Women In Ministry - a study of 1 Timothy 2IntroductionIt is important to me that I am able to look at scriptures and doctrines I have always accepted one way in a new light, with fresh eyes, and to always seek the true interpretation, no matter what peer pressure within the Christian world or political correctness in the culture at large may dictate.
1 Tim 2:12-14 (NRSV)12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent.13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve;14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.It's a very controversial passage, which brings very strong feelings to the surface for many people. I grew up around a lot of female Christian leaders, who were good role models and good leaders, and without whom I would not have been able to lead worship, and possibly would not have stayed in the church. I would also like to make a difference between ‘women in ministry’, and ‘women who teach and have authority within the church’. These verses focus on teaching and authority, but are not a blanket prohibition of any form of ministry.
In the past, when it came to this section of 1 Timothy, I always said that this scripture had to be taken in context with the broader spectrum of scripture, where it is clear that Paul had women in positions of authority. However, I never took the time to really research where these references to women leaders were, and to properly back-up my stance. I have recently done this research, and found the following.
There are 3 main female authority figures in the OT, and 3 in the NT.
OT ones are Deborah, Miriam and Huldah.
NT ones are Junias, Priscilla and Phoebe.
I am not going to go into any depth in study of the OT women, because that was a different era with different standards. In the New Testament, we are in a new fulfilment of God's purpose and plan. The same God who commanded His people in the OT to not eat unclean foods, now declares all food clean. The same God who allowed King David to have a whole catalogue of wives, now states a man should have only one wife. Is it therefore too much of a stretch to think that whereas God made no clear prohibitions in the OT concerning women in leadership, that now he has stated that men only should be in leadership of the church?
It is very, very difficult to resist the feelings of anger or the projecting of sexism when it comes to this viewpoint, but we must must must be willing to approach this scripture with the openness to say 'whatever God is actually saying here, I want to submit to.'
We must all resist the media-encouraged attitude which sub-consciously suggests it is ok to on some level despise someone with a traditional view of gender roles in a similar way as you would a racist. Someone who is genuinely seeking after God's truth on this matter, and is willing to accept whatever seems the accurate translation should not be sniped at by brothers and sisters, but rather encouraged to pursue, find and share God's accurate truth. We must make a conscious decision to accept and value those who interpret these scriptures in either direction, in the same way that we should value both those who for interpretational reasons are vegetarian rather than omnivorous, or are catholic rather than protestant. The ability to agree to disagree on a subject is essential to Christians co-existing peacefully and in the bigger picture of harmonious Christian community.
For years now I have discussed this text with Christians both male and female. The most popular argument is 'you're taking that scripture out of context - it was cultural'. Sadly, quite often usually people who say this are just regurgitating a 'pat-answer', and actually have little to no idea themselves about the context in which the letter was written.
I have also had the absolute joy of getting drawn into a discussion on these topics with people who care so violently about their own point of view that even the fact that I am researching these questions and not just immediately aligning myself with their viewpoint is a tremendous offence to them. These discussions usually stay reasonable and intellectual for about 15 seconds before the gloves are off, and I immediately regret trying to have a polite talk with a wild animal. I am being facetious of course, and I understand that there have been so many women who have been victims of intolerable sexist abuse, and there of course is absolutely no justification for abuse of any kind, especially things like sexism and racism - persecuting someone for the way they were born, which is evil, plain and simple.
1 Timothy 2 is a very explicit passage, which not only sets out some black-and-white, clearly stated guidelines, it also references the order of creation as its justification and reason. The question I have wrestled with so many times when it comes to this scripture is,
'If this does not apply to everyone, why is the order of creation referenced as its reasoning'?
‘If this is simply a cultural directive, why is something timeless referenced as the reason and motive for it?’
Many people when interpreting this text gloss over the inconvenient verses 13&14, or imply that they are only applicable to that culture and that time, however the verses that follow directly after 12-14, state that 'anyone who sets his heart on being an elder desires a noble task', an elder must 'be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.' The vast majority of Christians accept these verses as they are written, in those simple straightforward terms, so why do we change the context of the verses which immediately precede them?
The verses directly preceding the 'women-verses' in 1 Tim 2 state that Paul desires that we should all
'lift up holy hands in prayer without anger or disputing'. Also that 'God our Saviour wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth', and 'there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men'. We all accept these truths as timeless, and applicable to all men, so why do we contextualise verses 9-15 to the point that they no longer apply, even though they directly and explicitly reference creation itself as their reason and anchor?
