Thoughts on women...

I'm back with more (personal!) thoughts on Elders. This time about 1 Tim 2:13 "For Adam was formed first, then Eve". See my previous post here focusing on 'Pronouns and Traditions'  based on 1 Tim 3:1-12. I think for some who have a complementarian stance, the linguistics of the passage in 1 Tim 3:1-12 are not so relevant an argument, it's more about what they see as the original principles of male headship, ergo male only elders. So if you truly believe that male headship is correct, then of course the linguistics of chapter 3 are irrelevant because you'd only see the explicit language as confirming the male bias. So headship. First up two things, I think it's interesting that male headship is not mentioned until Ephesians 5:23 (when Paul first used the term 'kephale'). I also think it's interesting that Jesus didn't mention headship at all and when he did talk about marriage, he said it in the context of the Eden blueprint of a husban...

Let me first start by saying that the only skin I have in this particular game is that I love to pick away at threads where I feel that patriarchal systems have sought to supress and 'keep women in their place' through an interpretation of the scriptures. I don't personally want to be an elder, nor do I think I necessarily fulfil all the requirements regardless. I do however believe that the church family and wider church is poorer for this prohibition and that is my motivation for this whole blog really.  That off my chest, for this post I wanted to put down in writing some of my thoughts on this so far. Also, they are just that, my thoughts so far and for this post I've landed on 'pronouns' and 'tradition'. I've come on a journey from a complementarian stance to a mutualist/egalitarian stance and I hope I am still learning and developing all the time. I've talked to MANY people about this and funnily enough it was a recent discussion about the ...

1 Timothy 2:11-15 11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. First things first. I'm no theologian but I'm grateful to the many amazing voices and brains who've dedicated time, faith and energy to the Word. Second thing... This passage is HARD so the second thing is actually the most important thing. When reading passages like this, which on the surface really seem to subjugate women, we have to remember the premise which underwrites everything we know. God is good. That's it, full stop, no "God is good... but...", Psalm 107:1 says "Give thanks to the Lord, for he is good, his love endures fore...

Going back to Genesis in my reading has been revelatory. I have been circling the scriptures and trying to reconcile in my heart and mind why the concept of male headship makes no sense to me, despite listening to articulate folk explain the complementarian view.  Then God said. "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground. So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them ; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them , "Be fruitful and increase in number, fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground" (Genesis 1:26-29). Adam and Eve were both made in Gods image and God did not pronounce humanity was 'good' until after Eve had been created. In ...

Speaking with a friend this week I am reminded of the value of sisterhood in Christ. We talked about Jesus. We talked about his interactions with women. We lifted our spirits together by reminding one another of His goodness.  Jesus was unfailingly kind and approachable with women and in fact all people from oppressed groups. He was completely counter-culture in his approach. He protected women by elevating their status to that of men by reminding them of their humanity - "Who will cast the first stone?". He didn't shy away from difficult conversations - the woman at the well got more than she bargained for that day and though he quietly admonished her and helped her to see her sin, she went away refreshed, repentant and joyful! Full of a desire to tell others, one of the first evangelists you might say. He didn't need to leave specific instructions on how to treat women because He lived it. The more often I read Jesus, the more I fall in love with Him. I just need to...

Recently our church had a sermon series on 1 John and it was simply superb. To literally bathe in the goodness of God and the miracle of salvation was wonderful. So it wasn't a surprise to me when one day I was trying to work through issues of women and my sense that I am not meant to let this go... or am I... that I felt a nudge from God to go back to 1 John. So I did and again felt that wonderful assurity of love. As I finished the book I couldn't help wondering how was that meant to help my dilemma and the nudge continued. Keep reading! So I did. Here it is for you in full below (It's short and sweet, just like my short post here!). My first thought, and this is symptomatic perhaps of my upbringing in a faith which actively avoids the mention of women in any sort of leadership, is that 'elect lady' is 'the church' and not an individual woman. Why am I reading this Lord? Look again! I looked again at 1 John and 3 John. Their introductions and language were...