Today’s post at the christian feminism blog is titled Are Women Allowed To Teach Men? The post raises a number of questions:
Does this verse [1 Tim. 2:12] bar women from not only teaching the scripture to men, but from holding ANY teaching position in which they would instruct men? Should christian women be forbidden from becoming college professors at co-ed universities? Or public speakers? Should they be judges, senators, governors, or hold other political offices? Should christian women hire male employees if they run their own businesses? Extreme complementarians would assert that christian men should NEVER put themselves under a woman’s authority in any setting: church, home, business, school, and so forth and that christian women should never aspire to obtain any position in the church, home, and business, political, and educational realms that would make them the “boss,” “expert,” “teacher,” “instructor,” or “leader” over men.
On the other hand, more moderate-complementarians claim this verse only applies to church and home. So, a woman may teach a man math or history in a college class, but cannot teach on scripture in a co-ed adult bible class. She may “share” a testimony or encouraging word, but cannot teach, pontificate, or expound upon the Bible. A woman may have authority over her male students or employees, but never in the church. In the church, she may never hold any position other than backup singer, nursery worker, or jobs ministries made up solely of women and children.
If you are interested in this topic, read other posts in the series on that blog. And feel free to comment here or on at blog.
HT: JK Gayle
This topic is close to my heart right now.
I believe that either women are equals in home and in the church, or they are “subordinate” at home and in the church. If a woman is expected to be subordinate at home, and her husband is happy to be under the leadership of a woman at church, he’s created a difficult situation for his wife, and is probably hurting her.
Right now, I don’t know for sure what is right, but I’m more inclined to believe that God wants men and women to “have dominion” together. Should a man be the top overseer? does that mean he doesn’t have to respond to any human? Does that mean that his word is law? Are his preachings in any way “higher” or “better” than those of a woman? I don’t think so. The one thing I’m struggling with is whether God wanted men to carry the final responsibility.
For private instruction, like one on one discipleship Bible studies, I feel it’s more adequate for a male elder to instruct a younger or less mature man, ( Also in line with the instructions in Titus 2)and a wise, older woman to teach a younger woman. But that’s the way I feel about it.
Should women teach Bible in an academic setting? I don’t see why not. Paul’s instructions seem limited to the Church. Priscilla taught the Word to Apollos, right? Maybe she taught the Word to many others. We don’t know. I don’t see why anyone should have a problem with a woman teaching any other subject.
As for women in other leadership positions, I don’t find any place in the Bible that instructs specifically against that.
Wayne,
I’m glad you hinted at the full spectrum of “complimentarian” positions that anyone or any church can take on interpreting 1 Tim 2:12 in relationship to how life is practically lived out in the home, at church, or in secular life.
Certainly we have biblical examples of women in civil authority. We have examples of women teaching men the truths of scripture. We have women given the resurrection proclamation first before men.
What we do not have are examples of women directing the paths of whole churches or being the representative heads of households when their husbands are alive and present (and have presence of mind).
Just to be provocative, why should we complicate matters any more than that?
” What we do not have are examples of women directing the paths of whole churches or being the representative heads of households when their husbands are alive and present (and have presence of mind).”
That’s what I’ve thought too, Without getting into what “headship” means.
I keep thinking about the description of an elder in Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3. Especially 1 Timothy 3:4-5.
I don’t know if only men qualify as elders from these verses.
What we do not have are examples of women directing the paths of whole churches or being the representative heads of households when their husbands are alive and present (and have presence of mind).
True, Letitia. That’s an argument from silence and it may or may not be significant. We just don’t know for sure. The biblical authors wrote from within male-centered (often patriarchal) cultures. That may or may not be significant. We just don’t know for sure.
“What we do not have are examples of women directing the paths of whole churches or being the representative heads of households when their husbands are alive and present (and have presence of mind). “
What is even more confusing is to try and name the “pastors” and ‘elders’ of the NT churches. There is a big difference between the Apostles (church plants and evangelists) and a ‘pastor’ or elder. We cannot seem to name them…were they that unimportant?
What ‘names’ do we have of men as representative of households? But we do have Lydia. We have Cornelius.
Could it be we spend way too much time on things that are of little importance in the kingdom?
)
What we do not have are examples of women directing the paths of whole churches or being the representative heads of households when their husbands are alive and present (and have presence of mind).
As Peter has helpfully pointed out on the BBB, oikodespotes is used frequently in the gospels for the master of the house, although unnamed. This is the same word used in 1 Tim. 5:14 for women, that they “be the master of the house.” Since it is a verb, it has no female semantic or grammatical content.
Kephale, “head” was understood by Chrysostom to mean that Christ had a perfect union and beginning (first principle) in God. He rejected outright the notion that rule and subjection were part of the meaning.
Chrysostom was patriarchal, but believed that the subjection of women came through the fall, and therefore this relationship of subjection did not apply to Christ in relation to God. That is, Chrysostom believed that the word kephale did not denote “ruler” or “master.”
