I don’t know of many more controversial issues in the church than issues regarding women in ministry. It is not controversial whether or not women can do ministry or be effective in ministry, but whether or not they can teach and preside in positions of authority over men. The most controversial issue aspect of this issue, of course, is whether or not women can hold the position of head pastor or elder in a local church.
There are two primary positions in this debate; those who believe that women can teach men and hold positions of authority over men in the church and those that do not. Those that do, normally go by the name “Egalitarians.” Those that do not, go by the name “Complementarians.” I am a complementarian but I understand and appreciate the egalitarian position. In fact, the church I serve at most often is an egalitarian church. (However, I don’t want you to think that my complementarianism is not important to me. There is much more to complementarianism than whether or not a woman can preach!)
There are a lot of passages of Scripture which contribute to the debate, but one stands out more than all the others. 1 Tim. 2:11-15:
“A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.”
I don’t want to debate whether or not this passage teaches either position. I am simply going to assume the complementarian position and attempt to deal with the sting of “I don’t allow a woman to teach.” It does have quite a bit of sting.
I like to make the Scripture pragmatically understandable. In other words, I want to not only understand what it says, but to rationally understand why it says what it says. Why does God give this instruction or that? What practical rationale might be behind the instruction of God? I know that we cannot always find it and our obligation to obey transcends our understanding but, in my experience, more often than not, our understanding of the command can accompany our obedience so that we are not so blind.
“I do not allow a woman to teach.” We think of this as coming from God. God says, “I do not allow a woman to teach.” Teaching is something that requires _________ therefore, women are not qualified. You fill in the blank:
1. Intelligence
2. Wisdom
3. Love
4. Concern
5. Rational
6. Persuasiveness
While I think the sting of this passage assumes that Paul is speaking about one of these, I don’t choose any of them. I think Paul (and God) has something different in mind.
The other night, at 3am there was a sound in our living room. Kristie woke up, but I did not. She was looking out there and saw the lights go on. She got scared.
Pop quiz: What did she do next?
a. Got a bat and quietly tip toed out there to see who it was.
b. Got a gun and peeked around the corner.
c. Woke me up and had me go out there.
Those of you who choose “c” are both right and wise. You are right because that is what happened. (It was my 2 year old Zach who decided it was time to get up.) You are wise because that is what normally happens and is typically, for those of you who have a man in the house, the best move. Why? Because men are better equipped to deal with these sort of situations. There is an aggression that men have, both physical and mental, that is more able to handle situations that might become combative. That is the way we are made.
Now, let me give my short and sweet answer as to why Paul did not allow women to teach:
Paul did not let women teach due to the often aggressive and combative nature that teaching must entail concerning the confrontation of false doctrine. Men must be the teachers when combating false teaching. However, because the role of a teacher in the church is so often to combat false doctrine, and because false doctrine is always a problem, generally speaking, the principles are always applicable. The “exercising of authority” is inherently tied to teaching and its necessary condemnation of false doctrine.
The combative nature of teaching is particularly relevant to a broader understanding of the characteristics of men and women.
The best illustration in the real world that I could use to help you understand what I am saying is that of a military commander in charge of leading troops into battle. Of course there might be an exception here and there, but do a study and you will find that no matter what the time or culture, men are always leading here. Why? Because men are simply better equipped and more followed. There are certian areas where men and women have a unique stature. I believe, like in military, the position of head pastor is the same. Not only are they better equipped for the issues that will arise, but they are followed more readily.
Let me give you another example: Two years ago, my wife was confronted by another couple who did not believe that she was doing what was right. She used to do princess parties where she would dress up as a princess (Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty) and go to little girls’ homes and entertain them for an hour or so. She was really good at this. After we moved from Frisco to Oklahoma, she still had one party on the schedule. She called her boss and let her know that she could not do it since we had already moved. Her boss became very angry and began to threaten her. She also said that she was going to bring in her husband (who was a lawyer) and sue Kristie. Kristie became very scared and did not know how to handle this situation, especially since her boss was now using her husband as part of the threat. She told me about this and I told her not to speak to her boss anymore, but to let me handle it. I did. I stepped in and confronted both her boss and her husband’s threats concerning the issue. In the end, they backed off.
I felt that it was my duty and obligation to step in and be strong on behalf of my wife as the situation became confrontational. Kristie is both tender, gentle, and, in those situations, frightened. She was going to give in and travel back to Texas to perform this last party even though she would lose money in the gas it took to go there and back. Her boss refused to pay her mileage.
My point is that men are conditioned to handle confrontation better than women. It is not that Kristie could not have done the same thing as me, it is just that this was not her bent. Women, generally speaking, are not bent to deal with confrontation the same way as men. Teaching in the church involves, more often than not, confronting false understanding.
