly" is once again begging the question.

No it's not, it's factual assessment of your statement "only man can serve".

And this is relevant, how?

Are you preaching to the congregation or to yourself?

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (ESV)

This, and perhaps also Gen. 2:20-24, may suggest that both male and female together are the image of God. That would imply that neither is fully the image of God in some sense and so both must differ in certain things that are of the image of God. But put together they are the image of God. In other words, complementarianism.

You're fallaciously begging the question. Man doesn't complete woman, neither woman man, it is Lord Jesus that complements and completes each individual, for he is the savior the bridges the gap between sinners and God. "Complementarianism" of man and woman is idolization of marriage.

What do you mean by "a universal rule"? If he says "the women should keep silent in the churches," does that not make it universal?

No it doesn't, because Ephesian church where Timothy resided was not universal, there were at least six other churches, see Rev. 2-3.

What does "spiritual equality" have to do with God-ordained roles or authority?

In Matt. 7:29, Jesus preached with "authority", what God-ordained role or authority did Jesus have as a poor carpenter from Nazerath? What God-ordained role or authority did Mary Magdalene have to preach the news of the resurrection? What God-ordained role or authority did sister Pheobe have to deliver the Romans letter? Who are you to adjudicate what role or authority is ordained by God?

This is Christianity?

Is the bible Christianity?

She likely delivered the letter, but where does it say she was to "explain his letters"? Where does "letters" come into it when he only mentions her in Romans? You're reading far too much into it.

No I'm not. Do some historical study on that and educate yourself. Deacon, "diakonia", is a noble position ordained by God with spiritual authority.

Priscilla was also with her husband (her "head").

Nonetheless, both corrected Apollo, and both were greeted by Paul. You're expressing your misogynistic view by diminishing her.

What does this have to do with the topic?

idk, you tell me why king Josiah's priest and ministers were told to inquire wisdom from her, instead of Shallum the son of Tikvah, her husband, who was supposed to be the "head".

What does this have to do with the topic?

Again, idk, you tell me how it was Lydia who led her household to the Lord. Where was her husband, the "head"?

Nowhere does it say they are equal in ministry.

You're in denial of Gal. 3:28.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

We have one mention of a woman being a deacon and some mention of prophetesses, but where is it mentioned that a woman was an apostle?

"Apostle" means "sent one". Did Jesus SEND the women to spread the news of his resurrection, especially Mary Magdalene? Yes or no?

All that matters is whether or not God has ordained women to be in that role. Churches thriving spiritually is also highly subjective; things are not always as they appear.

God did ordain all those women I listed to play pivotal roles in biblical history, some had saved the entire nation of Israel. Debra was ordained by God as a judge to lead Israel, Huldah was ordained by God as a prophetess to deliver a message to king Josiah. Whether you let down your ego, bias and sexism and accept that is up to you.

What does this have to do with complementarianism?

What does complementarianism have to do with anything? Are you made in the whole image of God - or half image of God, in need of another half image to "complement" you? Where is that in the bible? Did Jesus order the Samaritan woman at the well to marry her current boyfriend or find another man to marry, so she could be "complemented"?

Of course, but it does regulate how they are to be used.

No it doesn't. God grants gifts to whomever he deems fit.

This is fallaciously begging the question--you're first assuming that God actually does ordain women to ministry in which they will have spiritual authority over men.

I made no such assumption, you're strawmanning my statement.

Except that it doesn't, not in the Christian context. As for the OT, perhaps there are other things to consider:

Mat 19:7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?”
Mat 19:8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. (ESV)

Couldn't it be that because there was often a failure in leadership of the Israelites that at times God used women, although "from the beginning it was not so"? Even the, maybe God simply chose women at times because because it was more prudent in the circumstances, but that it doesn't follow that it was to be normative.

We're not living in a "normative" time, there's nothing "normative" since the Fall. The world is dynamic, not static. If you believe that the word of God is living and powerful (Heb. 4:12), then go figure out how it is so when it's not "normative". In Matt. 19 Jesus wasn't aiming to fix the pharisees' broken culture of serial monogamy, abolish the law of divorce or restore it to a "normative" state, he fully acknowledged the societal norm due to the "hardness of their hearts" and simply taught them God's original design of the marriage institution.

He did, yet he didn't make any of them one of the twelve. They seemed to be helping to provide to keep the ministry going.

He did made his mother the disciples' mother (Jn. 19:27), who was with them in the upper room meeting (Acts 1:14), along with other women. They were in one accord with prayer and supplication.

Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.

Strawman.

Not so, you did exactly that below with 1 Col. 11:3-10.

If that were what has happened. If God's word is complementarian, and many think it is, then promoting egalitarianism would be to take God's name in vain.

"Complementarian“ is man‘s word, NOT God's. Complementarianism is man-made doctrine to promote conservative political ideology, it reduces mankind's whole image of God to half image in need of "complementing" by a spouse, and it promotes earthly marriage as a "fix" of your woes, that is unbiblical, and you're defending it.

Of course, and complementarianism does empower women, properly understood.

No, it disempowers women by portraying them as deficient damsel in distress in need of a man to complete them. That is cultural appeal, not biblical truth.

Of course not, and complementarianism doesn't teach such a thing.

Yes, it does.

Christ is the head of the Church and a husband is the head of his wife:

You're fallaciously begging the question by assuming that all women are married and all husbands live up to the expectation of headship, despite the exemption in Rom. 7:2-3 and 1 Cor. 7:39-40.

1Co 11:3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.
...
1Co 11:7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.
1Co 11:8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.
1Co 11:9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
1Co 11:10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. (ESV)

Notice that once again Paul argues to creation.