Variations on the reading of 1 Tim 2'I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man', It is worth discussing the word 'over' which Paul uses in the passage - does he mean 'women should not have any authority in the church', or
'women should not have ultimate authority in a church - they can occupy positions of authority as long as they themselves are under a man'?
Paul also uses the word 'I' as in
'I do not permit a woman...' as opposed to 'God does not permit a woman...', 'I permit' could possibly be there to point out that it is Paul's personal belief, but not one that he can say is definitely God's will (in 1 Cor 7 Paul clearly makes a distinction between his own opinions and God's clear command). However, if Paul meant this to be his own personal preference, we have to ask why then did he include the reference to Adam and Eve?
Also directly before the women section in verse 7 he says
'And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles', thus establishing that he does actually have the authority to say those things with the backing of God.
Maybe Paul is saying that according to his reading of the scriptures, he believes the creation story makes it clear that women should not occupy positions of teaching or authority, but we see in various places - Rom 16 for example, he greets women in ministry and acknowledges their positions. Perhaps he holds to his interpretation of Genesis lightly, acknowledging that there are other schools of thought out there, and while he himself does not ordain women, perhaps he nevertheless does not discount those women in ministry who have been ordained by others. With Junia for example, Paul states that she was in Christ before he was, and it seems possible that she was not ordained by him, yet he greets her in a spirit of ‘agreeing to disagree’, and keeping unity between believers.
The NRSV adds footnotes which state that it is ambiguous whether 'woman' and 'man' mean simply woman and man, or wife and husband. Reading the text in this way makes more sense, especially when taking into account the reference to Adam and Eve -
I permit no wife to teach or to have authority over her husband, she is to remain silent, for Adam was formed first, then Eve.
I’m sure you will notice that this makes much more sense - especially when taken in context with verse 15 which states that women will be saved through childbearing; it seems to follow a theme of family. However almost all Bible translation experts use ‘man’ and ‘woman’.
Another school of thought focuses specifically on the phrase 'to teach or to have authority', and argues that this could be more accurately translated 'dominate', which again makes a lot of sense when read in context.
I permit no woman to dominate a man; she is to keep silent. The Ephesians about whom Paul was writing were most likely influenced by the worship of Artemis, a female divinity worshipped in Ephesus (remember the cry 'Artemis of the Ephesians!' chanted for 2 hours in Acts 19:28). In the book 'Discovering Biblical Equality', Linda Belleville writes 'In the cult of Artemis the female was exalted and considered superior to the male', and in chapter 12 'Teaching and Usurping Authority' she goes into great detail and study of that specific phrase, coming to the conclusion that a correct rendering is indeed 'dominate'.
Eugene Peterson also agrees with this rendering, as can be seen from The Message Bible's translation of this passage
'I don't let women take over and tell the men what to do. They should study to be quiet and obedient along with everyone else. Adam was made first, then Eve; woman was deceived first—our pioneer in sin!—with Adam right on her heels.'But alas, The Message has the inconvenient reputation for being one of the most inaccurate translations out there, and fairly useless for serious academic study. The vast majority of translations do not translate 'teach or have authority over' as dominate, which indicates to me personally that the debate is by no means concluded by this reading of the text, and that the majority of experts lean towards the classic translation.
The Curse Paul refers to the order of creation and the fall of man. Here is an except from the passage in
Genesis 3:16-17
‘To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.’Perhaps it is the curse of Eve that Paul has in mind specifically here - 'your desire will be for your husband but he will lord it over you'. I have heard people argue against this school of thought, by saying that Christ abolished the curses of Adam and Eve when He went to the cross, but that doesn’t entirely ring true, because men still have to do painful toil, unfulfilling work just to survive, and women still experience excruciating pain in childbirth. You can’t say parts of the curse apply and parts do not, because that cheapens the cross of Christ. I you accept that in this life the curse of Adam and Eve is lifted in Christ, then that means the whole curse, not the ones we can exercise some feeble control over. Are women still experiencing pain in childbirth? Are men still having to work hard to earn a living? The answer is yes on both counts. All in all, Eve really screwed over women, and Adam did the same to men - and those curses still stand - in full.
Women of The New TestamentPriscillaPriscilla is always referenced alongside her husband Aquila, both of whom were tentmakers in Corinth [acts18:3] who travelled with Paul to Ephesus [acts 18:18].
