Women In Minstry Part 3 - To Hell With Political Correctness

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.

Women In Ministry Part 2

Part 1
Part 3

Im now at Bible College, and am being taught by some excellent and accomplished lecturers. My New Testament lecturer Peter Ensor is a published author  and an expert in New Testament Greek. I have had several conversations with him discussing the scripture in 1 Tim 2 concerning women in ministry, and have found as a result lots of further insight and study on this passage, which for discussion's sake I will go into below.

He recommended as the most accurate and best translation for study, the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version), which from now on I will be using for quotations.

1 Tim 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.

As I detailed in my previous blog on this passage, verse 13 was the one which made it very difficult for me to designate this teaching as only culturally appliccable to Paul's day an age. If it is not meant to be a universal teaching, then why does he reference the very order of creation as the motivation and reason for this command?

The NRSV (considered by scholars to be the most textually accurate) 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

Im sure you will notice that this makes much more sense. However there is no definite evidence from the original greek itself as to which meaning is the accurate one, whether woman and man or wife and husband.

Another school of thought focusses specifically on the phrase 'to teach or to have authority', and argues that this could be more accurately translated 'dominate', which again makes alot of sense when read in context.



In addition to this, the Ephesians about whom Paul was writing were most likely strongly influenced by the worship of Artemis, a feminine divinity worshipped in Ephesus (remember the cry 'Artemis of the Ephesians!' chanted for 2 hours in Acts 19:28).

I permit no woman to dominate a man; she is to keep silent. 

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.

Next we can focus on the 'I permit', which 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, again the reference to Adam and Eve raises the question - what is it there for?

I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. 

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 - Junia, Priscilla, and Phoebe, 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.
We can see Junia mentioned only once, and as paul states that she was in Christ before he was, it seems entirely possible that she was not ordained by him. However, the debate continues as to whether Junia is actually Junias (the male equivalent - as rendered by the NIV, NASB, The Message, Amplified Bible, and CEV), or Junia (the female version as rendered by the NRSV, NLT, KJV, ESV, NKJV, 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 irresponsible to base any serious gender doctrine on a name which is not clearly male or female!!


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 comissioning 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 again 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.

Phoebe 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'. This translation is held by the NRSV, Amplified, NLT, 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, however not all of them could mean helper, making me lean towards accepting that Phoebe was definitely a deacon in the church, who is clearly approved of by Paul, as can be seen by reading Rom 16:1-2 in any translation. However, as the previous two women mentioned, there is no mention at all of comissioning or ordination by Paul.

So it is entirely possible, to my mind at least, that Paul accepted women in leadership, but did not ordain them personally, which would require a reading of 1 tim 2:12 with the emphasis on the word 'I' as opposed to 'God'.

The New Testament Women, and one from the Old Testament

From the 3 examples of Junia, Priscilla and Phoebe, personally the only one I would feel confident in saying was a likely actual leader in the church would be Phoebe, the other two are just too abiguously mentioned, and my conscience doesn't really allow me to use 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. But it only takes one to make a valid case.

So 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 believe. Perhaps he was speaking specifically about the posts of Elder and upwards being restricted to men only.

Tension

There 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 perhaps it is possible to be a deacon, yet not to be a teacher.
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'. So this seems a likely possibility. There is no other reference to what deacons do in the New Testament, therefore this is our only 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.

In his commentary on the whole bible, John Wesley discusses these verses, and simply states that women are prohibited from public teaching.

Matthew 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, its because 'Women should have all the same opportunities as men" is a hugely loaded political issue which evokes very intense emotions and passionate arguments. After studying this so much, and for at least 8 years now, I have to draw a conclusion, and any further pansying about the issue is just me pandering to political correctness.

My conculsion on 1 Tim 2:12-14 is that this verse 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, appliccable to the Christian church throughout all time, just as Christ's teaching on divorce is universally appliccable.
For me, the discussion now must centre in on where the true emphasis lies in verse 12. Does it mean Husbands and Wives? Does it mean women should not dominate men? Does it mean women are prohibited from all positions of authority, or anything above Deacon?

