When it comes to the issue of women in the church and the home, there tends to be a lot more heat than light. I want to take a step back and move beyond dueling prooftexts and look at the issue from a systematic way. When we approach this issue, it is easy to devolve into empty and angry rhetoric. It can be an emotionally charged issue in contemporary culture. One side claims that the other is capitulating to feminism and ignoring Scripture and the other retorts that their opponents are subjugating women and using the Bible to perpetuate an ancient patriarchal system. That isn’t very helpful. Let’s examine what the text says and make note of what the text does not say.
I want to start off in 1 Corinthians 14: 33-35. I think 1 Cor 14: 33-35 should be our baseline when we approach this issue because 1 Cor 14: 33-35 is the most restrictive passage when it comes to the role of women in the church. Let’s look at the verses in question:
For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. (1Co 14:33-35)
Lets look at what the text says and doesn't say. Paul says that in all of the churches of the saints (a universal principle), women should keep silent. Not at certain times, not in particular context. To clarify, Paul gives us an alternative. If women have questions, they should ask their husbands at home. It is kind of hard to reconcile that with a nonexistent context that permits them to speak. Paul closes with a similarly hard hitting statement that it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. He doesn't qualify that statement.
Taken at face value, women shouldn’t make a peep in church based on 1 Corinthians 14: 33-25. Silent is a pretty strong word in English and I assume it is similarly unambiguous in the Greek. So is shameful. There is nothing in the text itself or the surrounding context, nothing, that would imply that Paul means anything other than what he says here.
So we are left, taking 1 Cor 14: 33-35 in a vacuum, with women prohibited from so much as clearing their throats in church. When we are faced with a text like 1 Cor 14: 33-35, we have a couple of choices. We can decide it is just too draconian and that Paul must not have meant what the text says and find some way to disprove it or at least find a loophole around it. Or we can do the work of clarifying what Paul meant with the tools we have been given, i.e. the rest of Scripture.
In order to figure out what these passages in 1 Corinthians 14 mean and are intended to convey, we need to examine the context. By that I mean the context that is provided, not assuming a context that isn’t there. If the Scriptures are truly sufficient and inerrant, we must assume that the Holy Spirit led these men to write what was needed and in such a way that it would be clear to those who need to use it in the first century as well as the twenty first century. Fortunately, this is not the only mention of the “silence doctrine”. We also have 1 Tim 2: 11-15 which gives us a more complete picture.
Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control. (1Ti 2:11-15)
So Paul is clarifying here what is prohibited by giving two specific examples. This is not a complete prohibition on women speaking, but it is a prohibition nonetheless. Women are not to teach men and women are not to be in authority over men. Paul makes no mention of singing, he makes no mention of praying. Teaching and having authority regarding men. So when you take these two passages together, you get a picture and one that has been the standard in conservative Christian circles for a very long time. Something being around a long time never is proof in and of itself, but with passages like these two that are pretty unambiguous that have received pretty consistent treatment throughout the centuries, longevity and universality are excellent supports for the doctrine.
When it comes to women teaching men or being in authority over men in the church or the home, Scripture is unequivocal that this is not to take place. I feel quite comfortable in making that assertion without qualification.
Similarly, when we look at the issue of elders, there is no room for varying interpretation. Every mention of elders where we can draw a conclusion assumes that elders are only men. This makes sense given the above passages. Elders lead and elders should be able to teach. If women are permitted to be elders but not permitted to teach, that quality makes little sense (note: I understand and agree that the Paul’s letters to Timothy are not qualifications for being an elder, but they do contain qualities to be sought in an elder).
So what does that allow women to do? Watch kids in the nursery and prepare potluck meals? Hardly. Women have a cherished and valuable role in the church and in the greater Christian community. It is a patently false notion that because women are not called to lead and teach in the church, they have no value. Dare I say again that this is perhaps the result of the same sort of mindset that exalts clergy over the laity? It is another false dichotomy, either women must be allowed to teach and exert authority over men regardless of what Scripture says or women are unequal and being degraded in a patriarchal system. I say that is rubbish.