There is an example of a time when they invited Paul to their home and shared scripture with him, telling him more about the Christian Way
Acts 18:26 -
He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.This does show a woman teaching, but not with the position of teacher. It shows a woman sharing information with Paul, but not a woman having authority over him. It is not the teaching of an overseer in a congregational setting, it is simply normal sharing in a social setting, which clearly is not prohibited by 1 tim 2 (if it was, that would mean that women could never pass on any information to a man in normal conversation or day to day life!!!).
Romans 6:2
I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been a great help to many people, including me. Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus. They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them.This passage clearly shows Priscilla as a saint, a helper, and a fellow worker in Christ, but nothing sufficiently obvious to offset the raw and blatant nature of 1 tim 2. It doesn’t clearly show her as an authority figure, or a teacher.
1 Cor 16:19
The churches in the province of Asia send you greetings. Aquila and Priscilla greet you warmly in the Lord, and so does the church that meets at their house.This passage shows Priscilla again as a servant and also as a host - she and Aquila allow their church to meet in their house, but once again this scripture doesn’t clearly show her as leader or teacher, or present anything adequately straightforward to offset 1 tim 2. The only other reference to Priscilla is a greeting from Paul at the end of 2 Timothy.
Acts 18 tells the story of the time when Paul met Priscilla and Aquila, and there is no clear evidence of Paul's involvement in commissioning them for ministry. Acts 18:26 shows them explaining the gospel in greater depth to Apollos, Romans 16:3 describes them as fellow-workers in Christ, 1 Corinthians 16:19 says that they allow a church to meet in their house. However, I find it to be something of a stretch to claim that from these verses either Priscilla or Aquila were anything more than generous and committed members of the faith, not pastors, apostles, or anything else.
JuniaJunia remains the most controversial female mentioned in the New Testament when it comes to this debate. She is mentioned one time only, as follows
Romans 16:7
Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.The big debate centres on 2 questions - is Junia male or female, and what does 'among' mean? Does it mean they are working with the apostles, or that they are apostles?
Is Junia (female) actually Junias (male)?’
The male equivalent is rendered by the NIV, NASB, The Message, Amplified Bible, and CEV,
The female version is rendered by the NRSV, NLT, KJV, ESV, NKJV, and NCV.
The NRSV adds the footnote that it could also be Junias, or even Julia.
The clear division of almost 50/50 of these highly respected and widely used translations simply leaves me with the feeling that we will never know for sure whether Junia or Junias is the correct version, and certainly that it is highly irresponsible to base any serious gender doctrine on a name which is not clearly male or female!!
Junias could have been female, and could have been an apostle, but I have to seek the most likely truth, and once again the ambiguity of the Junia verse is not sufficient to offset the clear and explicit terms of 1 Tim 2.
PhoebePhoebe is mentioned only once, in Romans 16:1, which in the NIV reads
'I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea.'The NRSV translates this with a very different slant
'I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae'and it also adds a footnote offering 'minister' as an alternative to 'deacon'. The ‘deacon’ translation is held by the NRSV, Amplified, NLT, and CEV ('leader'),
However the 'servant' translation is held by the NIV, NASB, KJV, ESV, NKJV, and NCV ('helper')
The Message describes her as a 'key representative' of the church at Cenchrea.
The interesting thing about Phoebe is that all of the different translations could mean leader, but not all of them could mean helper, making me lean towards accepting that Phoebe was definitely a deacon in the church, who is clearly endorsed by Paul, as can be seen by reading Rom 16:1-2 in any translation. Just like Junia and Priscilla, there is no mention at all of commissioning or ordination by Paul though.
Of Junia, Priscilla and Phoebe, the only one my conscience allows me to accept as a leader in the church would be Phoebe, the other two are just too ambiguously mentioned. Decent scholarship does not allow use of Junia or Priscilla as evidence and motivation for doctrine; Phoebe however, seems to be potentially the one valid case of a woman in Paul-approved leadership in the early church, as mentioned in the New Testament - and it only takes one to make a valid case.
There are more questions to take into account at this point. Paul seemingly clearly approved of Phoebe, yet wrote 1 Tim 2:12, both of which are God-breathed scripture which as Christians we accept, so what specific ministry was he restricting to men only? If women can be Deacons, what is he saying they can’t be?
