Was St. Paul against women as church pastors?

Since everyone is talking about women pastors, why can't I stir the pot? I've always been in the "complementarian" camp, but the arguments also seemed wobbly. To me, it seemed circumstantial, relying more on tradition than explicit commands.

In the last few years, my journey through the Bible has led back to the first century, where I'm seeing things differently. Getting past the Reformation and the Medieval era feels like breaking through the clouds into clear air. There, you see the difference between the questions Paul (for example) is addressing and the modern questions we fight over.

I realized proof-texting is a caricature of real bible study. Theories meant to offer certainty and understanding end up creating confusion. It's not that I realized my beliefs were wrong, but that I wasn't tracking with what Paul was saying. Unfortunately, the current debates we have are sometimes more about doing battle with the other tribe than going back to the scriptures. This issue is a good example in which proof texts appear to say one thing, but don't help us get the full picture.

Paul's restrictions are meaningful, but not universal. Even worse, they're ambiguous in terms of scope and extent. Otherwise we would have more clarity. The qualifications he mentions for certain offices are also clear, but not comprehensive enough for our debate. And I don't think we can ignore the rest of what Paul wrote and did if we want to understand his mind on the issue. We see his radical vision in Galatians of one family, where no group enjoys a permanent over others. We also see the leadership roles women play in his ministry, including Phoebe, who very well may have been delivering and teaching on his letter to the Romans.

And there's the letter to Philemon, which most people think has nothing to do with the topic, but it's very instructive. I see it as an example of his radical vision and pragmatic approach at work together. He lays the groundwork for an abolitionist position on slavery without commanding it. We see the same pragmatism when it comes to Christians married to unbelievers and other issues.

And then I take Paul's work as a whole and ask myself: what would he say if we could ask him today? Does he take a restrictive approach as a rule? But we're stuck arguing between "egalitarian" and "complementarian" views. I think Paul believes men and women are equal but not identical, so a complementary egalitarian or an egalitarian complementarian. I think he accepted male leadership as the default or the norm, but probably was eyeing something more. And I'm fairly sure he would do what he did with Philemon. He cared more about bringing you along rather than being polemical.

Where does that leave us today?

I have no idea. Churches will make their attempts, and hopefully we'll find examples that show us a workable path forward. And the dumpster fire of a debate online will continue raging all the while. Same ol' same ol'!