Clear Teaching on a Touchy Subject

Here is the long version of my “Clear Teaching on a Touchy Subject” paper. This one was tough for me. So much to say... (and I said a lot of it)! Please accept these paragraphs in the spirit in which they are given: an honest attempt to find what God’s word says come what may. There should be a “cliff notes” version that will be available soon (“soon” being a relative term). I apologize profusely about the tardiness of this, but there are many, many factors involved in an undertaking like this, and the sermon series had to take precedence. I may add more questions and answers at a later date if I get more.

Women in the Church: Clear Teaching on a Touchy Subject

Why There Is a Problem

Feminism as a dominant movement in American culture is apparently here to stay. With out distinguishing between the various types of feminism, it is safe to say that feminism has accomplished much in changing our society. Like any movement, some of its effects have been good and some have been bad. From a Christian perspective, feminism has been a friend as well as a foe to biblical teaching. As far as feminism has raised the status and honor of women, has provided a critique of chauvinism, has addressed and contributed to the bettering of specifically female life and health issues (breast cancer awareness and research-funding programs is one significant example), it has done Christians and Christianity a great favor. On the other hand, feminism has been the sizable umbrella under which the abortion industry has flourished, homosexuality has been encouraged, men have been demoted to knuckle-scraping imbeciles, non-Christian spiritualities have been promoted (mother-goddess worship, Native American Indian mysticism, and Wicca to name some of the more notable), and “single income household” has come to mean a single mother trying to make ends meet. Much of the anguish that surrounds the question of the role of women in the church (for better or worse) is a direct result of feminism’s prominent place in our church and society.

Principles

1)It is essential that we allow what the Bible teaches to rule over our behavior and not to allow our behavior to rule over what the Bible teaches.

2)God’s ways often seem mysterious, incomprehensible, or even foolish to His people but it is our limitation, not God’s that makes them so.

3)Headship is a function of how things should work according to God’s sovereign order; it is not a matter of essential quality or even comparative importance.

4)Ability and authorization are two separate things. What we can do (even do well) does not dictate what we should do.

5)Ends and means must not be confused. “God blessed the outcome” should never be an excuse for not doing what God’s word says (or doing what God’s word says not to).

6)In dealing with issues concerning church practices, two principles must be kept in mind simultaneously: those who rule in the church will have to give an account before God for their leadership over the church, and all individuals (including leaders) will have to give an account before God for their own conduct. To make oneself the judge over another’s’ actions and intentions is to put oneself in the place of God. But for elected Elders to judge over actions that will affect the church is leadership simply doing its job.

Questions that Need to be Answered

Most debates within the church have a foundation. Sometimes this is a biblical foundation, sometimes it is a cultural foundation, and sometimes it has more to do with personal feelings and friendships than anything else. When it comes to the role of women in the church, all three play an important part. To unwrap this tangle of influences (at least partially), I want to begin with several questions that typically become a major part of the discussion. They are as follows:

1)Who makes the rules?

2)Is it possible to limit a woman’s role without limiting her value?

3)What does it mean, “there is neither male nor female… in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28)?

4)What does it mean for “women to be silent in church” (1 Corinthians 14:34)?

5)What does Paul mean when he says: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence” (1 Timothy 2:12)?

6)Are these (questions 4 and 5) timeless commands or culturally limited admonitions like head-coverings and holy kisses?

I believe that how someone answers these six questions will also determine how he or she will answer the question of a woman’s role in the church. I also believe that these questions are closely interrelated. Those who feel that personal feelings of justice, the Holy Spirit’s communication to the individual heart, and/or the norms of the larger culture in which we find ourselves play a significant role in determining the meaning of a text will tend to be egalitarian (i.e. women should not be limited in the positions with which they can serve the church); while those who have a distrust of “modern” or “new” interpretations, appreciate tradition within the church, and/or prefer to be as literal as possible in interpreting what a text says will tend to be complimentarian (i.e. some church positions – such as Elder – are restricted by the Bible to men and cannot be filled by women). If a person thinks that it belittles the entire feminine gender to say: “pastors must be men,” it is less likely that that person will say such things. Those who want to be inclusive (egalitarian) will tend to emphasize verses that agree with their position (such as Galatians 3:28) and avoid or dismiss as no longer pertinent verses that disagree with their position and limit women (1 Corinthians 14:34 and 1 Timothy 2:12). Conversely, those who take a traditional view will see a limit of application in Paul’s sweeping declaration of gender equality (Galatians 3:28) and a relatively straightforward application of the rules that Paul gives for church order regarding women (“silence” – 1 Corinthians 14:34) and women in leadership (“no authority over a man” – 1 Timothy 2:12).

