Thanks, I've read most if not all of the common arguments made in the Egalitarian/Complimentarian/Patriarchy debate - rarely do I encounter something new. And the infamous but decisive 'source' word topic hasn't even been discussed in-depth in this thread yet. But just because I've studied and weighed those 'modern' arguments with some confidence I can say these don't convince me - not because I'm simply clutching to tradition or don't like change, but because the classical Patriarchal view overall fits the big picture much better and make Torah, Yeshua, Paul and Peter and the history of the Church in those two thousands years align well ...
The very fact that only secular instigated feminism triggered the re-interpretation and development of alternative theories to 'explain away' Paul's and Peter's statements as time or culturally localised instructions makes it suspicious .. because the motive is not to get a more honest/better understanding of scripture, but to align our Bible interpretation with the pressures and wishes of modern secular society.
Absolutely - I'm pretty sure I'm wrong about many things; I just don't know which ones - prayerfully I read and contemplate. I avoid turning it into a battle field, what still easily happens as it is such an emotionally charged subject.
Without Paul we would struggle to properly understand many aspects of Christianity; e.g. without Paul's letters we would not really know why Yeshua had to die on the cross (as that is not really addressed in the Gospels theologically). Paul's and Peter's instructions on the role of women in marriage and churches are not vague at all - they're quite clear, and that's precisely the reason why these instructions were not controversial or heavily debated in Christian history (until the 1960's) .. everyone knew with some confidence what it meant. It's just that since the 1960's modern society does not like those instructions because the underlying framework and view on the role of husband and wife is incompatible with modern Western (and certainly woke) thinking.
Connecting the dots between Torah, Yeshua, Paul and Peter .. and observing the theological and cross-cultural arguments made by these, the position that the instructions on this matter are just accidentally local to time and culture without wider universal implications feels artificially forced and unlikely.
About 70-80% of churches in Western countries have moved from the Patriarchal to the Egalitarian view I estimate - your church would be one of those. In those churches speakers would have to generalise or skip entire sections of the NT, or transform any gender-specific instruction into a unisex one ... leaving the worldview and theological framework of the NT writers - and the underlying nuance is lost.
Maybe an interesting question would be: why is it the classical Patriarchal view - the headship of the husband in marriage, or the headship of God over Christ causes discomfort among many believers in Western nations these days? Causes the headship of Christ over man(kind) the same anxiety? Modern theologians might even say that view is wrong altogether universally, but then the problem presents itself how God could have endorsed/guided this view in the NT in the 1st century even in that local culture.
Be blessed .. !
PS: God is a God of order and everywhere in society authority structures are in place to let everything operate optimally. Governments have Presidents or Prime Ministers, companies have CEO's, schools have Principals, air planes have Captains, buses have drivers, armies have Generals ... We all recognise and accept the associated authority of these roles; and no one argues to abolish them because incidental abuse of that authority may occur. But somehow in marriage (a team of two) the Biblically prescribed authority structure is bad since the feminist wave? That should make us think ..
