I am always somewhat surprised, though less so now since I've seen it so much, that history is given such precedence in deciding a theological issue. To me, the bible is the final authority. If it is shown to say something, that is the end of the discussion as far as I am concerned. So the debate needs to be in the interpretation of the texts.
From what I have seen, the egalitarians have not made a good case that the bible teaches what they claim. Are there passages misinterpreted by complementarians? Sure. At least in my view. I still don't see a truly cohesive and well argued case for full egalitarianism. I also do not see nearly as much as some complementarians see in terms of gender restrictions. I do think it is clear though that men are to lead in the home and that men are to be the elders in a church. I see the weight of the evidence as too great to be gotten around.
Beth Barr's negative view of how the reformation helped to contribute to the silencing of women in the church may be a generalisations in that there were always exceptions like Marie Dentiere, who is the sole woman on 'the wall of fame' of reformers in Geneva. She was a scholar, author and bible translator and had previously been an Abbess in an Augustinanian priory. Under the influence of Luther she embraced the doctrines of grace. She married the second time and moved with her husband to Geneva. There she wrote a controversial work on the right of women to read and teach the scriptures. It was burnt publicly. She however, much to the consternation of Farel and Calvin, preached in taverns and in the open air to the marginalised of Geneva who would not have entered a church building. She was a feisty women but Calvin had her write a foreword to one of his books.https://wrf.global/blog/blog-2/theology/wrf-member-dr-trevor-morrow-describes-work-marie-dentiere-woman-theologian-and
Also, I would venture to say that women leading, teaching, preaching, baptising on the mission field are the norm, not the exception. Sure, if a man is available he will often be privileged for leadership, but single women way outnumber single men on the mission field.
I’m a bit intimidated in this setting to ask this question; I am not a theologian. But does it not count as theology when Barr explains the meaning of Paul’s passages? (Forgive me I’m not in a position to pick up the book at the moment), the passage where in the original text Paul is citing the Roman quote from about 500 BC “I do not suffer a woman to speak in the Senate,… if a woman has a question, let her go home and ask her husband…” in which Paul replaces the word “senate” with “church,” and then follows that by one of his famous “What!? … “ paragraphs and exhorts that this is NOT what he had taught? That passage in Barr’s book was a turning point for me. I was listening on Audible while driving, and out-loud proclaiming to myself and my puppies, “That changes everything!”
Making the point that Jesus had come and taken down the structures of man that had been built in defiance of God’s plan, that at creation, no one was made to dominate the other, they were created for mutual service and mutual submission, that was the counter culture of Jesus. Patriarchy was the result of the fall. Given that Power (along with money) is one of the greatest demons, how can a mature believer not see this? The revealing that this is actually what God said is theology to me. It describes God, the creator, who regards human power as a great soul-subverter.
In Alexis' review, she observes that Barr presents historical evidence that "women have been preachers, teachers, deacons, elders, and more prior to the inception of feminism." All this is correct, except I was puzzled by the mention of "elders" in the case that Barr makes. If we date the inception of "feminism", however that is defined, to the 19th century, then working backwards, I have trouble finding any mention of "elders" in Barr's historical argument. She even cites Madigan's and Osiek's masterful study on the ordination of women in the early church, that shows that while we have ample evidence of women serving as deacons in the early church, or the equivalent "ministers", from the Latin, dating back as early as the 1st decade of the 2nd century, we have no evidence for "elders"; that is, presbyters authorized to preside over the administration of the Lord's Supper. Can someone please cite where Barr makes the historical case for the existence of women "elders" in the early church?
As a Pentecostal fundygelical, it always bemuses me to see an argument along the lines of "presbyters authorized to preside over the administration of the Lord's Supper." It highlights the starkly different presuppositions of those who see things in light of various "traditions," and those who look mainly at Scripture itself.
Hi, Renee. I am assuming that you are referring to Beth Allison Barr's use of a hagiographic source regarding Brigid of Kildare? Dr. Barr is correct that her source mentions that Brigid was offered to be ordained as a "bishop," as her piety and prophetic voice, and her contribution to establish and lead female monasteries, caused her to be held in great esteem and honor. Generally, most scholars acknowledge that an "elder" and "overseer" (i.e. "bishop") are synonymous, even though church tradition divided the office of "bishop" from the office of "elder." What Dr. Barr neglects to tell the reader is that the same source states that Brigit refused to accept that ordination. Brigit refused the offer, perhaps knowing that the church had historically taught that only qualified men are to be presbyters ("elders"), authorized to preside over the administration of the Eucharist, though Brigit's exact reasoning is difficult to obtain.