In God's original creation, Adam and Eve were created equal in the image of God, Adam was not superior over Eve. As I've pointed out, Eve being ruled over by him (Gen. 3:16) was the consequence of the Fall, but in the beginning it was not so.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Strawman as far as biblical complementarianism is concerned.

"biblical complementarianism" is an oxymoron. It's cultural and contemporary, not biblical.

 

[Free]

"biblical complementarianism" is an oxymoron. It's cultural and contemporary, not biblical.

No, it's biblical.

You are the one who's been fallaciously begging the question, as you're arguing from purity church culture, which is man made tradition.

What do you mean by "purity culture" and what have I been arguing that is from it?

Btw, aren't you tired of the charge "fallaciously begging the question”?

Yes, but I keep having to call it out because people aren't learning to use better, proper reasoning.

Isn't God the creator of the universe? If you're on God's side, show me some creativity, at least try something else.

I think it best if you make better arguments. And, please, stop with things like "if you're on God's side." That's more poor reasoning.

No it's not, it's factual assessment of your statement "only man can serve".

It's begging the question because you're assuming that it is unfair, but if God has laid the ground rules, as he has every right to do, then it isn't unfair at all.

Are you preaching to the congregation or to yourself?

What?

You're fallaciously begging the question.

No, I'm not. I'm suggesting something that is possible given the context.

Man doesn't complete woman, neither woman man, it is Lord Jesus that complements and completes each individual, for he is the savior the bridges the gap between sinners and God.

The latter has nothing to do with the former. You're also not actually dealing with what I said.

"Complementarianism" of man and woman is idolization of marriage.

How so? How is egalitarianism not an "idolization of marriage"?

No it doesn't, because Ephesian church where Timothy resided was not universal, there were at least six other churches, see Rev. 2-3.

You last statement shoots your argument in the foot. You first appeal to the Ephesian church (singular) to argue that it "was not universal," but then immediately state that "there were at least six other churches," which rather proves the universality of Paul's statement. Not to mention that, as I pointed out, there is further context, which you even gave yourself: "the women should keep silent in the churches," plural.

So, I ask again: What do you mean by "a universal rule"?

In Matt. 7:29, Jesus preached with "authority", what God-ordained role or authority did Jesus have as a poor carpenter from Nazerath? What God-ordained role or authority did Mary Magdalene have to preach the news of the resurrection? What God-ordained role or authority did sister Pheobe have to deliver the Romans letter? Who are you to adjudicate what role or authority is ordained by God?

Why you're even asking these, I don't know; this is all basic Christianity. As to your last question, go back and read the questions preceding it, and then think about it all at once. It's like you're taking you're not even following your own line of reasoning. The answer to the last question is found in the first three.

No I'm not. Do some historical study on that and educate yourself. Deacon, "diakonia", is a noble position ordained by God with spiritual authority.

I've already addressed this. Deacons were a position that took charge of practical day-to-day tasks within the church, but not teaching or pastoring and is not a position in which a person has spiritual authority over others, which is rather what this discussion is about.

Act 6:1 Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution.
Act 6:2 And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables.
Act 6:3 Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty.
Act 6:4 But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” (ESV)

Nonetheless, both corrected Apollo, and both were greeted by Paul.

Which has no bearing on this discussion.

You're expressing your misogynistic view by diminishing her.

Your false claim of misogyny is going to stop here. This is your last chance. There is absolutely nothing misogynistic in my posts, if one actually tries to understand what I've said based on what the Bible seems to say.

Again, idk, you tell me how it was Lydia who led her household to the Lord. Where was her husband, the "head"?

Women were often in charge of the affairs of their homes, but that has nothing to do with being a spiritual head.

You're in denial of Gal. 3:28.

No, I haven't denied anything. Where, exactly, does Gal. 3:28 say that women are to be equal with men in ministry, namely, in teaching and pastoring within a position of spiritual authority over men? We already went over the context of this, remember?

 

[Free]

"Apostle" means "sent one". Did Jesus SEND the women to spread the news of his resurrection, especially Mary Magdalene? Yes or no?

Now you're conflating the usage of "Apostle." In a very broad sense, every single believer was and is an apostle, such as Mary, but there were only a specific number of "Apostles," used in a limited sense.

Act 1:14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.
Act 1:15 In those days Peter stood up among the brothers (the company of persons was in all about 120) and said,
...
Act 1:21 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
Act 1:22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.”
Act 1:23 And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also called Justus, and Matthias.
Act 1:24 And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen
Act 1:25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.”
Act 1:26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. (ESV)

Note there were around 120 at this time, but there were only eleven apostles until they added Matthias.

God did ordain all those women I listed to play pivotal roles in biblical history, some had saved the entire nation of Israel. Debra was ordained by God as a judge to lead Israel, Huldah was ordained by God as a prophetess to deliver a message to king Josiah.

Of course he did, and I've addressed all this, but what does this have to do with those under the new covenant?

Whether you let down your ego, bias and sexism and accept that is up to you.

Again, last chance.

What does complementarianism have to do with anything? Are you made in the whole image of God - or half image of God, in need of another half image to "complement" you? Where is that in the bible? Did Jesus order the Samaritan woman at the well to marry her current boyfriend or find another man to marry, so she could be "complemented"?

Can you please just stick to answering my questions as they relate to claims you've already made, rather than answering them with more stuff that has seemingly no relevance to what you claimed?

No it doesn't. God grants gifts to whomever he deems fit.

Of course he does, but what does that have to do with regulating their use? You're conflating two different issues.