Can women teach? Absolutely! Can women understand and think as well as men? Most certainly. But the bent of a man is better able to handle the type of teaching that is always necessary in the church.
Would I let a woman teach from the pulpit from time to time? Yes. Paul is not restricting women teachers over men in the absolute sense. The infinitive here, “to teach” is in the present tense which suggests the perpetual role of teaching which exercises authority (confrontation).
The role of head pastor, I believe requires confrontation. That is not all there is, but it is there and it is very important. It is because of this, I believe, Paul said that women cannot teach or exercise authority over men.
See follow-up posts here and here.
Comments are open again. Be safe. Read the rules.
1,432 replies to "Why Women Cannot Be Head Pastors"
TL,
We need to fully understand the author’s intent in one section of Scripture before we can properly carry it to another. The description of God expelling the man from the garden really doesn’t have anything to do with what Paul was talking about in 1 Tim. 2:15. Verse 15 in 1 Tim. 2 needs to be understood first in relationship to verses 13 and 14, because that is where the context is. And your question is astute, as scholars for centuries have made various attempts to logic all that through.
Umm, TL, verse 13 and 14 that you say is the context for verse 15 says this: For it was Adam who was first [fn] created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, [fn] fell into transgression.
This is the context of verse 15 and the woman, (or women) that were not to teach. How then does this not have anything to do with the concept of God expelling the man from the garden? It is you guys (egals) that brought up this whole scenario about the man being expelled for his sin and what it means to this whole discussion, after all. You are the ones that insisted that the difference in the way they were treated in your understanding has a huge impact on our understanding of this whole situation!
PeterMC, 997
I’m beginning to run out of my morning steam and may have to come back to your excellent question. But let me give a first thought to it.
First….
All buildings must have a strong foundation in order to stand the storms of time. Marriages are similar. We must build our marriages on a firm foundation. The following are some of the elements needed for a strong foundation in the Lord :
1. both spouses must be disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ. Ultimately, God is the One that will hold a marriage together but only if both acknowledge this.
2. The ultimate goal of a marriage is for two to live as if one entity, two lives as if one life, two so harmonious in union that they are better together than apart. Both lives are improved. Both individuals are inspired to become more like Christ. Somehow, in Christ this can be achieved without losing one’s individuality and uniquenesses.
3. Paul’s metaphor in Ephe. 5 is one of head of and body of. It is descriptive not prescriptive. If we are properly attached to, supporting of, respecting of, nurturing of, providing for one another, the head and the body both stay alive and the union becomes as if one. The point is that the body keeps the head alive and the head keeps the body alive. This goal must be primary.
With these three goals as a foundation, then we can explore how that might look in general for husbands and wives. I say ‘in general’ because humans are hugely unique in personality, character traits, weaknesses, giftings, physical capabilities, and so forth. It is not possible to expect all men in all nations to behave and think one way. And the same for women. We are first human, then individuals, and finally male and female.
more later…..
TL,
You said that the problem with reading Scripture at ‘face value’ is that often that turns out to mean taking a piece of a sentence out of its contextual home and ascribing a meaning to it that makes no sense in the time and culture we live in, and that we can horribly mess up the intent of scriptures if we don’t take into consideration the times they were written in and the life that the readers and the writers were living in.
Fair enough. I don’t disagree. But you have to also add something. What you wrote means absolutely nothing if you don’t add a far more important corollary which would go something like this: the danger of reading Scriptures with a wholly contextual approach is that quickly, truth becomes irrelevant and non-existent. In other words, if I start to see some truths only applying in certain times, and others only in other times, that’s fine – but you’d better be absolutely certain that those contexts are true. If you are not absolutely certain, the Bible ceases to exist as the timeless Word of God, and passages that declare the Word of God to be “a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path” mean nothing at all.
There are dangers inherent in seeing everything contextual as well…and still, people will view the Bible differently.
TL,
But it is right here that I see your head/body understanding undergoing a very serious breakdown: The point is that the body keeps the head alive and the head keeps the body alive. This goal must be primary.
Eph 5:24 says that the husband is head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church. If the head/body relationship between husband and wife is to be the same as the head/body relationship between Christ and the church, how can it mean what you stated above? Does Christ need the church to keep Him alive? No, as His body we draw our very life and being from Him but He certainly does not do the same from us. He is the source and yes, He is the Lord–the authoritiy–to the body. These reasons are why I simply can not see that your understanding of the head/body relationship is an accurate one.
”So I still ask, where did that leave the woman? Are you saying that the things, including pain in childbirth are not punishments to her for what she did? But are simply the result of the way Adam will decide to treat her from now on?”
Cherylu, 1001
Will get back to this more later. But for starters….
