I’m going to be away from the blog next week. I want to continue discussing gender and the church. Let me throw out some questions for you to solve between now and then:
- What do we do with the fact that a patriarchal system is not only portrayed but is actively taught in the Bible?
- What do we do with the exceptional women of the Bible, like Deborah, Huldah, Philip’s daughters, and Junia?
- What do we do with the weight of history and tradition and their teaching about women?
- What about the fact that history has been proven wrong at times, as in the case of slavery?
- How do we deal with the passages that seem to limit women’s activity in the church?
- How do we deal with the concept of Spiritual giftedness, with gifts being given to both sexes?
- Is God’s call based on ability? Does not being chosen by God for a task mean that one is inept for that task?
- How do we balance the home and the church? What does biblical teaching about motherhood, male headship, and raising children have to say about this topic?
- How does biblical teaching for the first century apply to the twenty-first century?
- How does teaching addressed to a home church setting speak to modern assemblies?
That should be enough to hold you. I want 5-7 pages, typed (no computers), double-spaced with a one inch margin. Sources should be quoted in Turabian format. Footnotes, not endnotes.
No, seriously… feel free to throw out more questions or to take a stab at answering some of these.
– The active teaching and portayal of patriarchy in the bible might be a timeless model for the structure of society and the church. On the other hand, it might be a concession to the hard hearts of human beings. 1 Peter 2 depicts the obedience of slaves as unjust suffering for the sake of the gospel. Their suffering imitates Christ. 1 Peter 3 begins, “Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands.” Insofar as patriachy is taught, I think it is up for grabs whether or not it is taught as a positive imperative.
-I think that even the most committed traditionalist on this issue must acknowledge that there have been exceptions in the past and might be in the future. However, the fact that these women truly are exceptional may just prove the rule. To an egalitarian, however, these exceptions are the foretaste of a new reality in which there is neither male nor female.
-I’m happy to throw aside the weight of history if I even remotely think that the demands of faith warrant it. Unless you’re talking about church history, which I am much more hesitant to disregard. The fact that the tradition of the church is almost unanimous on this issue (there are, of course, Debra-like exceptions) is something that should not be ignored by anyone. Changing any faith tradition that is nearly two thousand years old is a pretty big deal. Still, it is one of the central tenets of Protestantism that tradition is not our ultimate authority.
-The fact that history has been proven wrong simply means that we cannot rely on history as our only justification. Doing things one way because it’s the way we’ve always done it has more to do with laziness than traditionalism.
-I’m not a scholar. Ben Witherington, a Methodist New Testament scholar, provides an example of some excellent exegesis in support of the idea that the limitations were purely contextual. However, his approach is not the only one. Others say that the New Testament writers simply did not fully grasp the implications of the gospel they were proclaiming. Neither of these arguments are rock solid, but both have compelling aspects. I certainly am more convinced by the contextual argument than the argument that the NT writers just didn’t get it.
-Giftedness is a hard thing to judge. There’s no biblical measure for it.
-Similarly, choseness for a task is difficult to judge. Some traditions require that someone intering the ministry must be able to describe a “call” to ministry. But of course, being good at preaching doesn’t mean a person should be a preacher. And wanting to be a preacher doesn’t necessarily mean a person should be a preacher. Entering paid ministry or church leadership is not something an individual does on their own. It takes communal discernment. A congregation may or may not be incorrect in excluding a person from ministry or authority on the basis of sex, but it is certainly more in line with Christian thought and tradition than any sort of individualistic interpretation based purely on “giftedness” or a sense of calling.
-The biblical teaching on male headship of the home is more difficult to work your way out of than teachings on male leadership in the church. Paul explicitly ties his teaching on marriage to the timeless truth of Christ. Still, I think there is a compelling case to be made that New Testament teachings on marriage and home life are descriptive rather than prescriptive. Even Paul says in Ephesians that his discussion of marriage is more about Christ than it is about marriage itself. I think the analogy of male headship is more important than headship itself.
But still, there is something to be said for the notion of male headship and female submission as a living metaphor for the relationship of Christ to the church. But in our culture, male headship is tied to patriarchy and even sexism and violence. So has the metaphor lost its meaning? If an icon no longer represents the thing it is supposed to signify, then perhaps it has lost its purpose.
-When we read first century teachings, we must ask why the New Testament writers wrote what they did. That question might be more important than the teachings themselves. The situation that these teachers spoke to was so dramatically different than our own that it might even be harmful to attempt to apply their teachings directly to ourselves. At the very least it can result in confusion. Does that diminish in any way the truth of the New Testament writings? Not at all. It is simply a recognition of the fact that when we read the NT, we are reading other people’s mail.
-Like I said above, what was teached to the church in Ephesus may or may not be directly applicable to a church in 21st century North America. It takes discernment.
Thanks Ryan. Helpful thoughts.
In the questions that touch on childbearing/rearing and family units, I would suggest that reflection includes the following:
-What are the implications for women who cannot have children (or families that cannot have children)?
– What are the implications for families that choose not to have children?
– What are the implications for people who never marry or whose marriages end?
When womanhood is specifically defined by motherhood, it creates an ontological problem in regards to what it means to be a woman for the population of women who will never be mothers. It seems that in these conversations (not specifically this one) about gender and scripture and life et al., the role of women gets reduced to the household/children without taking into consideration the ever growing population for whom this is not the case.
I am not advocating for the negation of motherhood, but rather for an expanded conversation about personhood.