I made no such assumption, you're strawmanning my statement.

No, I didn't, as you certainly made that assumption: "If God calls someone to ministry, then God has ordained this person with spiritual authority, their biological sex should not disqualify them." And that was under the heading "Spiritual Gifts Are Not Gendered."

We're not living in a "normative" time, there's nothing "normative" since the Fall. The world is dynamic, not static. If you believe that the word of God is living and powerful (Heb. 4:12), then go figure out how it is so when it's not "normative".

You keep telling people to go and do some study, well, this is where you need to do so, to understand what "normative" means and how it is used.

In Matt. 19 Jesus wasn't aiming to fix the pharisees' broken culture of serial monogamy, abolish the law of divorce or restore it to a "normative" state, he fully acknowledged the societal norm due to the "hardness of their hearts" and simply taught them God's original design of the marriage institution.

It seems you completely missed the point.

He did made his mother the disciples' mother (Jn. 19:27), who was with them in the upper room meeting (Acts 1:14), along with other women. They were in one accord with prayer and supplication.

Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.

What does that have to do with the point you were addressing? I stated: "He did, yet he didn't make any of them one of the twelve. They seemed to be helping to provide to keep the ministry going."

Not so, you did exactly that below with 1 Col. 11:3-10.

No, it's a strawman. It has absolutely nothing to do with discriminating against women, and everything to do with understanding what God states in Scripture.

"Complementarian“ is man‘s word, NOT God's.

Not at all relevant.

Complementarianism is man-made doctrine to promote conservative political ideology, it reduces mankind's whole image of God to half image in need of "complementing" by a spouse, and it promotes earthly marriage as a "fix" of your woes, that is unbiblical, and you're defending it.

Complementarianism is an attempt to understand maleness and femaleness based on what God has revealed in Scripture.

No, it disempowers women by portraying them as deficient damsel in distress in need of a man to complete them. That is cultural appeal, not biblical truth.

Strawman. It does no such thing. First, go and learn what complementarianism actually teaches, instead of your culture-based, feminist strawman version. I even gave you some good resources.

Yes, it does.

Again, no, it doesn't. Do try and stop with the strawman arguments; they're unbecoming of Christians.

You're fallaciously begging the question by assuming that all women are married and all husbands live up to the expectation of headship, despite the exemption in Rom. 7:2-3 and 1 Cor. 7:39-40.

No, I have made no such assumption. You're once again reading too much into things.

In God's original creation, Adam and Eve were created equal in the image of God, Adam was not superior over Eve. As I've pointed out, Eve being ruled over by him (Gen. 3:16) was the consequence of the Fall, but in the beginning it was not so.

Of course, and this has nothing to do with complementarianism.

 

[Free]

It is worth pointing out that many women, including my wife, are complementarians.

 

[jasonc]

It is worth pointing out that many women, including my wife, are complementarians.

given today's culture in the west . that is needed for marriages to last .

my wife hardly a complimentarian in that sense will ask me to do the lifting and yield to my knowledge if she doesn't know . she has been told her shoulder issues and injuries are found mostly in men by doctors because men didn't do the things men ought to do .

I have helped kids at AutoZone change a tire .understand rudimentary mechanic stuff.i wasn't taught .I learned from other men . I had to pass it on to Nathan and will show Jaci the basics .kids today don't think outside pre Internet .by nature .

I can go on and on on that . stuff you wouldn't think a church has to deal with now has to .

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

No, it's biblical.

It's not. It's a social construct.

What do you mean by "purity culture" and what have I been arguing that is from it?

Go ask ChatGPT and yourself about your arguments.

Yes, but I keep having to call it out because people aren't learning to use better, proper reasoning.

Or you're just spamming it to shutdown conversation instead of making real legitimate reasoning.

I think it best if you make better arguments. And, please, stop with things like "if you're on God's side." That's more poor reasoning.

That's not reasoning, but fair assessment of your spamming of the charge. It's your Maslow's hammer, you're just throwing it around.

It's begging the question because you're assuming that it is unfair, but if God has laid the ground rules, as he has every right to do, then it isn't unfair at all.

You yourself are guilty of begging the question when you defend cultural gender stereotypes as "god's ground rules". It's nothing but your prejudice.

What?

Answer the question.

No, I'm not. I'm suggesting something that is possible given the context.

Yes you are. It was I who contextualized, you're denying it.

The latter has nothing to do with the former.

It has everything to do. "Complementarianism" is idolatry of human romantic relationship.

You're also not actually dealing with what I said.

What exactly did you say, other than spamming the charge of "begging the question", while you yourself are repeatedly doing that?

How so? How is egalitarianism not an "idolization of marriage"?

First of all, Eve was made as a comparable helpmate for Adam, she was not another animal, she was not inferior to Adam; second, marriage is not for everyone, singles are gifted and preferred in ministry; and third, I never mentioned the term "egalitarianism", you came up with that label and put it on me, and you fallaciously associate it with marriage. It is complementarianism that idolizes marriage, egalitarianism on the other hand is all about equal status.

You last statement shoots your argument in the foot. You first appeal to the Ephesian church (singular) to argue that it "was not universal," but then immediately state that "there were at least six other churches," which rather proves the universality of Paul's statement. Not to mention that, as I pointed out, there is further context, which you even gave yourself: "the women should keep silent in the churches," plural.

Nope, show me any similar gag order in his letters to the Smyrnian church, the Thyatirean church, the Laodicean church. Any similar statement to the other six churches. Such letters don't even exist, do they. The context and purpose is about order in church meeting, not shutting women up. If you really stand by your misogyny based on this statement, don't ever attend any church service ever again when there's a female worship leader, speaker or guest.