My goal in writing this paper is not to convert those already committed to a position (such conversions are unfortunately few and far between because both sides tend to argue in fairly narrow self-validating circles); but rather, I will attempt 1) to help those who do not know yet what all the fuss is about, 2) explain and defend what I believe to be biblical (for those who are wondering about the church’s position on this subject), and 3) use this discussion as a “case study” on how to approach issues where good people end up with drastically different approaches to the same passages of scripture.

How to Handle Difficult Texts

Before talking about what the different texts in scripture have to say about the role of women in the church, it is necessary to first discuss how to deal with a difficult text. Many passages of scripture are clear even to the most uninformed reader. Others are more complex. This complexity can be in the meaning of the words themselves (lexical ambiguity), in the grammar, in the textual evidence (some manuscripts say one thing, some say another), in the cultural distance between ourselves and the original readers, or in the “deafness” that comes from not wanting to listen to what God says when it disagrees with what we want to hear. When we find a passage where many different people say the text means different things (even drastically different things), we can assume that we are dealing with a difficult text. When it comes to the texts that deal specifically with women having (or not having) authority in the church, almost all the verses involved are hotly debated as to their meaning (and are even more so as to their application). In fact, each one of the above factors that create interpretive complexity (lexical, grammatical, textual, etc.) is at play for different “key” texts in the debate. Some of the texts have several issues that cause complexity. 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 has all of them. So it is safe to say that we are going to be dealing with difficult texts in this study.

But, before despairing completely, we should remember that God gave us His word in order for us to understand it and apply it to our lives. As difficult as it occasionally gets, the Bible is qualitatively different than all other things that we read. Theologically, this difference has been described by the following four words: inspiration, illumination, sufficiency, and perspicuity. These words stand for concepts that are important to keep in mind as we look at these texts that have caused so much debate in the church. Inspiration means that God is the ultimate author of scripture. Illumination means that God supernaturally helps the believer who honestly searches scripture to find its meaning and application. Sufficiency means that although we would often like more scripture, or clearer scripture, God has given us enough scripture to settle every issue of faith and practice that He wants us to settle. Perspicuity means that scripture is fundamentally clear and therefore understandable. Therefore, because scripture is what it is, we should hope to find an answer to our question about women in church (not just more questions) if we are honest with the text and are willing to do a little work.

If the first step in understanding a difficult biblical passage is to remember that it is indeed a biblical passage, the second is to carefully consider the passage’s context. This may seem silly to mention because it appears to be so obvious, but I believe that failing to understand the context is one of the greatest mistakes people make when they debate the meaning of critical texts. No text fell out of heaven all by itself. Each book of the Bible was written for people living in specific situations and as a complete unit (except for the books of Psalms and Proverbs that were written in discrete identifiable units). To understand a Bible verse we need to see how it fits into the book where it is found and how it addresses the needs of the community to which it was originally written. Often, a question about a verse disappears when we read the paragraph surrounding it, or consider the people to whom it was written. The old adage says it well: “Proof text without context is pretext.”

The last key step to understanding a difficult passage is to read the verse(s) in light of the scriptures as a whole. God’s word is incredibly diverse: it was written over at least fifteen hundred years by a wide variety of people; but it is also a coherent whole. If you believe that the Bible is the living word of God, you will also believe that what God says in one place He will not contradict in another. Therefore, scripture will always be the best interpreter of scripture. This means that in dealing with a subject like women in the church, it is important not just to find all the pertinent verses that speak about the subject directly, but also to find the ones that speak of it indirectly. Indeed, the whole of scripture presents a pattern in which each piece finds its proper place and the tenor of scripture as a whole should be examined as a backdrop for any passage’s specific interpretation.

Men and Women in the Bible

The biblical picture of male-female relationship is complex and wide ranging. The Bible begins (right after the basic creation story) with the joy and troubles of Adam and Eve, the first couple. It ends with the final consummation of church history at the “marriage supper of the Lamb” where the church is the Bride of Christ. In between, God’s sovereign plan of love and redemption is implemented in the lives of real people: both male and female. In this section I would like to look briefly at the role of women as it is portrayed first in the Old Testament and then in the New Testament.

