Biblical rationale for male headship in Church but not in wider society or state?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Peairtach

Peairtach

Puritan Board Doctor
Biblical rationale for male leadership in the Church?
This is a "spin-off" from the other thread. Having recently read Knox's "First Blast", and in many ways sympathising to an extent with his position, the Q. I wanted to ask was, Why is there a specific ban on female leadership in the Church, while female leadership is permitted in other areas of life, e.g. the state? What is it about the Church which means that it is inappropriate to have female leadership there?

I say that as some-one who is of course against female leadership in family and church.

Apart, from the fact that it is commanded, what is the Biblical/theological rationale or the rationale that is believed to be the correct one, why women are not permitted by God's Word, to lead in Church?

Is it because the Church is "the Household of God", and therefore men, women and children should be equal yet subordinate, as in the family?

Is it because God is revealed as male and is incarnated as male in Jesus Christ?

Is it to remind us that sin came by a woman?

Or a mixture of these?

Or other?
Click to expand...

This is from a previous closed thread to which I only got one answer. I'm still interested as to what the biblical rationale is for the distinction between male headship in the Church but not necessarily in the wider society/state? Or was Knox correct?
 
The principle is valid in both spheres. However, when society rejects the principle, we still have an obligation to keep our house in order. 1 Cor. 5:12, 13, comes into effect.
 
armourbearer said:
The principle is valid in both spheres. However, when society rejects the principle, we still have an obligation to keep our house in order. 1 Cor. 5:12, 13, comes into effect.
Click to expand...

As one who affirms male headship in family and denies unrestricted teaching or authority positions to women in church, I have never been able to find a way to extend that principle to the world in a way that is provably valid by GNC. How would you lay out such a proof?
 
timmopussycat said:
As one who affirms male headship in family and denies unrestricted teaching or authority positions to women in church, I have never been able to find a way to extend that principle to the world in a way that is provably valid by GNC. How would you lay out such a proof?
Click to expand...

I probably wouldn't bother resorting to good and necessary consequence since it is plainly taught in 1 Corinthians 11. Leaving the issue of head coverings to the side, Paul's express teaching is that the reason why a gender order should exist in the church is because it is founded in the order of creation itself.
 
Quote from timmotompussycat:D
As one who affirms male headship in family and denies unrestricted teaching or authority positions to women in church, I have never been able to find a way to extend that principle to the world in a way that is provably valid by GNC. How would you lay out such a proof?
Click to expand...

Read Knox's "First Blast", which is quite a short work. Knox said that his First Blast had "blown all his friends away"

I don't know if I'm persuaded. E.g. Esther was a queen with a degree of authority, and we do not find Scripture looking upon her position askance, as being in some way immoral. Isaiah mentions queens with approval as being "nursing mothers" to the Church.

Of course there is the added problem that we have to distinguish between queens who have power because they are the wives of their husband, the king, and queens that have that power vested in themselves as monarch.

But where queens are mentioned in Scripture, Scripture does not seem to disapprove of the office, nor does it anywhere explicitly condemn it. It doesn't say anywhere that no woman should be monarch. Or does it?
 
I would say the principle applies in and outside the Church in different ways. Having a woman pastor is forbidden. Having a 50/50 split between men and women in the workplace and government, or anywhere close, is a sign that a society is heading downhill fast. But it is not a "Thou shalt not" on an individual scale like it is in the Church.
 
I've always thought that Isa. 3:12 had some bearing on the matter. If God ridicules his people for having leaders that are no better than "women ruling over them" and having "children" as their oppressors, I would think that in the mind of God, female leadership over the church, or the nation, shows that something is out of order.
 
I've never understood how Paul's argument in 1 Timothy could be seen as anything other than an argument from the general to the particular. In general, men are to be in authority because of creation and the fall, so if follows that men are to be in authority in the church.

Actaully I have heard an argument that Paul is actually only talking about authority in marriage in 1 Timothy. While I don't think this is correct, it is a more plausible interpretation than having Paul's argument only apply to the church since Paul's reference to creation and the fall could be a reference limited to the institution of marriage.
 
The Scriptures indicate that Esther and the nursing mothers of the church were queens in subjection to male heads: Esther 2:17, "And the king loved Esther above all the women, and she obtained grace and favour in his sight more than all the virgins; so that he set the royal crown upon her head, and made her queen instead of Vashti." Isa. 49:23, "And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers."
 
I don't disagree with the points made, but do find then some difficulty with the case of the Queen of Sheba, who appears to have had power vested in herself as monarch, and the Lord spoke well of her. How would that be addressed from Knox's position? (Haven't read First Blast)
 
Knox didn't mention/deal with the Queen of Sheba, Queen Esther, and a number of other important things.

His First Blast was the first instalment of a trilogy of Blasts, being his thoughts from Scripture on this subject. He intended to write the Second Blast and Third Blast but never got round to it.

As far as I'm aware Calvin wasn't enamoured of the First Blast (?) He would worry that Knox's views would frighten away the support of queens who were friendly to the Reformation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top