(1) I think we must first come to the conclusion that it *is* actively taught, and then work toward the application. Many only believe male headship is *described*, not taught.
(2) The women you list are described as prophets (or esses), or in the case of Deborah, a judge. No one (I hope) would point to Samson as the paragon of spiritual leadership, nor Ehud nor Shamgar. To isolate Deborah from the other judges is a fairly good example of eisegesis.
(3) If we accept tradition as being informative, and not yet formative, we must listen to the voices of church leaders in all generations, whether their writings cut for us or against us.
(4) “Slavery” is too broad of a subject. While the American iteration of slavery was virtually always dehumanizing and sinful, that has not always been the case. The Bible nowhere universally condemns slavery, and in some cases slaves lived better lives than their free neighbors. We need to be sure we are comparing apples to apples.
(5) “Seem” or “do?” I do not see any “seem” in several of Paul’s instructions – they either limit the active role of leadership to men or they do not. Therefore, we either excise them from the text (in a bewildering number of ways) or we accept them.
(6) A single male may be tremendously gifted in a number of areas relating to teaching, preaching or other forms of ministry. However, he is proscribed from being an elder, bishop, or presbyter by virtue of his lack of familial leadership – he is not married and therefore has no understanding of what it means to be a husband, and he has no children which means he has no understanding of fatherhood. So, gifts do not dictate roles. There are many wonderfully gifted females in the church. Their gifts do not mandate that they be considered spiritual leaders.
(7) I think we need to understand what “call” really is. Too often we relate “ability” to “call.” Therefore, if a young man has stage presence and a pleasant voice he is clearly called to be a preacher. This is *not* the biblical concept of call. In a majority of cases in the Bible, God had to do some pretty heavy convincing to get his “callees” to accept the fact that they were “called” – see Moses, Gideon and even the apostle Paul.
(8) I believe we need to revisit what the word “submission” means. My mom was significantly involved in my spiritual upbringing, yet I knew my father led the home. We, even in the church, have equated “submission” with being a doormat – which has led to the issues of violence and abuse. Jesus submitted to his Father, and yet I dare anyone to suggest that Jesus was a spiritual doormat. The scriptures never remove females from spiritual training, but throughout the story of Scripture we do see that males are given specific leadership roles.
(9) Why limit the instruction to just the first century? I think we need to go back all the way to the garden (after all, does not Paul do the same?) We need to be biblical in our interpretation, not just first century limited.
(10) I am not sure “setting” has that much to do with the overall concept of leadership. If the purpose of the “assembly” is a time of worship and instruction, then I believe Paul’s teachings in 1 Cor. 14 are controlling…”when you come together.” Certainly Paul never limits females from evangelism (what is the exact role of “prophecy” anyway?) or other teaching situations, but there is a clear demarcation in Paul’s teaching regarding an assembly that has as its major focus of worship and doctrinal exposition.
And, as you opened the door, let me throw this question out – why is it that one’s immediate cultural situation is *always* esteemed as being more advanced and “Godlike” than previous generations? In doing so are we not slavishly following what C.S. Lewis called “chronological snobbery?” Yet, as the story of Scripture so blatantly reveals, the further away from a spiritual beginning a culture becomes, the more corrupt and *ungodly* it becomes (witness Adam, Noah, Moses, and Jesus if you need examples).
No fair cutting and running – you started the oven, chef Archer, stay in the kitchen!!
Paul
I wanted to say this in response to part of Paul Smith’s comment about Deborah. Two scriptures come to mind. Know a tree by the fruit it bears (Mat 7: 15-20) and “give her credit for what she has accomplished, and let her works praise her in the city gates ( Pr 31:31).” The fact that Judge Samson was not a “paragon of spiritual leadership” or virtue has absolutely no bearing on Deborah’s character, contributions or fruit. Her fruit speaks for itself. Samson’s actions don’t diminish or discredit Deborah’s fruit in any way. Likewise, the evil kings recorded in the Bible can’t diminish or discredit the contributions and fruit of the good kings. IMO, trying to diminish and discredit Deborah’s fruit as a leader and “paragon” based on something other judges did or didn’t do is a “fairly good example of eisegesis” rather than exegesis.
I’m so grateful that the Bible says that a person should be known by his/her own fruit and not by the fruit of those around him/her or in the same profession.
K. Martin, let me respond…
Nowhere did I disparage Deborah or her “fruit.” She is clearly highlighted in Scripture as being a woman of Godly character. Your response makes it sound like I have an axe to grind against Deborah. Nothing in my response indicated that, and I do not know how you arrived at that conclusion.
What I *am* criticizing is the conclusion that some have reached that just because Deborah is portrayed positively (for one single event in her life, I might add) she becomes a paradigm of female leadership within the Christian church. My point was simple – *none* of the judges are to be used as paradigms for Christian leadership. Some may display a character trait that might be modeled, but I believe the theology of the book of Judges (and its immediate context) is that the entire period of the judges is the story of one long inexorable decline into immorality and rebellion against God. Therefore, to pull ONE judge out of the list, and based solely upon her gender to proclaim that she becomes a paradigm for New Testament church leadership is simply eisegesis: we arrive at our conclusion, and then go traipsing through the text looking for a likely text to defend our proposition. Deborah’s story, which I happen to believe has a significant role in the book of Judges, becomes meaningless if rip it from its context and force it into a situation that it does not address.