IN RECOGNITION OF WOMEN…. More than ever before I am running into women who are questioning and even resenting the idea that women cannot lead, teach, preach, shepherd, or do anything that puts them in the forefront of men in the church. And even more interesting but not at all surprising is that these questions are arising NOT out of pride but of deep wounds in their inner person. It used to be that these women needed to “suck it up”, be quiet and be ill by themselves as they tried to fill the popular Christian idea that women should be primarily wives and mothers first and foremost in their lives in order to be fulfilled and be orderly. And if they were efficient they wouldn’t have time for much of anything else.
Many women after doing their best to do this find themselves unfulfilled and emotionally sick in their inner person. Even good counselors don’t heal the wounds to their person and self valuation.
I am both thankful and quite surprised that so many women have been speaking up in my women’s group and that we have been able to release them toward the Lord, where they are finding a new freedom in Christ. One woman came to the group studies with great anger toward God. Now she is a devoted sister. She had been a Christian on and off for many years, but never could deal with what she saw as being a second class citizen with God. Now that she sees that those were man’s ideas and not God’s, she is free to love God as never before. And all of that has nothing to do with her wanting to have a ministry as she is a committed wife and mother, quite in love with her husband who is a great guy and loves being a housewife.
But what about those women who ARE called to minister in the body of Christ and have been turned away, ridiculed, and told to be quiet and be good wives and mothers instead. Isn’t the body of Christ losing valuable ministry that would bring balance to the whole body of Christ?
I wish these women were being taken more seriously by the Christian leadership. Instead they are being told that their position in life is to be submissive to the directives of men. These leaders are not really listening to or hearing what these women have to say. In addition, they don’t seem to understand how painful it is for adult women to be put in the position of perpetual children.
Shucks. I was eagerly reading the post when I was interrupted by…well, the end of the post.
In trying to play Devil’s advocate, I suppose some complementarians would say (in response to the last paragraph) that women are called to ministry, just perhaps not in the same way. For example, a lot of complementarians hold to the idea that perhaps women shouldn’t lead other men, but that ministry would otherwise welcome their help.
It’d be good to remember also that there are bad complementarians (where the complement of a man’s role comprises of what the man would rather not do), and there are better ones, who act with civility and respect to the other gender regardless of views on ministry roles. Thus, even though I can’t say which view on ministry I’m committed to, I can agree that there are boundaries for acceptable behavior in either one. Treating women as different then men is fine; treating women like anything less than adult human beings is not.
And me! theologically trained to the same level as most of our clergymen, recognised by my own congregation as a preacher (back when we we had a pastor who allowed me to preach), but not allowed to use my gifts and training. My kids have grown up, I have the time and life-experience to get out there and be a pastor, but I’m still invisible
My faith is in no danger, but my sense of self certainly is. And it is hard to have to keep fighting negativity and resentment.
Another thing – if a woman doesn’t want to be obedient to men many preachers make her out to be selfish. But if a man doesn’t want to be obedient to women he’s a manly man.
I think it’s time that Christian preachers stop making women out to be selfish if they don’t want to be obedient to men. I’m tired of being treated that way. Sometimes I feel the men who put me down as selfish are actually more selfish than I am. It’s the pot calling the kettle black. But these men feel they have a right to demand more out of me as a woman then they are willing to demand out of themselves as men. They have a sense of entitlement that they as men deserve more respect and sacrifice than I as a woman have a right to have.
It just goes too far.
What frustrates me, since that is exactly my argument, the idea that God has CLEARLY gifted women to preach, lead, and teach…is responses like the one my Pastor gives to this question. My husband & I are members of a PCA church, and we love many things about the church and our Pastor, but this issue is coming up more and more for both of us. The rote response from our pulpit is: “I don’t know why God designed things in this way, to gift women (which he believes God has done) but then asked men to lead, but He has. We have to have faith in that design.” We have a woman in our church who is an amazing teacher, just incredible, and she is allowed to teach in Sunday School to women & men, but that of course would be the extent of her use. Our Pastor always makes this “joke”: “If God wanted the MOST gifted teachers to be leading His church it wouldn’t be ME! It would be Misty!”
What?! I just don’t understand how that is funny. It’s hurtful and sad. I find this “Um, I don’t know why it’s this way..but, um…it is…” to be a sorely lacking explanation. The dismissal of this issue as if it isn’t really that big of a deal is dangerous. It is dismissive to women and their feelings and even their personhood.