The Old Testament Picture

In the early Genesis account, men and women are both created in God’s image (Genesis 1:27). They are also considered necessary compliments to one another: without Eve, Adam is “alone” and with out Adam, Eve would not exist (Genesis 2:18). Unlike the creation of all other living things, Adam and Eve are created separately and in a different manner: Adam is formed from the dust; later Eve is formed from Adam’s rib (Genesis 2:19-23). They are also cursed differently after they sin (Genesis 3:16-19). In the Mosaic Law, men and women are usually given the exact same commands for proper living, but they are sometimes given different commands. Several parts of the Law assume a fundamental difference between the sexes and the role they play in society. A vow “sticks” as soon as it is promised for a man, but for a woman the vow must be kept only after it has been validated – including by silence – by the father or husband of the woman (Numbers 30). The “recovery period” for a mother after the birth of a boy is 7 days of “uncleanness” and 33 days of “impurity;” but for a girl it is twice as long (14 and 66 days respectively – Leviticus 12). The laws for retaining and dismissing male and female slaves are different (Exodus 21:2-11). There is a “bitter water” test of unfaithfulness for a woman (Numbers 5), but nothing similar for a man. The Old Testament priesthood is specifically limited to men (Exodus 40:12-15; Leviticus 21). And the monarchy is unquestionably a male-dominated institution (even when Jezebel manipulates King Ahab in order to control the Northern Kingdom – 1 Kings 16-2 Kings 9, or her daughter Athaliah briefly gains sole rulership in the South – 2 Kings 11, the point is firmly made within the story that bad things happen when God’s order is thus overturned).

In contrast to this predominately male leadership structure, many famous (and sometimes infamous) women play a significant role in the Old Testament history. Usually these women were either wives (and/or mothers) of leaders or they were classified as prophetesses. Eve, Sarah, Rebekah, Tamar, Delilah, Naomi, Ruth, Hannah, Abigail, Bathsheba, Jezebel, Athaliah, and Esther, all found most of their biblical significance within their roles as wives and mothers. Indeed, many of the better-known women of the Bible are not even known by name at all, just by the name of their husband (e.g. Noah’s wife, Lot’s wife, Job’s wife, and Potiphar’s wife). In a different manner than followed by most of the well known Old Testament women, Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah were prophetesses that God used to speak for Him in order to change the direction of His people by influencing the male leaders of their day. It is worth noting that both types of women (wives and prophetesses) work alongside the male “hierarchy” of priest and king in a supporting role, sometimes providing critique and sometimes encouragement (even Deborah’s severe criticism of Barak’s unwillingness to go to battle turned out to be for his own good and required his leadership). The unfortunate results of Rebekah conniving to get Jacob blessed, Miriam’s rebellion against Moses’ leadership and her resulting leprosy, Delilah’s treacherous nagging for Samson’s secret to his strength, and Jezebel’s disastrous influence over Ahab to pervert the nation to worship Baal, should go as warnings that a “supporting” role can easily change to one of manipulating or even destroying proper leadership.

The New Testament Picture

The role of women in the New Testament is both richer and more diverse. Paul proclaims male and female as one in Christ (Galatians 3:28) rather than divided groups. Wives are called “heirs together of the grace of life” by Peter, but are also the “weaker vessel” needing to be honored by their husbands (1 Peter 3:7). Men are told to love their wives self-sacrificially like Christ loves the church (Ephesians 5:24-28; Colossians 3:19); but wives are required to “submit” to their husbands “as is fitting in the Lord” (Colossians 3:18; see also Ephesians 5:24; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1; 1 Peter 3:5). Wives and mothers still play an important role in the history of the New Testament (most famously Mary the mother of Jesus, but also Elizabeth – wife of Zacharias and mother of John the Baptist, James and John’s mother, Herodias – King Herod’s wife, Pilot’s wife, Priscilla the wife of Aquila, and Sapphira the wife of Ananias). Prophetesses also continue to play a minor role (Anna who blesses the baby Jesus – Luke 2:36-38, Philip’s four virgin daughters – Acts 21:8, 9, and the ladies of Corinth who were requested to wear a “head covering” when they prophesied – 1 Corinthians 11:5). Unlike the Old Testament, most of the women in the New Testament are not portrayed predominately as wives and mothers with an occasional prophetess, but instead are seen as disciples (Mary Magdalene, Mary and her sister Martha, Lydia, Tabitha, and Phoebe “servant” of the church in Cenchrea are all given places of honor with out mentioning whether they are married or not – and for the most part, they probably aren’t). Paul suggests that it is better to remain single because an unmarried woman can better “care about the things of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 7:34) and is more likely to be “happy” (or “blessed” – 1 Corinthians 7:40 – this is the same word that leads off the beatitudes in Matthew 5).

