I have recently been involved in a fairly intense study of 1 Timothy 2:8-15, and it has brought me to a place of intellectual and spiritual affirmation that gender is not sufficient to prevent God's call from being issued to anyone. This goes against some conservative, traditional Christian teaching on the issue of women in leadership. I make no apologies for this. It is not my intent to rebel for the sake of rebellion, but rather to honor God above all, including merely human teachings and (in this case), human misunderstandings. This idea desperately needs to be revisited for the sake of our sisters and for the sake of the church herself. Please dialogue with me on this issue.
1Tim. 2:11-15 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But womend will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (Today's New International Version)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
To be sure, this is not an easy text to understand. That we are willing to wrestle with it speaks well of our commitment to honoring scripture by asking deep questions and living it out to the best of our ability. Ultimately, I believe that God is honored by our asking tough questions and that the church benefits from the search. After all, God asks us to love him with all of our heart, soul, strength and mind. Jumping to conclusions too quickly and too carelessly can bring unfortunate results for the church we all love so dearly. This issue is no different, and it requires a careful consideration.
ReplyDeleteThere are several things we need to consider about the nature of scripture before we cut to the chase of interpreting and understanding what 1 Timothy 2:12 intends.. I fully acknowledge the authority of scripture, but I would like briefly to clarify some of what that means, namely, that all of scripture is inspired, that we must not focus on just a few texts at the expense of others and finally, that the text is internally consistent. This last tenet is of great significance for the Timothy passage in question because at first glance, the author of the letter seems to disagree with other passages we find in the New Testament. For example, Galatians 3:28 (NIV) states that, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Furthermore there are examples where women are in speaking and leadership roles within the church, and this is cited by the Apostle Paul as healthy and beneficial:
Romans 16:1-3 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea. 2 I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been a great help to many people, including me. 3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus.
So what are we to make of these texts in comparison to what 1 Timothy says? Rather than concluding that the Bible contradicts itself and hence, forces us to select one set of texts over others, there are two things we must explore: 1) God's nature and intent for humanity, and 2) how he communicates those things.
I believe in God's purposes to reconcile humanity with himself and that he has chosen to carry out and support this program first through Christ, then through the church and finally through scripture. Again, I affirm all of these conclusions and reiterate that they stand together. However, while God's purpose (reconciliation) will not change, the method of communicating that mission is indeed expansive enough to reach out to a variety of human situations so that none of its potency is lost or misdirected. This is the key difference between the passage referenced in 1 Timothy and Paul's egalitarian stance as cited in Galatians 3 and elsewhere.
The underlying cultures involved between the 1 Timothy text and the Galatians and Romans passages are miles apart in relation to their stance on the role of women in public. This is the difference between Roman and Greek culture. In Roman culture, women had almost equal rights with their male counterparts. They could conduct business, be seen and speak in public without any negative undercurrents. However, in the Hellenistic (Greek) provinces, the norm was that respectable women could not even be seen alone in public settings, much less speak to anyone. The only exceptions to this were prostitutes and other loose women, a less than savory categorization to be sure. With regard to Timothy's church, it was squarely located within the Greek culture and hence, any discussion initiated by women, even within the church, would be an affront to the other Greeks who witnessed it. There are varying degrees of offense, but this behavior would be akin to advertising the church in Ephesus as a variation of a whorehouse, all because of something that sounds quite innocent to our modern ears. Furthermore, not only were the women in this church speaking (as bad as it was in that culture), but what they were saying was also destructive to God's redemptive plan for the church. If we look at the entire book of 1 Timothy, we see that false teachers were amongst the church at Ephesus (1 Tim. 1:3-7, 6:20-21), and that these women in this place were a part of this problem (1 Tim. 5:13 & 15).
In light of this information and cultural understanding, the author of the pastoral letter to Timothy had little choice but to instruct that the women there not only be prevented from teaching falsehoods (overthrowing their authorized and qualified pastors), but also that they simply remain silent altogether. The problem is two-fold: talking, and using that speech to usurp authority, but the single response of verse 12 covers them both by mandating these women's silence.
