NOTE - please read part1 and part2 before leaving any comments, or before leaping to judgment on me :) thanks
Following my previous two somewhat in-depth blogs on this subject, and the copious amount of background reading I have been doing on this subject intensively in my spare time since being at Cliff College, and loosely over the past 9 or so years, I have come to some conclusions about the text.
1 Timothy 2:12-14 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
Although 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.
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.
In answer to the many arguments...
Cultural
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'.
This argument is answered in brief above, and in more depth in the previous two blogs. 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.
Rabid Feminism
I have 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 offense 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.
What about the other verses in the New Testament with women in leadership?
As outlined briefly above, there are 3 main women who are mentioned in relation to leadership in the church in the New Testament. Junia, Priscilla and Phoebe. Please read my previous blog for more in depth discussion. In short, 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.
Priscilla is never explicitly described as a teacher or overseer in the church itself (although there are examples of her and her husband sharing information with people like Apollos), and once again 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. 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.
The only reference which I find pretty much unanimously among the translations is Rom 16:1 - Phoebe is commended as a deacon.
The Women who ministered to 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 whome 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."
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. I think Paul makes it clear that this passage is appliccable 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 flow of teaching.
So, along with Rom 16:1 (the Phoebe verse) we can see from these 3 references that it is also perfectly fine 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.
"What about the women who Jesus sent to tell the disciples that He was risen from the dead?"
Well? What about them? This question is a particularly odd one as it doesn't really have any connection to the scripture in discussion. As discussed in the first blog on this subject, Paul is blatantly not prohibiting women from ever passing information on to men. He is prohibiting women from being church overseers, that is all. Jesus did not ordain, nor commission the women he sent from the garden of Gethsemane, he simply told them to tell the disciples 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.
There is no longer male nor female - that old chestnut
Galatians 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 totally 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 (as opposed to Judaism and the Law - see Exodus 12:43, Deut 17:15),
regardless of free/slave status (as opposed to Judaism and the Law - see Exodus 21:20-21),
and regardless of gender (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.
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 states 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 they are talking about different things. It seems fairly clear to me that there is no prerequisite to be an overseer before you can prophecy in the church.
Does this 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 alot 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 Savior. 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'
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 spead 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 through men in an overwhelming majority.
In conclusion...
I believe that the bible teaches that men and women are totally equal in worth, yet have different roles. 1 Timothy teaches that women may not occupy the position of church overseers. Within the church setting they cannot have authority over, or teach men. Here are the things they can do however -
prophecy in public,
pray in public,
teach other women within the church,
be deacons,
teach men in any other setting,
have authority over men in any other setting.
run administration within the church,
There is nothing wrong with a female running a business (see proverbs 31),
there is even nothing wrong with a woman leading the country (see the story of Deborah in Judges 4).
It is only the position of teaching and having authority over men within the church where the New Testament restricts their role.
So, what now?
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. Although there is no explicit link from this chapter to 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 very strongly, 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.
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.
Following my previous two somewhat in-depth blogs on this subject, and the copious amount of background reading I have been doing on this subject intensively in my spare time since being at Cliff College, and loosely over the past 9 or so years, I have come to some conclusions about the text.
1 Timothy 2:12-14 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
Although 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.
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.
In answer to the many arguments...
Cultural
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'.
This argument is answered in brief above, and in more depth in the previous two blogs. 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.
Rabid Feminism
I have 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 offense 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.
What about the other verses in the New Testament with women in leadership?
As outlined briefly above, there are 3 main women who are mentioned in relation to leadership in the church in the New Testament. Junia, Priscilla and Phoebe. Please read my previous blog for more in depth discussion. In short, 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.
Priscilla is never explicitly described as a teacher or overseer in the church itself (although there are examples of her and her husband sharing information with people like Apollos), and once again 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. 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.
The only reference which I find pretty much unanimously among the translations is Rom 16:1 - Phoebe is commended as a deacon.
The Women who ministered to 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 whome 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."
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. I think Paul makes it clear that this passage is appliccable 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 flow of teaching.
So, along with Rom 16:1 (the Phoebe verse) we can see from these 3 references that it is also perfectly fine 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.
"What about the women who Jesus sent to tell the disciples that He was risen from the dead?"
Well? What about them? This question is a particularly odd one as it doesn't really have any connection to the scripture in discussion. As discussed in the first blog on this subject, Paul is blatantly not prohibiting women from ever passing information on to men. He is prohibiting women from being church overseers, that is all. Jesus did not ordain, nor commission the women he sent from the garden of Gethsemane, he simply told them to tell the disciples 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.
There is no longer male nor female - that old chestnut
Galatians 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 totally 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 (as opposed to Judaism and the Law - see Exodus 12:43, Deut 17:15),
regardless of free/slave status (as opposed to Judaism and the Law - see Exodus 21:20-21),
and regardless of gender (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.
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 states 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 they are talking about different things. It seems fairly clear to me that there is no prerequisite to be an overseer before you can prophecy in the church.
Does this 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 alot 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 Savior. 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'
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 spead 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 through men in an overwhelming majority.
In conclusion...
I believe that the bible teaches that men and women are totally equal in worth, yet have different roles. 1 Timothy teaches that women may not occupy the position of church overseers. Within the church setting they cannot have authority over, or teach men. Here are the things they can do however -
prophecy in public,
pray in public,
teach other women within the church,
be deacons,
teach men in any other setting,
have authority over men in any other setting.
run administration within the church,
There is nothing wrong with a female running a business (see proverbs 31),
there is even nothing wrong with a woman leading the country (see the story of Deborah in Judges 4).
It is only the position of teaching and having authority over men within the church where the New Testament restricts their role.
So, what now?
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. Although there is no explicit link from this chapter to 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 very strongly, 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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment