Paul’s Admonition To Women

I suspect that the greatest mistake we make is taking the usual handful of verses (wives submit! Women must be silent! I do not permit a woman to teach!) completely out of context. Indeed, the verse in Ephesians preceding "wives submit" states, "submit to one another." That's context.
A friend of mine wrote a review on what I think would be a very helpful book on this subject: The book is Blue Parakeet, the review is here: http://mondokblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/book-rev....

I think that the preponderance of evidence and the clear admonition of Scripture indicates that men and only men are called to certain positions of leadership and teaching in the church. That is not an indictment of the ability of women to teach, but it is a clear prohibition against women teaching in the church. There is nothing repressive about husbands and wives, men and women being called to different functions in the church.

Arthur, I would only add one small caveat to your statement. "You believe." This is your conclusion, which I respect, but do not hold.

"There is nothing repressive about husbands and wives, men and women being called to different functions in the church."

It is also worthwhile to note that many women who feel that they have been called to ministry would disagree with this statement. Although I am personally not one of them, I think it is important to consider this discussion from those perspectives.

Often in these discussions, as I've seen them lately in any case, the arguments seem to be coming from a predominantly male perspective. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but considering the nature of the conversation, I think it's important that the voices of those particularly affected are sought and heard.

Agreed, broken.

I often wonder if the men who so adamantly oppose women in ministry have ever sat down and had a heart to heart talk with women who sensed God's call upon their lives to pastoral ministry. I am reminded of Peter in Acts 10 and of course Acts 15 when he could not imagine going to the home of Gentiles. SURELY God is not calling THEM, right? It was not scripture that changed Peter's mind but his experience in their midst. When he say the Holy Spirit in their lives he exclaimed, "WHO AM I to withhold water for baptism?" Peter got out of God's way.

Another fascinating thing about this issue is how the same men who will not ordain women on "scriptural" grounds will allow women to speak in church. They are allowed to pray, teach Sunday school, lead worship, even be missionaries in foreign countries. They are also allowed to wear their hair as they see fit as well as wear jewelry. All of this is clearly prohibited by the scriptures they claim to be following when they won't ordain women. Funny how easy it is to pick and choose which commands will be taken literally: Forbid them to speak in church? Well, we can let them at least do that otherwise WE (men) will have to handle VBS and that would just suck. Have authority over a man? Heck no!

A lot of people "feel" lots of stuff. That doesn't negate the Scriptural commands. The perspective we need to approach this question from is not a male perspective or a repressed women perspective but a Scriptural perspective.

I wasn't actually saying anything about the Scriptural command, so much as your comment that it's not repressive. To women who believe that they are called to ministry, it is repressive.

Also, Scriptural commands should be considered in light of the fact that we have many women who feel that calling, not ignoring it because it inconveniences one side of the argument.

BTD,

So if we don't like something, we should ignore it? A lot of people feel that homosexual sex is OK, so should we give our blessing to that? That is an extreme example but you should see where that reasoning leads...

Arthur,
And a lot of people say we should go back to the "good 'ol days" when we kept slaves, just like they did in the Bible.

It is lazy reading of the scriptures that leads one to draw one to one correlations between biblical times and our times today. There is a greater truth that these admonitions point to, one that we miss entirely if we adopt a literal, moralistic way of reading these texts.

Chad, a "lot" of people say we should go back to the good old days when we kept slaves. Can you name me some of these hordes of people advocating a return to slavery? A lot of people? Really?

It is a lazy reading of the Scriptures that approaches them like Bluto at a buffet line, picking and choosing, taking a nibble and putting it back until you are left with only the parts that you care for.

Arthur, I'm not sure where you live but down here in the south you don't have to look hard to find such people.

The point, whether there is a "lot" or just one, is that the Bible has been used to justify all sorts of evils in our past. This is no different. Just as there are good reasons to reject slavery there are good reasons to reject the culturally conditioned slavery there are good reasons to reject the culturally conditioned regulations related to women in the church.

Wait a second, you go from lots to one. The point is that you made a blanket statement to support your point and in doing so made a linkage between people who support the Biblical prohibition against women in leadership and white supremicists.

