“He is telling those who typically have power in this world (and, in a physical sense, are often bigger and stronger) that they must use their power to imitate Jesus.” Yes! Thank you.
You said on Facebook, before blocking and accusing me of attitudes and actions unrelated and going back years that have never been mentioned before, that you want discussion here. So will you please answer my question as to whether or not you really hold to the view that male headship, itself, and not disordered intra-sex relationships, is a result of the fall?
And was this a position that you clearly stated in a sermon six years ago or not? That wasn't clear in your comment.
I do think male-rule is a consequence of the fall and not part of the “created order.” I’ve written about this in other posts, including very recently, and I’ll do a much deeper dive on it in the future. Know that I do take critiques seriously and use them for future posts rather than respond back-and-forth in shortform question (one reason I prefer Substack to X). Here is a post from two weeks ago where I discuss this very thing: https://bobbygilles.substack.com/p/was-adam-but-not-eve-a-priest-in
Wanted to ask a question in regards to the Galatians 3:28 passage and would like to hear your response/insight.
What I have been taught, and when this particular scripture was used to support only men in certain roles in ministry by “experts in theology” —their answer was always that this is not a valid argument for women in ministry roles, because the passage is speaking from a salvation standpoint or is “Salvific” in the context, not equality with man regarding the women’s role in the church. And if this passage is used any other way to support women in ministry roles that men hold, then it’ is being taken out of context.
The verse does not justify doing away with gender as a social construct?
Could you speak more to this for clarity? Is the passage salvific only and speaking only of equality with salvation?
I would agree that the verse isn't specifically talking about the question of women in ministry, and that he also isn't saying that there literally are no longer males and females (any more than that there is literally no more ethnic diversity). But I was taught something similar to you - that it only means everyone can be equally saved. They say that if you apply this passage to how we treat these categories of people in the here-and-now, then that’s an “over-realized eschatology” - that we’re trying to bring heaven to earth on our own power.
But when I read Galatians as a whole, this interpretation doesn’t make sense. Paul says this precisely because he wants attitudes to change right now. He has just corrected Peter because Peter was treating the Gentiles unfairly, eating with them when no Jews were around but then withdrawing from them when Jews showed up because he feared the Jews. Paul wants that kind of thing to end right now, in this life. So while I would agree that the verse isn’t specifically talking about male-female relations, it IS talking about how we treat each other right now. And he does specifically include “male and female” and “slave or free” in the verse, as if to say, “What I’m claiming about Jew-Gentile relations also goes for these other relations.”
It just doesn’t seem to make sense to say this verse is only about salvation in the next life. It’s all about how we live now, which carries over into the next life. It’s why he says in the last chapter: “Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.”
Thank you so much for your work! Seeing Christian's attitude toward women since I got on social media a few years ago has been one of the most disappointing experiences of my life. I've been shocked by the brutishness of the complementarians, something they seem to be proud of, which I think is very revealing. I'm worried about our witness to young women. Especially in this porn-saturated culture, they need to know how much Jesus values them, their intelligence, and their abilities.
You’re welcome, Carolann! And I agree, young women need to see that God’s family values them in a way the world does not. It’s so sad when people who take the name of Christ misrepresent him.
Although I am not trained in Greek or in-depth exegesis I was well trained in English and logic. I was reared in a church that forbad women from preaching but females taught 99% of children and youth Sunday School classes that established our basic theology.
Second, to suggest that church ecclesiology and structure is the same today as in the time of the Apostles is a terrible mistake. The passages so often used to stifle women interpret passages in Timothy as if they had a modern church structure where women could teach downstairs in the basement but not upstairs in the sanctuary!
My doctorate in counselor education and a minor in group dynamics unveils the reality of church meetings in those days. They were face to face meetings in homes. Instructions to them had a lot to do with how to interact as friends, neighbors, husbands, wives, and children. (We hosted a house church for three years across the street from a university where I was Asst. Dean of Students. Our ‘church’ was filled with people struggling with drug addictions, sexual issues, violence, marital abuse, etc. telling wives to learn at home would be a minor issue in 100 AD!)
“He is telling those who typically have power in this world (and, in a physical sense, are often bigger and stronger) that they must use their power to imitate Jesus.” Yes! Thank you.