Deacons and OverseersThere is a tension between Romans 16:1-2 and 1 Tim 2:12-14. Where is the middle ground where we find Paul's true meaning? Could it be that a woman could be a deacon, yet not be involved in teaching and having authority over men? Interestingly, a possible answer shows itself a few verses later, in 1 Timothy 3. Verses 1-7 detail the qualifications needed for bishops (NRSV) or overseers (NIV), and 3:2 says he must be an apt teacher (NRSV), able to teach (NIV). Verses 8-13 detail the qualifications needed for deacons, and teaching is not mentioned, so it is possible to be a deacon, yet not to be a teacher - the two are not synonymous.
Verse 11 continues the qualifications for deacons with 'Women likewise must be...'. The NRSV adds in a footnote alternative translations of the word 'women' as 'Their wives' or 'Women deacons'. There is no other detailed reference to what deacons do in the New Testament, therefore this is our main biblical source as to their role.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines 'deacon' as - 'historical (in the early church) a minister appointed to administer charity'. When we read Acts 6:1-7 we see the scripture which is traditionally viewed as the origins of the ordination of deacons, even though the word deacon is not used, as from these verses we can see that the purpose of the deacon's ministry was indeed to administer charity, not to teach or to be in an authoritative position.
1 Tim 3:8-13 talks through the qualifications of Deacons, both male and female -
'Deacons likewise must be serious, not double-tongued, not indulging in much wine, not greedy for money; they must hold fast to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them first be tested; then, if they prove themselves blameless, let them serve as deacons. Women likewise must be serious, not slanderers, but temperate, faithful in all things. Let deacons be married only once, and let them manage their children and their households well; for those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and great boldness in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.'You can clearly see the gender-neutral language Paul uses in this section; there is no ‘he’ or ‘she’, only ‘they’ . I think Paul makes it clear that this passage is applicable to men and women, by saying 'Women likewise' sandwiched in the middle of teaching on Deacons. It surely means women in the context of being deacons, otherwise it makes no narrative sense to stick a totally disconnected directive about women in general right in the middle of an otherwise normal and cohesive flow of teaching.
So, along with Rom 16:1 (the Phoebe verse) we can see from these 3 references that it is also perfectly valid for women to hold administrative positions within the church.
Contrast the gender-inclusive language of 1 Tim 3:8-13 to the preceding verses concerning Overseers in the church, 1 Tim 3:1-7.
'The saying is sure: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task. Now a bishop must be above reproach, married only once, temperate, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an apt teacher, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way— for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of God's church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may be puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace and the snare of the devil.'We can see the clearly implied male gender in these verses, lining up with the statements made in the verses before them in the 2nd chapter. Paul constantly uses ‘he’, not ‘they’, again implying that the role of Overseer is male, but the role of Deacon is not gender-restricted.
Studying these verses without agendaMatthew 19 reads
"Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?" He answered, "Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning "made them male and female,' and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."Here we see Christ referencing the creation story as the basis and reason for his teaching against divorce for any reason, and the vast overwhelming majority of Christians from all major denominations accept this teaching as universal, and not a limited cultural reference. Why then do we not apply the same, entirely valid interpretation to 1 Tim 2:12-14 when Paul references the creation story as his basis and reason for teaching against women in teaching or authoritative positions in the church? Lets be brutally honest, it’s because “Women should have all the same opportunities as men" is a hugely loaded political issue which evokes very intense emotions and passionate arguments in a huge majority of women.
The gender of Junias (or Junia) is debated, and scholars are far from united on whether the person described as an apostle is male or female. I would suggest therefore that any kind of doctrine based on a verse with an uncertain interpretation is unreliable at best, and actual heresy at worst. When there is nothing plain or explicit, or where there is plenty of room for doubt I would suggest it is unwise to legislate based upon these references alone, despite the massive political and cultural pressure to accept the current post-modern western mindset concerning gender-ambiguity. If we used the same loose referencing with other verses in the bible we would swiftly find ourselves recreating many of the age-old heresies which the much of the New Testament addresses, and if we allow ourselves to be bullied in doctrine by the culture which surrounds us, we find ourselves in the world and of the world.
A Few Objections"What about the women who Jesus sent to tell the disciples that He was risen from the dead?"This question is a particularly odd one as it doesn't really have any connection to the scripture in discussion. In 1 Timothy Paul is blatantly not prohibiting women from ever passing information on to men in any context. He is prohibiting women from teaching or having authority over men, in the setting of the church, that is all - from being overseers. Jesus did not ordain, nor commission the women he sent from the garden of Gethsemane, he simply told them to pass on the message to the disciples of what they had seen. This was of course, a great honour and privilege, but nevertheless it is plain and obvious that He was not ordaining them as overseers for the church! So forgive me if I write this question off as irrelevant.