So, I ask again: What do you mean by "a universal rule"?

You're the one who defends it as a universal rule, you explain it to me.

Why you're even asking these, I don't know; this is all basic Christianity. As to your last question, go back and read the questions preceding it, and then think about it all at once. It's like you're taking you're not even following your own line of reasoning. The answer to the last question is found in the first three.

Again, you're the one who questions about authority, you tell me. Explain to me how Mary Magdalene, Lydia, Priscilla and Pheobe were not silenced, but rather commenced, why it's not "shameful" for them to speak up.

I've already addressed this. Deacons were a position that took charge of practical day-to-day tasks within the church, but not teaching or pastoring and is not a position in which a person has spiritual authority over others, which is rather what this discussion is about.

No you haven't, as you refused to answer my questions. I ask you again, what spiritual authority did Jesus have in Matt. 7:29, when he was just the son of a poor carpenter from Nazerath? What spiritual authority did he have and the scribes didn't? You fail to understand that God is not a respector of person, he grants spiritual authority to whomever he deems fit.

Which has no bearing on this discussion.

Yes it has, when you falsely assumed Aquilla as the "head" with sole authority for the correcting, while ignoring Priscilla's contribution.

Your false claim of misogyny is going to stop here. This is your last chance. There is absolutely nothing misogynistic in my posts, if one actually tries to understand what I've said based on what the Bible seems to say.

You repeatedly denied equal status for women in ministry, and you're taking God's name in vain by using his words to justify your own biased view. I'm sorry that you're so triggered and offended by the term, but there's nothing false in my part on that.

Women were often in charge of the affairs of their homes, but that has nothing to do with being a spiritual head.

Then where is the husband's "headship" in Lydia case?

No, I haven't denied anything. Where, exactly, does Gal. 3:28 say that women are to be equal with men in ministry, namely, in teaching and pastoring within a position of spiritual authority over men? We already went over the context of this, remember?

No we didn't. I've said many times that the only true "spiritual head" is Jesus himself, he's the head of the church, everybody else - regardless of ethnicity, class or gender - is of the body. All human beings are sinners fallen short of grace, any pastor, priest, preacher, reverend or bishop is messenger of God's word, not the author.

You're spiritualizing "headship" by slapping it on situations where it doesn't apply. If you don't read what I said and ignore my point all the time, don't blame me for not reading what you said, and again ask yourself why you're so bothered to reply at all.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Now you're conflating the usage of "Apostle." In a very broad sense, every single believer was and is an apostle, such as Mary, but there were only a specific number of "Apostles," used in a limited sense.

I stated what the term "apostle" - not the title - means truthfully, you put it in a limited sense, don't blame it on me.

Act 1:14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.
Act 1:15 In those days Peter stood up among the brothers (the company of persons was in all about 120) and said,
...
Act 1:21 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
Act 1:22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.”
Act 1:23 And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also called Justus, and Matthias.
Act 1:24 And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen
Act 1:25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.”
Act 1:26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. (ESV)

Note there were around 120 at this time, but there were only eleven apostles until they added Matthias.

Haven't you read that Jesus also sent 70 others, Lk. 10:1? Were they not apostles? Neither Paul nor Barnabas was among the twelve, were they not apostles?

Of course he did, and I've addressed all this, but what does this have to do with those under the new covenant?

Gentiles are gradted into God's household. The church is NOT a replacement of Israel, but expansion of Israel; the new covenant doesn't replace the old covenant of promise God made to Abraham, but rather expands it to gentiles who previously had no access. If God can use a prophetess to deliver a message, so can he do the same in 21st church.

Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. (Eph. 2:11-13)

And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you. (Rom. 11:17-18)

Can you please just stick to answering my questions as they relate to claims you've already made, rather than answering them with more stuff that has seemingly no relevance to what you claimed?

No, you explain to me first what “complementarianism" has anything to do with God's word. I don't stick to answer any question you fallaciously begged.

Of course he does, but what does that have to do with regulating their use? You're conflating two different issues.

I argued on the reception and recipients of spiritual gifts, not usage or any regulation thereof. I'm not conlfating anything, you're deflecting.

No, I didn't, as you certainly made that assumption: "If God calls someone to ministry, then God has ordained this person with spiritual authority, their biological sex should not disqualify them." And that was under the heading "Spiritual Gifts Are Not Gendered."

Then show me how is spiritual gift or authority gendered. Silencing female voices doesn't make male voices any more authoritative.

You keep telling people to go and do some study, well, this is where you need to do so, to understand what "normative" means and how it is used.

No you explain it to me, I'm under no obligation to guess. You're entitled to your own terms and your own definitions, I'm not.

It seems you completely missed the point.

What point? You quoted the passage from Matt. 19, I but contextualized it, I did study on that. Don't take my word for it, do your own research on the pharisees' dispute on divorce. If "normative" was supposed to be the pristine state in Eden, as "in the beginning", then as I said, there's nothing "normative" since the Fall. I'm echoing Jesus's point, which you seem to have missed completely.

What does that have to do with the point you were addressing? I stated: "He did, yet he didn't make any of them one of the twelve. They seemed to be helping to provide to keep the ministry going."

Just because no women were among the twelve doesn't make them inferior, they were in the upper room, and they were among the first who received the baptism of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2, nowhere does it explicitly state that the Holy Spirit descended upon the twelve disciples first before others.

No, it's a strawman. It has absolutely nothing to do with discriminating against women, and everything to do with understanding what God states in Scripture.