The big difference and why your analogy is silly is that the Bible never advocates slavery. It makes mention of it, it speaks of how slaves should live as Christians but never condones slavery. On the other hand, it does restrict the calling of women as teachers and elders.

No Arthur, I said it doesn't matter whether it is a "lot" or just "one."

Are you denying that people did not use the Bible to justify slavery?

There is a definite link here and it lies in the ways we read scripture and use it to promote unjust and oppressive ends.

The Bible also depicts polygamy as a perfectly valid way of life in the OT. And yet, by the 1st century we see Jesus altering all of this. Did God get it wrong in the OT? Or does God work within our cultures, realizing our limitations even while *leading* us into Truth by God's Spirit?

It is impossible to read Scripture without noting the obvious progression history is taking and the way in which God reveals God's self evolves and deepens over time. This is ever present in Jesus' own words of, "You have heard it said....but I tell you..."

I am woman who experienced a call to Ministry very early in my teens. I was also raised in a denomination that does not allow women in public ministry. The wounds inflicted by this topic have left many deep and lasting scars. Given that certain perspectives on this issue restrict or nullify the voice of women, I believe it is necessary to have male advocates and paladins involved in the conversation. They might be heard when I am not. It is a precious thing anytime someone is willing to take up a cause and the abuse that will inevitably follow, when there is no direct impact or benefit for them personally. Thank you for your commitment to this conversation. It is a difficult thing to feel that you need permission in order to fulfill God's call on your life. Dialogs like this one give me great hope.

TaraLin, may the all encompassing and non-discriminating love and grace of God haunt you wherever you go.

Grace and peace,

Paul didnt say women could not engage in ministry (although i do believe a womans ministry should be raising her children to folow christ).and if the "submit to one another" argument was valid wouldnt paul have also said "husbands submit to your wives"? people need to stop trying to cherypick what scriptures they follow by weaseling around clearly stated laws.

Rose, I'm assuming, when you say, "cherry picking", you are referring to the post. And to that I would say I am not. I am trying to find the whole picture here by wrestling with the text. I am asking questions because I see this issue creating a significant oppression for women.

I respect your right to voice your opinion, but please get it right.

Rose, have you ever spoken in church? Ever learn something from someone else in church besides your husband and only then when you were alone in the confines of your home?

If so, than you are every bit in violation of Paul's instructions for women and guilty of "cherry picking."

Paul had some very good reasons for making the rules he did. They are just not applicable today.

"Paul had some very good reasons for making the rules he did. They are just not applicable today"

What "rules" do apply today? Any of them?

Arthur,
Sure. But like everything else we have to discern why what was written was written so we can be sure we are remaining faithful to the "spirit of the law" and not just the "letter." As you know, the "letter" kills, the Spirit gives life.
You probably do not greet everyone at church with a "holy kiss," correct? Why? Is it because you don't care about what the Bible says or is it something deeper? Same is true here.

Do you know why Paul told women to dress a certain way and to refrain from jewelry?

peace.
Chad

Chad,

I do of course know that Paul commanded women to do certain things and we seek to follow that command as faithfully as we can. My wife covers her head when in prayer per 1 Cor 11. She does not adorn herself. She dresses modestly. She does not teach men, but instead raises and teaches our children in the home.

Your arguments boils down to ignoring what is inconvenient and that IS cherrypicking. To point out that we are not as faithful as we should be to the commands of Scripture does not mean that we should ignore all of the commands of Scripture. Failing in one area is hardly a mandate to discard all of the commands. You are making a dangerous argument that sees the Scriptures as a buffet line, where you may pick and choose what appeals to you and disregard the rest.

Jonathan, is "love" the only rule that still applies? Are we not to evangelize? That is a rule. Are we not to gather? That is a rule. Are we not to observe the Supper? That is a rule. Are we not to preach the Word? That is a rule.

Arthur,
I only have a minute but will respond more later -

First, i have to say I at least admire your consistency as it pertains to following "rules."
Second, I find it completely unnecessary that you and your wife live as you do.