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.

More thoughts to follow...

I remember...

I remember

being four years old, standing in the doorway between the dining room and the kitchen in Richmond, with the dark blue square-floral wallpaper, pleading with my mum that it would be my birthday again soon, and asking in mournful desperation 'WHEN will it be my birthday again?'
That feeling that time would just never move on that you lose when you become an adult. I dont miss it.

I remember

going out into the back garden as a kid in the freezing cold morning, and swinging on the dark-green-painted metal swing for so long that I couldnt move my fingers out of the grip position when I wanted to go in. I remember the stiffness of my freezing fingers and how it felt like they would snap if I tried to open my hands.

I remember

intentionally provoking my brother. He had set our pet guinea pigs up in a small pen out on the patio, and had ordered me in no uncertain terms to not let them out. While secretly recording him on a small portable tape dictaphone behind my back I told him I had let them out, and then replayed his explosion of rage at full volume on the family stereo, laughing my head off. I then messed around with a couple of tape recorders to make the screaming repeat over and over. I think it went something like 'i-told-you-not-To-Let-THEM-OUT-THE-PEN!!!!' repeated 10 times.  He was not nearly so amused as me.

I remember

being 13 years old, completely crushed with infatuation on a Christmas day that I didn't enjoy at all. I remember looking back and wondering what happened, and when Christmas Day stopped being the pure thrill it was when I was younger. I remember being in my bedroom, having seen the girl I was utterly in love with that day, knowing that she didn't know I liked her, and that I would probably never be with her. I remember the emotional anguish in my chest, and a few words of the secret poem I wrote that day, and threw away some years later - 'Am I supposed to be happy?' was the opening line, and 'All I can think of is you' was the close

God in the rain

It's raining hard
The sky is grey
Lights are in windows
and the puddles flicker and flow
with a hundred perfect circles
Deep red leaves are flying from the woods
Wind rushes through with a crashing hiss
I stand beneath the stone arch
Underneath the lantern light
Warm and calm
Mesmerised peace
Because somehow I can always find
God in the rain

The Approach Of Christmas

Wood panelled Methodist rooms
The sky is getting darker
There is a bite and a chill in the air
Sparkling sweet wrappers in rich colours
The strange cosiness that dazed tiredness brings
Planning and playing in services
Rooms with red carpets, red chairs, red drapes
Overcast grey clouds outside
Ticking warm radiators inside
We snuggle up on the sofa with a duvet
With low lights and a movie
And absorb the unspoken joy
Of the approach of Christmas

Day 1

Day one is done, and all in all it was good. The college in incredible. It is small, there are less than 50 full-time students on the undergraduate and postgraduate courses combined. The first meeting was today at 630, where we worshipped for a short while, then all introduced ourselves. It was really nice to be able to introduce myself as married, because the colliding atmosphere of testosterone and estrogen at the first meeting combining was palpable. I remember attending Christian events in the past in England where there were lots of singles present, and it felt like a meat market back then too. The Christian singles meat market is so much more intense in the UK than the USA, because there aren't as many Christians here by a long shot, so the choice is considerably less and the chances of getting a good-looker into the bargain are even lower!
I've hardly been here a day and the desperation for a significant other looks like it is constantly bubbling barely below the surface for quite a few of the un-attached here. Maybe it's not, maybe I'm just being horrible. That is certainly possible.

The tutors Ive met are great though, and everyone is very approachable. The college is set in unbelievably idyllic surroundings, in the derbyshire peak district. The whole campus is built on a steep hillside looking out over tree filled valleys and hills, and it seems to rain at least once every day, sometimes all day (which is perfect for me). The college itself feels wonderfully old, with carved wooden staircases, a wood-panelled common room decorated in rich red with comfy chairs, a pool table, a piano and 15 foot tall windows looking out onto the college rose gardens and grounds. Our flat is amazing, set on the 2nd floor (3rd floor to all you americans), and with those same 15 foot high windows, me and Sydney both agree it is far and away the best place either of us have ever lived in.