The punishment for her sin and for the man’s sin was death. That death would result in many things. Part of the result of death in life, all of life, would be the introduction of pain. The fact that she would desire her husband (regardless of whether or not that was a positive desire or both positive and negative [I lean toward both] ) and the husband’s response was going to be to mashal (dominate, control and rule) was all part of the result’s of death brought on by sin. The influence of sin would bring many changes in life for both of them. But it would still be within their choice to choose. Consider Cain’s choices versus Able’s choices. God was not going to force either the man or the woman to choose to do something that would be negative. The choice for some humans (husbands or wives) to dominate is not a positive choice. It is a negative choice.
PeterMC
First paragraph:
First of all, I explained what ‘head’ meant in that context in several comments above. That is when a husband represents Christ’s example in the treatment of his wife, not humanly taking upon the authority of God in human form. That’s was Christ’s job, and as both men and women, our first loyalty and submission is always to Christ. A husband therefore, cannot be the little ‘god’ in the marriage by either party assuming He is now lord over his wife, simply by virtue of being a Christian married male. One must assume that is explained to both engaged parties, but apparently isn’t because all of sudden some loving boyfriends before marriage become religious tyrants after marriage.
Second paragraph:
I don’t know if Paul was addressing one woman or a group, but to me that is not the point. The point is that we should not be harkening back to the to the OT ways of doing things under the new covenant we have been given under Christ. We should not be throwing up Adam or Eve’s sin to one another, but being responsible for our own transgressions. To me, that was the greatest lesson of the Fall. Christ will not hold me responsible for Eve’s sin, as a woman, or you for your sin because of Adam’s. This
regardless of the motive of or creative order original sin was committed in.
” Does Christ need the church to keep Him alive? “
If no one ever responded to Christ’s sacrifice, would there be a Body of Christ?
All metaphors break down somewhere, so it really doesn’t work to take it too far. Primarily, I’ve taken some of my understanding from the ‘head of’ and ‘body of’ in Paul’s example. Even 2000 years ago it was common knowledge that if one separated the head from the body the life was lost. And if one separates the body from the head, life is lost, there is death. On the most basic of levels, this is a truth. Thus, the metaphor is one of interdependence. Two shall become as one if each treats each other as ‘their life’.
Excellent points, mbaker.
And a question for all: what part of “not so among you” does not apply between husbands and wives?
Peter MC,
I agree with your last post 100%.
I wonder how we know where to draw the line if we read the Bible in a highly time/culture contextualized way? How do we know for sure as you have asked, that what we believe/know about the culture is completely accurate? And how do we know for sure that the reason the instruction was given was only relevant in that culture and doesn’t have timeless implications? And beyond that, how do we know that there aren’t other things in the Bible that were cultural only that we are not recognizing as such and therefore should not be accepting as timeless truth? And most importantly how are we sure enough about any of the answers to the above questions to be able to base our life in the Lord on our answers?
Our reading and understanding of the Bible can become such a maze of uncertainty that for the average person, it can start to look completely hopeless.
The point is that we should not be harkening back to the to the OT ways of doing things under the new covenant we have been given under Christ. We should not be throwing up Adam or Eve’s sin to one another, but being responsible for our own transgressions. To me, that was the greatest lesson of the Fall. Christ will not hold me responsible for Eve’s sin, as a woman, or you for your sin because of Adam’s. This regardless of the motive of or creative order original sin was committed in.
But why is the order of creation and Eve’s deception given by Paul as the reason the woman/women in question can not teach or have authority over men? There has to be a reason for it. And since it is given as the reason, it doesn’t sound to me at all like it is an example that is not to be followed.
MBaker,
In your post, #1007, you mentioned that to you it doesn’t matter whether Paul is addressing women as a whole or just a single women in 1 Tim 2, but rather, that it doesn’t matter because of a new covenant now, and so we shouldn’t be looking at the Old Testament way of doing things.
I caution you here out of love to watch out when you start going down this line of reasoning. It will quickly draw you into a lot of deep theological problems. Believe me, I’ve learned the hard way before on some of this.
I would also add as a matter of exegesis, you need to go back and reexamine the text yourself and really decide what it says. When you start mentioning things like the new covenant we have since the work of Christ, that’s fine – but know what you can apply it to and what you can’t. There are many, many lessons that christians today ignore from the Old testament that are still wholly applicable to today, citing the ‘New Covenant.’ Well…yes, and no…I urge you to study this and know exactly what it applies to.
As I read your post #1007, it was good – but I would say that that’s a conversation you’d have to have with Paul, the writer of 1 Tim, yourself…believe me, Paul knew the applicability of Old and New covenants (See the book of Romans).
Pete
What part of the OT laws of Moses ever applied to gentiles (non-converts, not living in Israel)?
