What
is less clear
to me
is why complementarians like Keller insist that that 1 Timothy 2:12
is a part of biblical womanhood, but Acts 2
is not; why the presence of twelve male disciples implies restrictions on female leadership, but the presence of the apostle Junia
is inconsequential; why the Greco - Roman household codes represent God's ideal familial structure for husbands and wives, but not for slaves and masters; why the apostle Paul's instructions
to Timothy about Ephesian women teaching in the
church are universally applicable, but his instructions
to Corinthian women regarding head coverings
are culturally conditioned (even though Paul uses the same line of argumentation — appealing the creation narrative —
to support both); why the poetry of Proverbs 31
is often applied prescriptively and other poetry
is not; why Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob represent the supremecy of male leadership while Deborah and Huldah and Miriam
are mere
exceptions to the
rule; why «wives submit
to your husbands» carries more weight than «submit one
to another»; why the laws of the Old Testament
are treated as irrelevant in one moment, but important enough
to display in public courthouses and schools the next; why a feminist reading of the text represents a capitulation
to culture but a reading that turns an ancient Near Eastern text into an apologetic for the post-Industrial Revolution nuclear family
is not; why the curse of Genesis 3 has the final word on gender relationships rather than the new creation that began at the resurrection.
If you
're applying
to work within a faith - based institution, such as a
church, faith - based child care center, parochial school, spiritual social service provider, worship - affiliated nonprofit, seminary, or other religious institutions of higher education, that
is the
exception to the aforementioned
rules.