It’s something I’ve been praying about talking to our Pastor about. Not changing his views, since that isn’t likely, but just his attitude. Understanding that there are women in his congregation who really struggle with this and that his dismissive attitude is dangerous.
I’d actually be interested to hear a more plausible explanation from the Comp view. Does God NOT actually gift women? I find that hard to believe given personal experience and even Biblical examples…so what? He gifts women and restricts them from serving and advancing His Kingdom??
It is this sense of entitlement that needs to be exposed and forbidden. The idea of male entitlement is at the root of abuse. It is the foundation upon which abuse stands and grows.
Only God is entitled to anything, especially obedience and submitting our life to His direction. And His reason for requiring it is so that we may dwell in His HOLY presence. He wants to share His life with us and in order for that to happen we must draw close to Him.
Male entitlement is so very wrong on so many levels. No one is entitled. Yet everyone should be GIVEN godly love, help, encouragement to do good works, etc.
The prehistoric primitive patriarchy of priest-less”Bible-based” Christian churches is an oddity and an anachronism, IMO.
I have thought that if I were a male with the same gifts and personality traits that currently reside in this female body, I would have been sought out and “groomed” for ministry early on in my Christian life, as my ex-husband and other young men of my acquaintance were (with varying degrees of success). Any training/knowledge I have (other than that offered in sermons and other general church teaching and a semester of Bible college I was encouraged to attend with my then-fiance – I doubt I would’ve been sent on my own) has pretty much come by my own initiative. For the most part my gifts (and needs, tho not necessarily my failures
) have remained invisible, except for a few “extracurricular” opportunities I’ve stumbled into. I love the church, but experience a very serious alienation with it that sometimes threatens to compromise that love.
I’ve heard some comp teachers acknowledge women’s pastoral gifts, but say those gifts are for ministry to women and children only, not the body as a whole.
“I’ve heard some comp teachers acknowledge women’s pastoral gifts, but say those gifts are for ministry to women and children only, not the body as a whole.”
At what age does the male child become a “man” she is not allowed to teach? 12? 14? 16? 18?
As Scot McKnight points out in his book THE BLUE PARAKEET, one thing that made him an egalitarian was realizing that there is no way to reasonably argue that learning via reading is different than learning via teaching/preaching, so he felt it was totally inconsistent for Evangelical seminarians or others to read articles/books by women theologians and scholars, yet not let women preach to or teach men.
Sarah,
I was the same way. All the giftings, but the wrong body parts. So instead of being sent off to seminary with cheers, I was reminded of my place as a female of the species.
I honestly don’t think that our pastor meant anything wrong by it. I know that he literally thought women WERE different, that he was helping keep me from sin, that there was no way it could ever be a legitimate calling.
I went to college, then quit to go to a Bible College (that EricW taught a class at, actually), but even then, it never occured to me that teaching/preaching was a legitimate calling. When we left Bible College and planted ourselves firmly in conservative church culture, I totally “went underground.” I always felt bad about that strange love of preaching that was in me, sort of like I had a secret porn habit or something that I didn’t want anyone to know about, though in my case, the horrible “habit” was concocting sermons and lessons in notebooks and laying in bed at night figuring out the best ways to put them together.
Instead of thinking of this as a sign of a gifting, I saw it as a sign of some horrid innate rebelliousness against God and was very ashamed of it.
I spoke with a friend of ours last summer and dared to get a little bit vulnerable in this area (an area I rarely discuss with anyone…it’s just so painful, I guess, because of the reaction…if you are a man, you can say you are called to preach and get applauded…if you are a female, they look at you like you are twisted or sick).
Anyways, he was talking about how it’s like a fire in his bones, how he can’t help it, how it just feels so good and right to preach. I suggested that maybe it felt like that to me too. He looked at me like I’d grown an extra head, like I just spoke a foreign language, like I’d just thrown out a chain of expletives.
Because I’m a woman. So it can’t be just like it is for him. I’m somehow mistaken. Because I’m a woman.
So it just can’t be.
I’ve just found it’s better not to talk about it, not to bring it up. Plus, honestly, the gifting in me is so dimmed right now. It feels like it’s buried under a huge pile of boulders. I think I’ll get to it, someday. I’m just trying to heal up right now, you know, get the muscle strength built up so that I can someday start rolling those stones away.