How about prophesy? There are several mentions of prophetic utterances by women in the New Testament. We read first of Philip’s four daughters prophesying. That is all we know about them, so we should be cautious to applying doctrine based on that verse. We also read that women should cover their heads when prophesying and praying in 1 Corinthians 11. (As a side note, if you are going to defend women speaking in church by using 1 Corinthians 11, you better have a wife who covers her head. Similarly, if you are going to use 1 Cor 14: 33-35 literally to prohibit women from teaching, you probably should have you wife cover.) This is important to emphasize: women prophesying does not negate the commands of Paul regarding women teaching or holding authority over men. That then raises another question: what do we know about prophesying and does that mesh with what Paul is saying in 1 Cor 14: 33-35 and 1 Tim 2: 11-15? In Acts 2: 17-18 we see a repeating of the prophecy of Joel that when the Holy Spirit comes upon people, men and women will prophesy. In Acts 19:6 we see prophesy being spoken of again in conjunction with the outpouring of the Spirit. In 1 Cor 14 we see prophecy alongside speaking in tongues, again a working of the Holy Spirit. We have the verse in Acts 21:9 about Philip's virgin daughters prophesying, with no detail and no specifics. I think it is safe to say that speaking prophetically is a miraculous working of the Holy Spirit and as such is different than the regular teaching that occurs when the church gathers. It certainly seems that prophesy is not limited to men. It also is equally clear that prophesy is a sovereignly designated event through the power of the Holy Spirit and is not normative in the church.
What about praying? We also know that women prayed when the church gathered. We see this from the depiction in Acts 1:14. We also see that women are involved in prayer in 1 Corinthians 11. What is not specified is if they were in silent prayer or if they audibly prayed. What would be consistent with the overall theme is that they prayed along with the men, but that the men audibly prayed and “led” the prayers in the assembled body. Again, this is seeking consistency in practice and not creating contradictions where none appear. Is a prayer uttered by a woman silently or in her home or in a group of women less authentic than one uttered in public by a man? If it is not, and it is clearly silly to even think so, why the concern? It strikes me that again we see a subconscious reverting to the idea of a clerical superiority.
As a side note, there are several excellent treatments of the prophesy/prayer issue at the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood site. Here is one I liked, Gender Based Boundaries for Gathered Congregations: An Interpretive History of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. I don't agree in lockstep with every conclusion but it covers a pretty wide range of topics including several from other viewpoints and even minor quibbles within the complementarian ranks.
Women are not only permitted to teach but are encouraged to teach other women. Titus 2: 3-5 speaks of this. No one ever would assume being a wife and mother is easy work. We have so many wise older sisters in the church and yet we also have a lot of young wives and mothers. Get them together. We don’t need more preachers and we don’t need more Sunday school teachers. We need more intergenerational wisdom being passed on.
There are some ancillary issues that we need to work on regarding the roles of the different genders in the church. When Paul is writing about restrictions of women, he is referencing the home/family and the church. So what does that mean for women in the secular world? What about women witnessing to men who aren’t Christians? There are plenty of issues that still need prayerful consideration. Our approach should always be to prayerfully consider what is in the text and if something is unclear, search the Scriptures for clarification. In our sinful state, the Scriptures are not always as clear as we would like. That is why we have a Bible instead of a pamphlet. We should seek clarification from within the text, not outside the text. I am confident that everything we need to know in this life can be gleaned from the Scriptures and that we should never find ourselves “filling in the blanks”. Our task is a difficult one, working through these issues in the Scriptures takes hard work. But to paraphrase Lionel Woods on an unrelated subject…
“Whenever we come to the bible and something is tough, we must find ourselves surrendering to it, or we find ourselves shaping the God of the bible in our own image.”
Amen to that brother!
