When discussing gender roles, one passage is often played as a bit of a trump card. It’s the magnificent statement by Paul in the third chapter of Galatians, where he affirms the equality of every Christian:
“There is neither Jew nor Greek,
slave nor free,
male nor female,
for you are all
one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28)
There it is, for all to see. Gender differences are wiped out, they claim. I definitely agree. As far as access to salvation is concerned (Paul’s concern in this context), there is no difference between the genders.
Most scholars consider Galatians to be one of Paul’s earliest writings, if not the first. Some place the Thessalonian letters earlier. The vast majority agree that the following come later:
- Paul’s discussion of gender roles in 1 Corinthians 11
- Paul’s description of gender differences in Ephesians 5
- Paul’s specification of male-only elderships in Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3
- Paul’s discussion of gender roles in Titus 2
- Paul’s teaching about widows (and not widowers) in 1 Timothy 5
I’ve intentionally avoided “the two passages,” though there’s no valid reason to ignore the fact that instructions are given considering the different genders in 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2.
Let’s discuss the extent to which there is to be a differentiation between genders today. Let’s discuss how men and women can each function within the modern church. But let’s not pretend that Galatians 3:28 did something that Paul never intended it to do: obliterate the differences between men and women. (And please stop saying that there are only two passages that discuss limiting what women do in the church)
Tim, you begin with the assumption that there are gender roles in the church.
I’ll agree that others have begun with the assumption that there are no gender roles in the church.
But to have a meaningful discussion, don’t we all have to pull back and ask questions like, “Is the intention of God’s Spirit through New Testament writers to establish a gender-differentiated law for who can do what during gathered worship times or in the shepherding of the flock for all time, in all places, without exception?” “What evidence supports or contradicts that answer?” “Is the structure of the church hierarchical among people with a given person’s authority as its defining principle, or common among believers with God’s authority over all and love as its defining principle?”
That’s why we can’t simply isolate gender as some sort of specific issues.
There are larger questions to answer first.
Keith, I very much agree. To be honest, I’ve wrestled with this series as to WHERE to start. (Please note that this ISN’T the start) I finally decided just to jump into the middle and try and swim my way out.
Thanks for commenting all along the way. Your questions help keep things in focus.
Hermano Tim muchas gracias por estos mensajes son de muchas instruccion para nosotros
Dios te continue usando y bendiciendo
Tim,
Rather than beginning with Galatians 3:28, I begin with Acts 2 and the outpouring of the Spirit. There a new community is formed out of the eschatological vision of the gospel. Not everything about that vision will be realized in that moment (e.g., it won’t be until Acts 10 when the inclusivity of this vision opens to the Gentiles) but one day everything will be realized so that we will have everything thing in common – we will no longer use race/ethnicity, gender, socio-economic status, etc. . . to define ourselves against each other. That is, there still will be blacks and whites, males and females, etc. . . but that won’t define our roles within the redemptive mission of God. Rather what will define our roles is our having received the gift of the Holy Spirit who equips and empowers us to live as witnesses of Jesus Christ. Some will do that as deacons, some as evangelists, some as missionaries, etc. . . and they will do so because the Spirit and not their race, gender, etc. . . makes them such.
Grace and Peace,
K. Rex Butts
One of the problems theologians have is when they feel boxed into a corner they tend to obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate. In regard to Keith’s question, the argumentation is clearly circular. The desired answer is “no,” so the question is intentionally framed so as to make the opponent appear to go against “the intention of the Holy Spirit.” Likewise with Rex’s comment – I would be truly loathe to go against the “eschatological vision of the redemptive mission of God,” but the “either/or” choice he provides leaves me little choice. The only question I have for these brothers is “in your carefully constructed arguments, are you not also boxing out the apostles Paul and Peter?” In other words, according to your questions, is not Paul going against the intention of the Holy Spirit and therefore denying the eschatological vision of the redemptive mission of God?