Then what exactly does God state? 1 Cor. 11:5 - "Every woman who prays or phrophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head", that obviously assumes that woman does pray or prophesy, who are you to say they can't? And in case you don't know, "prophesy" is not just about fortune telling, but speaking on God's behalf, like Isaiah, Jeromiah and of course, Huldah did. If that's supposed to be OT only, then why is it mentioned in here?

Not at all relevant.

Then why are you defending it with such ferver and persistence, even using your own wife to corroborate?

Complementarianism is an attempt to understand maleness and femaleness based on what God has revealed in Scripture.

No it's not, it's idolatry of marriage and diminishing of women's role in the ministry, it's justification of cultural norm and countermeasure against the feminism movement.

Strawman. It does no such thing. First, go and learn what complementarianism actually teaches, instead of your culture-based, feminist strawman version. I even gave you some good resources.

As you yourself said, only what God states in the Scripture matters, none of these sources do. How do you even know these sources are "good"? Maybe they're what the algorithm directs you to see based on your own preferences.

Again, no, it doesn't. Do try and stop with the strawman arguments; they're unbecoming of Christians.

It is unbecoming of Christians to defend such a sexist doctrine. If the label "complementarian" is a label you like to wear as a badge of honor, and that's hill you'd like to die on, that's your prerogative, I stand by my statement that I abhor labels.

No, I have made no such assumption. You're once again reading too much into things.

Not at all, go read 1 Cor.14:35, 1 Tim. 2:15 and Tit. 2:4 specifically, I didn't read anything extra into the text. These only apply to married women whose identity is attached to their family, but not necessarily singles, divorcees, widows, and others with absent partners.

Of course, and this has nothing to do with complementarianism.

As much as complementarianism has no bearing in God's word.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

It is worth pointing out that many women, including my wife, are complementarians.

Which women, and how is that relevant? Seems like a bandwagon fallacy.

 

[Free]

It's not. It's a social construct.

It's biblical. Your idea of it is the social construct.

Go ask ChatGPT and yourself about your arguments.

No, I'm asking you. This is the burden of proof fallacy. You made a claim and I have asked you to clarify that claim and provide evidence for it, but you are shifting the burden of proof onto me. Please, address what I asked. Avoiding answering questions is not only poor form, but a violation of the ToS.

You yourself are guilty of begging the question when you defend cultural gender stereotypes as "god's ground rules". It's nothing but your prejudice.

Answer the question.

My response was to point out that I don't understand what you're asking.

Yes you are. It was I who contextualized, you're denying it.

No, I'm not. I was making a suggestion for a possible interpretation.

It has everything to do. "Complementarianism" is idolatry of human romantic relationship.

How, exactly?

First of all, Eve was made as a comparable helpmate for Adam, she was not another animal, she was not inferior to Adam;

That "she was not another animal" is irrelevant and not a single person is saying Eve was inferior to Adam; that is not what complementarianism teaches. She was made comparable but different.

second, marriage is not for everyone, singles are gifted and preferred in ministry;

Okay. How is this relevant?

and third, I never mentioned the term "egalitarianism", you came up with that label and put it on me, and you fallaciously associate it with marriage. It is complementarianism that idolizes marriage, egalitarianism on the other hand is all about equal status.

You're saying a lot without actually addressing what I initially asked, which was: 'How is egalitarianism not an "idolization of marriage"?' That I mentioned egalitarianism is irrelevant and it is not a label I put on you, nor have I fallaciously associated it with marriage. Do you even know what it means? Do you even know how it is relevant to this discussion?

The two main views of marriage in Christianity are complementarianism and egalitarianism. One is biblical and one is not, although there are aspects which are in both.

Nope, show me any similar gag order in his letters to the Smyrnian church, the Thyatirean church, the Laodicean church. Any similar statement to the other six churches. Such letters don't even exist, do they. The context and purpose is about order in church meeting, not shutting women up.

It doesn't matter. Paul says "in the churches," plural. That is what you have to deal with.

If you really stand by your misogyny based on this statement, don't ever attend any church service ever again when there's a female worship leader, speaker or guest.

You were warned not to misrepresent my position.

Again, you're the one who questions about authority, you tell me. Explain to me how Mary Magdalene, Lydia, Priscilla and Pheobe were not silenced, but rather commenced, why it's not "shameful" for them to speak up.

Again, go back and read your questions, then think about how the last one applies to the first two.

No you haven't, as you refused to answer my questions. I ask you again, what spiritual authority did Jesus have in Matt. 7:29, when he was just the son of a poor carpenter from Nazerath? What spiritual authority did he have and the scribes didn't?

Again, go back and read your questions, then think about how the last one applies to the first two.

You fail to understand that God is not a respector of person,

You make far too many assumptions.

he grants spiritual authority to whomever he deems fit.

Of course he does. I haven't said otherwise. But, you're assuming that he gives women spiritual authority in certain areas.

Yes it has, when you falsely assumed Aquilla as the "head" with sole authority for the correcting, while ignoring Priscilla's contribution.

Point out exactly where I did that. You sure like to read far too much into things, whether it be scripture or others' posts.

You repeatedly denied equal status for women in ministry,

Based on a legitimate understanding of what Scripture seems to state.

and you're taking God's name in vain by using his words to justify your own biased view.

This is a pointless argument on your part as I could make the same claim.

Then where is the husband's "headship" in Lydia case?

It isn't relevant.

No we didn't.

Yes, we did, starting HERE, where I asked you what the context was.