What this means is that we have no word that pertains to males as leaders that does not also pertain to females. We have women elders, apostles, deacons, prophets, etc. We do not have clear instruction that women were overseers or bishops. We do not have instructions that women may not be these things either.
We have no comment on whether Joanna, Lydia, Chloe, Nympha, Phoebe, etc. were married or not.
And even if women were only “heads of the households” as widows, this does show that women are created with the potential to be heads of households. This is part of God’s design for women.
The only spot of resistance is that some men do not regard it as part of their design to share leadership with women.
BTW “heads of households” is both a Latin and English expression. Greek literature is obsessive about describing how the household should be organized, but the expression head (kephale) of the house, is found only once in Greek literature, written in Rome a century after Paul. It is highly unlikely that Paul was using the word kephale in this way, when he had the word oikodespoteo and used it for women.
I am not saying that Paul was not patriarchal. But I am saying that this cannot be proven from the phrases usually used to do this. I really prefer to think about what Paul is saying in Greek, than what people say that he says in English.
Personally I don’t really know what Paul’s take on women is, but I do know that the usual phrases do not prove what some say they prove.
Lin, a couple good points there,. . .perhaps it is important because it illustrates what should be UNimportant?
This thing that is not very visible may be so to emphasize that it is important to let such things go. A riddle? Or, is it that standard detective fiction device of what is not there, being the clue to the culprit?
I generally trust the translations of scripture such as has been produced over the past few centuries. However, I keep in mind my old English professor. He used to absolutely harp on how you can know the meaning of a word and not know the meaning of a word. That language is sometimes a bit chameleon.
An example. I have a lovely dictionary (from my former mother-in-law) printed in the 1920’s. There are lots of modern words in it. But they have different meaning. We all “know” what computer means. . . however, in this dictionary, if you look up “computer” it will quite definatively tell you it is someone engaged in the activity of applying mathematical calculations to numbers. . . it is a profession, not a machine.
I often look up the meaning of simple words (you know, those ones I already “know” what they mean) in an Indo-European root dictionary. It gives me clues toward intention (greek and latin are Indo-European along with, my goodness, how many hundred others?–Sorry, I’m not a linguist). It often provides illumination.
For example, did you know that the only root for “servant” that I could find was latin? And, that it is the same root of seargent and deserve. Curious. Here we are, called first to be servants. And we argue about whether hierachy should exist. Well, it seems by family relation through the root, both hierarchy and reward are somehow related to servants.
Christ spoke of servants having different levels of authority in his parables. That authority/respnsibilty was based on trustworthy service. However, a servant is a servant, regardless of their jobs, . . . really, a slave is a slave, right?
Could it be, that there is a hierarchy in our service of God? But, that the same hierarchy is utterly UNimportant in the larger scope? So, why do we argue about it? Well, it seems we need reminded how utterly UNimportant it should be.
As a side note, the subtle undercurrent in feminist based positions, while rightly including the equality of women, also seems to err in the notion that women “deserve” certain things. I would point you back to that common root. How can anyone “deserve” something unless it is tied to SERVICE? As a woman in the church, I AM equal; it is an unarguable fact. However, as a woman in the church, I deserve to have a position ONLY if I am found to have faithfully served. . . the same should be true of men.
What we do not have are examples of women directing the paths of whole churches or being the representative heads of households when their husbands are alive and present (and have presence of mind).
Hold on, what we also do not have in the NT is examples of MEN doing any of these things when there is any record of them having wives alive and present. I don’t think there is any NT example of a leader even known to be married, except for the implication from Peter having a mother-in-law, but no sign of a living wife, at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. And yes, Philip had daughters (Acts 21:9) but no mention of a living wife.
I am by no means trying to argue here for celibacy of Christian leaders, just for not arguing from silence!
I am living in the parish where this is what’s preached http://www.stalkmunds.stixworx.com/mp3/roleofwomen.mp3. It’s killing me because I feel so called into ordained ministry. Could you recommend someone who would be willing to post this up on their site so that it can be commented upon and critiqued. I want to understand further the other ways in which this passage can be read. After all it has to have been interpreted differently for the Church of England to have decided to ordain women in 1994. For example, I do not understand how the vicar can say that biblical submission is to put yourself under someone’s authority – I thought it had more to do with putting their needs ahead of your own. The vicar talks of Christ and beauty of his submission but surely that was in scarificing himself for us – atoning for us, dying for us – there’s the beauty!
If you want to post it on your site so that people can respond to it that would be great or if you could recommend someone else who would be able to offer an alternative reading that would be great.
Thanks so much.
hrht,
You have said that you feel called to “ordained ministry.” My only thought is: do you feel called to ministry and “ordained” seems to define your understanding of how that call may be fulfilled? Or, is “ordained” an integral part of the calling itself? I see the difference as a critical one.
