Showing posts with label 1 Corinthians 11. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1 Corinthians 11. Show all posts

Women. The Church. The Family. And You.



An off-centered picture of three of the most important women of my childhood.
Aunt Rita. Grandma Jessie. And Mom.

Women.

Sadly, the church has been on the side of telling their daughters, “You can be anything but not a preacher or a leader in the church.” “Be confident. Work hard. But make sure that you always do what your husband says.” Even in our town, these views are still prevalent. And you may think those views are the right ones, but let me challenge you with a different perspective today.

So today’s article is going to be a little different than one where I try to motivate you to change. It’s going to be much more of a study and explanation of women’s role in the church and in the home. But this truth can be more liberating than any motivational sermon if lived out.
Wrapped up in this issue is part of how we interpret the Bible. Do we take one verse and run with it, or do we understand it in the context of the whole?

Proponents of both sides of the issue like to explain away passages that disagree with their viewpoint. But there is something to be said in reading the Bible in context and in light of the overarching themes of the rest of the Bible. There are also special contextual issues to consider when reading Paul’s writings since he is writing to address specific issues in specific churches, of which we can only surmise the context because we only have Paul’s reply. This understating and appreciation of what Paul is doing makes the application for us more refined than simply reading and then doing.



THE BEGINNING IN GENESIS

So let’s start at the beginning. In Genesis 1 and 2, man and woman were equal in God’s sight and complimented one another. In fact, the woman is called a “helper” (ezer) – the same word used in the Psalms to describe divine help (Psalm 20:2, 70:5). One would have a difficult time casting God as a subordinate.

So in the first chapter of Genesis, we have women created to be a helper just as God’s help given to us is described in the Psalms. But only a chapter later, things change – there is a division between man and woman as a result of sin entering the world. We must note that this is the result of sin. It is not the desired relationship that God had in mind between a man and a woman. The effects of the fall have impacted cultural perceptions and expectations between men and women negatively ever since. From the treatment of women as second class citizens, to a view of women as property, to a denial of certain rights to women, varying cultures have diminished the value of women ever since. These were not God’s intention but a result of sin among us and the fall having happened. They were a consequence.

 
JESUS IS RESTORING ALL THINGS

But God is in the process of removing the consequences of sin and restoring all things. This is the idea of the kingdom breaking through into the here and now. So if we view the role of women through the idea of the kingdom of God, we see that God is restoring all things. So God’s original intention as described in Genesis 1-2, not the consequence laid out in the post-fall Genesis 3, is the idea of the relationship between men and women in God’s kingdom. And through the ministry of Jesus, God is now restoring all things to their intended purpose through the church. That means that women will are not inferior. Now, I can't do everything to bring about God's perfect kingdom now, but treating women equally is something that I can do. So as much as I possibly can, I live under the principle of bringing about God's perfect kingdom now. The church should be an example of God’s restored purpose for humanity, not a reflection of the world post-fall.

In addition, Paul restates this same idea to the church in Galatia: 

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:28 (ESV)

Paul echoes this sentiment in In 1 Corinthians 12 where he states that we are one body with many members where each part performs different functions. There is no delineation between men and women. There is no assigning the teaching or leading duties to men while relegating women to other duties.




PAUL'S DIFFICULT PASSAGES

But Paul is also the source of the two difficult passages where women should be silent and where women should not teach or have authority over a man. Throughout his writings, Paul describes a unity and equality that exists between the spiritually reborn living in God’s restored kingdom. On the other hand, Paul backs off in these sections and defer to cultural norms.

The clearest mention of a woman in leadership is at the end of Romans where Phoebe is called a deaconess/servant/minister (diakonos). Granted, this word can mean all of those things in the Greek, but in Paul’s writings when he is speaking of the office of "deacon," he uses this word. When he speaks of servants he uses other words (doulos, oiketes, pais, etc.). We also have Priscilla and Aquilla. Word order was used in Greek language to show prominence, making Priscilla the prominent teacher in this couple. You even have an apostle named Junia.