I've said many times that the only true "spiritual head" is Jesus himself, he's the head of the church, everybody else - regardless of ethnicity, class or gender - is of the body. All human beings are sinners fallen short of grace, any pastor, priest, preacher, reverend or bishop is messenger of God's word, not the author.

Of course, but that doesn't have anything to do with Paul's clear statements that husbands are the head of their wives:

1Co 11:3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. (ESV)

Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.
Eph 5:24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. (ESV)

You're spiritualizing "headship" by slapping it on situations where it doesn't apply.

Such as?

 

[Free]

I stated what the term "apostle" - not the title - means truthfully, you put it in a limited sense, don't blame it on me.

Yes, you correctly stated the meaning, but, as I pointed out, you're conflating the biblical usage of the term. I said nothing about the meaning. Please at least try and understand the arguments I'm making.

With that in mind, please address what I actually said, keeping in mind that no woman is called an apostle and very few men are, even when 120 of them are gathered together.

Haven't you read that Jesus also sent 70 others, Lk. 10:1? Were they not apostles? Neither Paul nor Barnabas was among the twelve, were they not apostles?

See the above.

Gentiles are gradted into God's household. The church is NOT a replacement of Israel, but expansion of Israel; the new covenant doesn't replace the old covenant of promise God made to Abraham, but rather expands it to gentiles who previously had no access. If God can use a prophetess to deliver a message, so can he do the same in 21st church.

Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. (Eph. 2:11-13)

And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you. (Rom. 11:17-18)

I don't see how this is relevant, but okay.

No, you explain to me first what “complementarianism" has anything to do with God's word. I don't stick to answer any question you fallaciously begged.

Your continual violations of the ToS are doing you no favours.

I argued on the reception and recipients of spiritual gifts, not usage or any regulation thereof.

That was my whole point here. That was precisely why I asked: "what does that have to do with regulating their use?" I just can't take you seriously anymore as it seems you're not even following this discussion.

Then show me how is spiritual gift or authority gendered.

I already have. Those are the very passages under discussion.

No you explain it to me, I'm under no obligation to guess. You're entitled to your own terms and your own definitions, I'm not.

No. It's amazing that you don't understand what certain terms mean that are relevant to the discussion. How can you think you can even make a case for your position and why do you hold to a particular position if you don't even fully understand what both (or all) sides are even talking about?

What point?

The very clear point that God allows things that weren't intended to be normative because people are sinful. Things changed when Christ came.

You quoted the passage from Matt. 19, I but contextualized it, I did study on that. Don't take my word for it, do your own research on the pharisees' dispute on divorce. If "normative" was supposed to be the pristine state in Eden, as "in the beginning", then as I said, there's nothing "normative" since the Fall. I'm echoing Jesus's point, which you seem to have missed completely.

No, I understood Jesus's point. You just don't seem to understand analogies very well, nor the meaning of "normative," which has nothing to do with the Fall.

Just because no women were among the twelve doesn't make them inferior,

And nowhere have I ever stated that women were inferior. Please STOP making such false assumptions. You're reading everything through a feminist theology, which is worldly.

they were in the upper room, and they were among the first who received the baptism of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2, nowhere does it explicitly state that the Holy Spirit descended upon the twelve disciples first before others.

This isn't relevant to anything I've stated.

Then what exactly does God state? 1 Cor. 11:5 - "Every woman who prays or phrophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head", that obviously assumes that woman does pray or prophesy, who are you to say they can't?

Please point out exactly where I said they can't. I'll save you the trouble: you can't, because I didn't. As I have stated repeatedly, you make far too many assumptions.

Then why are you defending it with such ferver and persistence, even using your own wife to corroborate?

Let's just stick to your point: '"Complementarian“ is man‘s word, NOT God's.' That isn't relevant, as I stated.

No it's not, it's idolatry of marriage and diminishing of women's role in the ministry, it's justification of cultural norm and countermeasure against the feminism movement.

As I said, complementarianism is an attempt to understand maleness and femaleness based on what God has revealed in Scripture. Your progressive, feminist interpretations of Scripture need to be abandoned.

As you yourself said, only what God states in the Scripture matters, none of these sources do.

At least now I know you didn't read them.

How do you even know these sources are "good"? Maybe they're what the algorithm directs you to see based on your own preferences.

They're solid, conservative biblical sources that I have used for other things.

It is unbecoming of Christians to defend such a sexist doctrine. If the label "complementarian" is a label you like to wear as a badge of honor, and that's hill you'd like to die on, that's your prerogative, I stand by my statement that I abhor labels.

No, you don't. You continually use labels. You used "sexist" in the preceding sentence, for instance. Your hypocrisy is unbecoming of a Christian.

Not at all, go read 1 Cor.14:35, 1 Tim. 2:15 and Tit. 2:4 specifically, I didn't read anything extra into the text. These only apply to married women whose identity is attached to their family, but not necessarily singles, divorcees, widows, and others with absent partners.

I don't know what 1 Tim. 2:15 has to do with anything. The other two apply to all women. Do you seriously think that Paul would tell only married women that they can't speak in church, but to ask their husbands at home? And that he would allow single women to speak in church because they can't go home and ask anyone?

You even stated that "The background/context is proper ORDER in the church. It's about manners and civility." So, it seems that, according to you, single women are allowed to not follow order, manners, and civility. (Maybe that explains why they're single. ) Why would you want to make such an argument?

 

[Free]

Which women, and how is that relevant?

Many Christian women and it's very relevant. You keep falsely claiming my position is misogynist, sexist, and a suppression of women. Yet, many women believe in complementarianism. I'll let you figure out how that's relevant.

Seems like a bandwagon fallacy.

But it isn't.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

It's biblical. Your idea of it is the social construct.