I want to start off in 1 Corinthians 14: 33-35. I think 1 Cor 14: 33-35 should be our baseline when we approach this issue because 1 Cor 14: 33-35 is the most restrictive passage when it comes to the role of women in the church. Let’s look at the verses in question:
For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. (1Co 14:33-35)
Lets look at what the text says and doesn't say. Paul says that in all of the churches of the saints (a universal principle), women should keep silent. Not at certain times, not in particular context. To clarify, Paul gives us an alternative. If women have questions, they should ask their husbands at home. It is kind of hard to reconcile that with a nonexistent context that permits them to speak. Paul closes with a similarly hard hitting statement that it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. He doesn't qualify that statement.
Taken at face value, women shouldn’t make a peep in church based on 1 Corinthians 14: 33-25. Silent is a pretty strong word in English and I assume it is similarly unambiguous in the Greek. So is shameful. There is nothing in the text itself or the surrounding context, nothing, that would imply that Paul means anything other than what he says here.
So we are left, taking 1 Cor 14: 33-35 in a vacuum, with women prohibited from so much as clearing their throats in church. When we are faced with a text like 1 Cor 14: 33-35, we have a couple of choices. We can decide it is just too draconian and that Paul must not have meant what the text says and find some way to disprove it or at least find a loophole around it. Or we can do the work of clarifying what Paul meant with the tools we have been given, i.e. the rest of Scripture.
In order to figure out what these passages in 1 Corinthians 14 mean and are intended to convey, we need to examine the context. By that I mean the context that is provided, not assuming a context that isn’t there. If the Scriptures are truly sufficient and inerrant, we must assume that the Holy Spirit led these men to write what was needed and in such a way that it would be clear to those who need to use it in the first century as well as the twenty first century. Fortunately, this is not the only mention of the “silence doctrine”. We also have 1 Tim 2: 11-15 which gives us a more complete picture.
Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control. (1Ti 2:11-15)
So Paul is clarifying here what is prohibited by giving two specific examples. This is not a complete prohibition on women speaking, but it is a prohibition nonetheless. Women are not to teach men and women are not to be in authority over men. Paul makes no mention of singing, he makes no mention of praying. Teaching and having authority regarding men. So when you take these two passages together, you get a picture and one that has been the standard in conservative Christian circles for a very long time. Something being around a long time never is proof in and of itself, but with passages like these two that are pretty unambiguous that have received pretty consistent treatment throughout the centuries, longevity and universality are excellent supports for the doctrine.
When it comes to women teaching men or being in authority over men in the church or the home, Scripture is unequivocal that this is not to take place. I feel quite comfortable in making that assertion without qualification.
Similarly, when we look at the issue of elders, there is no room for varying interpretation. Every mention of elders where we can draw a conclusion assumes that elders are only men. This makes sense given the above passages. Elders lead and elders should be able to teach. If women are permitted to be elders but not permitted to teach, that quality makes little sense (note: I understand and agree that the Paul’s letters to Timothy are not qualifications for being an elder, but they do contain qualities to be sought in an elder).
So what does that allow women to do? Watch kids in the nursery and prepare potluck meals? Hardly. Women have a cherished and valuable role in the church and in the greater Christian community. It is a patently false notion that because women are not called to lead and teach in the church, they have no value. Dare I say again that this is perhaps the result of the same sort of mindset that exalts clergy over the laity? It is another false dichotomy, either women must be allowed to teach and exert authority over men regardless of what Scripture says or women are unequal and being degraded in a patriarchal system. I say that is rubbish.