I am not aware of any other place where Barr makes such an argument. Did I miss something in reading her book?
As far as *Paul* citing any woman in Scripture was a "bishop", I am not aware of any New Testament text where such a reference can be found. Such is not the case with "deacon," as Phoebe is listed as one in Romans 16.
Much of this discussion comes down to what people mean by terms such as "elder" and "bishop."
Regarding what labels Paul and other NT writers did and did not ascribe to particular persons, I offer the following from my own notes:
Pastor -- The noun "poimen" (shepherd) is not used (in a spiritual sense) of anyone but Jesus (e.g. Heb. 13:20, 1 Pet. 2:25, and throughout John 10). In Eph. 4:11, it is not used in regard to any individual.
The verb form, "poimano," is used in regard to Simon Peter (John 21:16), the elders at Ephesus (Acts 20:28), the elders in "Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, the province of Asia, and Bithynia" (1 Pet. 5:1 with 1:1), and Jesus in several places in the Revelation.
"Episkopos" (bishop, overseer, supervisor) is used only of a particular "named" individual -- Jesus -- 1 Pet. 2:25, where it rather clearly parallels "Shepherd." It is used of particular but unnamed individuals in Acts 20:28 (in which context it becomes synonymous with "elders," 20:17) and is used in conjunction with the verb form of "shepherd." In Phil. 1:1, it is used of particular but unnamed individuals. (In 1 Pet. 2:25, NET, CEB, HCSB, NRSV, and even the notoriously literal NASB have "Guardian" rather than "Overseer." Perhaps we could coin the term, "watch-over-er," for "one who watches over," to capture the practical sense of the word while retaining some etymological literalness.)
"Episkope," "office" or "position of responsibility" in Acts 1:20 suggests that apostles have watch-over-er roles.
It may be worth noting that in Acts 20, the only mention of gender is in v. 30, which warns that men from among the group of elders at Ephesus would bring false teaching. Apart from that, nothing in the text either suggests or rules out the possibility of women in the group.
The verb form, "episkopeo," occurs along with the verb form of "shepherd" in 1 Pet. 5:1, referring to elders as noted above.
So "presbuteros," "poimen" (and "poimano") and "episkopos" (and "episkopeo") are at the very least closely related and overlapping, if not outright synonymous.
I note many places where a plurality of elders / shepherds / watch-over-ers are mentioned. I see very few where any individual is singled out as "chief."
Possible exceptions (and none specifically *labeled* as "elder," etc.):
-- James at Jerusalem
-- Nympha at Laodicea (Col. 4)
-- The "chosen lady" (2 John 1:1)
Also worth noting is the CEB translation of 1 Tim. 3:1-7, which is one of the few translations that accurately translates the pronouns and idiomatic expressions:
1Tim 3:1 This saying is reliable: if anyone has a goal to be a supervisor in the church, they want a good thing.
1Tim 3:2 So the church’s supervisor must be without fault. They should be faithful to their spouse, sober, modest, and honest. They should show hospitality and be skilled at teaching.
1Tim 3:3 They shouldn’t be addicted to alcohol or a bully. Instead they should be gentle, peaceable, and not greedy.
1Tim 3:4 They should manage their own household well—they should see that their children are obedient with complete respect,
1Tim 3:5 because if they don’t know how to manage their own household, how can they take care of God’s church?
1Tim 3:6 They shouldn’t be new believers so that they won’t become proud and fall under the devil’s spell.
1Tim 3:7 They should also have a good reputation with those outside the church so that they won’t be embarrassed and fall into the devil’s trap.
Clarke, are you familiar with the argument of Ken Bailey that 1 Timothy 5: 1-2 can be translated male elders and women elders instead of older men and older women. He argues on the basis of this being a passage where ‘inverted parallelism’ is at play. It is certainly worth consideration.