My argument, I assure you, has absolutely nothing to do with convenience. It does, however, have everything to do with a desire to be true and faithful to the spirit of the letter - every jot and tittle.

so again I ask: Why do you think Paul made those rules? Do you know the reasons?

I'll be happy to share more later

Arthur,
Sorry my last comment was so short - was running off to the pool with wife and kids. I have a few moments before youth group meets tonight and so I thought I'd help move the conversation along if you are still interested.

I asked if you know why Paul might have given the admonitions and "rules" he did. There are some very good reasons I believe he did this. Reasons which when understood can help us see what the text means for us today in a more deeper, robust way than just the surface-level meaning (or, what is the "spirit" behind the letter).

Something that is revolutionary about these texts is the fact that women are assumed to be part of the assembly let alone that they are mentioned. You have to remember that the first Christians for the most part were converted Jews. They knew how to "do church" because they had been doing it for centuries. Women, in their system, were not allowed into the inner courts of the Temple. They had to stay outside with the Gentiles. The men were the only ones who really got to worship. The taboo of men speaking to women who were not their wife was strong, as the story of Jesus and the woman at the well demonstrates. And so, the fact that now men and women are in the same worship service is extraordinary and shows that Paul is quite liberal in his day (it is said that his line, "there is now no male or female in Christ Jesus" is the first time in human history such an equal statement about women and men was made).

There are bound to be growing pains though. Women have never been in worship services like this. Historical records have shown that they sat in the same room, women on one side men on the other. Sometimes there was a veil separating the two groups. It was not uncommon for women to speak up and ask questions. And why shouldn't they? They do not have a clue what is going or what all this means and they are curious - naturally. But what do we know of Paul? He is a stickler for church order. He doesn't want worship services to be chaotic. One can imagine Paul responding to specific charges and questions by the congregation, like, "What should we do? The women keep asking questions in the middle of our worship service, distracting everyone." Paul's advice is simple: Don't speak in church but wait till you get home and ask your husband. Obviously Paul does not mean women must never speak in church because he acknowledges that women are praying and speaking in tongues and singing hymns elsewhere in his letters and does not forbid this, only that it be done decently and in order so as to not showcase to the rest of the watching world a circus.

Speaking of the rest of the world, these churches were in the center of pagan cities and Rome's mystery religions. Many of them were run by women or prophetesses who doubled as prostitutes. They wore gaudy jewelry, clothing and showcased their hair. Women in Rome were used as Temple priestesses and had special ceremonial rights which linked them and others to the gods and goddesses. Paul is quite naturally concerned that this new, infant, minority church will be quickly dismissed as another mystery religion if women are seen dressing and leading worship not unlike the pagan temples right outside their doors. They were already been seen as a bit odd in that they had "love feasts" and they "ate the blood and body of a man," thus giving them the reputation of orgies and cannibalism. They were also suspected of incest in that they called each other "brother and sister" and greeted each other with a "holy kiss." The reputation of Christians was bad enough as it was and Paul, who ALWAYS had the good of the church of Jesus Christ at the center of his thinking, made a practical, pastoral decision for how women should dress and operate in the church in the midst of this culture.

Now, what does this mean for us today? Plenty. We learn that church order matters. We learn that it is right to take note of how the world perceives us and adapt where necessary. We learn that ethics is contextual rather than universal in many instances. We learn that the church is fluid and adaptable to various situations and therefore so should we.

Gotta run. Look forward to your thoughts.
peace.

I think it is hazardous to try to enforce "reasons" why Paul wrote what he did because it makes it far too easy to explain away the text. His "reasons" are subsumed by the overarching principles. Women are to cover their heads in prayer not as a capitulation to the culture. Paul makes no mention of that in 1 Cor 11. He does appeal to the creation order. In your litany of Paul's reasons as you presume them, there is no appeal to what the text actually says. It is all conjecture and speculation.

Ultimately, it is not possible to support the idea of women as elders or teachers of men by appealing to the text. Quite the opposite, it requires explaining away vast swaths of the text in order to make your point.

