Category Archives: Women

What 1 Peter says about husbands and wives

16 Replies

Bible in the shadowI guess we could have discussed 1 Peter 3 yesterday, but it deserves some time of its own. Here’s the passage in question:

“Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives— when they see your respectful and pure conduct. Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair, the wearing of gold, or the putting on of clothing— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening. Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.” (1 Peter 3:1–7)

Let’s look at immediate context. Following an admonition to live good lives “among the Gentiles” (2:12), Peter lays out a series of “submit yourself to” instructions: everyone submit to governmental authorities (2:13-17), slaves to masters (2:18-25), and wives to husbands (3:1-6). This final instruction is tempered by a warning to husbands to be understanding and show honor to their wives. Two reasons are given for that:

  1. They are co-heirs of salvation
  2. Mistreating one’s wife will be a hindrance to prayer

In Buried Talents, Jay Guin argues that this passage is specifically directed to women with unbelieving husbands. I don’t think that’s the case. Peter does feel that this behavior could lead to the conversion of non-believers, but note that he thought only some would be in a mixed marriage (vs. 1). Much of the language is similar to Ephesians 5, speaking of a relationship of submission and respect (the same word used in Ephesians 5:33). And the following instructions seem to be given to believing husbands (vs. 7); why wouldn’t we see them included in the discussion about wives living in submission?

Guin also points to the reference to Abraham and Sarah, reminding us that their marriage had a lot of problems. While I think that’s true, it’s no reason to disregard Peter’s point. Think about Abraham being continually held up as a person of faith. What if we merely focused on his weak points: moments of doubt, times of sin, disobedience to the Lord’s call, even falling on his face laughing at God. We could say, “Abraham is no model of faith; look at his failures.” I’d suggest instead that we trust that Peter (and Silas – 5:12) were guided by the Holy Spirit as they wrote these words.

Husbands are again warned not to treat their wives in a domineering way. Family leadership does not include high-handed, despotic behavior. That’s part of the curse in Genesis 3, not part of God’s original design. Women may be “weaker vessels” (Peter’s words, not mine), but they are by no means inferior. They are co-heirs with us and with Christ. No one can mistreat his wife and be right with God.

Buried Talents by Jay Guin

15 Replies

Jay Guin is a prolific and thoughtful writer, unafraid to follow his study wherever it may lead him. He’s even willing to change positions, as he admits to in his book Buried Talents. This book is an important resource in the discussion of men and women in the churches of Christ. While I admit to not agreeing with his conclusions, I have high regard for the process that led him to those conclusions.

I’m not fond of beginning with conclusions, but I’ll make an exception in this case. On page 142, Guin states his position clearly:

The Bible says that in God’s eyes there is neither male nor female. It means what it says. Passages that apparently limit women’s role are written for a temporary cultural situation that no longer exists (much like the command of the Holy Kiss). Genesis 3 is a curse not a command. Genesis 1 and 2 define how men and women should relate in Christ, who came to undo the Fall of Man—they are both made in God’s image and husbands and wives should be one flesh, much as Jesus and God are one.

I know that statement leads to delight for some and dismay for others. Again, I encourage us to consider the process, how he gets there. Whether or not you agree with Guin’s conclusions, you owe it to yourself to see how he came upon them.

Briefly, let me state my points of divergence:

  • I do think that Genesis 1-3 is crucial to this discussion. I also agree that the idea of man “lording over” women is part of the curse, not part of the original design. Anyone lording over anyone in the church is a direct violation of Jesus’ teachings. However, as I’ve discussed, I see much in the creation story that leads me to see a divine plan behind maleness and femaleness that goes beyond biological reproduction.
  • I don’t think the concept of form and function is fully explored. Guin relies too heavily on the Holy Kiss argument (pages 22, 28, 135, 141, 142, 143, 177, and 178) as a means of saying that certain commands can be disregarded because of their cultural ties. He admits that the idea of greeting one another still carries weight, but doesn’t flesh out that correspondence to the commands about women. [I’ll insert that I think we COMPLETELY misunderstand the statements about greeting with a holy kiss… but I’ll save that for another time]
  • I think that Guin and many others exaggerate how much the early church bowed to cultural pressure. It’s worth noting that Paul (and other writers) made note of when they were making such concessions (Acts 16:3; 1 Corinthians 7-10; Romans 14). No such statement exists regarding the differences between men and women.

These differences lead me to a different place than Guin. But, as I said, I still think he brings a lot of unique insights to this discussion. You’d do well to read his work.

[I would note that Jay’s site is frequently hard to access. Be patient.]

Microphones do not a leader make

14 Replies

churchI want to repeat myself a bit. I think this point gets lost in so many of the discussions about gender: much of the problem stems from an overemphasis on public worship.

We define our churches by that once-a-week gathering of the saints. We define much of the work of the church by what is done during that time. Think about your church’s budget. What percentage goes to providing for that time? I’m talking about salaries, about building costs, about everything involved in allowing us to bring dozens or hundreds of people together. Isn’t that the main thing our church does?