Thank you, Trevor. I believe that very argument (which is a very good one) is made in the Madigan and Osiek research on women's ordination, that Dr. Barr cites in her book, to indicate that the early church held "elder men" and "elder women" in high esteem as leaders in the early church. However, contextually speaking, that is generally not the passage used to describe the qualifications for elders/overseers in the church, in terms of occupying an official capacity as one who presides over the Lord's Supper, along with the description of qualifications for deacons. That passage would be (the infamous, to some), 1 Timothy 2:8 thru 1 Timothy 3:13, along with the briefer parallel, Titus 1:5-9.
Again, I’m not in a place to pull the book. It’s the passage about the name Junia (gem.)being changed to Junius (masc.) by the English translators, a bishop. I believe that’s correct without looking.
Most scholars would agree with Dr. Barr that Junia is, in fact, a female name, and that most contemporary Bible translations have corrected that error. But the Junia reference is to "apostle," and not to "bishop." And it is understood as either "well known to the apostles" (ESV) or "outstanding among the apostles" (NIV), which is not entirely clear as to whether Junia was an "apostle" or not. Plus, to be an "apostle" could be in a formal, authoritative sense, as in the Apostle Paul, or in a sense that has no necessarily formal authoritative meaning, as in "envoy." Regardless, Dr. Barr makes a substantial case that Paul enjoyed having women co-workers, for the sake of the Gospel. However, the historical evidence for women specifically as "elders" is substantially weaker. Again, much of this comes down to how one defines terms like "elder", "bishop", and here, "apostle," and if gender plays any specific role. As for church leadership not-designated as "elders", we have plenty of evidence that women led in Christian ministry in all sorts of various ways.
I don't have the same depth of Biblical knowledge as others commenting here, but I do think that splitting hairs over the roles of deacons, elders, Bishops in a particular place 2000 years ago demonstrates the literalist pulling at straws that characterises arguments against female leadership in the church. And all the while, the elephant in the room - discrimination - is ignored.
Thank you, Jill. Church tradition must be read in the light of Scripture. Yet I would be curious to know how much emphasis do you think Christians should place in trying to ascertain how the earliest Christians actually read the New Testament?
It's true that, like "angel," "apostle" can have a mundane meaning. But of over 75 NT occurrences, I find only one -- Phil. 2:25 -- that likely carries that sense.
That's basically it. If you look at Scripture itself, as opposed to various traditions, you find that shepherd (pastor), elder, and bishop/overseer/supervisor are so closely related that, if they are not directly synonymous, the difference is trivially small.
Would you mind succinctly stating the different view of who may preside over the Lord’s Supper in the Pentecostal vs Reformed traditions? (Perhaps “traditions” is not the best word choice here. Hopefully you understand my question)
They would usually want a "pastor" of some sort to do it, but Pentecostal churches are considerably less formal overall. In my experience, most would not particularly object if a layperson hosting a home Bible study presided over Communion as part of the home gathering.
Thanks for mentioning that! There are a lot of unspoken assumptions that we take for granted, I'll take a moment to describe my experiences.
Virtually all of my church experience has come since I was "born again" in early 1980, a few months before turning 20. And virtually all of that has been in Evangelical (mostly Pentecostal or Charismatic) churches. So-called "low church" (as opposed to "high church"), and "contemporary" style music.
Communion was typically once a month, plus special occasions. The pastor would preside (rather like a "master of ceremonies," for lack of a better term), and would probably be the one to read the relevant Scripture passages. Laypeople of one sort or another would distribute the "elements": They would usually work in pairs. A pair would take a small "gold" plate of tiny wafers and pass it down a pew to a partner at the other end, who would then pass it back up the next pew. Either they or another team would follow with a special tray holding many tiny (10-20 ml) cups of grape juice. Once the elements were distributed, the person presiding, normally the pastor, would read from Scripture and direct the congregants to partake.
Excluding women from preaching and leadership roles in the church not only does harm but impoverishes the church. It is exactly because men and women do complement one another in so many ways that they both should have seats at the table in order to work together for the good of the Church. I believe this would greatly increase accountability also. I think that the great mistake is that people have taken God's pattern for marriage (Christ and His bride, the Church) and applied it to the whole Church, dividing it along gender lines. I see no Scriptural warrant for this at all, and I believe it would grieve God's Heart.
I am always somewhat surprised, though less so now since I've seen it so much, that history is given such precedence in deciding a theological issue. To me, the bible is the final authority. If it is shown to say something, that is the end of the discussion as far as I am concerned. So the debate needs to be in the interpretation of the texts.