How about prophesy? There are several mentions of prophetic utterances by women in the New Testament. We read first of Philip’s four daughters prophesying. That is all we know about them, so we should be cautious to applying doctrine based on that verse. We also read that women should cover their heads when prophesying and praying in 1 Corinthians 11. (As a side note, if you are going to defend women speaking in church by using 1 Corinthians 11, you better have a wife who covers her head. Similarly, if you are going to use 1 Cor 14: 33-35 literally to prohibit women from teaching, you probably should have you wife cover.) This is important to emphasize: women prophesying does not negate the commands of Paul regarding women teaching or holding authority over men. That then raises another question: what do we know about prophesying and does that mesh with what Paul is saying in 1 Cor 14: 33-35 and 1 Tim 2: 11-15? In Acts 2: 17-18 we see a repeating of the prophecy of Joel that when the Holy Spirit comes upon people, men and women will prophesy. In Acts 19:6 we see prophesy being spoken of again in conjunction with the outpouring of the Spirit. In 1 Cor 14 we see prophecy alongside speaking in tongues, again a working of the Holy Spirit. We have the verse in Acts 21:9 about Philip's virgin daughters prophesying, with no detail and no specifics. I think it is safe to say that speaking prophetically is a miraculous working of the Holy Spirit and as such is different than the regular teaching that occurs when the church gathers. It certainly seems that prophesy is not limited to men. It also is equally clear that prophesy is a sovereignly designated event through the power of the Holy Spirit and is not normative in the church.
What about praying? We also know that women prayed when the church gathered. We see this from the depiction in Acts 1:14. We also see that women are involved in prayer in 1 Corinthians 11. What is not specified is if they were in silent prayer or if they audibly prayed. What would be consistent with the overall theme is that they prayed along with the men, but that the men audibly prayed and “led” the prayers in the assembled body. Again, this is seeking consistency in practice and not creating contradictions where none appear. Is a prayer uttered by a woman silently or in her home or in a group of women less authentic than one uttered in public by a man? If it is not, and it is clearly silly to even think so, why the concern? It strikes me that again we see a subconscious reverting to the idea of a clerical superiority.
As a side note, there are several excellent treatments of the prophesy/prayer issue at the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood site. Here is one I liked, Gender Based Boundaries for Gathered Congregations: An Interpretive History of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. I don't agree in lockstep with every conclusion but it covers a pretty wide range of topics including several from other viewpoints and even minor quibbles within the complementarian ranks.
Women are not only permitted to teach but are encouraged to teach other women. Titus 2: 3-5 speaks of this. No one ever would assume being a wife and mother is easy work. We have so many wise older sisters in the church and yet we also have a lot of young wives and mothers. Get them together. We don’t need more preachers and we don’t need more Sunday school teachers. We need more intergenerational wisdom being passed on.
There are some ancillary issues that we need to work on regarding the roles of the different genders in the church. When Paul is writing about restrictions of women, he is referencing the home/family and the church. So what does that mean for women in the secular world? What about women witnessing to men who aren’t Christians? There are plenty of issues that still need prayerful consideration. Our approach should always be to prayerfully consider what is in the text and if something is unclear, search the Scriptures for clarification. In our sinful state, the Scriptures are not always as clear as we would like. That is why we have a Bible instead of a pamphlet. We should seek clarification from within the text, not outside the text. I am confident that everything we need to know in this life can be gleaned from the Scriptures and that we should never find ourselves “filling in the blanks”. Our task is a difficult one, working through these issues in the Scriptures takes hard work. But to paraphrase Lionel Woods on an unrelated subject…
“Whenever we come to the bible and something is tough, we must find ourselves surrendering to it, or we find ourselves shaping the God of the bible in our own image.”
Amen to that brother!
12 comments:
Arthur,
I appreciate the work that you put into this study. As you know, I disagree with your interpretation of 1 Cor 14:34-35. I believe that Paul was prohibiting women from judging prophecy. I also disagree with your statement that prophecy was not normative for the church. (1 Cor 14:39)
But, I do understand your position, and I respect it. If this is your interpretation and your wife's interpretation, then she should be constantly covered so that she can pray with ceasing. I would certainly respect that.
Now, how would you interact with a sister in Christ who did not hold to you interpretation? What if a brother and sister in Christ approached you and began to teach you together, like Priscilla and Aquila taught Apollos? How would you respond?
-Alan
I would respond in like fashion, showing them from Scriptures why I thought that was incorrect and explain to them "the way of God more accurately."
Let me reverse the question and ask how you would deal with a body of believers who would say that you are incorrect in having your wife teach?
I think that in spite of our desire otherwise, we still tend to congregate with mostly like minded people. This question doesn't come up in our fellowship because as far as I know everyone is in agreement already.