Letitia,
Where in the NT do we have examples of husbands being representative heads of their households?
In Timothy and Titus we have “supervisors” (επισκοποσ – bishop) and “elders” (πρεσβθτεροσ – presbyters or seniors) who have only one wife and whose children are under control. Only in Timothy does the bishop “preside” over his household, but this precedes having his children under control. The point being that he can’t take care of the house of God if he can’t take care of his own household.
“Presbuteros” is also used of women (elder women) in I Timothy 5.
I think the requirement of elders is that they be older rather than younger, at least in the faith (I’m assuming).
(If “supervisors” are limited to men, perhaps we’d better have men running women’s and children’s ministries, rather than women
)
Wayne, Peter, Suzanne, Bonnie, anyone else…-
The argument from silence–lack of NT examples would only be a true argument from silence if we were to expect otherwise, which we really don’t have a reason to. We don’t have prooftext arguments for or against women in elderships/pastorates in church nor for women being the heads of their households in a representative sense when a husband is present.
It is not unreasonable to assume that the disciples and Apostles for the most part had wives and families of their own even if the NT doesn’t mention any explicitly. As Peter said, I don’t think there is any NT example of a leader even known to be married–*this* is an argument from silence.
As much as I appreciate all the possibilities of the word “head” (kephale) and contrasting authority with servanthood, it seems to me the argument is riding a false dichotomy (for both complementarian and egalitarian). I can’t help this nagging feeling that important distinctions are being ignored. Perhaps I’ll throw that up as a post for further discussion.
In Christ, not only do we see divine poetic justice, we see divine irony of position. The Master is the Servant! Yet, for all our waving around of Eph. 5:25-33 and 1 Cor. 5, many still argue whether or not men should be “masters” OR servants of their households when these scriptures clearly proscribes concurrent modes of obligation. I say “obligation” to get away from the notion that servanthood is somehow an underclass status while “head” is some priviledged boss, the both being mutually exclusive. In Christ, the two are conjoined as a model for husbandly attitudes. So it is not unseeming to take a both/and point of view of kephale, at least in my estimation.
Letitia, . . .I like the “both/and” suggestion.
Letitia, thanks for your response. I am not making arguments from silence, at least that I know of. My concern is with making assumptions when the evidence is weak, tweaking the language to mean something culturally assumed rather than spiritually apprehended. You said that we do not have “examples of women…being the representative heads of households when their husbands are alive and present (and have presence of mind).” Yet we do not have NT examples of men being representative heads of households either, as Peter pointed out. This is making assumptions from the biblical language.
Paul was speaking to a historical, cultural reality as well as to an eternal one. He seems to me to have been saying, “whatever social position you are in, there is no spiritual rank. Whether one is master or slave, husband or wife, parent or child, one is to serve in that capacity in the particular way called for by that capacity. Perhaps this is the “concurrent mode of obligation” you refer to. Yet the model of authority here is, while in some ways the same, in other ways quite different. There is a higher Authority that all answer to equally — a spiritual rather than a worldly one.
it seems to me the argument is riding a false dichotomy (for both complementarian and egalitarian). I can’t help this nagging feeling that important distinctions are being ignored. Perhaps I’ll throw that up as a post for further discussion.
Please do.
What do we do with this one:
1 Timothy 5
14So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander.
The word for ‘manage’ in Greek is Oikodespoteo which is where we get the word ‘despot’ and means:
to be master (or head) of a house
to rule a household, manage family affairs
Could it be, that the apostles understood the human religious tendency to be so “heavenly minded” that we are no earthly good?
My impression of Christ in the gospels is that He did not come with the intention of changing the lies upon which this old world has shuddered for millenia. The tares are left among the wheat until harvest.
Therefore, how do we bridge this gulf between what is and what should be? What is and what SHALL be? It’s very easy to go sit on a mountain top and meditate on our belly buttons. . .forsake the world entirely, tune out.
It’s much harder to live in a world that you are not part of. . . to live principles among unprincipled society. What a balancing act.
I think the New Testament reflects an wise path across a very narrow tightrope. . . spiritually, women have value. . . socially, well, not only have we been historically oppressed, but anyone who defied the convention would be destroyed also.
If new testament churches had simply lived total equality for women, without certain concessions to social norms, they would have been utterly decimated. . . I remind you, Quakers lived this equality in the 1700’s and suffered death and torture at the hands of other Christians. How much worse would it have been for a baby church among much stricter cultural norms?
Be wise as serpents. Be innocent as doves. It in no way degrades me to keep silence, if such silence will save my husband from being beheaded. In fact, my silence then becomes a badge of honor regarding my love. It is the act of one giving up their bread so that another may eat.
Unfortunately, the spirit of the thing gets twisted in the light of “my rights,” “my equality,” “my ministry.” Well, sounds like pride to me.