From what I have seen, the egalitarians have not made a good case that the bible teaches what they claim. Are there passages misinterpreted by complementarians? Sure. At least in my view. I still don't see a truly cohesive and well argued case for full egalitarianism. I also do not see nearly as much as some complementarians see in terms of gender restrictions. I do think it is clear though that men are to lead in the home and that men are to be the elders in a church. I see the weight of the evidence as too great to be gotten around.
I think Barr's observation that Complementarians aren't as counter-cultural as they would like to think are spot on.
Beth Barr's negative view of how the reformation helped to contribute to the silencing of women in the church may be a generalisations in that there were always exceptions like Marie Dentiere, who is the sole woman on 'the wall of fame' of reformers in Geneva. She was a scholar, author and bible translator and had previously been an Abbess in an Augustinanian priory. Under the influence of Luther she embraced the doctrines of grace. She married the second time and moved with her husband to Geneva. There she wrote a controversial work on the right of women to read and teach the scriptures. It was burnt publicly. She however, much to the consternation of Farel and Calvin, preached in taverns and in the open air to the marginalised of Geneva who would not have entered a church building. She was a feisty women but Calvin had her write a foreword to one of his books.https://wrf.global/blog/blog-2/theology/wrf-member-dr-trevor-morrow-describes-work-marie-dentiere-woman-theologian-and
Great stuff!
Also, I would venture to say that women leading, teaching, preaching, baptising on the mission field are the norm, not the exception. Sure, if a man is available he will often be privileged for leadership, but single women way outnumber single men on the mission field.
You've been nominated for the Aesthete Blogger Award.
https://comelookonthedarkside.wordpress.com/2021/10/29/the-aesthete-blogger-awrd/
Excellent review Alexis. The first time I read it I thought it was your dad's!
I just now figured this out. *facepalm*
I’m a bit intimidated in this setting to ask this question; I am not a theologian. But does it not count as theology when Barr explains the meaning of Paul’s passages? (Forgive me I’m not in a position to pick up the book at the moment), the passage where in the original text Paul is citing the Roman quote from about 500 BC “I do not suffer a woman to speak in the Senate,… if a woman has a question, let her go home and ask her husband…” in which Paul replaces the word “senate” with “church,” and then follows that by one of his famous “What!? … “ paragraphs and exhorts that this is NOT what he had taught? That passage in Barr’s book was a turning point for me. I was listening on Audible while driving, and out-loud proclaiming to myself and my puppies, “That changes everything!”
Making the point that Jesus had come and taken down the structures of man that had been built in defiance of God’s plan, that at creation, no one was made to dominate the other, they were created for mutual service and mutual submission, that was the counter culture of Jesus. Patriarchy was the result of the fall. Given that Power (along with money) is one of the greatest demons, how can a mature believer not see this? The revealing that this is actually what God said is theology to me. It describes God, the creator, who regards human power as a great soul-subverter.
In Alexis' review, she observes that Barr presents historical evidence that "women have been preachers, teachers, deacons, elders, and more prior to the inception of feminism." All this is correct, except I was puzzled by the mention of "elders" in the case that Barr makes. If we date the inception of "feminism", however that is defined, to the 19th century, then working backwards, I have trouble finding any mention of "elders" in Barr's historical argument. She even cites Madigan's and Osiek's masterful study on the ordination of women in the early church, that shows that while we have ample evidence of women serving as deacons in the early church, or the equivalent "ministers", from the Latin, dating back as early as the 1st decade of the 2nd century, we have no evidence for "elders"; that is, presbyters authorized to preside over the administration of the Lord's Supper. Can someone please cite where Barr makes the historical case for the existence of women "elders" in the early church?
As a Pentecostal fundygelical, it always bemuses me to see an argument along the lines of "presbyters authorized to preside over the administration of the Lord's Supper." It highlights the starkly different presuppositions of those who see things in light of various "traditions," and those who look mainly at Scripture itself.
Am I wrong in thinking that is covered when she demonstrates that Paul lists a woman as “bishop”?