The critical issue regarding the place of women in the New Testament (for the purposes of this paper) is determining how women relate to the leadership roles in the church. Above, we noted that women are allowed (even encouraged) to prophesy but this does not appear to be an authoritative position in the New Testament (the Prophet Agabus predicted Paul would be bound at Jerusalem, but did not have the leverage to persuade him not to go – Acts 21:10-14). Although many women followed Jesus, and even supported His ministry, the twelve disciples were all men (and the replacement of Judas was chosen from two men). The seven who served the widows tables in Acts 6 (probably the first Deacons) were also all men. The qualifications of Bishops (Elders) is given in purely masculine terms (1 Timothy 3:1-7), right after an admonition for women not to “teach or to have authority over a man.” To say that women played important roles in the New Testament would be an understatement. To say that they held authoritative positions in the church is to go beyond what the text says and even to contradict it in places.

Authority in the Bible

We have one last subject to look at before considering the most important verses that relate to the role that women can play in the leadership of the church. The subject is authority. What does it mean to have authority in the church? What should biblical leadership look like? Our culture reacts to and rejects authority in a way that is foreign to the biblical world (not that they never objected to authority: the zealots are a case in point, but they wanted different authority, not nihilism (no authority) or secular humanism (self-authority)). We tend to be individualistic and egalitarian, the Bible is much more communal and hierarchical. Much of what we find objectionable in the passages that limit a woman’s role in the church is because of this cultural difference. Indeed, many who would overturn these passages do so by first affirming that they do in fact limit women, but then go on to say that this limit only makes sense in a hierarchical, male centered world, and that new times call for new standards.

God’s has created a certain “order” in His world. The laws of nature reflect this order. God’s moral laws reflect this order. Therefore it should not be surprising that God’s word calls for His people to be orderly. In 1 Corinthians 14:40 Paul says that all things should “be done decently and in order” in the Christian worship service. In Colossians 2:4-6 Paul rejoices to see the order of the believers and their steadfastness of faith. A significant part of the Bible’s teaching that limits a woman’s authority is in a context of “disorder” and calls for “silence,” “quietness,” or “submission” as a call to orderliness.

When the New Testament calls its readers to submission, the word that is used communicates the idea of placing one’s self under another person or power. Besides general calls to submission (see below), there are three passages that give us a parallel to the idea of submission that can help us fill out the way submission was understood by the biblical writers. In Hebrews 12:9 submission is roughly equivalent to respect: “Furthermore, we have had human fathers who corrected us, and we paid them respect. Shall we not much more readily be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live?” In 1 Peter 3:6 submission is roughly equivalent to obedience: wives ought to be subject to their husbands “as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord” In 1 Peter 5:5 submission is roughly equivalent to humility: “Yes, all of you be submissive to one another, and be clothed with humility, for ‘God resists the proud, But gives grace to the humble.’” These passages show that submission is primarily an attitude, but also can include the actions that stem from the attitude. There are many times submission is called for in the New Testament. The following list shows how broad and inclusive the New Testament makes the requirement for submission:

The Christian should be subject to political authorities (Romans 13:1, 5; Titus 3:1; 1 Peter 2:13)

Slaves should be subject to their masters (Titus 2:9; 1 Peter 2:18)

Children should be subject to parents (1 Timothy 3:4)

Jesus was subject to Mary and Joseph (Luke 2:51)

Evil Spirits were subject to the Apostles (Luke 10:20)

The spirit of the prophet is subject to the prophet (1 Corinthians 14:32)

Women should be subject to the orderly rules of the church (1 Corinthians 14:34)

Women should be subject to men teaching in church (1 Timothy 2:11)

All things (except God the Father) are subject to Christ (1 Corinthians 15:27; Philippians 3:21; Hebrews 2:8)

“Angels and authorities and powers” are subject to Christ (1 Peter 3:22)

God the Son is subject to God the Father (1 Corinthians 15:28)

The church should be subject to Christ (Ephesians 1:22; Ephesians 5:24)

The believer should be subject to God (James 4:7)

Christians should be subject to one another (Ephesians 5:21; 1 Peter 5:5)

Wives should be subject to their husbands (Ephesians 5:24; Colossians 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1; 1 Peter 3:5)

Sarah was subject to Abraham (1 Peter 3:6)