So when Paul gave his lists that people use to exclude women, Paul was not providing a comprehensive list of qualifications but a general understanding of what would make a good leader (see The Biblical Requirements for Elders). This list is used so legalistically at times that it fails to see the point -- leaders should have leadership qualities and be actual spiritual leaders. Gender, if the practice of the early church as seen in Scripture is to be given weight, is not necessary to be a spiritual leader. The same book that commands women to be silent (1 Cor. 14:33-35) gives instructions for women praying and prophesying in the public assembly (1 Cor. 11:2-16). This role of prophet and praying in public indicates some level of authority and leadership in the church given to women, even over men.

The notion that men have the corner on wisdom, knowledge and teaching ability is pure arrogance. And relegating women to teaching only children and other women is not only demeaning but fails to see the fulfillment of the Kingdom. Yes, women can be homemakers – my family life is a testament to the idea that I like that concept - but so can men. In the same way men can lead the church, but so can women. Only by working together, making up for one another’s deficiencies, and carrying one another’s burdens do we see the Kingdom come.

As for qualifications of leaders, obviously we don’t want some hot head drunk leading the church. But as I mentioned, I think these are general principles based on observation, experience, and wisdom as opposed to a clearly delineated list to treat like law. The two lists in the two different Pauline letters aren’t even the same. In other words, each candidate should be evaluated individually. Maybe the person is divorced because the spouse had an affair and left him or her. Maybe the person brought their child up in the church and did all he or she could but the child still is wayward. Perhaps the recovering alcoholic has controlled the addiction. The point is that I don’t think that a candidate should be dismissed out of hand because he or she doesn’t meet the qualifications without examining the reasons behind their circumstances and where that individual is today. They should not be disqualified for something that happened in their lives fifteen years ago if they have conquered the cause of whatever that sin was. Again, this reasoning is based on my understanding that Paul offers a general list of leadership qualities, not a law of leadership qualifications.

Not all of us will be elders or teachers. Each of us performs different functions and roles within the body. But that does not disqualify women from fulfilling these functions. Nowhere in Paul’s discussion on giftedness does he single out men for the “leadership” type gifts or roles. I agree that not every woman should be a leader in the church. Just like every man should not be one. I have heard dynamite women teachers and awful male ones (and vice versa). We are who God empowers us to be, regardless of gender. And the only sin here is if we don’t operate in our giftedness or don’t allow others to operate in their giftedness.

What it comes down to in the Kingdom of God is to be a community that rises above the “-isms” that have plagued our society and churches. It is time to do away with chauvinism, feminism, racism and return to seeing each other as created equally loved in God’s sight and empowered differently but living unified to do the work of the Kingdom.


WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR THE FAMILY?

Now, that is church life. But I think if we go to the same passages regarding family life with the same attitude and understanding the same principles, we will see a similar stance.

A study was released a while back that described three types of families.  One happy, termed cohesive.  Two unhappy, termed disengaged and enmeshed.

Typically cohesive families are characterized by harmonious interactions, emotional warmth, and firm but flexible roles for parents and children. "Think the Cosby family," says Sturge-Apple, offering an example from the popular TV series about the affable Huxtable family.

Enmeshed families, by contrast, appears to be emotionally involved and display modest amounts of warmth, but they struggle with high levels of hostility, destructive meddling, and a limited sense of the family as a team. Sturge-Apple points to the emotionally messy Barone family in the family sitcom Everybody Loves Raymond as a good example of an enmeshed family.

Finally, disengaged families, as the name implies, are marked by cold, controlling, and withdrawn relationships. [With help from my Facebook friends, think All In The Family, Married With Children, or National Lampoons Christmas Vacation. ] The seemingly pleasant suburban family in the movie Ordinary People provides a classic illustration of a disengaged family, as per the authors. Reacting to the death of their oldest son, the parents in the film retreat emotionally, creating a barren home environment in which feelings cannot be discussed.”
https://psychcentral.com/news/2010/07/16/family-problems-harm-young-children/15684.html 

What we see in Paul's passage on the household in Colossians on how to have a godly family is similar to what the scientists in the study mentioned above would describe as a cohesive family. Paul wrapped up telling us about the new self with instruction about the household. The new self should permeate every area of our lives.  The old self is lying, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk while the new self is compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, patience, thankfulness, forgiveness, and love. But then he follows this with explicit instructions on family life.

Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience,  bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive.  And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. Colossians 3:12-14 (ESV)

Paul then goes on to one of the more controversial sections:

Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them. Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord. Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged. Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord.  Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ. For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality.  Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven. Colossians 3:18-4:1 (ESV).


A STUDY ON SUBMISSION

Now, let’s deal with the elephant in the room first. The big, hot button issue is that first sentence: "Wives, submit to your husbands." 

An exercise that is useful in discovering the meaning of a word is to examine what it meant in the original language through a Greek word study.  One of the biggest mistakes typically done is to just look the word up in an English dictionary and call it good from there.  The problem with our understanding "hupotasso", the word translated "submit" here, is that we don't use the word "submit" much in our normal conversations.  The only places I hear it is in wrestling/mma where the fighter gives up due to excessive pain or in a classroom environment where a student hands in a paper to their teacher.  In doing a word study, we can see how the word was used in other sections of Scripture.  So let's look at some of those verses.

Jesus was hupotasso to his parents.
And he went down with them and came to Nazareth and was submissive (hupotasso) to them. And his mother treasured up all these things in her heart.  Luke 2:51 (ESV)


We need to hupotasso governing authorities. 
Let every person be subject (hupotasso) to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.  Romans 13:1 (ESV).

We need to hupotasso to every fellow worker and laborer like those of the household of Stephanas. 
Now I urge you, brothers—you know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints—be subject (hupotasso) to such as these, and to every fellow worker and laborer. 1 Corinthians 16:15-16 (ESV).

We need to hupotasso to God. 
Submit (hupotasso) yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.  James 4:7 (ESV).

We need to hupotasso to one another as brothers and sisters in Jesus.
And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting (hupotasso) to one another out of reverence for Christ.  Ephesians 5:18-21 (ESV).

We could get a grand and deeply authoritarian view of submission from the verses that teach us to submit to governing authorities and God, but there are also uses of "submit" that throw a wrench into that definition. We see that submitting to one another is something that we are all called to do as believers to each other. 

So the word "submit" has to fit these passages. And sadly, the concept, especially in regards to the role of a woman with her husband when viewed as a subordinate role, has been misunderstood and doesn’t fit. This teaching of womanly submission has tragically been abused by the patriarchal society of the past and is still being abused in sexist settings today, to the detriment of everyone involved. I have heard of tragic stories of abuse in which a woman has been told to submit to her husband and remain in an abusive relationship. I have heard stories of women having to go along with things they seriously disagree with. That is not what this Paul is teaching in this section in his letter to the Colossians.

Submit (hupotasso) is voluntarily placing ourselves under someone in order to support them and help them achieve the dreams they have. When Paul wrote that a wife should submit to her husband, he was stating that a wife needs to be a person who is voluntarily supportive of their husband, but that is nothing more than what Paul said we need to be to one another as brothers and sisters in Jesus. It is nothing more than the husband should also be to the wife.

Submitting does not mean that we don’t speak up. Submitting doesn't mean that we don’t ever disobey. It does not mean that we endure torture or abuse under another. It's actually a beautiful concept that translating it into a negative word like "submit" misses. It means that we know the dreams of the other person, and we put ourselves voluntarily under them to help them achieve those dreams. We become a support to lift them up and help them achieve their goals. I feel like breaking out into Josh Groban here.


ON TOWARD TRUE JESUS-LIKE LEADERSHIP

A domineering man might then ask, "What does authority matter if it does not mean blind obedience by those under authority?" It’s mean Christian authority. If you are over someone in Christ, then you are their servant leader. Jesus is our Lord and does not force His will to be done by taking away our free will.  He leads out of submission, example, and love. We are to do likewise.

Jesus taught:
 
You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. Matthew 20:25-28 (ESV).
Jesus also taught that leadership in the church and in Christian relationships is upside-down.
The greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.  Matthew 23:11-12 (ESV).

Servant leadership is what Christian leadership is all about.  As a pastor, I am in this position to serve the people in the church I am part of, the community I live in and interact with, and the world abroad. It is not about me getting special treatment; it's about serving people through calling on them, meeting their needs, praying for them, and listening to God and proclaiming what He wants us to hear. This is what all church leaders are called to do. If you are living out the life of Jesus in your workplace, then you should be about serving those around you. Christian leadership, whether it is the role of a husband in the house, parents to their children, a teacher to their students, a law enforcement officer to the citizens, is one of sacrifice and service when done well.