Arthur,
I think I made my questions too vague. I didn't intend to ask what you would do if a woman or a wife/husband pair attempted to teach you that women can teach. What would you do if a woman or wife/husband pair attempted to teach you about something in your own life that needed to change in order to conform to Scripture?
My wife doesn't teach.
If I were meeting with a group of people who did not think that women should speak, then I would assume the women would not speak. If my wife knew about this conviction, then I don't think she would speak during the church meeting either. Since I'm not a woman, I would continue to speak as I felt God leading me to speak.
If a woman or wife/husband pair wanted to teach me about something in my own life that needed to change, I would listen carefully and prayerfully consider what she / they had to say (just as I would if a man wanted to teach me something). I know that God can and has and does use women to teach men. (i.e. Priscilla and Aquila)
-Alan
-Alan
Arthur,
Just to clarify, are you saying that any time a body of believers of mixed gender are together, the women cannot ask or discuss anything of a spiritual nature? During times of fellowship, can the women take part in spiritual discussions with men, or must they be off by themselves to discuss spiritual matters?
As you know, I disagree with your interpretation of 1 Cor. 1:2, and therefore your assumption that Paul was specifically addressing the whole church throughout the ages, and not specifically the church at Corinth. I often find myself wishing that I could read and understand Greek, so that I could see the differences between some of the words, too. For example, it's interesting that 1 Cor. 14:33-34 uses the word "churches," not "church." So is Paul only talking about what happens in the church building, or in (relatively) small gatherings of Christians? He obviously isn't referring to the universal church, which would never be plural. (Of course, for this discussion it wouldn't make much difference, since most of the time I'm gathered with a mixed gender group of Christians it is at the church building.) Just knowing that "brothers" as used in 1 Cor. refers to both men and women gives insight - imagine if I knew what each word's actual meaning/usage was!
'Nuff rambling...
Debbie
Debbie,
I speak about as much Greek as you do, so I cannot address the nuance of the word translated "churches" versus "chuch". I think given what he is saying, it is clear in the English translation that this is a universal principle held in all of the churches where the redeemed gather and not unique to Corinth ( which I think is also true of headcovering)
As far as gatherings, the point of the clarification in 1 Tim 2:15 Paul indirectly gives is that women are not to teach men or hold positions of authority over men. If you recall, after I preached a sermon on the death of herod in Acts 12, you questioned my interpretation, I looked into it and recanted my interpretation the next Sunday evening. You might be missing the point of the post. I am not advocating, nor do I think Paul was intending, for absolute silence from women in the church. I do think Paul is restricting women from teaching in the church or having authority over men in an context.
Alan,
If a woman came to me and authoritatively attempted to teach me something that she felt I was doing in error, I would gently inform her that she was overstepping her calling in doing so. If her husband was with her, I would probably rebuke him a tad more strongly for abdicating what he should have done to his wife. Would I heed her words? Possibly, but that doesn’t change the fact that she is in violation of Scripture. I am more concerned with a proper interpretation of the Scripture than I am with worrying about the practical ramifications. Let’s get our orthodoxy right first and then orthopraxy will follow. We can always try to find “real life” examples of stuff that overturns what we are commanded.
Arthur,
(Is there a difference between authoritative teaching and teaching? Because I didn't use the phrase "authoritative teaching".)
Just wondering... what would you do then if the women (or the wife with her husband) next "gently informed" you that you were overstepping your calling and that you were misinterpreting Scripture? What if she said that she was more interested in a proper interpretation of the Scriptures than with practical ramifications?
(By the way, you can't have orthodoxy without orthopraxy or vice versa.)
-Alan
Alan,
What would I do? I would politely excuse myself.
I recognize the inseparable linkage between orthodoxy and orthopraxy, but I don't think one can have the practice without first knowing the doctrine. In other words, right doctrine leads to right practice but how can you have right practice without knowing the right doctrine?