Young people should be subject to their elders (1 Peter 5:5)

In considering this list, it is noteworthy that submission is not based on relative value (Jesus is subject to His parents, Mary and Joseph), or even relative power (evil spirits are subject to the apostles, young people should be subject to their elders). Instead, the issue at stake is who has a position of greater relative authority (God the Son is subject to the God the Father, slaves are subject to their masters, children are subject to their parents, and believers are subject to political rulers). There is also a “mutuality of subjection” in the church, because believers are supposed to be subject to one another (Ephesians 5:21; 1 Peter 5:5). These passages should be a warning to those who would use any “subjection” text as an excuse for a harsh, domineering attitude towards others (or for those who want to throw out the idea of subjection because they see it as a cause of harsh, domineering attitudes in others).

Authority in the Home

It should be noted at some point that the Bible says far more about the relative role of married couples than it does about men and women in church. I mention this because the role of women in the home has a significant correlation to the role of women in the church. In Ephesians 5:22-29 Paul outlines basic differences between the husband and wife in their relationship to each other:

“Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church.”

For the wife the primary word is “submit.” For the husband it is “love.” This relationship – when pursued properly – should be comparable to the relationship of Christ and His church. It is very possible that the restrictions placed on women in the church are intended (at least in part) to keep the God-given roles of husbands and wives from being upended at church. It is also likely that the tension over submission and authority in the home creates a considerable part of the tension that occurs during “women’s role” discussions at the church.

Women in the Church

Now that the foundation has been laid, we return to the original six questions that need to be answered:

1) Who Makes the Rules?

God!?! The Bible!!? The Pastor and Elders?? Cultural Acceptability? Famous Bible Teachers??? ME?!! For most of us, it is assumed that as Christians we already know the right answer: ultimately, God makes the rules. The “big problem,” however, with most of our “big problems” in the church is first figuring out exactly what God wants His rules to be – especially when scripture seems unclear, scholars disagree, the culture is suspect, and our own heart has a bad track record of substituting our own desires for God’s desires. It is because of this complexity (along with the related ease of deception and compromise) that makes spiritual leadership in the church so important (and so often attacked by Satan).

When Paul takes leave of the Elders at Ephesus, probably for the last time, he warns them to “take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood” (Acts 20:28). Later, Paul warns Timothy (who is pastoring at Ephesus) that “in the last days perilous times will come,” and after describing the coming peril he commands Timothy, “But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of” and to “Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching” because, “the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.” Paul then goes on to instruct Timothy in his leadership role: “But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry” (2 Timothy 3:1, 14, 4:2-5). Paul places the spiritual welfare of the Ephesian church squarely on Timothy’s shoulders. It is significant that it is within this context that 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 says: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (a verse that is often used for the personal application of scripture but was originally intended to explain the use of scripture by the spiritual leadership of the church).

From the other side of the shepherd/flock divide, the book of Hebrews encourages believers to: “Remember those who rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct…. Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you” (Hebrews 13:7, 17). Even though every believer must live before God in the light of scripture, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and according to the dictates of his or her own conscience, the believer also has a duty to follow the spiritual direction of the spiritual leadership in the local church (or if unable to do so, to find a church where he or she can follow scripturally and in good conscience). This is why it is so important to be sure that the church’s leadership is biblical, godly, and wise (notice that the types of qualifications that are required in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 are mostly character based not ability based) This is also why it is critical that the Elders of a church have the continuing support and affirmation of its members. Because of this New Testament pattern of leaders appointing leaders (and I assume that this was done with the backing and conformation of the congregations involved – something equivalent to our congregational vote), I believe that it is the spiritual leadership’s job (specifically the Elders, but with input from other leaders and the congregation) to determine which positions are open to women and which are not.

2) Is It Possible to Limit a Woman’s Role Without Limiting Her Value?

In a word: “Yes.” To suggest that, “higher on the authority grid is automatically better, lower is automatically worse” is simply unbiblical. It flies in the face of reason (to equate authority with worth is to confuse function with form, a category mistake), experience (who has not seen a subordinate who was both better educated and more skilled than their supervisor?), and theology (God the Son is subordinate to God the Father, yet fully equal in essence, glory, and power).

3) What does it mean when Paul writes “there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28)?