We all know in the core of our being what good leadership is. What kind of cowardly father would flee if his family was endangered? What kind of corrupt politician would seek to gain personally from their position as a representative of the people? What kind of shameful law enforcement officer would abandon people in need of help? We all know, in the core of our being, what good leadership is. And that is what Paul is laying out here because, so often, men can create a destructive family environment from their unhealthy leadership. The leadership trap for a husband, as Paul warns, is to become harsh with their wives and provoke and discourage their children.     

But a healthy family is not one of selfish and personal ambition.  It’s one of compassion, patience, love, humility, forgiveness, and love.  It is the new self lived out in unison one with another.  A healthy family is the most basic example of the love of Jesus lived in community. The family is designed to be a place where people are encouraged and built up to be who Jesus wants them to be rather than a place of manipulation and selfish ambition.
 
In the healthy family, telling a wife that she is to submit to her husband, as long as we are using it with the biblical idea of hupataso, is also proclaiming that the husband must serve his wife.  We must never separate a wife submitting with the love of the husband that is always connected with that command to submit.

Submit does not mean that someone should be silent, obedient at all times, or a slave. Actually, if submit means to support someone to achieve their dreams, then speaking up and telling the other person where they need to improve would be needed at times. So submit, in Paul's command for a wife to submit to her husband, just means that the woman will help the man achieve the dreams he is trying to achieve.  She will be his support. From other verses, we see that a man should be just as supportive of his wife. It’s the same concept we are to do to one another.

The main crux of the argument, as Paul described the way the household should function, is that the man should no longer abuse his position. At the time this letter was written to church in Colossae, the man was very domineering over the family. Paul gave three warnings to the man. One, he is not to be harsh with his wife. Two, he is not to provoke and discourage their children. And three, he is to treat his slaves justly and fairly.  This was a radical teaching that would be liberating to wives, children, and slaves at that time.


REVEALING A DIFFERENT KINGDOM

The Roman society was patriarchal and vicious. Babies would be presented to the father after birth at which point he could decide to let the baby not enter the family by forcing the baby to just be abandoned and die from exposure. No property was allowed to be owned in a Roman family except for the father owning it; this even included grown men. All children were to be under the authority of their father until his passing.

Like modern sitcoms jokingly show the faults in the American family, Roman theater did the same for their audience. And we can see in the family comedies of Plautus and Terrence that the Roman family could devolve into manipulation and greed. With such a patriarchal structure, the wife, children, and slaves would all try to manipulate the father to get their will done. Paul's writings were a direct assault on the Roman family structure and would have transformed a Roman family that lived selfishly into one that would be a witness for Jesus. The Christian family is to be a model of God’s plan for us in right relationship with each other. The church is to be the same.

If the man is the head of the house, it is not as a domineering head. Christian leadership is the exact opposite of being domineering. If anyone is the head of anything in Christian thinking, then that person is to be the servant of those in their charge. True Christian leadership is serving, not domineering. We will wrongly take the headship idea that we get from the Bible and then apply a worldly definition to it, but it is to be viewed through the lens of a sacrificial Jesus who, as the head, gave up his life so that those like you and me – under him – could live.

In Genesis, humanity fell and there were consequences: 
To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” Genesis 3:16 (ESV)

That’s the fall. That’s what Jesus came to reverse. That’s not the reality we are called to live in.

As Paul explains it:
 
For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.  Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,  so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 5:19-21 (ESV)

In the perfect world before the fall, women were not ruled over by men; that was a consequence of sin. As Christians, if we are forgiven of our sins and are striving to live in perfection, then we should treat women as they were treated before the punishment of sin. As much as is possible by us, we should live as the restored people of God, letting the kingdom be realized in the here and now through us. That would include women not being ruled over by men, both in the home and in the church, but, instead, women being treated as equals as they were before the fall.

Let’s live in God’s restored kingdom reality.

Women's Role in the Church


Like the previous post. This post was originally posted over at Chi Rho Live. That was a shared blog with two friends from college. I include the comments below the original post.

Unlike the previous post, this one was not written by me. This is from Sam Long. Sam went to school with me at Great Lakes. He then went on to get his M.Div. from Emmanuel School of Religion followed by his PhD in Biblical Studies from Asbury. He is still working on his dissertation.

