Tag Archives: gender differences

Jews, slaves, women, and baptism

12 Replies

Bathroom-gender-signIn the comment section yesterday, Mike Cope, who directs the Pepperdine Lectures, responded to my post from Monday. He offered both clarifications and criticism. Both deserve to be heard. You can read Mike’s comments here and here.

Mike took exception to my calling Jarrod Robinson’s lecture “an agenda-driven talk.” Mike said that he chose both title and text, basing his decisions on scholarly writings, particularly those of Richard Hays. The choice was made for scholarly reasons, not in an effort to promote a certain agenda.

Mike also felt that I was saying that “if someone knew a little more about Galatians, they’d know how irrelevant it is to discussions of gender roles.” That’s not something I said nor intended, but it may have come across that way. Mike refuted that by referring to quite a number of scholars who feel that Galatians 3:28 does in fact reflect Paul’s egalitarian view of gender. Mike quoted both from Hays and from Gordon Fee in his comments.

I will note that Fee’s writings have generated quite a bit of pushback. I’m not as familiar with Hays’ writings. Either way, I recognize that many scholars hold the view Mike described. My study has led me to a different conclusion, one that I feel is biblical. As people say in Spanish, I don’t consider myself to be “the owner of the truth,” but I do feel that my beliefs line up with the larger themes we see in Scripture.

So let’s keep looking at this passage. Actually, I’d like to start by looking at two others, alongside Galatians 3:28:

“Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.” (Colossians 3:11)
“For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.” (1 Corinthians 12:13)
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28)

One thing that I learned from Dr. Tom Olbricht is the importance of noting what is repeated in Scripture. Things that are repeated often represent concepts that were consistently taught among God’s people. They are less likely to be localized teachings and more likely to be important points with a broader application. Such is the case with the unity of God’s people, a unity that overcomes divisions among people.

When dealing with similar passages, it’s also important to note differences. One thing that jumps as we compare these three statements from Paul is the inclusion of male/female in Galatians 3:28. That bears investigation. Why does Paul include that particular grouping in the letter to the Galatians and not the other two letters?

One possibility is that the Galatian church had a particular problem with gender relations. That’s a possibility, but there’s really nothing else in the letter that would support that.

A better understanding, in my view, is one proposed by Troy W. Martin in his article “The Covenant of Circumcision (Genesis 17:9-14) and the Situational Antitheses in Galatians 3:28” from the Journal of Biblical Literature, Spring 2003. Martin notes the parallels between what the Law said about circumcision and the three pairs mentioned by Paul in Galatians 3:28. Briefly, the idea is that male Jews were to be circumcised, along with any slaves that they owned. Jews. Slaves. Males. The same three groups that Paul addresses, when talking to a church that was wrestling with the issue of circumcision.

Why does Paul mention women in Galatians 3:28? Circumcision. Those who sought to impose circumcision on the Galatians were imposing it on the males, not the females. They were saying that one group came to Jesus one way, the other a different way.

Paul says no. We are all baptized into Christ. In that same way, we all become children of God, descendants of Abraham, and heirs of the promise. There is no difference. We are all one.

Note: that interpretation alone doesn’t answer the question of whether or not this verse has a broader application or whether it is meant to redefine all roles within the church. But it does make sense as to why women were mentioned in Galatians 3:28 and not in the other unity formulas written by Paul.

But we need to note a couple of things:

  • This is not a main part of Paul’s argument
  • This does not seem to have been something that Paul emphasized in other places; other unity formulas don’t include male/female
  • It’s dangerous to take a minor point in a single text and make it the basis for interpreting other texts. Many egalitarians accuse others of doing that with texts from 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, then do the same thing with Galatians 3:28

The discussion of gender in the church is more than a two-position conversation

47 Replies

Bathroom-gender-signWell, we’re back in a discussion on gender. It will be a limited one this time; I really want to finish the study of baptism that we’ve been doing.

But I have a few more things to say on this matter, a little more pot stirring to do, so we’ll give this topic the rest of this week.

One of my concerns about this topic specifically and current public discourse in general is the tendency to reduce all issues to two choices. You’re pro-life or pro-abortion. You’re liberal or conservative. In this discussion, you’re complementarian or egalitarian. (with my spell checker showing as little pleasure with the word complementarian as I feel)

I think it would greatly help this discussion if we could recognize that views on this issue cover a wide range of opinions and beliefs. It’s not yes/no or in/out. There are nuances and facets, themes and variations.

What if we thought about the differing views as a spectrum of ideas? This is still oversimplification, but it moves the discussion closer to the truth. Just for discussion’s sake, let’s call full egalitarianism E6 and the opposite extreme (misogyny) E0.