The overarching goals here are that the church is protected from being profaned and that false teachings are prevented from spreading within it, thus hindering God's purposes at reconciling humanity to himself. We can fully abide by the principles of 1 Timothy when we match pace to accomplish these same goals. Whether or not protecting the church and acting as God's ambassadors for reconciliation requires the prohibition of certain actions from various demographics is dependent upon the issues at hand in the cultures where the church faces such problems. To prohibit ALL women from EVER speaking in church in ALL places and at ALL times goes far beyond what is advocated in 1 Timothy. Indeed, depending upon the circumstances, for us to absolutize such rules may very well cause the church to be profaned or lose sight of its redemptive mission. I hope and trust that this is an outcome we all wish to avoid.
This is a coherent understanding of the text we find in 1 Timothy 2:12, and at the very least, it should inspire a deeper exploration of this and other texts related to the leadership potential of our best, brightest and God honoring women. Please do not hesitate to write me on this or other issues. God has spoken, and the rest is our commentary. Thank you so much for allowing me to be a part of your adventure in understanding God's word. May the journey continue.
Sincerely and passionately,
-Corbin Lambeth
"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at hom; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."
ReplyDelete--1 Corinithians 14:34 and 35
We discussed this passage in Sunday School one recent week. It is a contentious passage and often one that is cited for women not teaching in the church period. Our teacher, realizing the can of worms he was opening, took the passage head on. He referred us back to the passage in Acts 21 about Philip the Evangelists daughters who prophesied, and to 1 Corinthians 11:5, which says "and every woman who prays or prophesies withe her head uncovered dishonors her head..." These verses seem to contradict the later passage in 1 Corinthians. However, according to my teacher as I have no knowledge of Greek, the word interpretted as woman in this passage can also be interpretted as wives. Keeping in mind that early church services did not follow the pattern that we have adopted in our present age, his interpretation was that in bringing of songs, prayers, or messages to the gathered believers, a husband might say something that the wife severely disagreed with. In such cases, a woman should remain silent and address her husband about the situation later. This could be his own hypocrisy or an urging of the spirit that had changed his heart during the service prior to his ability to share this with his wife. Seems like a reasonable interpretation to me.
I have recently began to feel the same as you, that perhaps holding to this rule in not so much scripture but dogma, by which I mean a practice of the church that is either tradition or man-made. As you say, there seems to be scripture to support "men only" as leaders, but at the same time there seems to be contradictions. We seem to forget that the letters of Paul were written in response to specific questions and concerns, not general discussions of theology. Except when we want to justify something, in which case we tend to use the cultural climate excuse.
Like it or not, we cannot entirely separate the church from the culture in which it exists. We can draw moral lines, but on the whole I believe God allows us to use culture to reach people. Paul did at Mars Hill, quoting Greek philosophers and teachings, showing where they got things right and how they got things wrong. The church is to be a guiding light, pointing mankind to God, not offering additional barriers. This is what the Pharisees of Jesus' time did, and Jesus had harsh words for them.
Ultimately, this issue, for me, comes down to whether or not the community can accept it. On the whole, I think the culture in our country can, but maybe not in certain areas. Perhaps it is unwise to hold to a dogmatic line of no women leaders, but we aren't required to bring on women as leaders just to teach the community a lesson. That can work to ruffle feathers uneccessarily, I think. I know of some churches that have done this, and they seem arrogantly unrepentant about it.
I would love to see churches be more open to the idea of women pastors, but I must admit some reluctance. I think this is entirely due to conditioning, much like going to public school for six years and having only women as teachers, then when I finally had my first male teacher, I felt extremely uncomfortable. In the end that feeling went away. But I cannot condemn people, as much as I may disagree with them, for holding what they feel is a well-reasoned opinion for not having women leaders. This is in part due to God's desire for reconciliation and peace between people, especially in the church, but also because Jesus himself brought up the idea that ideas that cannot be reconciled may not be important. Matthew 11:13-14syas "For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who has to come." There are many interpretations of what scriptures say, and while I believe that man's truth may not always be identical to God's truth, I believe God gives us some room to maneuver, so long as the things He has spoken on clearly are not ignored. But the more time I spend pursuing God and reading the scriptures, I find there are less commands that I used to think.
Apologies for the rambling nature of this. If I don't write when I first start composing in my head, all the thoughts fight to come out at the same time.