***The following entries are my thoughts and responses to both Regan and Troy as expressed in Regan’s earlier entry. I apologize for the length, but it is not the sort of argument that can be made in a few short paragraphs.***

As Regan pointed out, members of both sides of the issue like to explain away passages that disagree with their viewpoint. But there is something to be said in reading the Bible in context and in light of the overarching themes of the rest of the Bible. I also think there are special contextual issues to consider when reading Paul’s writings since he is writing to address specific issues in specific churches (which are addressed in the Excursus). This understating and appreciation of what Paul is doing makes the application for a future audience more refined than simply reading and then doing. With this in mind, let me address Troy’s issues with women and their authoritative role in the church.

From the beginning (Genesis 1-2) man and woman were equal in God’s sight and complimented one another. In fact, the woman is called a “helper” (ezer) – the same word used in the Psalms to describe divine help. One would have a difficult time casting God as a subordinate. Thus, this word helper is by no means a term of denigration but a complimentary role with the expectation that the man and woman are working side by side without subordination.

But only a chapter later we find that things have changed – there is enmity between man and woman. This animosity is a result of sin in the world but is not the desired relationship that God had in mind. The effects of the fall have impacted cultural perceptions and expectations between men and women negatively ever since. From the treatment of women as second class citizens, to a view of women as property, to a denial of certain rights to women, varying cultures have diminished value of women ever since.

We see this same mentality among the Israelites/Jews as well as in the Hellenistic/Roman culture – both of which impact Jesus’ words and Paul’s writings. It seems that part of what Jesus was attempting to accomplish by instituting the Kingdom of God was reversing the perception of women and returning it God’s original intention as described in Genesis 1-2. In Luke 4, the writer describes a scene in which Jesus quotes Isaiah to show his goals for his earthly time – to free the oppressed. For the rest of the gospel of Luke the writer intentionally shows Jesus restoring and utilizing women in an effort to fulfill these words. Throughout the gospels Jesus is interacting and encouraging women to live out their faiths – and not just behind the scenes. Jesus gave worth and purpose to all people, especially the oppressed and those who were relegated to second class status. Women would clearly fall into this category. Thus in Jesus’ mind, women and men have equal status, roles, and participation in the Kingdom.

On the other hand, though Paul agrees in principal with Jesus, when it comes to practice he seems to back off and defer to cultural norms. Both Regan and Troy mentioned 1 Corinthians 12 which states that we are one body with many members and each performs different functions. There is no delineation between men and women (i.e. assigning the teaching/leading duties to men while relegating women to other duties). In addition, Paul restates this same idea in Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Throughout his writings, Paul describes a unity and equality that exists between the spiritually reborn.

In addition, Troy rightly recognized the profound impact that women had both in Paul’s spiritual formation and in his ministry. In fact, the end of Romans is rife with women. The most notable mention is Phoebe who is called a deaconess/servant/minister (diakonos). Granted, this word can mean all of those things in the Greek, but in Paul’s writings when he is speaking of the office of “deacon” he uses this word. When he speaks of servants he uses other words (doulos, oiketes, pais, etc.). So how do we reconcile this mention of a woman in a position of leadership with his “qualifications” as listed in Timothy and Titus? It seems to me that Paul was not providing a comprehensive list of qualifications but a general understanding of what would make a good leader. For example, for the qualifications for elder, what if an elder has a rebellious, unbelieving child? Should the position be withheld from that person? I say no.

This list is used so legalistically that it fails to see the point – leaders should have leadership qualities. Gender is not one. In addition, we see various examples of women in leadership in practice as well as theory. The same book that commands women to be silent (1 Cor. 14:33-35) gives instructions for women praying and prophesying in the public assembly (1 Cor. 11:2-16). This role as prophet or prayer indicates some level of authority and leadership, even over men.

The notion that men have the corner market on wisdom, knowledge and teaching ability is pure arrogance. And relegating women to teaching only children and other women is not only demeaning but fails to see the fulfillment of the Kingdom. Yes, women can be homemakers – but so can men. In the same way men can lead the church, but so can women. Only by working together, making up for one another’s deficiencies, and carrying one another’s burdens do we see the Kingdom come.

