“Do you feel that it is a violation of biblical standards for a woman to address the body of Christ from the pulpit in any circumstance? For example, if on a Sunday morning a church has a woman missionary visiting and she gives a report of what’s happening where she serves.”

Would such a happening mean that a church/a pastor does not practice hierarchy? Thanks!

However if we look at Paul’s logic, it is undeniable that he views the creation order as vital at interpreting male head-ship. The woman was created for the man, as a help-meet, a helper comparable to him. This statement alone insists that one ackowledge that a woman although created comprable to a man, is never-the-less under him in authority. Just like Jesus is under the Father in authority but equal to Him in being, so the woman is under a man in authority but equal to him in being.

I believe you typically do a good job at this – just simply define what you mean by hierarchal. If you have a spectrum, define it by characteristics and behaviors (both beliefs and practice). It is misleading to say someone believes something, but their practice shows otherwise.

Is hierarchy limited to preaching? Does extend to leadership? What about in the home as opposed to the church setting? What about serving as a deacon/caretaker? I would suspect that these are part of that definition.

Pictorally, you could use connected 4 squares inside a larger square. It would show the four groupings and the differences between them. You could also use a Venn diagram showing overlapping characterics and beliefs.

I assume you’ll post the article on your blog when it is finished. I look forward to reading it.

Chad

I think Denny is more interested in a taxonomy of positions rather than a debate about individual positions, so I hope not to hijack his thread and start one.

Your question was, can someone be equal with someone else in personhood, even if they don’t occupy roles that correspond 1:1? But I see the question as rather, what does it imply about equality of personhood when one person, based upon their ontology (maleness or femaleness, an attribute they are born with, live with, and die with) can NEVER occupy the roles of another person?

I believe I would place myself in #2, except, perhaps, with a different name. I believe the NT teaches some form of male leadership, but I also feel that we should be doing everything we can to dignify and give women opportunity to exercise their gifts rather than pushing them aside based upon ontology. One of my concerns is that while many of us would decry a John Wayne attitude towards women (for example, he tossed one girl over his knee and spanked her – great fun if you are the man, degrading if you are the woman), we are more guilty of implicitly treating women as inferior than we realize. If someone interrupts me or ignores my opinion, I have the choice whether to be more assertive or just let it pass. But my wife does not have that choice. If her opinion is pushed aside, then if she were to try to be more assertive, then she would be forever sidelined as a rebellious, assertive woman.

Anyway, thanks for the opportunity to think out loud. Sorry for the length, and like I say, I am not trying to wage war. Just trying to arrive at my own position vis-a-vis others’.

Are you equal with someone only if you can function in all of the roles they can?

I take your point, and so does Jim. I think they are valid critiques that will be cleared up in the article.

The labels “hierachy in practice” and “no hierarchy in practice” represent the endpoints on a spectrum. When we apply the label to Driscoll in category two, we only mean to say that he falls on the “no hierarchy in practice” half of the spectrum. We do not mean to say that his position is on the end of the spectrum.

I think this will be clearer in the article. Can you think of a better way to describe the “no hierarchy in practice” half of the spectrum? We are open to correction and suggestions. We certainly don’t want to mislead.

Thanks, brothers.

Denny

I have to use my grandfather in the following statement, my dad decided to leave our family when I was 8;

My grandfather was clearly the hierachy/head in my family. But that didn’t keep my mother and grandmother from “preaching” to my brother & sister, or I. We still knew who had the last word when it came down to it!

Could we be confusing “preaching behind a pulpit” or preaching period with the actual authority/authorities in the church being male?

IOW how does allowing a woman to preach occasionally behind or in front of a pulpit voliate the biblical responsiblity of men being the final authority that comes with the responsibility that God sets forth in both the family and the church? This doesn’t mean the woman is the pastor/shepard/elder with the responsibility/authority over men, women,or children in the local assembly does it?

I agree with your basic idea. But… Take your example of the CEO. The rank is separate from who the person is. The CEO might be male or female, white or black, old or young. He or she was not born CEO and he or she may or may not die CEO.

The problem with the equal in being, unequal in role formula is that a woman, by virtue of being a woman, is subordinate to her husband and to her pastor, and probably to most every male in the congregation. Because she is female, she is not allowed to lead or teach. This is because of who she is, that is, her personhood. She is female, therefore, she is subordinate. This is different from your CEO. The CEO could have been a gutter bum, or president of the US, unrelated to personhood. However, a woman is assigned a subserviant role regardless of her education, work ethic, personality, ethnicity, age, etc. She is born female and will die female. Therefore she is unequal in being, unequal in role. And the truth is, in ways that are not obvious to us as males, she is often slighted and treated differently in the church based on that inequality.

Sorry if this sounds combative. I don’t mean it that way. I am just trying to deal with the real-life ramifications of our belief system.