I'm anticipating someone's response to this question. I hope this post doesnt' get lost - I didn't even see it until today. I think this question may really get to the heart of the issue.

I am eager to hear their reply for several reasons.  Firstly, I am curious as to what they will bring to the table.  Secondly, I don't want to take their silence as them conceding my point.

No, they do use Jesus' deeds. A good example is James Hurley's book (I can't remember the exact name offhand). He has a whole chapter on Jesus, pointing out that Jesus appointed only men to apostleship but nevertheless gave women prominence in ministry and full status as members of the community in ways that countered stereotypes and common practice at the time. He takes it to signify exactly the complementarian position by emphasizing with deeds (rather than words, as Paul does) both emphases of the complementarian view. Hurley certainly isn't the only one to make this point, but he has a whole chapter on it.

JP - Thanks for commenting and your input.  I think that is the only way people can go here.  I don't know of any teachings by Jesus that support BC claims.  There is some supporting evidence from his actions, but it is far from conclusive.  There have been arguments I've read which start out by point to the fact that the Gospels were written by men and we see a subtle shift in editing out the women's roles.  I'm not prepared to argue for this in depth just like with you and Hurley's book.  It is something I'll have to take a look at soon.

There is something about the way that this post is phrased that makes me withdraw from it. It feels like you are pitting Jesus against the OT, Early Pauline Epistles, and Later Pauline Epistles. I, along with most BC's that I know, do not see Scripture in a way that allows for such an opposition. I don't know if you are intentionally doing that, like Jesus trumps all else. It's just the way it's worded.

Also, Honzo's comment/response to Jeremy confuses me a tad. The post just asked for BC's to point to Jesus for argumentation. Then the response says that there isn't any teaching passages, like didactic trumps narrative. I might be really reading this incorrectly but it seems like Honzo is trying to limit the material that BC's can work with to weaken their position. Do correct my misperceptions if they are there. I just needed to say it so that I can understand the question better.

Hank,

It is a bit of an exploratory question.  Here is the thinking - if Jesus talked and acted like an egalitarian and there is patriarchy after the fall and in the later Pauline tradition, then maybe, just maybe, the patriarchy is a product of a fallen world and seeps into God's Kingdom and is not a definitive property of it.

I think it is best to discover the internal message of a book (say, the Gospel of John) and then similar books (say John and the johanine letters) and then compare them to books that are a smidge dissimilar (say, Matthew) and then with the messages of books that are widely dissimilar (like with the Exodus). That is how one should go about "harmonizing" the Bible. This is a vastly superior hermeneutic method than treating all verses, which are an artificial construction themselves, as part of a unified work. Then you can go about comparing the various theologies that we find in the Bible. Negotiating all of that is a difficult and thorny task which must be spirit-lead, to be sure. But I think the journey is a worthwhile one. Now, I am not accusing you nor anyone else of anything, just presenting views that see out there.

Early Pauline and remnants of the Jesus tradition are the earliest sources we have for the new system Jesus put in place. If there is a deviation in theology or, more importantly, social structures from the earliest sources (such as the reintroduction of the patriarchy found in the old system and competing systems into the fundamentally egalitarian system Jesus introduced) then it is possible that these traditions are not a fundamental property of God's kingdom. If there are differences in internal theologies, then I think that Genesis, Jesus, and the early Pauline traditions should be privileged over the other ones. 

When you arrange the Pauline tradition from earliest to latest, you see and early egalitarianism and then a gradual shift into patriarchalizing tendencies.  Look at Galatians, then look at 1st Corinthians and you can see it happening.  The patriarchal part towards the end of 1st Corinthians is the first place Paul seems to start to compromise egalitarianism for smoothing over cultural problems.  Then look at Ephesians and move on to the Timothys.  These books which were written in the Pauline tradition show a further shift towards the roman view of men and women and the ideal outlined therein are eirely similar to the roman household codes. See parts two and three of In Memory of Her by ESF.

If this method is sound and if there are these differences, then the patriarchy found in the OT and in the later NT might not be as authoritative.  This is an uncomfortable position, but I think an honest one.  This brings uncomfortable positions to the table about our religious texts. I wanna say that I don't like that there are these problems - but I can also not ignore them either.

Hurley doesn't say it's conclusive, but he does see it as evidence. Evidence isn't always conclusive. What he does insist on, though, is that nothing Jesus says or does implies egalitarianism, and I think that's right and very important to note. Also, the fact that he didn't appoint women among the Twelve is hard to stomach if egalitarianism is true. It's time to begin ushering in the kingdom and transforming the world's way of doing things (Hurley does make a big deal about how God undermines everyone's expectations by having women be the first witnesses to the resurrection), undoing the fall, and what does he do? He appoints twelve men to the most important position in the church. So I don't think it's weak evidence. I think it's more toward the strong end as evidence for these things goes.

I don't think we need to act like Jesus wasn't a part of a larger, patriarchal culture. I completely think Jesus promoted male/female equality - what other Rabbi allowed women to sit at his feet and learn from him? These women followed him around and, seemingly, understood Him more than the 12 did. I think the gospel writers are signifying something important by this. 

But Jesus chose 12 men for a number of appropriate reasonse: 1. He was in a patriarchal culture - it would not have seem appropriate for a single Rabbi to travel with single women. This would have created more of a distraction than was necessary. It would have been a hinderance to the expansion of the kingdom. 2. Jesus chose 12 males because they parallel the 12 sons of Jacob. 3. Jesus knew his time was limited - he would be sending out these disciples into a patriarcal world. Once churches wer established, the egalitarian assumptions could really take root. But it was functionally beneficial, in the long run, for Jesus to choose men. (this is a slight variation from point 1.) 4. Can we really respect Jesus decision making? Sheesh, he chose Judas, after all. (Just joking, folks, just joking)

@Hank

I've been mulling over your problem for a few days and how it ties into so many more things surrounding this issue.  I hope to have my thoughts together soon.