To understand what Galatians 3:28 means, you must know why Paul is writing to the Galatians to begin with and what he is specifically arguing in the preceding paragraphs. Galatians is written because the church at Galatia was trying to go back to observing the Jewish law in order to please God (Galatians 1:6; 2:16; 3:13, 14; 5:1-3). The theme of Galatians 3 is introduced in Galatians 2:20 where Paul uses our participation in the sacrifice of Christ to demonstrate that our original salvation in Christ was apart from the law: “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.”

In Galatians 3:8, 9 Abraham is used as an example of faith in whom God promises to bless the Gentiles (as Gentiles): “And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, ‘In you all the nations shall be blessed.’ So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.”

Galatians 3:26-28 is the climax of this section (of Galatians) where salvation is found in Christ alone, by faith alone: “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Galatians 3:28, in context, teaches that salvation is not race dependent, social status dependent, or gender dependent – just Christ dependent. It does not say anything about the function of these groups once they have been placed into Christ in the church. That there is still some distinction maintained even after faith can be seen in the circumcision of Timothy and the non-circumcision of Titus. Timothy (who had a Jewish mother but a Greek father – Acts 16:3) was still Jewish and expected to act Jewish and be circumcised “because of the Jews” but Titus (who was all Greek – Galatians 2:3) was not required to follow Jewish custom.

4) What does it mean for “women to be silent in church” (1 Corinthians 14:34)?

1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 says: “Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.”

First, we know that this does not mean: “Women should never say any words whatsoever in church” because Paul writes in the same letter “every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved” (1 Corinthians 11:5), assuming that, with suitable covering, prayer and prophesy are proper and allowable for women in the church.

The main issue Paul is concerned with in the context of 1 Corinthians 14 is good order and proper submission to authority, not silence (which is also true in chapter 11). This concern is highlighted in the text before (“For God is not the author of confusion but of peace” 1 Corinthians 14:33) and after (“Let all things be done decently and in order” 1 Corinthians 14:40) our passage. Probably what is specifically forbidden by Paul in these verses (considering its context) is women publicly questioning and criticizing men who are teaching or prophesying.

Because many people see this passage to be teaching something that is only meant for the first century Corinthians, it is worth noting that Paul “universalizes” his command in 14:33 when he says, “For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.” And again in 14:36 when he asks: “Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached?”

5) What does Paul mean when he says: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence” (1 Timothy 2:12)?

Like 1 Corinthians 14, the main issue in context is good order and submission to authority, not silence. The paragraph as a whole states: “I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence (1 Timothy 2:8-10). The context is dealing with proper conduct in the church worship service (before) and proper leadership roles (after). The verbal construction “to teach or to have authority” is a unit, not separate ideas, and could be translated “I do not allow a woman to teach with authority over a man.” Paul uses a command for “silence” in order to maintain proper roles in worship and teaching and to limit women from taking the position of an Elder. 1 Timothy 2:8-15 is a contrasting introduction to the qualifications of the “Overseer” (Elder/Pastor/Bishop) who has to be able to teach and rule well (1 Timothy 3:2, 5). Also like 1 Corinthians 14, Paul “universalizes” his command, this time by illustrating from Genesis 2 and 3: “For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression” (1 Timothy 2:13, 14).

Unlike 1 Corinthians 14 (where the word for silence means “no sound”), the word used here for silence is “quietness,” like the “gentle quiet spirit” in 1 Peter 3:3, 4: “Do not let your adornment be merely outward – arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel – rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God.” An indication that the primary concern is for women to have the right attitude of the heart (which can be far more difficult to control than the volume of the mouth).

6) Are these (4 and 5) timeless commands or culturally limited admonitions like head-coverings and holy kisses?

Every culturally limited admonition has a timeless command behind it. Head-coverings (1 Corinthians 11:4-16) showed the principles of a distinction between the sexes and the authority of man (or husbands) over woman (or wives). The command to greet one another with a holy kiss (Romans 16:16; 1 Corinthians 16:20; 2 Corinthians 13:12; 1 Thessalonians 5:26) was given because Christians ought to greet one another affectionately, in order to show their love and acceptance (and we still should today – even if not with a “holy kiss”). But what is the timeless principle that caused Paul to command the Corinthian and Ephesian women to limit themselves, submit, and (at times) be quiet? There are three standard options that are suggested for the universal principle that stands behind Paul’s commands for women to be silent:

Option 1

God wants us to live by our culture’s standards and when the standards change we should change along with them so that the gospel is not an offense to the world (an egalitarian option).

