Someone, again, made the point in the comments to another post (a post NOT about the roles of women, but about our views/treatment of them) that since Jesus chose only men to number among the 12 disciples, then clearly He must intend for all church leadership, worlds without end, to be male.
Let me be clear- I think there are good scriptural arguments on both sides of the egalitarian/complementarian debate. But the maleness of Jesus' disciples ain't one of them. Why?
From the archives (Aug '06 to be exact):
Having been a complementarian and having argued the position a lot over the years, let me give a word of advice to young complementarians as to which argument to drop out of your repetoire. It's this one: "[Our church] like Jesus did, only appoints men to the highest position of spiritual leadership."
Okay... is that your final answer? Is that really one of the reasons you want to stick to- that because all of Jesus' disciples were men, therefore, you are going to stick with appointing only men to leadership?
Well, here's my problem with that.
Arguably a bigger issue than male/female roles in the early church was the relationship between Jews and Gentiles. For awhile there, the first Christians (who were Jews) were somewhat skeptical that Gentiles could even be saved. And then, there were a bunch of Jewish Christians going around saying that to become a Christ follower, Gentiles needed to first become like Jews, getting circumcised and becoming obedient to the law.
Of course that was all hogwash, but they did have one very powerful piece of evidence on their side, after all...
Jesus chose only Jews for His disciples.
Yeah- just good Jewish boys like Levi and Simon and Judah (though we all know how it turned out with Judah...). It seems as though Jesus was making a powerful, powerful statement in favor of non-Gentile leadership in the church, no? Or at least as much as He was saying anything about all male leadership...
If you are going to argue that we should have only men in leadership because Jesus Himself had only men in leadership, then try to be a little more conistent. With that line of argument, Jewish men are also technically what's required.
But Jesus is our peace who has broken down every wall? In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek?
There are a lot of good reasons and good arguments for complementarianism (just as there are many good reasons and arguments for something else). But if I hear one more respected Bible teacher make the argument that male leadership is based on and modeled after Jesus' choice of disciples, my head's gonna explode...