"Complementarianism" is UNbiblical, it's a social construct.

No, I'm asking you. This is the burden of proof fallacy. You made a claim and I have asked you to clarify that claim and provide evidence for it, but you are shifting the burden of proof onto me. Please, address what I asked. Avoiding answering questions is not only poor form, but a violation of the ToS.

Alright, "purity culture" is about "saving yourself for marriage". I'm not advocating for premarital sex, but in practice, this has morphed into idolatry of the marriage institution and the shaming of sexuality, "complementarianism" is often used to justify it, that's what I'm criticizing. If you disagree, feel free to present your own definition, then the burden of proof is on you.

My response was to point out that I don't understand what you're asking.

That's not my problem. I asked you a simple question - do you intend to preach to the congregation or to yourself? If you keep avoiding to answer my question, don't blame me for not answering yours.

No, I'm not. I was making a suggestion for a possible interpretation.

The subtitle for the section of 1 Cor. 14:26-40 (NKJV) is "Order in Church Meetings", that's a legitimate interpretation from the translator, who has more credibility than you.

How, exactly?

Your statement "both male and female together are the image of God" is false, it's cultural, not biblical. God made male in His WHOLE image, female in His WHOLE image, neither is made in his half image. God didn't join two half images into one whole image, he joins two WHOLE images into one flesh.

That "she was not another animal" is irrelevant and not a single person is saying Eve was inferior to Adam; that is not what complementarianism teaches. She was made comparable but different.

OK, then enlighten me what exactly does it teach, and how is it biblical. Again, you defend complementarianism, the burden of proof is on you. So far you haven't made any valid, biblical argument to defend it, you haven't even presented an alternative definition of complementarianism, you're just being reactionary and antagonistic against me.

Okay. How is this relevant?

If it's irrelevant, skip it and don't reply.

You're saying a lot without actually addressing what I initially asked, which was: 'How is egalitarianism not an "idolization of marriage"?' That I mentioned egalitarianism is irrelevant and it is not a label I put on you, nor have I fallaciously associated it with marriage. Do you even know what it means? Do you even know how it is relevant to this discussion?

That's a label you came up with, I've never mentioned it once in my OP. Since you accuse me of promoting egalitarianism, the burden of proof is on you.

The two main views of marriage in Christianity are complementarianism and egalitarianism. One is biblical and one is not, although there are aspects which are in both.

False narrative and false dichotomy. You asked about how my statement "marriage is not for everyone" is relevant, this is your answer. If it's irrelevant to you, why are you still arguing from the prospective of marriage? Just because you're married doesn't mean everybody else is, and just because marriage is good for you doesn't mean it's good for everybody else, you're projecting.

It doesn't matter. Paul says "in the churches," plural. That is what you have to deal with.

It does matter, please specify which other church. In fact there's no need to check any other churches, just take the Corinthian church for example, please explain to me why women got to pray and prophesy (1 Cor. 11:5, 11:13) in the very passage you yourself quoted if it is a universal rule that they must be kept silent. This passage only regulates in what manner should they pray and prophesy, it doesn't state or imply that only men are allowed to pray and prophesy, right?

You were warned not to misrepresent my position.

You made your statement, you own it.

Again, go back and read your questions, then think about how the last one applies to the first two.

No, you answer it. My position is clear, 1 Cor. 14:34-35 is NOT a universal rule, you insist it is and applicable to all "churches", I challenged that with the examples of these women, now it's your turn to defend it.

Again, go back and read your questions, then think about how the last one applies to the first two.

Again, I ask you a legitimate question regarding spiritual authority, you answer it.

You make far too many assumptions.

That's the word of God, Acts 10:34, Rom. 2:11, not assumption,

Of course he does. I haven't said otherwise. But, you're assuming that he gives women spiritual authority in certain areas.

It is you who assumed that spiritual authority is exclusively to males.

Point out exactly where I did that. You sure like to read far too much into things, whether it be scripture or others' posts.

You called Priscilla's husband her "head", assuming his superiority over Priscilla, that's your own reading. I correctly pointed out that both Priscilla and Aquilla corrected Apollos (Acts. 18:26), not Aquilla alone.

Based on a legitimate understanding of what Scripture seems to state.

It's absolutely illegitimate misunderstanding out of your own biased view.

This is a pointless argument on your part as I could make the same claim.

OK, be my guest, feel free to do so.

It isn't relevant.

It is as long as you pound on the point of "headship".

Yes, we did, starting HERE, where I asked you what the context was.

Go read the context of 1 Cor. 14:26-40, I won't repeat myself. Again, the subtitle in NKJV is "Order in Church Meetings", according to the translator, not me.

Of course, but that doesn't have anything to do with Paul's clear statements that husbands are the head of their wives:

Good, then explain to me, where was the "head" of the Samaritan woman at the well? Where was the "head" of Lydia? Where was the "head" of Mary Magdalene? Under whose authority were they preaching the word of God? I stated the biblical truth that Christ is the head of the church based on the same verses, and a woman with no husband is not bound to any man, it is you who's contradicting the Scripture, and you're still arguing from the default narrative of marriage, even though marriage is not for everyone.

Such as?

Matt. 19:11-12. You're fallaciously begging the question by assuming every man is or ought to be a husband, and every woman is or ought to be a wife.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Yes, you correctly stated the meaning, but, as I pointed out, you're conflating the biblical usage of the term. I said nothing about the meaning. Please at least try and understand the arguments I'm making.

