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 husband and wife becoming 'one flesh'. The Eden, or Genesis blueprint points to mutuality. Eve was formed from Adams side so she was not placed above or below him, but alongside him, to physically demonstrate their partnership in stewarding the earth. When Adam was created from the earth, he was declared 'good', however, it was 'not good' that he was alone. God needed Adam to recognise his need for a partner. Alone, he was lacking. Together with Eve, creation was 'very good'. This would have been the perfect time for God to state authority explicitly, however He didn't. There is no hint in the creation story that there was any intended hierarchy prior to the fall. The egalitarian stance is that 'head', or 'kephale' in this instance, the first and only time the word is used in the context, means 'source' and there is nodenying that Adam was created first. However you also only need to look throughout scripture to see that hierarchy in 'order' is continually disrupted almost, it seems to me (and other writers) to mitigate our human inclination for establishing 'power orders', reminding our frail power hungry minds that God is the only authority.
A belief in an apparent 'order' establishes the 'roles' later established by the church fathers (cheers Calvin for calling women an 'inferior aid' and an 'appendage'). This is antithesis I think to the role of 'ezer kenegdo' the woman is described as. Indeed God Himself is described as 'ezer kenegdo' and there is no suggestion that He is inferior at all. Our problem is in our (modern and historical) interpretation of the word 'help' or 'helper' which is seen as 'inferior' to the one being helped. But two together, working to a common goal is a partnership, not a hierarchy.
My final thought for today around this issue of 'headship' is where it is stretched to 'spiritual headship'. I don't see this in the scriptures at all, in fact I only see the opposite.As a woman, as a human, there is only one way I can be saved and that is through grace by faith in Jesus Christ. I don't need any other mediator - see 1 Timothy 2:5 where it says "For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus". Humans, male and female are independently accountable to God for their relationship with him and as such I reject the notion that a woman needs a spiritual 'head' in the marriage capacity.Even in Titus 1:6-7, oft used as a directive for leadership in the home, doesn't actually say that, it actually says "since an overseer manages God's household (that is, the church), he must be...etc".
The letter to the Ephesians in 5:22-23 seem at first glance to demand wifely submission but there was clearly something going on in Ephesus regarding false teachers which Paul was addressing. He starts by demanding mutual submission among all the believers. In the Greco-Roman world, wifely submission was the norm and Paul knew this and draws attention to the behaviours of the household by stating the obvious first, but he then throws everything in uproar by stating that husbands must love their wives as Christ loved the church (and gave Himself up for her). Wives already knew how to submit... but now he was telling the husbands to submit to servanthood of their wives, looping back round to verse 22 and mutual submission.
None of this is to say I reject leadership. I believe (and read in the bible) that it is incumbent on Christians to submit themselves to the leadership of a local church. Those leaders/elders would hopefully be appointed by virtue of meeting the directives for eldership laid down in Timothy and Titus. I just do not see that those leaders/elders must be male. In alignment with Genesis, the church needs both mothers and fathers and accordingly there is no differentiation in leadership between them.
Bibliographic sources
Junia Project
CBE International
Gospel Coalition
Desiring God