What did Jesus mean by His parable of the wineskins?
What did the writer of Hebrews mean by saying that with a change of priesthood there is a change of law?
What so vexed Paul as he wrote to the Galatians?
What did Jesus mean by “neither here nor on this mountain, but in spirit and truth”?
Is anybody able to see my comments? 😉
Cheryl,
Please don’t make me repeat this ad nauseum. I have said several times because of Paul’s use of the word, “I’ that I agree with many egal scholars who believe he was stating how he wished authority to be in the churches he established. His examples reflect the Jewish patriarchal belief of his time.
Now here we go in where it gets to the matter of choice:
Now, as in Paul’s time, if I have been elected leader of a church, then based upon my personal preferences, I’m going to get to say who I think should be in what position, and how much authority they are to have. Churches do this all the time. Are they violating scripture to have women Sunday School teachers, or teaching in mixed classes in Christian schools? There is a difference there in how someone choses personally to run a church but if we want to make strictly prescriptive theology out of that set of scriptures women shouldn’t be teaching in Christian capacity of all, nor should they be correcting their sons, if they have them. That also is exercising authority over males is it not?
I’m just saying there is lot of hypocrisy and a world of difference in the church’s words and actions in following those scriptures.
PeterMC,
I thought I was pretty specific in that I what I was referring was not throwing each other’s sins up, when we were talking about the new covenant, but taking responsibility for our own. I certainly was not taking about throwing out all the laws of God.
That was rather an insult.
“But you have to also add something. What you wrote means absolutely nothing if you don’t add a far more important corollary which would go something like this: the danger of reading Scriptures with a wholly contextual approach is that quickly, truth becomes irrelevant and non-existent.”
Peter, 1004
Please explain this in another way. How can reading what is written paying attention to the intent of the authors make truth irrelevant. Are you trying to say that we must also back up and view the whole of Scripture. If so, I also agree?
Paula, 1013
Great questions. Perhaps, you can take a couple and flesh them out.
“That being the case, your explanation is a possibility. However, I still think that is conjecture that can not be proven.”
This is the fact – it cannot be proven that Paul stopped more than one woman from teaching. It is impossible.
I’m hoping a comp will try to answer them, but the point is the principle that ties them all together, with regard to the claim raised about not making a complete break from the old law. After all, one has to have once been under something in order to break from it. 😉
mbaker,
OK, gotcha. I had completely forgotten that you had stated that you believe Paul was stating his personal belief or preference here.
However, then you also have to concede that what Paul was saying here was really not inspired by the Holy Spirit if he was only reflecting the patriarchal beliefs of the time and not something that is to be followed today, do you not? At least I don’t see how you can get around that conclusion. I guess I would have a hard time taking that view of this part of the New Testament myself. But I guess that opens another whole can of worms about repsective beliefs about how the Scriptures were inspried by God.
On Eph 5 counsel to a couple, I would symmetricize all the counsel.
I would start with showing the pericope went from Eph 5:15-6:9.
I would show how submission is to be mutual in Eph 5:21.
I would have previously pointed out the marriage in Gen and one flesh union.
I would ask that since a wife is to respect her husband, does this mean a husband is not to respect his wife? I cannot think of anyone claiming that this would not be the case, so I would say the Paul is providing an emphasis to wifes in 1st century Ephesus, it is true that both spouses should respect each other, but this needed to be emphasized to wives in the 1st century.
I would ask that since a husband is to love and serve his wife, does this mean that a wife is not to loveand serve her husband? And similar discussion. Paul is giving an emphasis to 1st century husbands.
And then how does all this apply today? Both spouses are to love each other, submit to each other, respect each other, serve each other. How they carve up the responsibilities of marriage is up to them, what works for them, as long as these basic principles of the Kingdom (and similar) are followed.
I would discuss the head/body metaphor of one flesh unity and ask them if they think it is more than that.
I would also discuss 1 Cor 7 which is very explicit in its symmetry (8 times) and describe the mutual submission principle for sex, how it works in practise. Both are in charge and nothing happens in bed if both are not in agreement with both seeking the sexual fulfillment of the other, except by mutual agreement for a time to advance the Kingdom.
TL,
Glad to explain it another way:
It’s now 2010. If the Bible is supposed to be the timeless, infallible, word of God, and if God is the source of truth, then the Bible, as God’s word to us, ought to be a source of truth that we can trust with all of our hearts, souls, and minds. If God always was, is, and always will be – and never changes – then He is the same God yesterday, now, and forever. As God is, so is His Word, the Bible.
I have no problem with attempting to understand the intent an author had when writing a book of the Bible. We ought to try and dig into this. But there’s a catch here. I had better be 100% sure that I know that author’s intent before proceeding to interpret something as such.