You limited the meaning to the twelve with your own definition "there were only eleven apostles until they added Matthias", I thereby challenged that with the original definition of the title "apostle" and the statuses of Paul, Barnabas and the 70, please answer whether they were apostles or not. I'm not conflating anything, all I'm asking is for you to own up your own definition.

With that in mind, please address what I actually said, keeping in mind that no woman is called an apostle and very few men are, even when 120 of them are gathered together.


See the above.

See the above yourself.

I don't see how this is relevant, but okay.

I don't see how the OT history is irrelevant, when it is written that there's nothing new under the sun.

Your continual violations of the ToS are doing you no favours.

Then stop throwing false charges at me. I'm not here to trade barbs with you, you started it.

That was my whole point here. That was precisely why I asked: "what does that have to do with regulating their use?" I just can't take you seriously anymore as it seems you're not even following this discussion.

Please show me any scripture regarding the use of spiritual gift and how it's gendered. I can't take you seriously either when you repeatedly refuse to make a case in defense of "complementarianism".

I already have. Those are the very passages under discussion.

No you haven't. Plus you keep fallaciously begging the question by arguing under the assumption of amatonormativity, i.e. the prospective of husband and wife, even though not all women are wives and not all men are husbands.

No. It's amazing that you don't understand what certain terms mean that are relevant to the discussion. How can you think you can even make a case for your position and why do you hold to a particular position if you don't even fully understand what both (or all) sides are even talking about?

Again, you explain it to me. Define "complementarianism" in your own terms. So far all you've come up with is your invalid opinion that Gen. 2:20-24 may "suggest" that "together" male and female become one image, which is what complementarianism is built upon and it's totally false.

The very clear point that God allows things that weren't intended to be normative because people are sinful. Things changed when Christ came.

How so? In this particular case, how is no fault divorce still normative? In another word, prevalent?

No, I understood Jesus's point. You just don't seem to understand analogies very well, nor the meaning of "normative," which has nothing to do with the Fall.

I had everything to do with the Fall because Jesus explicitly harkened back to the beginning - twice (Matt. 19:4, 19:8), don't take my word for it, go check the verses yourself.

And nowhere have I ever stated that women were inferior. Please STOP making such false assumptions. You're reading everything through a feminist theology, which is worldly.

You're reading everything from your own biased views of patriarchy and amatonormativity, which is worldly.

This isn't relevant to anything I've stated.

Then please enlighten me on the correct biblcal usage of the title "apostle".

Please point out exactly where I said they can't. I'll save you the trouble: you can't, because I didn't. As I have stated repeatedly, you make far too many assumptions.

You did with your initial position - "only man can serve", which is contrary to biblical teaching and early church history. You also argued that "women be silent" should be universal, yet you shot yourself in your foot with 1 Cor. 11:2-16 which only regulates in which manner should women pray and prophesy without any prohibition for them from doing so.

Let's just stick to your point: '"Complementarian“ is man‘s word, NOT God's.' That isn't relevant, as I stated.

Then why did you bother to have this long debate with me on "complementarianism"? If it is God's word, where is it in the bible?

As I said, complementarianism is an attempt to understand maleness and femaleness based on what God has revealed in Scripture.

Then that's a failed, obsolete attempt. An attempt to justify and perpetuate the oppressive patriarchy against women. What God has revealed was his resurrected body to a broken, previously demon-possessed woman before anybody else.

Your progressive, feminist interpretations of Scripture need to be abandoned.

No, your cultural, misogynistic interpretations do.

At least now I know you didn't read them.

Why should I? It's just your source, your algorithm, your information bubble against mine, that's why I only God's word matters.

They're solid, conservative biblical sources that I have used for other things.

Yeah, "conservative", glad to know your political affiliation. And you have the audacity of putting political labels on me.

No, you don't. You continually use labels. You used "sexist" in the preceding sentence, for instance. Your hypocrisy is unbecoming of a Christian.

Only because you deserve it, I don't put it on anybody pre-emptively to stereotype them, discredit them and delegitimize their words. If you don't like being called a sexist, don't make sexist statements.

I don't know what 1 Tim. 2:15 has to do with anything. The other two apply to all women. Do you seriously think that Paul would tell only married women that they can't speak in church, but to ask their husbands at home?

Yes, I do. You're fallaciously begging the question by extrapolating them to all women, whereas Paul only talked about married women as "their husbands" were concerned.

And that he would allow single women to speak in church because they can't go home and ask anyone?

Why not? They're not bound to any husband, and singleness is a gift, as it gives the freedom to serve the Lord without distraction, that's what apostle Paul taught.

There is a difference between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman cares about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she who is married cares about the things of the world—how she may please her husband. And this I say for your own profit, not that I may put a leash on you, but for what is proper, and that you may serve the Lord without distraction. (1 Cor. 7:34-35)

You even stated that "The background/context is proper ORDER in the church. It's about manners and civility." So, it seems that, according to you, single women are allowed to not follow order, manners, and civility. (Maybe that explains why they're single. ) Why would you want to make such an argument?

You're strawmanning with false assumption of amatonormativity - i.e. only monogamous marriage is the "normal" state of being; you're expressing your contempt upon single people, especially single women, accusing them of lacking civility, and implying that their perceived lack of civility is due to their singleness. Overall, you're asserting a sense of superiority of marriage over singleness, even though the prophets, disciples, Paul, Timothy and Lord Jesus himself were single, generations of church mothers and fathers had faithfully lived up to Paul's teaching in 1 Cor. 7:25-35 as they took a solemn vow of celibacy and devoted their whole lives to serve God. You've just proved yourself a sexist with your words and attitude against women, don't accuse me for calling you out and threaten me for that.