Although cultural relevancy is an important factor in communicating the gospel, there is a point at which the gospel will remain foolishness to the world (1 Corinthians 2:14); and to go past this point is to undermine the very truth that needs to be proclaimed: we need to be saved from a crooked and perverse generation (Philippians 2:15; Acts 2:40). Once we “adjust” the roles of male and female to complete equality of function we also loose our footing in other gender issues which (for many churches) has culminated in the acceptance of homosexuality as a legitimate “God-given” lifestyle alternative. The Bible gives us a different rule: “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God” (Romans 12:2).

Option 2

God does not want the ignorant or the rebellious teaching or ruling in the church (this is also an egalitarian option).

Many evangelical scholars, who wish to remove the burden of male-only leadership from the church, without contradicting the Bible (or simply caving to the modern culture), have strongly emphasized the differences between the role of women in the first century and the twenty-first century. It is said that women in the New Testament days were generally uneducated, were often eager receptors of heretical teaching, and could have been former spiritual leaders in the pagan cults (especially in the cities of Corinth and Ephesus where Paul prohibits female leadership). If this was the case, it is suggested that Paul had every right to categorically demand their “silence” in the church. Of course, today’s women are more highly educated, more spiritually stable, and thus should be equal partners in the ministry of the gospel. Aside from the very real concern that the “female problems” of Corinth or Ephesus have been magnified out of proportion to fit the agenda of modern scholarship, for me, the real question is: would Paul use “ignorant or rebellious” as a category in which he could (rather high-handedly) lump all women (and no men!) in at least two of the New Testament church congregations? Personally, I doubt it. As a general rule (unlike the popular impression), Paul had far too high an opinion of the abilities of Christian women (consider Paul’s greetings to and encouragement of women in Romans 16 for an example).

Option 3

God has specific roles in mind for men and women in their relationships with one another, which are different by design (a complimentarian option).

There are several reasons for preferring this option as the principle behind what Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 14:34 and 1 Timothy 2:12 about women. First, this is the historic position of the church. Most people in most times have assumed that men and women were created by God for different specific purposes: one of the differences being leadership roles in the church. That suddenly, in just the last hundred years, people have discovered the egalitarian truth should serve as a warning to us (C. S. Lewis calls this modern phenomena “chronological snobbery” – or, we might call it the “everyone is wrong but my generation” syndrome). Second, none of the other options holds up very well to close scrutiny. When scholarship passes from one reason to the next (to the next, to the next…) for affirming the exact same conclusion, one suspects that it is the conclusion not the reasons for it that are driving the scholarship. Third (and I believe most conclusively), when Paul gives biblical support for his command in 1 Timothy, he goes to the creation and fall to justify himself: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For (emphasis mine: the Greek word gar is “used to express cause, clarification, or inference” – BAGD) Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression (1 Timothy 2:12-14). That creation and fall are both included is significant, since some suggest that male hierarchy was a result of the fall; but now there should be no difference between the sexes because the fall was reversed (at least for Christians) when we became “new creatures” in Christ (although no explanation has been forwarded yet explaining why “new creatures” still have to weed their gardens or experience pain in childbirth – other aspects of the fall). In the Genesis 1 creation account “God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them,” a wonderful statement of the co-image-bearing quality of mankind, male and female. But this is not the point Paul especially wants to make. When Paul writes, “Adam was formed first, then Eve” he is alluding to Genesis 2:18-24:

“And the LORD God said, ‘It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.’ Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.

And Adam said:

‘This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh;

She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.’

Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”

It is difficult to explain this passage from an egalitarian perspective. Why did God not show male/female equality decisively by forming Adam and Eve at the same time from the same substance? If they needed to know that they needed each other, God could have created them in opposite corners of the garden of Eden and then they could have joyfully found one another some time later. Instead, God creates Adam, makes him look for a helper by naming the animals, and then creates Eve from his body to complete mankind. The pattern Paul gives is: God creates Adam first – then Eve, Eve sinned first – then Adam. I have read a variety of suggested points of contact between 1 Timothy and Genesis 2 and 3 to explain why Paul would use this as a biblical illustration/explanation. Only one is intuitively obvious (i.e. does not require some external factor to have it make sense). It is this: when Satan overturns God’s original intention of leadership, only disaster can result.

Conclusion

1)It must be strongly emphasized that there is nothing demeaning in women being restricted by God as to which duties they can perform within church ministries.

