Tag Archives: gender differences

Ephesians 5 for husbands and wives

7 Replies

BibleEphesians 5:21 and following comes at an interesting point in the book of Ephesians. It seems to be part of the fleshing out of verses 16 and 17:

“Be very careful, then, how you live—not as unwise but as wise, making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil.” (Ephesians 5:15–16)

(The NIV Study Bible says that the grammar ties verses 21 and following to the filling of the Spirit in verse 18; I’ll trust them on that one. They indicate that Paul is saying that the Spirit’s power makes the following instructions possible)

Part of that fleshing out was to live lives of submission. Verse 21 states the principle that Christians are to submit to one another. Yet that principle needs some explaining. Wives are to submit to their husbands. Children are to obey their parents. Slaves are to obey their masters. In each of those cases, a limit is put on the other party. In reverse order, masters are to treat their slaves as people made in the image of God, not mere property. Parents are to avoid exasperating their children while training them in God’s way.

And husbands are to love their wives. Paul expounds on what this love looks like. It’s a sacrificial love, with the husband giving of himself in order to help his wife be more spiritual. He is to love his wife as he loves his own body.

Paul’s final word on the subject is: “However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.” (Ephesians 5:33)

The word respect is the same one that Peter uses in 1 Peter 3:2 when discussing wives’ submission to their husbands. It’s also used of the attitude Christians should have toward government officials (Romans 13:7) and toward God himself (Ephesians 5:21; Philippians 2:12; 2 Corinthians 7:1). It’s also used of slaves’ attitudes toward their masters (Ephesians 6:5; 1 Peter 2:18).

We can go far beyond this basic analysis, looking at the meaning of “head” and “submission” in this passage. (I will mention that Jay Guin does a good job with that in Buried Treasures, although he puzzlingly applies things to both men and women that are only addressed to one or the other) But I think this is more than enough to begin the discussion.

This passage does not directly address men and women in the church. However, so much of what is said about the genders seems to hinge on the marriage relationship, this seems to be a good place to start.

One of my key points is this: this teaching does not seem to precede Galatians 3:28 historically. The equality of men and women as regards the spiritual inheritance does not eliminate the differences between husband and wife.

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.]

Men, women, and the resurrection

36 Replies

Bathroom-gender-signIn our discussion about men and women and church leadership, one of the questions that has come up several times is whether gender differences will be an eternal thing. More pointedly, the objection to seeing differing roles for men and women has been that Jesus told us to pray for things to be on earth as in heaven; does a teaching that recognizes gender differences imply that those differences will exist after the resurrection?

I’ve written before about my agnosticism regarding what happens after we die. I don’t have it all down pat the way some people seem to. But I do know that life after the resurrection won’t be like life before the resurrection, at least not exactly. I base that on the following event from Jesus’ life:

“That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. “Teacher,” they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him. Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. Finally, the woman died. Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?” Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.” (Matthew 22:23–30; see also Mark 12:18-31 and Luke 20:27-40)

The Sadducees weren’t merely confused about what would happen after the resurrection. They denied it altogether. But part of their error was failing to recognize that life after the resurrection will be different. As regards marriage, at least, we will be like the angels; marriage won’t be a part of our reality.

Marriage is part of our present life. It’s a big part of the church’s life, according to Scripture. But it won’t be after the resurrection.

On the subject of gender, this is especially telling. I believe that the recognition of gender differences in the church is closely tied with the family and with marriage. If marriage is going to be absent in the resurrection, then we shouldn’t be surprised to see a change in the relationship between men and women.

Form, function, and passages about gender differences

Leave a reply

Bible in the shadowSo what does form and function tell us about the passages regarding men and women in the church? I think it has several things to say:

  • The main question isn’t whether or not Paul intended to write rules for church practice throughout eternity. That’s where we often get sidetracked, either by someone wanting to strictly apply everything they read (these are the ones who are still holding their collection, waiting for Paul to come and take it to Jerusalem) and those who shout “Legalist!” anytime someone tries to teach based on Paul’s instructions to the early church.
  • The occasional nature of Paul’s writings doesn’t give us license to ignore what he says. The statement “That’s just cultural” is a meaningless statement. Everything is cultural in one way or another; that is, the Bible uses human language and situations to teach. It uses human culture. We must discern what teachings transcend culture.
  • Whatever we decide that Paul was addressing in passages like Ephesians 5 and 1 Corinthians 11, we still need to hear his teachings. The function behind the form must be addressed in some way. If women aren’t to wear veils, then how is the same function fulfilled today?

What other thoughts come to your mind when thinking about form and function?

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.