That said, we know parts of the Bible are altogether historical – relevant once, but not in the same way now. The Mosaic Law is one of these, though Scholars today still argue which parts are relevant. In fact, Paul went through great length to show in the book of Romans that the basis of our salvation, through Christ, is by faith alone – and not through any work of the Law, which is what many Jews then (and still) believed.
My biggest issue when we try to contextualize everything is that very soon, truth will start to erode. It’s been happening for a long time, and today, major, major issues are really at the forefront of this great battle of Postmodern thinking.
There is a balance. I agree with the people who have said that “Slavery, which was accepted for so long, finally went away.” So yes! Just because something was once accepted as such for so long doesn’t mean it’s now wrong! Maybe it is – but not necessarily – we always, always, always have to turn back to Scripture. We have been saying this, on both sides of the issue.
(continued)
Each book in the Bible was written in a different language than most of us speak and was certainly written in a different culture than most of us live. What is trans-cultural and what is simply true for a specific culture is a very good question. Who buy meat sacrified to idols? I do not even know where such MIGHT be sold.
But this does not mean everything turns into mush. We know the very highest principle of the Kingdom is Love. We also know that justice, mercy, freedom, etc. are other principles of the Kingdom, so when the Kingdom of God advances, we expect to see MORE of 1 or more of these basic principles being realized. We see people becoming saved and becoming disciples and advancing the Kingdom.
The NT builds on the OT and cannot be understood in context without the OT as a pre-cursor, Jesus fulfilling many OT prophecies is just one example. One model is that it is like a 2 story building, the NT sits on the OT. With more details there are the 3 parts of the Tanakh/OT and the parts of the NT. It is all inspired and given to us as a gift.
“However, then you also have to concede that what Paul was saying here was really not inspired by the Holy Spirit if he was only reflecting the patriarchal beliefs of the time and not something that is to be followed today, do you not? At least I don’t see how you can get around that conclusion. I guess I would have a hard time taking that view of this part of the New Testament myself. But I guess that opens another whole can of worms about repsective beliefs about how the Scriptures were inspried by God.”
Cheryl, using that line of reasoning one could say any modern day sermon cannot not inspired by the Holy Spirit if some of it is a man’s thoughts, including everyone’s thoughts on this blog! Paul was an apostle, someone who established churches. Why wouldn’t he be able to speak under his own authority about how he wished those churches to be run? And how do we know he was not castigating those particular offenders of the church, who in his absence were too immature or rebellious to manage their own behavior? We don’t know this either way, but to dismiss all historical or cultural practices which influenced the NT Bible writers would be like taking out all the parts of the OT that were addressed only to the Jews.
mbaker,
There were a couple of things I was going to say but forgot in my last comment.
I think there is a big difference between mother’s teaching their son’s and women teaching men in the church. I wouldn’t think that the probibition to teach men includes the mother’s right to teach her children (her son’s).
II Timothy chapter 1 certainly seems to give an example of a young man, Timothy, that learned of the faith from his mother and grandmother.
And their may very well be a lot of hypocricy in the church about the way these things are put into practice. I will not argue with you on that.
Also, I don’t think that these Scriptures keep a woman from teaching in a Christian capacity at all. Older women are definitely told in another place to teach the younger women.
“My biggest issue when we try to contextualize everything is that very soon, truth will start to erode”
This is a “slippery slope” fallacy, and it shows misunderstanding of the word “contextualize”, as if it really means “rationalize”.
Context is not about rationalizing but using every bit of information in order to determine to the best of our ability what the author had in mind. Context is not the enemy of truth, but its upholder, while the surface-skimming “plain reading” is the real enemy. It is only after we know the context that we can apply any given principle to our lives today. To do otherwise is to treat the scriptures more like a lump of clay we can mold to our personal taste. Context is the thorough examination of a text without first limiting the investigation out of fear of what might be discovered.
We simply MUST “contextualize everything” if we are to “rightly divide the Word of Truth”; we are only being lazy if we refuse. Truth will only erode when we give up discernment and study for simplistic teachings that only confirm what we’d like to believe.
“Also, I don’t think that these Scriptures keep a woman from teaching in a Christian capacity at all. Older women are definitely told in another place to teach the younger women.”
Then Paul also told Titus that older men can ONLY teach younger men. What applies to one applies to the other; either women can only teach women and men can only teach men, or Paul (per the context, which some think is a slippery slope to error!) was only telling Titus that the people of Crete needed some remedial social skills.
(resumed)
Where I fear, however, is what the extension of all of this may be. Already there is a great movement underway within our country to institutionalize and accept homosexuality in our Armed Forces (repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell). The basis for this is essentially that the times in which we live are more accommodating than what they were in the past and therefore, a change is required. People rationalize this often by simply saying, “well, it’s not 1950 anymore, and times have changed.” Very quickly, without realizing it – a contextual change can be made.