Hi, Renee. I am assuming that you are referring to Beth Allison Barr's use of a hagiographic source regarding Brigid of Kildare? Dr. Barr is correct that her source mentions that Brigid was offered to be ordained as a "bishop," as her piety and prophetic voice, and her contribution to establish and lead female monasteries, caused her to be held in great esteem and honor. Generally, most scholars acknowledge that an "elder" and "overseer" (i.e. "bishop") are synonymous, even though church tradition divided the office of "bishop" from the office of "elder." What Dr. Barr neglects to tell the reader is that the same source states that Brigit refused to accept that ordination. Brigit refused the offer, perhaps knowing that the church had historically taught that only qualified men are to be presbyters ("elders"), authorized to preside over the administration of the Eucharist, though Brigit's exact reasoning is difficult to obtain.
I am not aware of any other place where Barr makes such an argument. Did I miss something in reading her book?
As far as *Paul* citing any woman in Scripture was a "bishop", I am not aware of any New Testament text where such a reference can be found. Such is not the case with "deacon," as Phoebe is listed as one in Romans 16.
Much of this discussion comes down to what people mean by terms such as "elder" and "bishop."
Regarding what labels Paul and other NT writers did and did not ascribe to particular persons, I offer the following from my own notes:
Pastor -- The noun "poimen" (shepherd) is not used (in a spiritual sense) of anyone but Jesus (e.g. Heb. 13:20, 1 Pet. 2:25, and throughout John 10). In Eph. 4:11, it is not used in regard to any individual.
The verb form, "poimano," is used in regard to Simon Peter (John 21:16), the elders at Ephesus (Acts 20:28), the elders in "Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, the province of Asia, and Bithynia" (1 Pet. 5:1 with 1:1), and Jesus in several places in the Revelation.
"Episkopos" (bishop, overseer, supervisor) is used only of a particular "named" individual -- Jesus -- 1 Pet. 2:25, where it rather clearly parallels "Shepherd." It is used of particular but unnamed individuals in Acts 20:28 (in which context it becomes synonymous with "elders," 20:17) and is used in conjunction with the verb form of "shepherd." In Phil. 1:1, it is used of particular but unnamed individuals. (In 1 Pet. 2:25, NET, CEB, HCSB, NRSV, and even the notoriously literal NASB have "Guardian" rather than "Overseer." Perhaps we could coin the term, "watch-over-er," for "one who watches over," to capture the practical sense of the word while retaining some etymological literalness.)
"Episkope," "office" or "position of responsibility" in Acts 1:20 suggests that apostles have watch-over-er roles.
It may be worth noting that in Acts 20, the only mention of gender is in v. 30, which warns that men from among the group of elders at Ephesus would bring false teaching. Apart from that, nothing in the text either suggests or rules out the possibility of women in the group.
The verb form, "episkopeo," occurs along with the verb form of "shepherd" in 1 Pet. 5:1, referring to elders as noted above.
So "presbuteros," "poimen" (and "poimano") and "episkopos" (and "episkopeo") are at the very least closely related and overlapping, if not outright synonymous.
I note many places where a plurality of elders / shepherds / watch-over-ers are mentioned. I see very few where any individual is singled out as "chief."
Possible exceptions (and none specifically *labeled* as "elder," etc.):
-- James at Jerusalem
-- Nympha at Laodicea (Col. 4)
-- The "chosen lady" (2 John 1:1)
Also worth noting is the CEB translation of 1 Tim. 3:1-7, which is one of the few translations that accurately translates the pronouns and idiomatic expressions:
1Tim 3:1 This saying is reliable: if anyone has a goal to be a supervisor in the church, they want a good thing.
1Tim 3:2 So the church’s supervisor must be without fault. They should be faithful to their spouse, sober, modest, and honest. They should show hospitality and be skilled at teaching.
1Tim 3:3 They shouldn’t be addicted to alcohol or a bully. Instead they should be gentle, peaceable, and not greedy.
1Tim 3:4 They should manage their own household well—they should see that their children are obedient with complete respect,
1Tim 3:5 because if they don’t know how to manage their own household, how can they take care of God’s church?
1Tim 3:6 They shouldn’t be new believers so that they won’t become proud and fall under the devil’s spell.
1Tim 3:7 They should also have a good reputation with those outside the church so that they won’t be embarrassed and fall into the devil’s trap.