E0 sees women as inferior. They are to be silent in the church. Even singing is forbidden. Men and women don’t sit together. Women cover their heads in public, maybe even using veils.

E1 takes a slightly more generous view. Women may sing, but they are not to speak in the assembly. They may ask questions, respond to questions, or read Scripture in a Bible class setting; they may not pray nor teach. They may teach women, but only if there are no men present at the time.

E2 allows women to fully participate in church… as long as they do not do so from a standing position or from the front of the auditorium. They might be allowed to answer direct questions during the assembly or make prayer requests.

E3 lets women make announcements or give testimony in the assembly. They are restricted from anything that smacks of having authority over men or teaching.

E4 feels that women can pray or read scripture, based on 1 Corinthians 11. They are still restricted from authority or teaching, based on 1 Timothy 2.

E5 feels that women can do just about anything that men can in the assembly. The only restriction is that the eldership is still seen as a male domain.

E6 sees no difference between what men and women can do or be in the church.

Most points of the spectrum feel that those toward the lower end from them are a bit legalistic and those to the higher end a bit liberal. People at the far ends (E0-E1 and E-6) may feel that their view is the only possible view, the only one that is truly grounded in Scripture. Most of those toward the middle of the spectrum recognize the possibility that other views may be as acceptable as theirs.

That’s my proposal, artificial though the distinctions may be. Personally, I’m willing to allow each congregation to find its identity, answering not to me but to the Lord as to the correctness of their views. There is one view that I reject outright: the view that damns others that don’t share their viewpoint.

Baptism, gender, and Galatians 3

66 Replies

waterA post about gender differences in the church doesn’t really have a place in a series on baptism. Just as a talk about gender and the church doesn’t really fit a Bible lectureship about baptism and the Lord’s Supper. That’s how I see it. But not everyone shares my opinion.

The recent Pepperdine lectures were built around themes from John Mark Hick’s new book on baptism and the Lord’s Supper. I’ve read previous works by John Mark on these subjects, so I imagine this one should be excellent. Jarrod Robinson was invited to speak on Galatians 3:26-28 and titled his talk “Our Baptismal Vows.” He gave a talk that has garnered much attention, emphasizing his beliefs that there are no differences between what men and women can do in the church.

Personally I feel that Jarrod was set up to fail. Not that he didn’t give a very good talk. But his verse assignment pushed verse 28 to the forefront of the discussion. You either focus on the verse that discusses baptism or you expand your focus to include the whole paragraph. It’s either 3:26-27 or it’s 3:26-29. Otherwise, you’re turning what should be an exposition of Scripture into an agenda-driven talk. Which was what we got from Jarrod.

Not to say he didn’t do a good job. It was an effective talk. But it wasn’t Galatians 3.

(I should note that I raised these concerns in a group that John Mark Hicks is a part of. In response, he wrote a blog post on the subject. I think he’s reaching a bit to find a parallel between Joel and Galatians 3. It’s also hard to connect this reasoning with the topic under discussion in Galatians. But you can read his article and decide for yourself.)

The original hearers of the book of Galatians wouldn’t have heard the letter read and come away talking about 3:28. It’s a minor point in the letter. If anything, they would have discussed it in relation to their situation and the topic Paul was discussing… which was not about gender roles in the church (and was about whether or not believers had to be circumcised to be a part of the community of faith. Merely reading the verse with that in mind steers you in the proper direction)

Toward the end of his talk, Jarrod kept repeating the phrase: “We’re baptized believers. We’re better than this,” while discussing the limiting of the role of women in the church. An effective rhetorical device, but not one that leads to good examination of a text. I could say, “Let’s not just follow the whims of culture. We’re baptized believers. We’re better than this.” Good rhetorical device; less than helpful for improving understanding.

If you’d like to listen to Jarrod’s talk, you can see it on YouTube. Or search for it on iTunes.

I want to spend some time discussing this passage further before moving on to other passages on baptism (which is what we’ve been studying the last few weeks). I look forward to your comments, as always.

Spiritual giftedness and gender

31 Replies

Bible studyWe’ve been talking on and off about the subject of gender differences since October of last year. I don’t really want to carry over into February, so I’ll offer a few more thoughts and let the matter rest.

One sticking point for many people is the question of giftedness. That is, if men and women are equally endowed by the Holy Spirit with spiritual gifts, are we not resisting the Spirit if we limit the exercise of those gifts?