I am curious about this comment:

"Second, I find it completely unnecessary that you and your wife live as you do."

How exactly do you think we live that is so unnecessary? I think you are making some unwarranted and unsubstantiated assumptions about our life.

Your interpretation of the life of the Christian is that if we fail in some places, we might as well toss the whole thing instead of prayerfully seeking great faithfulness.

The "reasons" are always (and should be) subsumed by the overarching principles - and Paul tells us what that principle is (along with Jesus) - love. Whatever Paul is doing or saying is done in love and it is for the good of the church.
And Paul does nod to the culture. He grounds his "rule" about women covering their head in nature, not theology (see 11:14). He is appealing to what is "normal" and "natural" in his day.

"vast swaths" of the text? Come on. We are talking about 2, maybe 3 at most, verses that speak to the issue. And each of them are given for a specific time and purpose and addressing particular issues in the church in Paul's day. I have given plenty of reasons why those rules make good sense. Are you just dismissing them all outright? On what grounds?

Let me ask you this: If you dismiss the reasons I have given for Paul to make a very wise pastoral ruling in these instances, what are the reasons for women to be subordinated to men within the church?

Is it a sin to be a woman? Are women saved every bit as much as men? Are women created in the image and likeness of God? Are they gifted by the Holy Spirit as the Spirit sees fit?

Please note Gen. 1:28ff. God gave "them" dominion, both male and female. It is not until sin entered the world in chapter 3 that we find male dominance and patriarchy becoming "natural." I would argue that the larger story that you are missing is that because of Jesus Christ the sin of Adam is no more. There is a great reversal going on of which Jesus was the first fruits. It takes time to see all of this unfold and the 1st century was getting a good start with it by even allowing women to be part of the worship services and serving in various roles as deaconesses and so forth. Indeed, it is revolutionary that the first sermon ever preached is from a woman (Mary Magdalene proclaims, "I have seen the Lord" to a group of men). Who sends her to preach? Christ himself.

"Your interpretation of the life of the Christian is that if we fail in some places, we might as well toss the whole thing instead of prayerfully seeking great faithfulness."

I'm not sure where you get this idea from me at all. That couldn't be further from the truth.

peace.

At most two or three? Please. There is nowhere in the Bible that we see a command or example of women to be in leadership over men. This is not a salvation issue and no one is saying that it is. The fact that there is no difference between men and women, greek and Jew, slave or free in salvation has absolutely no bearing on the calling of men exclusively as elders.

None of the reasons you or Jonathan give have anything to do with Scripture except in the most roundabout way. This ultimately comes down to an issue of authority, and unfortunately your authority rests not in the Scriptures but in the prevailing culture. Not sola scripture but sola cultura.

Yes, two or three. That is all that exists dealing with this issue.

And this has nothing to do with culture but everything to do with the sin of exclusion and oppression.

One question for you: Does man's refusal to submit to a woman's authority reflect more the nature of God or the sinfulness within a man's heart?

Oh, and one more: When did patriarchy begin? Before or after the fall?

Absolutely. The rule of love.

I'm gonna start a new thread because the other one is getting thin. ;-P

Arthur, you said, "Jonathan, is "love" the only rule that still applies? Are we not to evangelize? That is a rule. Are we not to gather? That is a rule. Are we not to observe the Supper? That is a rule. Are we not to preach the Word? That is a rule."

Here's the thing. There is the law. And then there is the very essence that creates the law, which was love. It was why Jesus could simplify EVERYTHING and reduce the law to love in his great commandment. He understood that all the law could be summed up in that essence.

So when we look at cultural/practical law, we can actually make it simpler and easier by going to love first. Love simply asks, How is this action validating the dignity of the other? It's why Paul could write:

Romans 13:10 - Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

All of Paul's instructions are as Chad so effectively pointing out, commands made with a purpose to the context. They were addressing what it meant to love the other. But it looks like a rule. And when the rule loses its context or meaningful story it becomes oppressive.