Clarke, are you familiar with the argument of Ken Bailey that 1 Timothy 5: 1-2 can be translated male elders and women elders instead of older men and older women. He argues on the basis of this being a passage where ‘inverted parallelism’ is at play. It is certainly worth consideration.
https://godswordtowomen.org/women_new_testament.pdf
Thank you, Trevor. I believe that very argument (which is a very good one) is made in the Madigan and Osiek research on women's ordination, that Dr. Barr cites in her book, to indicate that the early church held "elder men" and "elder women" in high esteem as leaders in the early church. However, contextually speaking, that is generally not the passage used to describe the qualifications for elders/overseers in the church, in terms of occupying an official capacity as one who presides over the Lord's Supper, along with the description of qualifications for deacons. That passage would be (the infamous, to some), 1 Timothy 2:8 thru 1 Timothy 3:13, along with the briefer parallel, Titus 1:5-9.
Again, I’m not in a place to pull the book. It’s the passage about the name Junia (gem.)being changed to Junius (masc.) by the English translators, a bishop. I believe that’s correct without looking.
Most scholars would agree with Dr. Barr that Junia is, in fact, a female name, and that most contemporary Bible translations have corrected that error. But the Junia reference is to "apostle," and not to "bishop." And it is understood as either "well known to the apostles" (ESV) or "outstanding among the apostles" (NIV), which is not entirely clear as to whether Junia was an "apostle" or not. Plus, to be an "apostle" could be in a formal, authoritative sense, as in the Apostle Paul, or in a sense that has no necessarily formal authoritative meaning, as in "envoy." Regardless, Dr. Barr makes a substantial case that Paul enjoyed having women co-workers, for the sake of the Gospel. However, the historical evidence for women specifically as "elders" is substantially weaker. Again, much of this comes down to how one defines terms like "elder", "bishop", and here, "apostle," and if gender plays any specific role. As for church leadership not-designated as "elders", we have plenty of evidence that women led in Christian ministry in all sorts of various ways.
I don't have the same depth of Biblical knowledge as others commenting here, but I do think that splitting hairs over the roles of deacons, elders, Bishops in a particular place 2000 years ago demonstrates the literalist pulling at straws that characterises arguments against female leadership in the church. And all the while, the elephant in the room - discrimination - is ignored.
Thank you, Jill. Church tradition must be read in the light of Scripture. Yet I would be curious to know how much emphasis do you think Christians should place in trying to ascertain how the earliest Christians actually read the New Testament?
It's true that, like "angel," "apostle" can have a mundane meaning. But of over 75 NT occurrences, I find only one -- Phil. 2:25 -- that likely carries that sense.
That's basically it. If you look at Scripture itself, as opposed to various traditions, you find that shepherd (pastor), elder, and bishop/overseer/supervisor are so closely related that, if they are not directly synonymous, the difference is trivially small.
Would you mind succinctly stating the different view of who may preside over the Lord’s Supper in the Pentecostal vs Reformed traditions? (Perhaps “traditions” is not the best word choice here. Hopefully you understand my question)
They would usually want a "pastor" of some sort to do it, but Pentecostal churches are considerably less formal overall. In my experience, most would not particularly object if a layperson hosting a home Bible study presided over Communion as part of the home gathering.
I have presided over Communion in an Assemblies of God (now Australian Christian Churches) church service.
Thanks for mentioning that! There are a lot of unspoken assumptions that we take for granted, I'll take a moment to describe my experiences.
Virtually all of my church experience has come since I was "born again" in early 1980, a few months before turning 20. And virtually all of that has been in Evangelical (mostly Pentecostal or Charismatic) churches. So-called "low church" (as opposed to "high church"), and "contemporary" style music.
Communion was typically once a month, plus special occasions. The pastor would preside (rather like a "master of ceremonies," for lack of a better term), and would probably be the one to read the relevant Scripture passages. Laypeople of one sort or another would distribute the "elements": They would usually work in pairs. A pair would take a small "gold" plate of tiny wafers and pass it down a pew to a partner at the other end, who would then pass it back up the next pew. Either they or another team would follow with a special tray holding many tiny (10-20 ml) cups of grape juice. Once the elements were distributed, the person presiding, normally the pastor, would read from Scripture and direct the congregants to partake.
ps I am a lay person
Excluding women from preaching and leadership roles in the church not only does harm but impoverishes the church. It is exactly because men and women do complement one another in so many ways that they both should have seats at the table in order to work together for the good of the Church. I believe this would greatly increase accountability also. I think that the great mistake is that people have taken God's pattern for marriage (Christ and His bride, the Church) and applied it to the whole Church, dividing it along gender lines. I see no Scriptural warrant for this at all, and I believe it would grieve God's Heart.