I personally believe that part of the mission of the church is to support the Holy Spirit's work of enabling each person to truly be the person God created him or her to be, to help everyone do the work that "God prepared in advance for us to do" (Eph. 2:10). Ideally (and occasionally in few real life churches that I know of) I see this demonstrated by the leaders of a church really getting to know their parishioners and sincerely answering the question, "How has God gifted this person? How could he or she best serve God and his people in this community?" If a person is gifted as a leader or a preacher or teacher (since those seem to be the focus of this discussion), then ideally the leaders would find the area of church ministry that would benefit the most from that person and his or her gift. It is very damaging to the body when leaders, pastors and teachers are chosen mainly because of their economic or social status or their gender. Thus, I am not in favor of instating someone as an elder just because he has a lot of money or a prestigious position in the community nor am I in favor of hiring a woman as a preacher just to show how progressive our church is. But if a woman is truly gifted with wisdom and leadership abilities or knowledge and communication skills, I would be open to her being a deaconess, elder, pastor or teacher with the following cautions.
ReplyDelete(1) Would having a woman in such a position have a negative impact on the church's witness in the community? Would it make it difficult for the culture to hear and embrace the good news of Christ? As Corbin stated, God's ultimate purpose is reconciling all of humanity to himself. Any action--even if it is not wrong in itself--should be avoided if it keeps people from coming closer to Christ. As Paul says in 1 Cor. 8:9 "Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak." In some cultures (perhaps the city Timothy was in was one of them), women in positions of leadership or authority is a true stumbling block.
(2) I personally believe that God created men with desire to lead (in some capacity or another) that is a legitimate need for men in a way that is not found in women. Thus, I think in the current organization structure of American churches, men should hold a majority of the leadership roles, so as to encourage other men to step up and be the leaders that God has designed them to be.
Finally, any leader in Christ's church--male or female--MUST understand that the leadership Christ calls us to is not tyranny. Some men and women see leadership as an opportunity to put others down, advancing themselves or their own agendas. James has very harsh words for those who seek to be leaders or teachers for the glory of the position:
"Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. ... Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it be his good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. But if you harbor bitter envy or selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. Such "wisdom"...is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil." (James 3:1,13-15)
Christ modelled for us a leadership that is characterized by humility and service. (See John 13.) Men and women whom God has called to be leaders must be Christ-like in their leading.
Jennifer,
ReplyDeleteThanks for typing in. Your "first caution" was exactly the situation that the churches in the western Asia provinces were facing, and I agree with you. Thank you for bringing the 1 Corinthians text to bear upon this issue as well.
Your "Second caution" applies to some of our present religious contexts, but I am hesitant to paint in equally broad strokes. I have known several women with a genuine desire and ability to lead, and I am convinced that they could step-up, encourage and lead people regardless of the audience's respective genders. Is it possible that God has designed women to be leaders too? I think it is.
And just in case you are wondering, I would never advocate the use any leadership appointment merely to demonstrate how "progressive" the bestowing church body is. This is a classic problem for the church: Human management is unavoidable, and what it IS rarely lives up to what it should be. But we'll keep trying and (hopefully) let the Holy Spirit continue to transform us.
Thanks again for typing!
-CL
I agree with everything Steve and Jennifer said. They certainly said it better than I could have. I will just add some things that I have often thought about on this issue.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that it is often accepted in the church today for women to take leadership roles in areas such as teaching Sunday school, organizing events, working with the children, things of that nature. A line is often drawn, however, when it comes to women being ministers or even passing around collection or communion plates. Another interesting thing to me is that it is widely accepted that women can be campus ministers for Christian organizations at universites, but these same women would probably not be permitted to serve as ministers in a traditional church setting.
I don't really understand this and it just makes me wonder if this whole idea has become a human ritualistic thing based on what is presently culturally acceptable. Most people are okay with a woman teaching a Sunday school class but a lot are not comfortable with one being a minister. Scripture is cited to prevent women from holding positions of leadership, but I don't understand why it's only used to prevent them from say, a head position, but they can pretty much lead in any other way within the church. There just seems to be a lot of societal reasoning behind this. I think a lot of it has to do with an individual's upbringing and what they are familiar and comfortable with I guess.