Please don’t misunderstand me: I am not likening the issue of women as Pastors to “Don’t Ask Don’t tell.” At all. What I am saying is that culture can be a very dangerous thing. How many churches now preach a watered-down version of the Gospel message in order to attract other people, but in so doing, have altered the truth so that it no longer is the truth? Many…
Finally, I want you to know that there is a positive side to culture and context – and that is by through it, we can remove what is harmful and bad. And that is why, again and again, we turn back to Scripture.
We are all saying more or less the above. We don’t agree on what the verses say and mean. That’s it in a nutshell. And on this issue, I don’t think I ever will change. I feel very grounded in what I believe, because, as I said before, there remain to many “what ifs” that would all have to be answered in order to refute Paul’s teachings on the issue. His theme, to me, is unified. Virtually no contradiction whatsoever. That is why I find it extremely difficult to really see his instructions the way many of you do.
Pete
Further to what Paula wrote, a reader WILL provide a context, but the less he/she knows about the original context, the more the reader’s assumptions will provide the context.
“What I am saying is that culture can be a very dangerous thing. How many churches now preach a watered-down version of the Gospel message in order to attract other people, but in so doing, have altered the truth so that it no longer is the truth? Many…”
I can’t help but think of Mark Driscoll here. He personifies “bowing to culture”, where culture is strongly patriarchal and the push is to accommodate “seekers” by being more like the lost in our behavior and speech. Yes, culture is dangerous— especially when it infiltrates the church to the point where Jesus’ proclamations of freedom for all, His command “not so among you”, and His example of laying down rank and privilege are obliterated.
Paula,
I’m really quite open on this, contrary to what you might think, but for me, the common sense check is the following:
Same thing I challenged TL and MBaker with:
An engaged couple walks into your office for premarital counseling.
You have Ephesians 5 and any other verses in the Bible to assist you and to provide them references with.
What, in a nutshell, do you tell them?
Paraphrase – but don’t be incomplete. Address what is meant by ‘headship,’ ‘submission,’ ‘love for the husband towards his wife,’ and ‘respect for the wife towards the husband.’
I would very much like to hear your interpretation of this.
If you’ll go along with it, I’ll give you my feedback when you’re done.
Pete
Man over 1000 posts. Just a few thoughts.
1. The verses involved in this issue are IMHO very unclear. When simply reading the English translations the issue “appears” clear, but once one starts digging into the originals disagreement abounds. There is often no good English equivalents for the words used in the original and a number of the terms are very disputed as to their meaning.
2. It seems that God has on a few occasions chosen women to lead His people (i.e. Deborah).
3. Given that the verses are subject to extended debate and God has used women as leaders in the past I would rather err on the side of allowing them to lead if so gifted the err on the side of oppressing these gifts. As stated earlier if a person, male or female, doesn’t have the gift of church leadership it will become brutally apparent very quickly.
One final note regarding 1 Tim 2:12 (and as I’ve probably mentioned before I’m not even a novice at Greek – so if it’s different in the original let me know). Assuming for a second that the English translations are correct the verse reads “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man”. Now maybe I’m way off track here, but it seems to me that this isn’t a command, but rather Paul telling Timothy how he runs things. This seems to indicate (to me at least) that it is possible that doing things differently in different cultural circumstances might be permissible.
Peter, I’ll be happy to answer your question, but would ask that you also answer mine: what part of “not so among you” does not apply between husbands and wives?
As for marital counseling, I’d start with basic and over-arching principles of the faith. The couple are Christians first and mates second, and if they practice the faith– the “one anothers”, “love does not demand its own way”, “treat others as better than yourself”, no “lording over”– silly issues like who is to play what “role” will evaporate. Whatever anyone thinks Paul meant, I believe he’d never contradict either his own teachings or those of Jesus. So since Jesus clearly taught that ALL of us are to follow His example of “son” to “father” and servant to master, and that we ALL are brothers and sisters with one Teacher, and that no part of the Body can claim superiority (or even “benevolent authority”) over another, then Paul could not possibly have been teaching against those things. Details on how I’d interpret those disputed passages are in my blog and books, so I don’t have to repeat myself on detailed studies that are not suited to blog comments.
Which all boils down to this: treat your spouse as your co-heir for whom Christ died, and “all these things shall be added to you”.
Any believer who thinks some adult believers should have “final say” over others is teaching pride in the flesh. But God “is no respecter of persons” and does “not judge on the flesh but on the heart”. Regardless of whether anyone would insist that scripture does teach otherwise or has “fine print” for certain relationships, there is no denying what Jesus taught.