Molleth, the gift never leaves. It is still there. Find the right time, the right place, the freedom in your soul and the HS will be right there with you inspiring you anew.
Blogging and teaching Sunday School helps release a bit of the built up pressure.
At least my class of preteens appreciates the giftings. Today was the last day. I’m gonna miss them terribly.
P.S. I think my present church will have no problem with me teaching adult Sunday school. I’ve held myself back from that due to past woundings and present complications. Not sure how they feel about women preaching from the pulpit, though. And yes, it IS just like fire shut up in your bones and you do get weary of holding it in. You’ve either got to let it our or quit studying your Bible. I’ve quit studying my Bible before. Then after a while I’m more miserable. No win situation.
Jesse,
I don’t want to be part of a church that doesn’t allow women to lead or have authority over men. I know there are kind hearted complimentarians, but I still don’t want to go to church with them if I am limited by my gender. They can get some other woman to do the work they want me to do.
Jesse,
If women aren’t allowed to teach or hold authority over men, I feel they are being treated like they are less than human. So our definition of being “treated less than human” is different.
Male entitlement shows itself in pornography and the negative comps attitude towards women.
I like the positive comps, but they still practice male entitlement without realizing it. At least they don’t intend to discrimate against women, although they actually do.
Mathlady
First of all, glad to meet a fellow mathematician =) (represent!).
On the personal note you shared, I didn’t mean my comment to justify complimentarians – I meant to express my hope that nobody demonizes anyone who holds such a view on first glance. They may have flaws and hold wrong views, but we all do to some extent. In that sense, while we may be justified in not going to church with them, I don’t think we’re justified in making them all out to be people purposely trying to make life miserable for women. Many of my friends were raised to respect (what they believe is) correct interpretation of the Bible. They hold nothing against women personally; they’re just trying to follow God the way they believe he wants.
So without arguing the beliefs, I’d like to defend the people somewhat.
JLP
Those were my thoughts as well; that there is malicious intent and ignorant malice.
My main hope is that while comments may attack reasons for complementarians, they won’t tear down complementarians as people without good reasons (i.e. cases where complementarianism covers for insecurity, bias). Otherwise, I’m not sure the title “Building bridges between complementarians and egalitarians” would be accurate.
Molleth – I don’t know… I’ve benefited from your writing many a time. I know it may be small comfort but…preach it, girl! Consider this an amen from the pew:-).
I started out in comp circles but became an egal early on. At a deep level it has been a comfort to know that God accepts me fully and understands the desires of my heart. I understood this as a comp as well, but it was freeing to know that that part of me that wanted to leap forward into “forbidden” ministry territory might need some domestication, but it didn’t require extermination. However, I haven’t been given the opportunity to have those gifts supported or used in church settings, and now other complications intervene. “unless a seed dies… ” God gave me whatever gifts I have; they are his to use or not use as he pleases. He gives… I lay down…then he returns in ways I can’t imagine. Waiting is tough, tho.
Jesse- amen. God doesn’t demand perfection from his people before he loves them and uses them; some of his greatest servants may miss the boat in key areas. God can bring beauty through imperfect comps…and imperfect egals too! The tragedy of failing to honor God’s good gifts wrought through women isn’t corrected by missing his hand in the lives of complementarians.
Lin – they’re old enough when they cease to find whoopie cushions hilarious…wait, no….when they put away the video games….ummm…when the dirty socks make it to the hamper more than 50% of the time?… I guess not… I give up.
So Eric was a Bible teacher! That’s why he knows so much about the Bible in its original languages. I could tell he had much more knowledge than people will ever have.
jlp_that’s_me:
You flatter me. I took 2 years of NT Greek and 1 year of (largely-forgotten) Biblical Hebrew at a local seminary; that’s the extent of my “training,” though I have read a lot, including the Bible.