What about the Women who looked after Jesus?Luke 8 states
"The twelve were with him, as well as some women who had been cured of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna, the wife of Herod's steward Chuza, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them out of their resources." From this verse we can see that there was no teaching or authority involved in the ministry of the women with Christ, so this verse does not contradict 1 Tim 2. They were looking after Jesus and the disciples, not being church overseers.
There is no longer male nor female - that old chestnutGalatians 3:28
"There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus"If you can use this verse to negate 1 Tim 2:12-14, then why can't you use it to negate the teaching in Romans against homosexuality? If there is no longer male nor female, what is wrong with cross-dressing? What is wrong with having a gender-change operation? If there is no longer male nor female, in the sense that so many of us protestants like to apply it to 1 Tim 2, then surely it follows that gay marriage is ok. Heck, if there's no male or female, why aren't there more transsexual pastors about?
This verse does not neutralize our genders, even though it is so frequently used out of context as a 'contradiction' to 1 Tim 2. However if you read the entire passage from Gal 3:19-4:7 you can see clearly that Paul is contrasting the Old Testament with the New, saying that now all have equal value and access to God through Christ, regardless of nationality (Jew or Greek) (as opposed to Judaism and the Law - see Exodus 12:43, Deut 17:15), regardless of free/slave (as opposed to Judaism and the Law - see Exodus 21:20-21), and regardless of male/female (as opposed to Judaism and the Law see Deut 25:11-12!).
To take this verse and apply it so wildly out of context like this is once again verging on heresy in my opinion, because our gender is one of the most important and central things about us as individuals, and defines much of how we should live and act in society, according to the New Testament, and much of the writings of Paul himself - see 1 Cor 11:14 for how important and real our genders are. This verse is not negating our individuality, it is teaching that we all now have equal value and access to God.
I think some people defend the blanket-interpretation of this verse because of it's importance in the abolition of the slave-trade; a movement driven by Christians, but with only a few scriptures to back it up. I'm sorry to say it, but this scripture is plainly not about the abolition of slavery, nor does it condone it. It’s primary meaning is that we all have equal access to God through Christ. 1 Timothy 1:10 however, describes slave-traders as
'lawless, disobedient, godless, sinful, unholy and profane'. and this verse is blatantly pro-abolition. There is no need to take another verse out of context to make a point which is made perfectly well elsewhere.
If women can't teach, how come they can prophecy?In 1 Corinthians 11 Paul gives directions for the proper way in which women should pray or prophecy in public, which is perfectly valid. These verses again do not contradict 1 Tim 2:12-14, because it seems fairly clear that there is no prerequisite to be an overseer before you can pray or prophecy in the church.
So does the complimentarian argument balance with the wider view of scripture? I believe that it does.
In Genesis 2:18 God says
'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner'.
I like this verse a lot because it shows that while the woman has a different, more supportive role (helper), this does not mean less worth than the man (partner).
1 Peter 3:7 also highlights the different role of the woman, while again emphasizing the equal worth
'show consideration for your wives in your life together, paying honour to the woman as the weaker sex, since they too are heirs of the gracious gift of life'Ephesians 5:21-15 makes this point again - different roles, equal worth.
'Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Saviour. Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her'In these verses I can clearly see the broad message of teaching in the New Testament on this issue. Because of the different roles we were created for, it is therefore not right to have a woman overseer, which seems to be directly what Paul says in the surface text of 1 Tim 2:12-14.
Also, we see no women in the 12 disciples, no women pastors, and no definite women apostles in the New Testament. In the Old Testament we see the pastoral leadership of the Law as overwhelmingly male. Even glancing over the names of the books is an indication of this principle spread throughout the entire Bible. People often say that the reason women are not as prominent in the bible is because of the cultural prejudice of that time in history, yet surely God would not have been bound by people's prejudice - sexism does not dictate what God can and cannot do, and neither does political correctness. If we accept the bible as the perfect, flawless, inspired Word of God, we must also accept that He has always chosen to speak scripture through men in an overwhelming majority.
So what CAN women do?I very much sympathize with the feminist movement, because historically in the protestant west, I think we have never actually got it right - it has been 'women can't do anything', or 'women can do everything', one extreme to the other, where as I believe the Bible teaches that neither extreme is actually the right one.