2)Every effort should be made to express, validate, and encourage women in their participation in legitimate ministries within the church and home. These include biblical teaching in the following areas:

Private Instruction (Priscilla and Aquila correcting Apollos – Acts 18)

Teaching Children (Timothy’s Mother Eunice and Grandmother Lois – 2 Timothy 1)

Teaching other Women (Titus 2)

3)The office of Elder/Bishop is limited to men of spiritual stature (1 Timothy 3)

4)Non-authoritative speaking on spiritual subjects in mixed gatherings of the church is acceptable (1 Corinthians 11) but Biblical teaching or debate on Biblical issues is not (1 Corinthians 14, 2 Timothy 2).

5)Every effort should be made to express, validate, and encourage men in their participation in legitimate ministries within the church and home: with a view to raising new leaders that are qualified to fill the roles that are biblically restricted to men – especially since a lack of willing or qualified men leads directly to the frustration of godly gifted women in not being able to take their place instead.

Q & A on Our Touchy Subject

1) Why are we going through this process?

There has always been a variety of positions on just where to draw the line for where a woman can and can’t serve. We are going through this process so that we can come to an “official” agreement on where MCC draws the line between “open” and “male-only” positions so that people who just want to help don’t have different people telling them different things or be afraid to volunteer only to be declined for being female.

2) Where is the line drawn between “can do” and “can’t do” for women?

Biblically, the Eldership is restricted to men (see above); possibly, Deacons are also restricted (in 1 Timothy 3:11 “wives” could be translated “women” and could indicate female deacons, of whom Phoebe might be a member (Romans 16:1 – and I emphasize “could” and “might” as important qualifiers) – but our “Deaconess Board” gives a legitimate place for “Female Servants” to serve). But what exactly is an Elder? An Elder is a man who is appointed to teach and lead biblically and authoritatively over the church body (based on 2 Timothy 2, 3). However, just because churches make new titles for Elder-type positions doesn’t mean those positions can then be filled by women. The positions that the Elders feel are restricted to men are: Elder, Pastor, CE Chair, Sunday School Superintendent, Adult Bible Study Leader (over a group that included men – which would include Adult and High School Sunday School classes), and Youth Group Leader.

3) Could this list change?

Yes, it can. The Elders are tasked with monitoring how different leadership positions in the church change with differing circumstances. An example would be if MCA hired male classroom teachers or enrolled High School students, they would then need to have a male administrator (my opinion: this would require an official Elder decision). Also, new leadership positions could be created that would require decisions on their status. If we started a church newspaper the “Editor-in-Chief” would probably not need to be male, but if we started a Bible College, the President would.

4) What is the cut-off age for women teaching youth? (or: When does a boy become a man?)

Adulthood is a difficult issue in America where we can’t decide whether to treat grade school students like adults, or college students like children. I have heard 13 defended as the age of adulthood (based on the Hebrew Bar Mitzvah) I have also heard of marriage being used as the place to draw the line (based on the “leave and cleave” principle of Genesis 2). For me the issue is: when do parents treat their kids as adults (when do they pass from role of “commander” to “counselor”)? I believe that for most (although not all), this takes place in High School, not after it. Our society gives 18 as the thresh hold of adulthood and most turn 18 in their senior year. Also, many of our programs do not have “strict age segregation”: meaning if someone wants to keep going to Youth Group after they graduate High School, we let them. All these factors combine to make it so that High School targeted programs will usually include “adult” students, and therefore need male leadership for the “Bible-teaching-leader.”

5) What will happen to the “leadership” of our church when there are not enough men willing to serve?

According to our church policy we are supposed to have “up to” four Elders or if attendance goes over 200 regular attenders, one Elder per 50 people. So with 240-ish people in the last picture directory, that makes five Elders for the optimum number. In actual church life, the number of Elders can be smaller, even zero, if there are simply no willing or qualified men (this is also true for the other elected positions like Deaconesses or Trustees that commonly have less than the specified number of people willing to fill the positions). In this case, the Pastor(s) (who are defacto Elders) would have to fulfill the entire Elder role with out lay-Elder help. If the church couldn’t even find a pastor to fill the Elder role, there would be serious problems (no Elders probably only being a minor one). If someone called me to ask about a church in this kind of a situation I would encourage them to regroup, possibly as a ladies Bible study, or disband and join a church that has men willing to lead. I have also heard of small groups that gather for prayer and fellowship and then listen to a “tape” (probably a CD or podcast today) of a well known pastor/speaker – so that could be a pragmatic solution. How would the government work in such a church? I’m not sure. I am guessing that for a group like this, a constitution like MCC’s would be unwieldily and would have to be re-crafted. A dismal prospect, but God’s people could still properly function as a church.