As for the “Bible School” – well, let’s just say that it provided a focused, but limited, curriculum. It was part of a small church, and not a large or accredited institution at all. And it was led by an authoritarian and controlling person with some real issues. His goal was to create a school that would be a “total environment” where the students could saturate themselves in the Scriptures and attain/receive a “revelation of Christ” and a revelation of “Christ in you,” and thus be an effective embodiment of the hope and promise of the Gospel. From my now-jaundiced point of view, I think he was striving to create a “total environment” for himself. The goal sounds good and worthy, and there was a depth and reality to the teaching that exceeded much, if not most, of what comes from pulpits and books today. However, there were attendant problems – some perhaps related to the pastor’s personal issues (some suspect he might even have an evil spirit that, in one former member’s words, “seduces women and emasculates men”), and others perhaps related to the imbalance of the doctrine. Interestingly, all the men under which the pastor sat and from whom he learned, as well as the pastor himself, engaged in improper conduct toward women not their spouses, ranging from outright adultery to things close to that – or maybe they all committed adultery. I know of some things, and have been told about the other things.
Anyway, that’s my “training” and “knowledge.”
“I don’t think we’re justified in making them all out to be people purposely trying to make life miserable for women. Many of my friends were raised to respect (what they believe is) correct interpretation of the Bible. They hold nothing against women personally; they’re just trying to follow God the way they believe he wants.”
I agree. We really need to be careful about this in the comments. It is not okay to say that egals have no respect for Scripture, and it’s equally not okay to say that comps want to hurt/disrespect women. We are assuming positive intent here. This is important to remember.
I don’t have the time to moderate the comments right now, so please please police yourselves.
It’s okay to talk about the way a certain thing has made one feel, yes, but remember not to assign motives to a theology that may have contributed to that.
While there may be a small group of egals who don’t like Scripture and a small group of comps who don’t like women, let’s face it: the majority of both are trying to follow God and are doing the best they can to obey what they see Him saying in the Scriptures. We have to reflect that in our comments.
More later…I have to wake up five kids and get them ready to go (drama camp and vbs) and I’m already five minutes behind because I got sucked in here and wanted to jabber!
Sarah,
I know what you mean about the comfort being there at a deep level.
Thanks for the kind words.
You know, I’m glad, in a way, that this gifting has had to wait. I think it is probably for the better, in many ways…sitting, growing, learning, maturing. I need to mature. I need to grow in wisdom and compassion. A gift of teaching/leading does not a teacher/leader make—-just means a gifting is there. But without love, as we all know, a gifting is only so much garbage. Knowing and walking in the God who gave the gifting is key to employing a gift in a beneficial way.
“I agree. We really need to be careful about this in the comments. It is not okay to say that egals have no respect for Scripture, and it’s equally not okay to say that comps want to hurt/disrespect women. “
I second that motion. It is quite important to keep that in mind.
The problem is the leaders who promote it who do know that it is not accurate but are defending privileges they should not have. When we see that, then we have difficulty remembering that is not always the case.
The problem is that some male comps get really aggressive about their beliefs.
I see that as a problem with defensiveness. They are protecting privileges. We can also get aggressive because we are defending our beliefs that we should have some of those privileges they claim for men only.
Usually, it is easier for egals to find balance than it is for privileged comps, because we’ve nothing more to lose.
I think it’s very important to use extreme caution when imputing motives to others. Many comps really want to do what’s right, and even where we think they’re wrong they are trying to serve, not seeking privilege. It’s easier for people in that situation to reject anything we say when we accuse them of motives that aren’t in their hearts. Add to that the fact that their convictions about gender have been enmeshed with real, vital truths about God, redemption, and personal identity, any false accusations on our part serve to reinforce their preconceptions. As hard as repeatedly extending mercy, understanding and love can be, especially when the burden is not equally borne and isn’t recognized, it’s not optional – for righteousness’ sake as well as being the only hope for dialogue. *Note to self: practice what you preach
Sarah,
I agree. I was a comp who simply wanted to obey God, no matter what, and I have to say that at least 99% of the comps I have known are the exact same way. While I personally feel that comp theology has been harmful to me (my opinion), I would be quick to say that the comps I interacted with, knew, and loved were almost all people who loved God and wanted to follow His way.
We differ on what that way looks like when it comes to gender. But we do NOT differ when it comes to loving God.
Some of the comments here are crossing the line when it comes to attributing motives. There are places where that is okay to do—please don’t suppress your feelings or your opinion. But THIS place is supposed to be a safe place for all sides of the gender discussion, and there are comments here that are not conduscive to discussion. Consider if a comp said,
“It is easier for comps to be Scripturally balanced.”
“The problem is that some egals get really aggressive about their beliefs.”
“Female egals follow egalitarianism only to keep their female privileges.”