********************************************************

Excursus
In the preceding entry I wanted to form a positive argument as much as possible instead of taking a defensive posture. However, I think there are viable responses and better interpretation and application of the main passages in question. What follows is my exegesis of the two passages most often cited to keep women out of positions of leadership. Translations are NRSV.

1 Corinthians 14:32-35
“And the spirits of prophets are subject to the prophets, for God is a God not of disorder but of peace. (As in all the churches of the saints, women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”

This passage comes in the context of instructions for orderly worship. Just as too many people speaking in tongues or prophesying can disrupt the service and cause confusion, apparently the women were doing something that was disrupting the service as well. The disruption revolves around the seating arrangement of the men and women. Apparently, the two genders sat on different sides of the meeting room and at some point when one of the women heard or experienced something she didn’t understand, she would yell over to her husband for an explanation. This sort of action did not lend itself to orderly worship either, so Paul’s words are appropriate – stay quiet; ask husbands questions at home; stop interrupting the service. This sort of advice may seem obvious to us, but seemingly the newfound freedom that the gospel brought to women was resulting in confusion and Paul must set them straight.

I do not think this passage has appropriation in the same way to our modern day services. I think things should still be done in an orderly fashion, but this does not include muzzles for the women. If a man or woman continually engages in outbursts of any sort, it would be appropriate (citing this Scripture and the surrounding context) to ask them to stop because their actions are not aiding in the praise and worship of God.

1 Timothy 2:9-15
“Women should dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing, not with their hair braided, or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes, but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God. Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. 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. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.”

This passage too had an original setting, audience, and culture. It seems that some women were drawing too much attention to themselves by the way they dressed. Bearing in mind the greater freedom that women had as a result of the gospel, there was no doubt need for advice on the way they were to present themselves. Paul urges modesty, decency and propriety, which are all against extravagance. In addition, people from their culture may have associated these styles with the local temple prostitutes. So the advice is straightforward – may your outward appearance represent your inward character. Or, “Don’t look like a prostitute since you aren’t suppose to act like one.”

Paul then moves on from outward appearance to other actions. If we suppose that women, newly emancipated through faith in Christ, had begun to dominate the public service and were in danger of bringing the church into disrepute, Paul’s advice becomes more intelligible. Women must first learn in silence with full submission. If the Corinthian passage is any indication, Paul’s experience with unruly interruptions in public worship by women was not confined to that church.

This section can be illuminated even further by looking at the nuances of the original language that may have been lost in the English translation. The word translated “silence” (hesychia) in 1 Timothy 2:11 and 12, does not mean complete silence or no talking. It is clearly used elsewhere (Acts 22:2; 2 Thes. 3:12) to mean “settled down, undisturbed, not unruly.” A different word (sigao) means “to be silent, to say nothing”. In addition, most translations say that Paul does not permit women to have “authority” over a man. But this misses the problem. The word for authority is authenteo and means “to control in a domineering manner”. The AV translates this word as “usurp authority over”. We might express this idea idiomatically, with a phrase like “to bark orders at.” Thus, Paul is not calling for a silencing of women or a removal of all authority. He is concerned with the proper way for men and women to interact in the context of the church. A level of gentleness and respect is required as well as education if someone desires a position of leadership.

The rest of the passage is difficult to interpret. Paul uses an argument subordinating women which seems to be the exact opposite of the argument he uses in Romans 5. In the Romans passage Adam is represented as the first transgressor; but there is no reference made to Eve, and Adam is regarded as the head of the sinning race. In addition, I have read numerous interpretations of the phrase “will be saved through childbearing” none of which makes sense. I consider this to be a stretched analogy at best, with a fair amount of uncertainty and misunderstanding.

All of this is to say, I don’t think an appropriate application of these verses includes relegating women to lesser positions in the church or hindering them from serving in leadership positions. Interestingly enough, most consider the advice about dress to be cultural and dismiss it or reapply it, but take the advice about women’s roles in the church literally. This selective interpretation seems contrived and based on poor exegesis.