PeterMC,
Just curious about something. In your comment above you said you were pretty entrenched in your belief that only comps are right according to scripture. I have answered all of your questions, now please answer mine:
As a pastor, what do YOU tell an engaged couple? It isn’t entirely fair to ask us and then simply refute our answers.
I have been taught all my life that when II TImothy 3:16-17 says, All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work, all of Scripture is included in that. That would be specifically true where direction is being given by the ones that were entrusted by God to give us the correct church doctrine. So to say that Paul was giving instructions to the churches that were just his own preference that were not God’s inspired directions would be quite a large pill for me to swallow! Specially if we later find out that those instructions don’t fit with God’s plan for the church or for marriage in the New Covenant.
“Now maybe I’m way off track here, but it seems to me that this isn’t a command, but rather Paul telling Timothy how he runs things.”
The grammar indicates “I am not presently permitting”.
We should also note that Paul uses a common Greek word for authority in “permitting”, but the one translated “authority” is extremely rare and had only negative meanings, esp. that of murder or forceful usurpation. It also had sexual connotations, as I documented in the link I gave earlier to my commentary on 1 Tim.
FWIW.
One more thought
I the real world (as opposed to the one of Biblical Theory) it seems to me that most marriages are fundamentally patriarchal in nature or egalitarian. I would go so far to say that even though I grew up in a Complementarian Church I have never seen a truly complementarian marriage. Call it lack of imagination because I can’t even think of what one would look like. I really see two options.
1. When there is a disagreement of any kind (i.e. what movie to see) the husband ALWAYS wins. In this case you basically have a patriarchal relationship with the husband controlling the wife. I’m not saying that the husband doesn’t love his wife, but he basically views his wife as being subject to him and his opinions are superior to hers.
2. When there is a disagreement sometimes the couple goes with the wife’s desires and sometimes with the husbands . This is essentially a relationship that is egalitarian. There is a give and take. Sometimes the wife submits to the desires of the husband and sometimes the husband submits to the wife even when it goes against his better judgment.
Paula and Michael T,
I can’t help but wonder why Paul would even “presently permit” something that he knew went against Jesus teaching and what he taught elsewhere? Would conforming to the current culture be so important that he would even temporarily permit something that he knew went against those two things?
Cherylu, look at the context to see what exactly Paul is not presently permitting. It is NOT true or accurate teachings, but only false ones; that is the theme of the whole letter. The woman in question is teaching and she has to stop for a time, and Paul gives the purpose: to learn the truth. It is the TEACHING ITSELF that is temporarily stopped. No one believes Paul would later permit false teaching! The word “authentein” does NOT mean “any and all authority”, as there are several other common words for such, one of which Paul used in that same sentence. And after this woman learns the truth, she can resume teaching.
“I can’t help but wonder why Paul would even “presently permit” something that he knew went against Jesus teaching and what he taught elsewhere?”
Cherylu,
Could you please provide some links that show Jesus taught that women could not teach or lead? Also, where else IYO does Paul teach (verses please so that I can check for myself) that women are not to teach or lead?
Cheryl,
Re: 1035
I think there are a few issues.
1. Yes the Bible is inspired and yes it is useful, however it is not always useful in the same way. The Bible for instance sometimes records falsehood.
2. I don’t think saying that Paul is telling us how “he” handles things with regards to women is any different then when he gives specific instructions to women with regards to dress in the church (No church I know of forbids women from braiding their hair). In it’s context it is very easy to understand why Paul wouldn’t allow women to teach. In his culture women were looked down upon and would not command the necessary respect.
MBaker,
What I tell couples is essentially this – and it’s been more or less the same for many years…
Both: Marriage is nothing less than holy. You both are about to become one flesh, one unit, one body, formed out of two very different people…and as such, your individual wants/needs now become ‘our’ wants/needs. Above all else, follow Christ with all of your hearts. Let Him be your only source of help and hope.
Husband: Love your wife, and love her with the same love that Christ loved us, the Church, with. Sacrifice for her. Protect her. See to it that her worth is exalted above your own. Initiate this kind of love in all that you do, for Christ initiated this love towards us by dying on the cross for our sins. This is a great privilege, and to whom much is given, much is expected…
Wife: As your husband is called to love you, so you are called to respect him. Using the talents and gifts God has given you, strive to help your husband be the best, most Godly man that he can be, for in doing so, you will continue to grow in Christ, and your marriage as a whole will prosper greatly. This too is a high and noble calling…
That’s pretty much it. I still get a little choked up when I read it and say it. Only God could ordain such a thing as marriage…
I don’t use the word roles…but believe roles are still described in a way that brings honor to both. That’s what I feel Paul/God wanted us to know.