“At least the egals don’t intend to dishonor God, although they actually do.”
I’m sure those comments would be offensive. But egals here are making similar comments to comps. This is very offensive These kinds of thoughts MUST be posited as *opinions.* When they are stated authoritatively, they are very offensive and RUIN the opportunity for conversation. Wayne started this blog in order to faciliate conversation. We can’t kill that goal because of offensive and destructive comments.
There are places to make authoritative comments and to assign motives. This is not that place.
Please make corrections as necessary and really try to proof your comments before posting by asking yourself what you would think if a comp said the same thing to you.
No one is in trouble. We all screw up (I’m a regular, myself). This isn’t said to single anyone out or to embarrass anyone. It’s simply that the rules for comments are being broken and it needs to stop. I don’t want to put the comments on moderation, but I’m about to do so.
I understand that a discussion of gender and faith comes with some very big feelings attached to it, often some very hurtful experiences and strong theological stances, so it is a VERY difficult one to manage to “converse” about. If you don’t think you can converse in a healthy manner yet, please refrain and wait until you are able. If you think you can, even tentatively, please feel welcome to try. We’re okay here with messing up.
I’m an expert, actually. But remember, the golden rule is paramount. Please treat *all* with respect.
In general, I agree with that Sarah and Molleth.
However, I’ve come to believe differently regarding male leaders who teach it. They are the ones who research the Scriptures looking for new arguments to support male hierarchy, thus they are the ones who see there are problems with those beliefs and choose to ignore them and/or downplay them. They also benefit to a greater degree from those beliefs.
TL and anyone else,
That is still assigning motives about an entire group of people without objective proof to back it up.
It’s not that your opinions aren’t valid. It’s just that it would be better to say, “It seems to me that they may be choosing to ignore…” “I personally feel like they benefit from…”
Again, I don’t mean this towards poor TL. LOL… This is not a request to any specific person, just pointing out that we are all getting into a bad habit of not following the comment rules, myself included. To those who are really struggling with this, I know it may be hard at first to learn to reframe our thoughts and opinions in this way, but it’s very important if conversation is what we want. (I speak as, heh, one of hte most merciless commenters I’ve ever seen…if I can learn to change [slowly...painfully...] mountains can be moved, I swear it).
However, I’ve come to believe differently regarding some male leaders who teach it, not all. Perhaps, not even the majority. Just some whom I have researched and followed and as a result of many things, come to that conclusion.
Hows that!
You are a model citizen of complegal, my dear. I bow in your presence.
Love,
Molly
It is a more accurate way to write. If one was writing a book, she’d have to write like that …. painstakingly precise!
Thanks Molleth!
The issue of ‘assigning motives’ is a moot point. It shuts down all conversation. No one can know motives and quite frankly, motives do not matter.The fruit of the teaching matters and is really quite obvious.
The fruit of comp teaching subjects another person and limits the exercise of their spiritual gifts. Even though that may be ok for that person and they have no problem with it, it is not biblical. It is quite serious for the Body of Christ and can have devestating consequences for both women and men. But mainly men.
TL wrote:
“They are protecting privileges.”
There is nothing wrong with questioning why this topic has been elevated to salvic status in most Christian quarters. Why? To say that is assigning motives is to shut down an important part of the discussion. The fruit is showing up in many quarters…Ware teaching that unsubmissive wives trigger abuse, women are not made in the direct image of men, etc. There is a reason they are so intent on teaching this so often. It does not Glorify God, so what is it? We can most definitely judge the fruit of teaching and behavior. We are taught this by Jesus Christ in Matthew.
I have a different perspective because of my background. I came to see that comp teaching is quite profitable. I definitely saw a profit motive in many quarters. It sells well in many venues. Books, conferences, DVD’s,, speaking gigs, etc. Everyone wants the magic bullet for a better marriage and are willing to pay to try and find it.
But the truth is free and much harder to live out.
Well said Lin.
Even in non-religious situations, everyone wants to sell you a magic pill or a magic bullet that they claim will solve your ills.
Almost nobody is promoting the hard work required to succeed at marriage or any other endeavor.
Reminds me of the snake oil traveling medicine shows where the guy wore a top hat and had an Indian side-kick who sold cigars.
I’ve a question, does anyone know if Paul every spoke about the motives of another, like his opponents?
Does anyone claim that God never did or never would have revealed other’s motives to Paul?