Orignal comments from this point on:

sharon said...
Thank you for your thoughtful, well-stated, researched, and intelligent post. (Can you tell where my sympathies lie?) As an Italian woman, I find it hard to make this argument so succintly and rationally- I tend to get so heated and angry that I can't express myself well. So: Amen brother, keep preaching the Good News.
FEBRUARY 22, 2008 3:34 PM

 Troy said...
Sam,
Very thoughtful writing. I appreciate your insight. I may have too much fundamentalism ingrained in my mind. I'll certainly continue to study this out. I also had a couple of questions. If a disorderly child should not disqualify a man (or woman) from elder/bishop standing, why did Paul go on to explain why it did disqualify them (1 Timothy 3:5)? And if it's acceptable to look the other way in this small area, what about being filled with pride; being a brawler or striker; being given to wine...etc. Who gets to pick what stays and what goes? Also, if we are to be equal because we should be striving for the perfection of the pre-fall, why would Paul (and Peter) re-iterate the hierarchy of the household so many times in their epistles (Ephesians 5:22-24; 1 Corinthians 11:3; Titus 2:4-5; 1 Peter 3:1-2)? Or are these addressing specific issues within these specific churches? And as for the Galatians passage, to me this states that we are all one in the Body of Christ. Not one is more important than another. This doesn't say that we all share the same duties or functions. Notice that he (Paul) worded this very similarly in the 1 Corinthians passage that I touched on in Regan's post. There he plainly states that we don't have the same functions (among members; not necessarily between sexes). Maybe I'm missing the trees and just seeing the forest.
Curious of your thoughts on these areas.
FEBRUARY 22, 2008 10:35 PM

 Sam said...
Sharon - I think this is your inagural post and we here at ChiRhoLive appreciate it. Don't apologize for being passionate about the topic especially from a woman's perspective (as for being Italian, grace covers much :) ). This is one of those topics that do seem to get our blood pressures a little high. As long as we can interact with one another for the purpose of best seeing the Kingdom come rather than proving ourselves right (something I regularly struggle with) then we have accomplished something. This positive interaction is something I especially appreciate about Troy, who can disagree in love. We need more of that.
FEBRUARY 23, 2008 7:53 PM

 Sam said...
Troy - You bring up excellent points.
As for qualifications of leaders, obviously we don’t want some hot head drunk leading the church. But as I mentioned, I think these are general principles based on observation/experience (wisdom) as opposed to clearly delineated “qualifications”. In other words, each candidate should be evaluated individually. Maybe the person is divorced because the spouse had an affair and left him/her. Maybe the person brought the child up in the church and did all s/he could but the child still is apostate. Perhaps the recovering alcoholic (as anyone who as gone through AA will call themselves, even if they are 30 years sober) has controlled the addiction. The point is I don’t think that a candidate should be dismissed out of hand because s/he doesn’t meet the qualifications without examining the reasons behind their circumstances. Again, this reasoning is based on my understanding that Paul offers a general list, not a canon of leadership qualifications.

In regard to the hierarchy of the household, I wonder if this is a cultural argument or a time-tested truth? It is hard for me to say. You cite pretty explicit passages that I have a difficult time reconciling with other notions of mutual submission and service that constantly make their way into the text (Ephesians 5:21 most notable as it prefaces what is to come). All of this is to say, I am not sure what to do with these texts. Even if I accept them for the family structure, does that assume the same structure must find its way into the church? I don’t know.

Finally as it relates to our oneness and unity in the body, I agree that not all are elders, teachers, etc. Each of us performs different functions and roles within the body. But that does not disqualify women from fulfilling these functions. Nowhere in Paul’s discussion on giftedness does he single out men for the “leadership” type gifts/roles. I agree that not every woman should be a leader in the church. Just like every man should not be one. I have heard dynamite women teachers and awful male ones (and vice versa). We are who God empowers us to be, regardless of gender.

I was talking to Regan about this the other day, and what it comes down to the Kingdom being a community that rises above the “-isms” that have plagued our society and churches. It is time to do away with chauvinism, feminism, racism and return to a healthy form of humanism by beginning seeing each other as created equally loved in God’s sight and empowered differently but unified to do the work of the Kingdom.

I appreciate your responses and am open to further dialogue if you desire.
FEBRUARY 23, 2008 7:54 PM

This is part two in a three part series.

Part One - The Fall and Women's Role
Part Three - Living in a Church that Disagrees with me on Women's Role