You're welcome, Julie!
You said on Facebook, before blocking and accusing me of attitudes and actions unrelated and going back years that have never been mentioned before, that you want discussion here. So will you please answer my question as to whether or not you really hold to the view that male headship, itself, and not disordered intra-sex relationships, is a result of the fall?
And was this a position that you clearly stated in a sermon six years ago or not? That wasn't clear in your comment.
I do think male-rule is a consequence of the fall and not part of the “created order.” I’ve written about this in other posts, including very recently, and I’ll do a much deeper dive on it in the future. Know that I do take critiques seriously and use them for future posts rather than respond back-and-forth in shortform question (one reason I prefer Substack to X). Here is a post from two weeks ago where I discuss this very thing: https://bobbygilles.substack.com/p/was-adam-but-not-eve-a-priest-in
Wanted to ask a question in regards to the Galatians 3:28 passage and would like to hear your response/insight.
What I have been taught, and when this particular scripture was used to support only men in certain roles in ministry by “experts in theology” —their answer was always that this is not a valid argument for women in ministry roles, because the passage is speaking from a salvation standpoint or is “Salvific” in the context, not equality with man regarding the women’s role in the church. And if this passage is used any other way to support women in ministry roles that men hold, then it’ is being taken out of context.
The verse does not justify doing away with gender as a social construct?
Could you speak more to this for clarity? Is the passage salvific only and speaking only of equality with salvation?
I would agree that the verse isn't specifically talking about the question of women in ministry, and that he also isn't saying that there literally are no longer males and females (any more than that there is literally no more ethnic diversity). But I was taught something similar to you - that it only means everyone can be equally saved. They say that if you apply this passage to how we treat these categories of people in the here-and-now, then that’s an “over-realized eschatology” - that we’re trying to bring heaven to earth on our own power.
But when I read Galatians as a whole, this interpretation doesn’t make sense. Paul says this precisely because he wants attitudes to change right now. He has just corrected Peter because Peter was treating the Gentiles unfairly, eating with them when no Jews were around but then withdrawing from them when Jews showed up because he feared the Jews. Paul wants that kind of thing to end right now, in this life. So while I would agree that the verse isn’t specifically talking about male-female relations, it IS talking about how we treat each other right now. And he does specifically include “male and female” and “slave or free” in the verse, as if to say, “What I’m claiming about Jew-Gentile relations also goes for these other relations.”
It just doesn’t seem to make sense to say this verse is only about salvation in the next life. It’s all about how we live now, which carries over into the next life. It’s why he says in the last chapter: “Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.”
I hope that helps!
Thank you so much for your work! Seeing Christian's attitude toward women since I got on social media a few years ago has been one of the most disappointing experiences of my life. I've been shocked by the brutishness of the complementarians, something they seem to be proud of, which I think is very revealing. I'm worried about our witness to young women. Especially in this porn-saturated culture, they need to know how much Jesus values them, their intelligence, and their abilities.
You’re welcome, Carolann! And I agree, young women need to see that God’s family values them in a way the world does not. It’s so sad when people who take the name of Christ misrepresent him.
This is a perspective I have never heard before! It totally makes sense. I appreciate you sharing this.
You're welcome, Julie!
Although I am not trained in Greek or in-depth exegesis I was well trained in English and logic. I was reared in a church that forbad women from preaching but females taught 99% of children and youth Sunday School classes that established our basic theology.
Second, to suggest that church ecclesiology and structure is the same today as in the time of the Apostles is a terrible mistake. The passages so often used to stifle women interpret passages in Timothy as if they had a modern church structure where women could teach downstairs in the basement but not upstairs in the sanctuary!
My doctorate in counselor education and a minor in group dynamics unveils the reality of church meetings in those days. They were face to face meetings in homes. Instructions to them had a lot to do with how to interact as friends, neighbors, husbands, wives, and children. (We hosted a house church for three years across the street from a university where I was Asst. Dean of Students. Our ‘church’ was filled with people struggling with drug addictions, sexual issues, violence, marital abuse, etc. telling wives to learn at home would be a minor issue in 100 AD!)
Thanks for the Greek lesson.
These are really good points, Gary! Thanks for sharing.