We can talk in meaningless generalities until the cows come marching home on their own, but where does it get us? We can bandy terms like “intention of the Holy Spirit” and “eschatological vision” and truly impress our lesser educated readers, but to what avail? Paul gave concrete instructions to a flesh and blood congregation, and that is the text that we have to work with, whether we like it or not.
The question remains, if God did intend to totally obliterate the male/female distinction so clearly illustrated in the texts Tim listed above, why did he wait almost 2,000 years to make that plain? And, why would he give such blatantly conflicting instructions to those congregations in Corinth, Ephesus, and Crete?
Paul, you are insulting.
You raise good questions, but since any answer that sounds different than yours is labeled “obfuscation,” I highly doubt you’ll get any significant conversation.
The Law never blocked access to salvation for slaves, Gentiles, or women. Jewish women were equal members of the covenant community. Proselyte Gentile women like Rahab and Ruth (a Moabitess!) could join the covenant community just as Gentile men could. Slaves had access to the covenant community.
What the Law hindered was something else.
The Law did, in fact, prohibit Gentiles from the covenant community *as Gentiles*. They had to convert to Judaism (that is, become a Jew first). Thus, back to the question Tim asked in the post – what makes Galatians 3:28 so powerful is that by faith alone Gentiles could now be justified before God *as Gentiles*. That is what the verse is talking about. It is saying that slave/free, Jew/Greek, male/female (and you could add clean/unclean) could all be justified by faith alone as they currently find themselves. There was no other Law, no other conversion, no other code to maintain. In Christ it is by grace through faith. That is the glory of Galatians 3:28.
That said, Galatians 3:28 has absolutely nothing to do with “gender roles” at all. It’s not even implicit in the context.
Grace be with you –
Jr
Nick, wow. I never intended to be insulting. Blunt, yes. Direct, yes. Insulting – in no way.
What I saw in Keith’s and Rex’s responses was the same response I receive when discussing this question: change the question entirely or make the question so muddled and confusing that no one really understands the point of the discussion. Thus, my term “obfuscate.” Tim obviously did not see Keith’s response the way I did.
In my mind Tim asked a very simple and direct question. I believe it deserves a simple and direct answer. That’s all.
I should not need to say this, but I will. I do not take this discussion as merely some esoteric “after dinner conversation” where we retire to the library with a glass of brandy in one hand and a cigar in the other. This conversation strikes at a much deeper level with me. If I teach something, using Scripture to defend my position, and I am wrong (especially in the sense of denying the power or working of the Holy Spirit) then I need to be corrected. I need to change what I am teaching and if I have offended any I need to make amends to the best of my ability. But I deserve the respect of being shown exactly where I have misinterpreted Scripture, or where my hermeneutic for arriving at that conclusion is clearly and unambiguously wrong.
I do not want to muddy the waters needlessly, but I will make one further observation. I am aware of many members of other churches who have accepted the egalitarian role of women in leadership positions, who now have to face the question of openly practicing homosexuals who demand the same leadership positions in those churches. Those who accept women as equal leaders but who also want to defend male/female marriage are finding themselves in an awkward position. They have to rely on the same Pauline letters they dismissed as being culturally time-bound, and they have to rely on the creation story. Which, incidentally, Paul did in arguing for male spiritual leadership.
So, we cannot have it both ways. Either we allow our present culture to define our relationship to God (which then calls into question a whole host of other New Testament doctrines) or we deal with the text as we have it and try our best to live according to its teachings.
I believe Tim has done an excellent job in this series of posts to define the issue. I just wish those who disagree with him would debate his points instead of trying to change the direction of the debate.
Yes and no…
Yes, those who have dismissed Paul’s letters as being culturally time-bound have indeed sawn off the limb upon which they sit.
No, it is not necessary or helpful to dismiss Paul’s letters (or any other part of the Scriptures) as being culturally time-bound in order to assert that God’s intent was to lead the church towards gender equality and a culture where roles were defined by spiritual giftedness rather than DNA.
Pingback: Resources for UCC Bible Study | Tim Archer's Kitchen of Half-Baked Thoughts