Something else that I've thought about before is if a man and a woman gave the exact same message, that was based on the word of God and the teachings of Jesus, would that message be changed at all because of the sex of the person giving it? I think the answer is that no the message wouldn't be changed, but the way it was perceived and accepted could be for certain individuals. That goes back to what Jennifer was saying about how woman leaders effect our witness. I guess if all a person can focus on while hearing a woman minister is whether or not it's right for her to be doing this, then that kind of limits the effectiveness. It's sad to me though, that a woman would be denied the chance of a leadership positon, an ability given to her by God, only because the culture currently finds it unacceptable. But I also know that a woman or anyone for that matter doesn't need the formal title or position of minister in order to minister to other people.
I like what Steve said about God giving us room to maneuver as long as the things he spoke on clearly aren't ignored. It seems to me that if this issue of whether not women should or shouldn't hold positons of leadership were as important to Jesus as say, showing love to other people, then he probably would have talked about it a lot more.
So anyway these are a few things I've debated in my measly little brain before. Just some stuff to think about I guess.
Great insight, Paul. Thanks for contributing!
ReplyDeleteYou're absolutely right. To say that women can be missionaries, Sunday School teachers, lunch-preparers, or (gasp!) campus ministers but not elders, board members or pastors is wholly inappropriate. This is not only sexist, but suffers from agism and racism as well.
When women's roles are restricted, the church is effectively broadcasting that they are good enough for children, unsightly college students and nationals in 3rd world countries, but not for adults here in the U.S. In middle-class America we have often demanded that men be the ones up front.
As a fellow dude, maybe it's time that we not only realize, but also BROADCAST that we do not have a corner on church leadership. I think women need to hear and know that they are not excluded on the basis of their gender. I feel as though it should be a message that men take up for credibility's sake. Given much of our current culture's vicissitudes, if a woman speaks out on this issue, she'll be labeled & ignored quicker than we might otherwise recognize. Men need to move, shoulder to shoulder with the church's women, and be advocates WITH them on this issue. That is also a part of our job as men.
Thanks again for the response!
-CL
The following commentary is from N. T. Wright and his book, For All God's Worth: True Worship and the Calling of the Church, published by Eerdmans, 1997. It can be found on page 86. He addresses the issue of culture as it is related to the story we find in Luke 10:38-42:
ReplyDeleteLuke 10:38-42 Now as they went on their way, he entered a certain village, where a woman named Martha welcomed him into her home. 39 She had a sister named Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet and listened to what he was saying. 40 But Martha was distracted by her many tasks; so she came to him and asked, “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to do all the work by myself? Tell her then to help me.” 41 But the Lord answered her, “Martha, Martha, you are worried and distracted by many things; 42 there is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part, which will not be taken away from her.”
Here's what NT Wright says:
"In [this passage], we normally regard Mary and Martha as typical of the passive and active personalities, or, in Christian terms, of the life of devotion on the one hand and the life of service on the other. That may well be one level of the story, but it isn't the whole truth. The problem is not simply that Mary is so starry-eyed, listening to Jesus, that she forgets to help with the washing up. The problem is that in that culture, men and women belong in different parts of the building, and Mary has shamelessly gone across the short but steep gulf that separates male and female space.
What's more, she has assumed the posture of a disciple, a learner. She is sitting at Jesus' feet; which is the equivalent, in that culture, to somebody sitting at a desk in a classroom in modern Western life. You sit at the feet of a rabbi, like Saul of Tarsus sitting at the feet of Gamaliel, in order that one day you may be a rabbi yourself.
So Martha's excuse about the washing up looks like a coded way of saying: 'stop this shameless behavior and leave our social world intact.' She is telling Jesus to reproach Mary, but actually she is reproaching Jesus too. And Jesus, there in Bethany, declares that Mary has chosen the better part. Jesus quietly and calmly dismantles a major social taboo and leaves the onlookers open mouthed in amazement. This is the Bethany Jesus; should we be surprised to find that the Lord of the world has the right to turn the world upside down?"
I think that this passage and commentary gives additional credence to the idea that our categorizing and labeling of certain roles (and genders) is often based on faulty human culture and not creation as God originally intended.
Is it possible that we need to have Christ turn our idle notions (of what what genders can and cannot do) upside down? Will we have the humility to recognize it?
Thanks for reading,
-CL