Over the course of getting my degree and living here I intend to blog and document my thoughts here,

My biggest concern is becoming very isolated in this rural setting, and losing sight and focus of Christianity and Theology in the real world. However I am very excited about becoming a pastor and having a church. Woop!

Women In Ministry (Peer Pressure, Political Correctness, and The Bible)

Part 2
Part 3

As I approach the start of bible college I want to be 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.

The first scripture I want to raise questions about is that old favourite, 1 Timothy 2.
¹¹A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. ¹²I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. ¹³For Adam was formed first, then Eve. ¹⁴And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. ¹⁵But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Oh, it's a controversial one, which brings very strong feelings to the surface for many people.
I grew up around alot of female Christian leaders, who were good role models and good leaders, and without whom I would not have been able to lead worship. 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. 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.

'The Old Testament ones involve some significant factors. First, Deborah was the only female judge among 13 male judges. Huldah was the only female prophet among dozens of male prophets mentioned in the Bible. Miriam's only connection to leadership was being the sister of Moses and Aaron.' [source - http://www.gotquestions.org/women-pastors.html]

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 fulfulment 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 allowed Deborah to lead Israel in the OT, now he has stated that men only should be in leadership positions? 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 place God's will higher than our own, and at least 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 a percieved sexist in a very 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 shot 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 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.

1 Timothy 2, as pasted above 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'? 

The verses that follow directly after the above, 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? I ask not because I think I have the definitive answer, but because I want to know the truth. 

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 Savior 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 appliccable 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?

The New Testament women in ministry who Paul references elsewhere.
Phoebe is referenced only once, in Romans 16
I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea.

To me it seems a huge stretch to suggest that this verse indicates that Phoebe was an authority figure or teacher in her church.

Priscilla is always referenced alongside her husband Aquila, both of whom were tentmakers in Corinth [acts18:3] who travelled with him to Ephesus [acts 18:18].
There is an example of a time when they invited him 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 is simply normal sharing, which clearly is not prohibited by 1 tim 2 because that would mean that women could never pass on any information to a man in normal conversation or day to day life!!!

Romans 6 ²I 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. ³Greet Priscilla^[a] and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus. ⁴They 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 doesnt clearly show her as an authority figure, or a teacher.

1 Cor 16 ¹⁹The 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 doesnt 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.

Junias 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 Junias male or female, and what does 'among' mean? Does it mean they are working with the apostles, or that they are apostles?
On this one, the truth for me is I just dont know, Junias could have been female, and they could both have been apostles, but I have to seek the most likely truth, and once again this reference is not sufficient to offset the clear and explicit terms of 1 tim 2.

It is worth discussing the word 'over' which Paul uses in the passage. By 'I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man', 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'. Based on my mostly positive experience with women in ministry, I am strongly inclined toward the latter interpretation.

Paul also uses the word 'I' as in 'I do not permit a woman...' as opposed to 'God does not permit a woman...', but 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.

Paul refers to the order of creation and the fall of man. Here is an except from the passage in Genesis 3.
¹⁶ 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."
 ¹⁷ 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 doesnt entirely ring true, because men still have to do painful toil, unfulfilling work just to survive, and women still experience excruciating pain in childbirth. All in all, Eve really really screwed over women, and Adam did the same to men.

After research I have found myself in the 'Complimentarian' camp (a ridiculously long name for a literal interpretation of 1tim2). 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 with good reason 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 contradictorary scriptures in reference to 1tim2 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, and in relation to the question of 'over', I believe that women can lead and teach, just so long as they are accountable to a male authority figure.

I would value any comments you have, or further information which I have left out on this subject [unless you decide to vomit hate onto my blog anonymously. I have a special button set aside for all such posts :) ]