Even at Cliff College where I am attending, before the women’s-lib movement, it was a male-only college, which is clearly wrong. Women have every right to education, women have every right to vote, and to equal human rights with men. Women have every right to leadership and authority in pretty much every sphere of life, except over men, within the church. Women can lead and have authority over other women within the church, and over children in the church, but not over the whole church, that role is the only one which is restricted. Women can lead a nation (Judges 4), women can run their own business (Prov 31), women can pray and prophecy in the church (1 Cor 11), and women can hold positions of administration within the church (Rom 16:1).
Many of these truths historically have not been applied. I believe that the Bible’s teaching is actually very pro-female, just look at the above list. I do also believe that the Bible simply teaches that male and female are different although equal. It is possible that the bible has been perceived to be male-dominated because this truth has permeated the entire book. This does not mean that the Bible is sexist or has been tainted and damaged by a misogynistic society (as Christians we cannot take this viewpoint without throwing out the whole book as utterly flawed), it means that it uniformly teaches that spiritual pastoral leadership of the believers is male.
ConclusionMy conclusion on 1 Tim 2:12-14 is that this passage is absolutely NOT limited to the time and place of it's writing. Verses 13 and 14 make it abundantly clear that this is a universal principle, applicable to the Christian church throughout all time, just as Christ's teaching on divorce is universally applicable. Although I was raised to embrace female leadership within the church, after much study I have eventually come to believe that Paul is directly forbidding women from occupying the post of overseer in the church. I believe women are free to be deacons (Rom 16:1 - Phoebe), and that this verse does not contradict the teaching of 1 Timothy, as Deacons seem to have not been teachers, but administrators of charitable gifts to the poor.
The (politically incorrect, controversial) truth is that those verses mean something. For our consciences sakes, and to seek God's blessing on us as individuals and as the church we must seek to find out the true meaning of these verses, simply because they do mean something, and whatever it is, it applies to us, now. I wonder if in the future the period from the 1960's onwards will be looked back upon as the time of the feminist heresy? It seems way too much of an eye-rolling coincidence that the protestant church in general began to flag on this issue right about the time in history that feminism became a politically charged topic. Had the feminist revolution never happened in the 60's, I suspect that the church in general would have continued in the same way that it had for the 1900 years previously on this issue - by adhering to the text. I have to wonder if we forfeit some of the blessings we could otherwise inherit from God because of this. The protestant church in the western world has been in rapid decline for decades now. Are we losing a certain blessing and anointing because we are allowing the bared teeth of political correctness to dictate doctrine to the church? I think it is highly probable.
I believe the principle of the text is not solely a response to a cultural issue in Ephesus, but, as the text indicates, also an appeal based on the order of creation, indicating that men and women are - "shock, horror, political incorrectness" - different. I am a complimentarian, but remain so with an open mind, and would love to be proved wrong.
Romans 14 teaches about vegetarians within the church. No immediate connection to women in ministry, you might think, but the principle which is taught in this scripture is that despite there being two schools of thought on this issue, we should not judge those who adhere to the opposite one to ourselves to be sinners who ought to be rejected. Although there is no explicit link from this chapter to the 'Women in Ministry' debate, I am using it as inspiration to enable me to approach my faith family with humility, acceptance and an open mind. I intend to approach the issue of female overseers in the same respectful spirit as Paul approached the issues in Rom 14. I will however find it difficult to have respect for anyone who holds their views on this subject with ferocity, yet has not studied the text and context in any depth. I do not think badly of those excellent scholars who have come to the egalitarian point of view on this text through their own highly intensive studies, just as I hope they would not show disrespect to me for my own earnestly researched, and conscience-driven stance.
Everyone who is a seriously committed Christian expects a certain amount of unpopularity from those outside the church for their earnest beliefs, however receiving hostility from brothers and sisters for a belief you hold earnestly with good reason and good conscience is a bitter pill indeed. I would love to be proved otherwise in my belief, I have been blessed more times than I can count by women in Christian leadership, but I have to make the scriptures my ultimate and final authority, and having researched to the best of my ability on this matter I have to come to the conclusion that any claim that there are scriptures which contradict 1 Tim 2 is tenuous at best, and I have to accept what seems apparent from the surface text as straightforward (although very unpopular) doctrine. I accept the text to mean what it says.
For further developments in my study of 1 Timothy, click hereI would value any comments you have, or further information which I have left out on this subject [unless you decide to vomit hate anonymously into my inbox - I have a special button set aside for all such messages] :)