Fact: Only God knows the heart of a man.
But does that mean that God would never reveal the heart (motive) of a man to another?
Oh yeah, one more thing. In criminal cases, motive is established and proven all the time…
Good point Kathy. Good to remember that even if one had a motive, it did not prove guilt. But it did bring to the next point which was opportunity and the next which was actions. Put them all together and sometimes it is overwhelmingly enough to prove guilt even when denied. But not always.
Not so easy!
“There is nothing wrong with questioning why this topic has been elevated to salvic status in most Christian quarters. “
Agreed. No matter what the possible reasons, it is completely unacceptable to add anything to Christ’s salvation. We are saved by God’s grace in His unspeakable gift in Christ. How we live out our belief and faith is another matter. And all of us have different things to overcome to become like Jesus.
“The fruit is showing up in many quarters…Ware teaching that unsubmissive wives trigger abuse, women are not made in the direct image of men, etc. There is a reason they are so intent on teaching this so often. It does not Glorify God, so what is it?”
Yes, these are reasonable questions. Sometimes the reasons differ though. And just as we hate to be all painted with the same color, we should not do the same to others. Sometimes, some of the reasons are the same in certain groups. And sometimes we can see this by what is gained. Sometimes it is more difficult to determine.
Lin,
“The fruit of comp teaching subjects another person and limits the exercise of their spiritual gifts. Even though that may be ok for that person and they have no problem with it, it is not biblical. It is quite serious for the Body of Christ and can have devestating consequences for both women and men. But mainly men.”
The way to say that same thing (but to do it in a way that fits the spirit of this blog and does not break the comment guidelines) would go something like,
“I believe the fruit of comp teaching subjects another person and limits the exercise of their spiritual gifts. Even though that may be ok for that person and they have no problem with it, in my opinion it is not biblical. I personally think that it is quite serious for the Body of Christ and can have devestating consequences for both women and men. But mainly men.”
Folks,
I know this is really hard for some of you and I appreciate your struggle, I really do, but please word your comments accordingly or they will be removed. If you feel that you cannot do that (that it would be dishonest or wrong, etc) then you really need to consider whether or not you should comment here.
This is a place begun by Wayne with the specific intent to foster conversation between comps and egals and build bridges, not foster or continue battles. Instead, what is happening regularly is “battle language.” I’m not saying that’s wrong, but I am saying that there are other blogs and forums for that where it is acceptable. This blog is not the appropriate place for it.
Warmly,
Molly
And yes, Paul did address motives, but it may have been mostly tied to actions, such as 1 Tim. where he states their motives were to be teachers of the law. This would be shown by what they did.
1:5 Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith, 6 from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, 7 desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm.
Lin: “The fruit of comp teaching subjects another person and limits the exercise of their spiritual gifts.”
kathy: The fruit of comp teaching NEVER subjects another person and NEVER limits the exercise of their spiritual gifts.
Is my statement, True or False? (hehehe…)
Lin, unless one brings the facts, evidence and proof to the table and proves that what they say is true, then we must say it is our “opinion”. That’s fair for this place I think. Which is great so then we can all talk about only the FACTS!
It is an important issue, because it is the authority of the Bible which is really at stake. Are we willing to accept the authority of the Bible, or will we say it was for another time and another culture. And if we say that is true about God’s role for women, what other problems will arise?
3 Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good.
4 Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children,
5 to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no-one will malign the word of God.
9 ¶ I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes,
10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
1 ¶ Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behaviour of their wives,
2 when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.
3 Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewellery and fine clothes.
4 Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight.
5 For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands,
6 like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.
“Are we willing to accept the authority of the Bible, or will we say it was for another time and another culture.”
This was one of my main concerns when I was a comp. I think it’s a very valid concern.
I think my question is whether or not it has to be either/or. For example, the question implies that EITHER the words were meant for a specific culture during a specific time OR the Bible has authority.
That doesn’t seem like the only possible option to me.
I think that both/and is a valid option. What if the words were meant for a specific culture during a specific time AND the Bible has authority?
Another interesting question might be, if the Bible has words for specific people groups or specific cultures or specific situations or time periods, does that take away from its authority?
It is indeed an important issue. But the authority of the Bible is not at stake. Rightly dividing, handling, interpreting the Scriptures is what is at issue.