Arthur,
I understand that you are saying that when you put the two passages together, it clearly states that women are not to be in authority over men. No problem - clearly stated and understood. You also said that the "women shall be silent" statement doesn't apply to singing, etc. What I'm wondering about is if you see a problem with women taking part in discussions about spiritual matters in a mixed-gender group. If a man says something in an informal setting, do you see these passages as saying that a woman should not ask a question or state a different interpretation? I'm thinking about mixed-gender Sunday school classes, sitting around the table sharing a meal, etc. (I guess even blog comments would come under this heading....)
You mentioned a time I questioned your interpretation (which I honestly don't remember), and you seem to imply that that was okay. But from your comments to Alan, I get the impression that if I did that now, you would correct both me and John. After all, your view on many things has changed since you were our pastor!
There's just a whole lot of stuff that falls somewhere between 1)women not being in authority over men and 2)women being silent in church. While I'd never attend a church which had a woman preaching or regularly teaching a mixed-gender adult class, I don't know how I'd handle not being able to ask questions or for clarification of something that is taught or discussed.
Waiting for clarification,
Debbie
Debbie
I have actually read a blog with a disclaimer from the woman who wrote it that she is not intending her blog posts to be teaching men who come across the blog.
So in a mixed group, is it OK for women to speak. Based on just 1 Cor 14, I would first say that in a church gathering it would not be OK. Adding in 2 timothy, I would say that it is a fine line. Mixed gender classes are so normal for us that it seems unthinkable for women to not ask question, but I think if we are trying to be faithful we should look at what Scripture says, not what our church practice says. I would love for you and John to come with us to the fellowship we gather with on Sunday's where we have an unscripted, participatory meeting with women present but where the men do all of the speaking and praying. I don't think Eva finds it repressive, in fact I think she likes it. I also am of the opinion that the reason we have gotten into this situation with women being more active participants in the church is that the men have been lazy (or absent) and women have stepped into the gap. With zero facts to back me up, I would go so far as to say that up until very recently it seems likely women didn't participate in the church meeting or in the Sunday school at all.
If you came to me and asked that same question, I would hopefully recommend you speak to john. You know my tendency is for instant response, so I can't guarantee that would be the case. The filter between my brain and my mouth rarely works. But I will say that is what I should do. Especially given my changed view of the role of the pastor and the laity. It is not the calling of the elders to be the authoritative voice of doctrine and teaching in the church, but is instead to serve the church and equip others for the work of ministry instead of doing it for them.
Arthur,
Wow, our Sunday school class would be pretty quiet most days! We typically have in attendance:
1)an widowed male
2)a female married to an unbeliever
3)two widows
4)a married female
5)a married male - about half the time, due to work scheduling
So many weeks, the person teaching would talk, one female could go home and ask her husband about the teaching, and three females would be out in the cold with no one to talk to about anything they heard. I think the passage in 1 Cor. assumes that the females have a believing husband to ask questions of. Not the case in my church! Even in the worship service, there are only two women in regular attendance who have believing husbands.
It'd be interesting to visit the fellowship you're attending, though I think we'd be quite out of place. John won't hear of me covering.
So, have you done away with that beautiful pulpit your dad made?
Debbie
Debbie,
I am sure that is the case and I know it is also the case in far too many churches. Even where there are men in Sunday school classes they are often less than valuable. Dare I say, at risk of crossing tradition, that if the Sunday is composed in the way that it is, you might consider radically changing how you do it? Perhaps the women should meet in the sanctuary for a Sunday school class and the men that do show up could spend that time in prayer? Not my place to say, but it does raise an interesting question of what to do when the reality on the ground makes it hard to follow the letter of the Scriptures.
You don’t have to cover where we fellowship. Many women do, some do not, but no one is going to look askance at you if you aren’t covered or if you are wearing jeans. Some of our elders wear suits and ties, at least one wears jeans and a polo shirt. You are free not to cover, and you are also free to cover without getting weird looks like we get in other places.
I actually still have the pulpit my dad made for me. We had it in storage for a little bit and now it is in our garage. I don’t know what we are going to do with it as I will likely never use it again, but my dad made it so I am loath to part with it.
Post a Comment