So you are saying that Paul is saying in Romans 13:10 that the law is fulfilled and we have no rules, so party on? Yet Paul is the same guy who wrote all of the imperative commands in his epistles. Seems like a horrible waste of time if he didn't really mean any of them. Look at 1 Cor 11 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and Ephesians 5: 22-23. Paul is not simply stating his opinion but laying out a doctrine in full view of the whole of the Scriptures.

Again, what you call "effectively pointing out" sound lovely but is void of Scripture except the smattering of prooftexts. You boil it all down to love but you seem to mistake love for tolerance, which is not the same thing. Everything we are to do is to be done out of love but that doesn't mean that we say "God is love" and leave it at that because God is also holy, just, righteous.

No, you are saying that. The purpose of clarifying the law as love was to radically change it. It was to address he fundamental problem of consequence. It upheld the idea of "all things are lawful, but not all things are profitable." It took everything OUT of the problem of context and gave us the capacity to address the present with a real world solution.

This is a great discussion and one I'm glad that you have brought up.

I am going to comment on the NT Wright video as well, in that the points he brings up are much needed counter-balance to just lobbing the couple of verses in 1 Timothy and Titus.

It's always seemed to me in my readings that the leadership structure of the very early church was not as monolithic as some readers of these letters make it out to be. To me that says that there is room for us to explore these points and to wonder if maybe there is something else going on.

What comes up regardless is that Christianity gave women much more equality and freedom than anything else of that time, and I wonder how much of Paul's instruction was for the point of staying accessible to the culture around them. Just a thought...

I remember an article on this very subject by the Evangelical Covenant's magazine. One of its pastor's said there are examples in scripture that support women in leadership, and others that don't. And if there's any question, then we need to err on the side that results in the least amount of exclusion.

I have always admired that position, and try to apply where possible. Homosexuality is one area where I just don't see any way to interpret scripture differently (but maybe I haven't been "enlightened"). But women in leadership (and by the way, how did these two issues get lumped together, as I often hear them) IS open to interpretation. To exclude fully half our congregation.... well, I have no more words.

Jennifer,
with regards to the issue of homosexuality, I have wrestled with the same questions over the last few years in seminary. I just recently wrote an ethics paper titled, Homosexuality: God's Gift to the Church, where I deal extensively with the scriptures in question as well as God's ethic of love (and inclusion). If anyone is interested in reading that I am happy to share it. Just let me know.

Jonathan,
Great response about love above. It has always fascinated me that the deeper I dig into scripture and try to see around the corners the more I am confronted with an ethic of deep love. Even the commands that sound harsh and out of touch with reality to us today were rules that given their cultural context were radical and made great provisions for the other.
For instance, there is that statute in Deuteronomy that says if a man rapes a woman he must pay her father a dowry and marry her. To us this sounds barbaric. But in ancient Israel where if a woman was defiled she would never marry and if she were pregnant she was doomed to die because she would never marry and be able to survive (along with her baby), this law that requires marriage ensures she and the baby will be taken care of in a communal, patriarchal society.

Now, just as we would not make this rule a rule for today because it does sound barbaric to us, we must realize that it was an accommodation for the ancient culture of the day.

Jennifer,
I do remember reading sometime back a comment from someone saying that, in regards to homosexuality, they would prefer to err 'on the side of love', than to exclude. I'll admit, I have few answers when it comes to this issue, but responding in anyway that doesn't reflect love seems to go against what I do know about how I should act as a follower of Christ.

Chad,
I'd actually be really interested in reading your paper.

BTD-
Email me at chad.holtz@duke.edu I can send it to you that way.

peace.

Jennifer,

They get lumped together because they both get to the question of the validity and sufficiency of the Scriptures. You are quite right on the one had that homosexuality can be nothing but condemned by Scripture, along with any other sin.

Another reason that the two issues are linked is that time and again, denominations that embrace women in pastoral leadership end up down the road of normalizing homosexuality. It makes sense to do so. Once you abandon the authority of Scripture, you are free to do whatever you want. It is not a perfect correlation between women leaders and homosexual normalization, but the two share a common heritage. I hope you never become so "enlightened" as to embrace homosexuality (or adultery or murder or any other other myriad sins mentioned) as normal and acceptable in God's eyes.