The particular sentences you quoted above are part of bigger pictures that Paul is addressing. None of them have anything to do with a supposed role or social class that a woman is supposed to restrain herself to. Each of the sections of Scripture that you quote should be addressed in the context of it’s place in the letters Paul was writing. Each has its own relevance in those letters.
I would be glad to start a discussion on one at a time in a new post if you would be willing to discuss your interpretations and how you come to them through the relevant Scriptures.
“It is an important issue, because it is the authority of the Bible which is really at stake.”
What happens when scriptural boundaries are crossed and we cannot prove our position? Is it then that the authority of the bible is not upheld?
Take 1 Tim 2 for example, one of the passages you quoted. It cannot be proven that Paul prohibited women in general from teaching, and scriptural boundaries within the passage are indeed crossed when it is said that Paul did prohibit women in general.
The authority of the passage lies in what can and cannot be proven from it.
I really don’t want to argue, I just want to point out that the real underlying question is our view of the authority of Scripture; and I can see that some of you agree.
Woman’s role is not the only question that is at stake. For example, how will we approach what the Bible says about homosexuality? Or polygamy? Or slavery? Or capital punishment? Or the life of a not-yet-born child? Or other things. If we insist that the Bible is infallible in all that it teaches, we will come up on a certain side of things. If we say that the Bible is not really fully authoritative, but that it embodies viewpoints that were only applicable thousands of years ago, we will come up on another side. What do we think about the Bible?
Marshall asks how to approach the Bible.
Well, one thing to do would be to become somewhat proficient in the original languages. From what I know of NT Greek, there are definitely different ways to take and understand some of the verses/statements in the translation you posted. I.e., one can’t or shouldn’t let “the Bible” become “authoritative” for oneself until one is confident about what it says.
As for whether or not one should or could say that it was “for another time and another culture,” the fact that we have a “New Testament” is proof that for Jesus and Paul and Peter, et al., the “Old Testament,” or parts or much of it, though still “God’s word,” was for “another time and another culture.” I am not saying that we should have our own “Newer Testament” for our time and culture, but it seems strange that a covenant that is not to be of the letter and written on stone and which kills, but of the Spirit, written on our hearts and giving life, should have a similar requirement of unwavering obedience to an authoritative “written letter.”
Very astute ERicW.
I would say that those things of the Spirit, of morality, eternal truths and similar would be the things that cross the borders of times and places. Those are the things that we want to eat into our spirits to help us draw close to our most Holy God.
But unfortunately humanity has difficulty conceiving what is spiritual and eternal and what are merely things to help us live with each other in our own eras.
Sometimes the Bible does not teach an ideal ethic, it teaches a better ethic in the time and place it was first taught. We enter the Kingdom one step at a time.
“If we insist that the Bible is infallible in all that it teaches, we will come up on a certain side of things. If we say that the Bible is not really fully authoritative, but that it embodies viewpoints that were only applicable thousands of years ago, we will come up on another side.”
This still sets up a sharp either/or, Marshall, that I am uncomfortable with. For example, the Bible tells Christians to greet each other with a holy kiss. It is written not one time, but six times. I am reading you saying that if I think that the holy kiss was a culture-specific teaching, then I don’t believe that the Bible is authoritative. Am I reading you right?
I do believe the Bible is authoritative. I just think that just as we must be careful not to err in not taking it seriously enough, we must also careful not to err by appropriating “commands for all time” out of passages that were never intended to be so .
For me, I look at it as similar to the Christian walk. One the one side, we have sins of the flesh. On the other side, we have sins of legalism. Both will suck the joy out of our faith.
So it is with the Bible. On the one side, we do not meditate and take delight in the words breathed by God through man. On the other side, we set up those words to say things that God never meant them to say. Both sides rob us of what God breathed the Bible for.
The center is the sweet spot, the place in which we read the Bible and meet Jesus in the pages, the “Word” that the “word” was revealing to us.
It’s a balance, albeit often a subjective one (in that it’s hard to “measure objectively” in a concrete way—-if it was, we’d not be having this conversation because we all would easily agree on the topic! ha!), but one of great importance.
My 2 Cents,
Molly
For me, it is helpful to separate the process of exegesis from the process of application. Exegesis involves doing one’s best in seeking the original meaning in whatever context and culture the text was written. Application involves letting this original meaning work on myself today in possibly different cultural circumstances.