Cheryl,
God has many time allowed for a time things he abhorred. Think of divorce. The Old Testament Law allowed for divorce in a pretty liberal manner. Yet Jesus says that God hates divorce and this law was given because of “the hardness of their hearts”. Whether we like it or not God has and does on occasion accommodate Himself and His commands to the culture He is dealing with.
Michael T, and TL,
Help me out here, though…this is my “million dollar question” for you guys – and I mean that…please, walk me through this…
Let’s assume that Paul did mean in 1 Tim 2:12 that he “is not presently permitting a woman to teach over a man,” and that maybe he would at a later day/month/year/place?
Here’s the question: why, then, does he refer back to the order in which Adam and Eve were created, at the foundation of the world?
In other words, walk me through that link — Paul is really saying: “I don’t allow this, because of that.”
Walk me through that. What is plausible in your minds that happened at creation that would not allow Paul to permit a woman to teach over a man, but only for a select time/place?
Again…not sharpshooting here. I’m genuinely curious.
Pete
”If the Bible is supposed to be the timeless, infallible, word of God, and if God is the source of truth, then the Bible, as God’s word to us, ought to be a source of truth that we can trust with all of our hearts, souls, and minds. If God always was, is, and always will be – and never changes – then He is the same God yesterday, now, and forever. As God is, so is His Word, the Bible.”
Cannot disagree with that.
”My biggest issue when we try to contextualize everything is that very soon, truth will start to erode. It’s been happening for a long time, and today, major, major issues are really at the forefront of this great battle of Postmodern thinking.”
It is not clear what you mean by contextextualize. We cannot hope to understand what one sentence or even one piece of a sentence is about unless we read it in context to everything else that is said. And BTW that is not postmodern thinking. That is proper exegesis. Also, it is absolutely necessary that we note the era, the culture, the history to be sure we understand what part they do or do not play in what is said. Are you really suggesting that we mysticalize God Word’s to the point that we can pull out any part of it ignoring context and make it make sense on it’s own?
Cheryl,
You are assuming that anyone in the Bible who speaks is only speaking under Godly authority. This is not true. Look at all the enemies of God, whose words and deeds are included. Were their words God inspired? No, of course not. But, the Bible writers saw fit to record them. When I explain the Bible to someone do I tell them that everyone in the Bible was right in their behavior, and therefore the ill deeds were God inspired as well, simply because the Bible records them?
“Here’s the question: why, then, does he refer back to the order in which Adam and Eve were created, at the foundation of the world?”
That question has been answered several times I believe.
Let me ask you a couple. Do you really believe that:
1. God would establish something in silence, IOW wait 4000 years before telling anyone that He doesn’t want women to teach? What about all the women leaders and teachers in that 4000 years.
2. Do you believe that it is proper in the new covenant to establish a new rule that is harsher than the old covenant. Jesus came to set His people free, all of God’s people, not just half.
3. Where in Genesis 1-2 did God establish an order of primacy between the man and the woman? If the order of birth is an order of primacy then God would have noted it so in some manner. Where did God do so?
PeterMC,
Thank you for your reply. It is a good one. Yet you leave out the submission part, since you have been arguing for it. Why is that?
Peter MC,
Here’s the question: why, then, does he refer back to the order in which Adam and Eve were created, at the foundation of the world?
Thanks for asking the very question I wanted to ask next!
mbaker,
I understand what you are saying about even the enemies of God words being recorded in the Bible. And of course they may not at all be true. I don’t believe, or course, that God inspired those folks to make those statements under God’s authroity.
To me that is considerably different though then thinking that the ones God has entrusted to teach us His truths are saying things that are not inspired that could very easily lead us to wrong beliefs–specially in a book of the Bible that is a teaching book and not one that records much history–like Acts for instance.
Phooey, I keep forgetting to turn my italics off!
Peter,
I’m not going to lie here and pretend I have all the answers. In the case of 1 Tim 2 the whole passage is exceedingly hard to understand in any paradigm. From what the Greek words mean to the things the passages says in the best translations and understandings we have the whole thing is a bit of an enigma. For instance what in the world does Paul me when he says “women shall be saved through childbirth” (which is in the same paragraph)? Why would Paul interpolate things which are purely cultural (i.e. braided hair) with things which complementarians claim are blanket commands? I’ve read a dozen different interpretations and can’t find one that makes any sense whatsoever.
In the end I think we have to base our theology on Biblical passages that are clear, and to base an entire Church/Marital structure off this passage which is exceedingly unclear seems to me to be ill advised. I honestly don’t know what 1 Tim 2 means or what Paul was getting at here and I’m not convinced that the egalitarian reading is correct anymore then the complementarian reading. I really have no idea and hence am not going to base my theology off of this passage.