This, my friends, is a powerful argument, at least in my mind. As Nick pointed out the other day, Peter’s quote from the book of Joel in Acts 2 seems to point to a time when women and men will be receiving and using gifts from the Holy Spirit. And the rest of the book of Acts seems to bear that out, particularly when we see the daughters of Philip who are prophetesses.

But there’s something that troubles me, something that I brought up to Jen in one of my replies to her:

Something I want to discuss in a later post is something that I think very important: I believe that believers in the first century were as transformed by the Spirit as we are. Gifted by the Spirit.
So did the Spirit lead men to stifle the gifts of Spirit-filled women because of cultural concerns? Or did the Spirit wait until culture changed before gifting women for roles the culture wouldn’t accept?
My view is that the Spirit is much bigger than human culture and able to form a Christian community within any culture that transcends that culture. If he chose to use males to lead for centuries before the coming of Christ* and chose males to lead during Christ’s ministry and chose males to lead the church after Christ’s ascension, isn’t it quite possible that he had a plan in all of that? Even if we don’t understand all of the whys?

*Yes, there were exceptions at times when the men weren’t living up to what they were supposed to, but none of that changes what the norm was.

I’m wary of a chronological snobbery that says, “We finally got right what the church missed for hundreds of years.” I’m aware that there are some similarities to the issue of slavery, yet I can’t help but see differences as well. Slavery within the church was addressed even when the church abstained from waging a campaign to eradicate slavery in society. Even if the church wasn’t going to change Greco-Roman societal views toward women, major changes could have been implemented from the very beginning of the church. And they weren’t.

Some claim that any who advocate a difference in the activities of men and women in the church are guilty of sin. I can’t help but note that the early church was guilty of the same sin, if it be a sin. And I’m convinced that they too had the Spirit of God.

I don’t believe that spiritual giftedness is new to the last few centuries. I also believe that God’s Spirit was living and active in the first century church, as he is today.

The argument of spiritual giftedness, compelling though it seems, is not enough to lead us to say that God had a different practice in mind than what we see in Scripture: Active, spirit-filled women serving as missionaries and prophetesses, performing works of service and ministry, building up the church through their work, under the authority of male shepherds.

(Ben Witherington had a helpful post the other day on the subject of slavery, in the context of analyzing N.T. Wright’s work on Paul and The Faithfulness of God)

Silence or quietness? What does submission call for?

18 Replies

Bible studyWe saw in the last post that Paul, in 1 Timothy 2, was instructing Timothy about encouraging prayer in the church. He especially wanted the men to focus on praying instead of arguing and wanted the women to not focus on their outward appearance, but to focus on doing good things.

That discussion leads him to a related matter, still concerning men and women:

“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.” (1 Timothy 2:11–15)

The ESV does a good job with the word they’ve translated “quietly” and “quiet.” For some reason, the KJV translators used the word “silence,” but that’s not a good reflection of the word. A different form of the word is used in verse 2 of this chapter to describe the lives that Christians are to seek; the KJV uses the word “quiet” in that instance and should have in this one. Paul isn’t telling women that they can’t speak at all; he’s telling them to be respectful.

The concept of submissiveness is still here. I know that we wrestle with that word, particularly because of modern connotations. We think of someone forcing someone else to submit, but that’s not the picture the New Testament paints. I think Ephesians 5 gives us a good idea of what submission looks like in a loving relationship. Mutual submission does not rule out some sense of hierarchy; it merely leads each party to seek the interests of the other.

Paul also warns against letting women teach or “exercise authority over a man.” There is controversy over the meaning of the second verb in that set (it’s a unique word used only here in the New Testament). I think it helps to see the contrast: she is to seek quietness. Her actions should not bring into question her submission.

Paul expresses this as a personal view, yet it’s a personal view based on theology, not merely culture nor pressing concerns. Even as we wrestle to understand his theological point, it’s foolish to argue that he doesn’t have one.

And then comes the enigmatic statement: “she will be saved through childbearing.” It’s a difficult statement to interpret (as Laymond noted, even Peter said some of Paul’s sayings were hard to understand). There are several possibilities. The only one that would really change our interpretation of these verses would be a strict literalist position that says that a woman is saved by giving birth.

I think Paul’s concluding words get overlooked. They seem to be the point of the whole thing: women are to continue in faith, love and holiness, and to do it in a proper way. (“temperate” is a good translation here, but we rarely use that word any more)

This passage fits well with Paul’s other teachings about men and women, even Galatians 3. There’s no need to pit one passage against another. Paul maintained the system of male leadership/headship that is seen throughout the Bible, giving much freedom to women, but cautioning them to use it within the framework of that system.