If it is, then our church has little right to exist. Our weekly time together prepares us to go out and do the work of the church. If three hours a week (or five or one) make up the bulk of our Christianity, then something is really, really wrong.

Much of the discussion about men and women in the church comes down to who is going to get to stand up, who is going to get to speak, who is going to get to be seen by everyone else present.

So let me restate my radical views:

  • I don’t think the focus of the early church was a once per week assembly. To be honest, you have to do some piecemeal Bible study to even present a case for a weekly assembly.
  • I don’t think the focus of the church was on gathering hundreds of Christians together in one place. That wasn’t practical in many settings. And if it were the focus, wouldn’t we have more discussion of such in the New Testament?
  • I think a lot of our angst comes from the modern design of assemblies. Not the New Testament example. The modern design. Suddenly stepping up to a microphone implies authority. Where someone telling their story to a gathered group of friends feels like sharing, “giving your testimony” to a crowd seems to place you above them, if only for a moment.

I know that not all of the problems mentioned in gender discussions revolve around public worship. But a high percentage of them do.

I also know that pointing out that problem doesn’t solve it. Fact is, we have large weekly assemblies. We are guided by modernism’s idea of what should be done at such times. And we’ve got to work out how to proceed.

Let’s just recognize that there should be flexibility in how we proceed, with each congregation being given the freedom to work out its own standards and norms. Those who damn other Christians for not being more inclusive of women are running the risk of damning themselves. Those who damn other Christians for allowing women to participate more fall under the same threat of divine judgment.

Phoebe, Junia, and the women of Romans 16

23 Replies

adult, child with bibleI’m still going to be in and out a bit the next week or so, but let’s move ahead a bit in our discussion of gender. It might help a bit to look at some of the women mentioned in the New Testament.

Romans 16 is an important passage; about one third of the people mentioned in this chapter are women. Phoebe is the first; she was probably the bearer of this letter. She is called a servant or deaconess. It helps to remember that “deacon” and “deaconess” really don’t exist in Greek; the word is servant. But that doesn’t answer the question as to whether Paul uses this term in a technical way. The most likely is yes, that Phoebe was recognized as one of the official church workers. Early church writings show women who served as deaconesses, fulfilling roles that the men found difficult, such as helping with the baptisms of women.

Several of the women in the list are said to have worked hard. We’d like to know exactly what that work involved, but we aren’t told.

One of the most interesting comments in Romans 16 is made about a woman named Junia. Paul says:

“Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.” (Romans 16:7, KJV)
“Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.” (Romans 16:7, NIV)
“Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me. Greet Ampliatus, my beloved in the Lord.” (Romans 16:7–8, ESV)

Those three translations give a pretty good idea of the different ways of reading this passage. The KJV shows the ambiguous nature of the Greek, while the NIV and ESV show the different ways that phrase can be understood. Outside of the New Testament, there’s good evidence of the grammatical use reflected in the ESV, though context would tend to favor the NIV’s view.

Either way, it helps a lot to remember that Paul doesn’t use the word “apostle” in the same way that Luke does. That is, Luke uses the word “apostle” almost exclusively to refer to the Twelve, while Paul often uses it in a broader sense. He uses the term for people other than the Twelve, and even contrasts the terms in this passage from 1 Corinthians 15:

5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.

In my view, Junia was one of the sent, probably along with her husband (Andronicus). Like Priscilla and Aquila, they were probably active in evangelism and the establishment of new churches. That would help explain their imprisonment at this early date.

Women were active in the life of the early church, as they are today, so none of this should be threatening to anyone. We need Phoebes and Junias today as much as ever.

Submission and gender

6 Replies

Bible by fireplace“Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.” (Ephesians 5:22) That’s an unpopular sentence for today’s world. I wonder if it’s not because we don’t really understand submission.

We have this image of the browbeaten bride trembling before her chest-thumping husband. That may be what the world means by submission, but it’s not what the Bible is talking about.

Some thoughts

  • The concept of wives submitting to their husbands arises from the concept of mutual submission that is to be practiced by all Christians. We put others’ interests first, we sacrifice for them, we count them as better than ourselves.
  • The concept of submission by wives is tied to the concept of sacrificial love by the husband. Both need to be present for the system to work. If the husband constantly sacrifices without the woman respecting him for it, the man is taken advantage of. If the woman submits to a selfish or unloving husband, she is dominated and subjugated.
  • The relationship of the husband to the wife is compared to the relationship between the church and Christ. Paul presents this as a theological concept, not a concession to culture.
  • In Corinthians, Paul compares the relationship between man and woman to the relationship between Christ and God. (1 Corinthians 11:3) The submissive relationship is a reflection of the godhead. Christ isn’t presented as inferior to his Father, but he is presented as being in submission to his Father. According to Paul, the submission of Christ to the Father will be a key point in the final triumph of the Kingdom. (1 Corinthians 15:24–28)

As we explore gender roles in the church, we need to remember that male leadership is a consistent biblical theme. It’s not about domination or authoritarianism; it’s about men loving their wives as Christ loves the church and doing their best to lead their families closer to God.