Tag Archives: gender roles in the church

Male leadership a consequence of The Fall? Where’s the biblical evidence?

So yesterday’s question was: “Can you think of a New Testament writer who described the current (in their day) state of male-female relations as being a result of The Curse?” I’d still like to hear from anyone who can think of an example. Because I can’t.

There are some references, though largely symbolic, to God’s words to the serpent:

“Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring—those who obey God’s commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.” (Revelation 12:17)
“He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.” (Revelation 20:2)
“The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.” (Romans 16:20)
“I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you.” (Luke 10:18–19)

There are references to God’s words to Adam:

“For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.” (Romans 8:20–22)
“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.” (Romans 5:12–14)
“For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” (1 Corinthians 15:21–22)

The New Testament argues that the curse on the ground will be lifted. The punishment of death, that came through Adam’s sin, will be undone. (Will there be a lifting of the curse on the serpent? Maybe, if you take Isaiah 11:6-9 as a description of the fulfilled Kingdom)

What I don’t see is any reference to the creation story followed by an indication that the relationship between men and women should be changed because of it. Sin is said to have come in through one man, as is death. There’s nothing saying that male leadership, male headship, women’s submission, or anything related came about because of the Garden. In fact, I can’t think of any Old Testament passages that make such an argument, either. (Again, with the possible exception of Genesis 3:16, though I find that interpretation to be forced on the text rather than read out of it)

I think anyone wanting to make that argument should do so with caution and humility. At most you have a possible interpretation of one less-than-clear text on your side.

Men, Women, and The Curse

Adam and Eve in the GardenWith the general feeling that I’m prying open a powder keg with a lit torch in my hand, I want to look at another aspect of the issue of gender relations in the church (And yes, I still lack a good way of referring to that topic). I want to talk about The Curse.

When discussing women’s roles in the church, one often hears a reference to male headship/leadership as merely being a result of what God described in Genesis 3:16. A friend of mine was discussing how churches limit the participation of women, and he said, “They don’t realize they’re just prolonging The Curse.”

A question came to mind. Can you think of any place in the New Testament where this argument is made? That is, can you think of a New Testament writer who described the current (in their day) state of male-female relations as being a result of The Curse? What scriptures would you offer to support such a view?

I’d just as soon we didn’t wander too far afield from this particular question. If you were going to prove the validity of this argument (male leadership began with The Fall and is a consequence of The Curse), what biblical texts would you use? Let’s leave out Genesis 3 for now. What does the rest of Scripture say about this?

Thanks for your input!

Spiritual giftedness and gender

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?

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.

Holy hands and simple clothes

Bible studyIn a discussion of prayer in 1 Timothy 2, Paul has some things to say to men and to women separately. Let’s look at the first section:

“I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.” (1 Timothy 2:8–10)

Rather than a word by word study, let me share some thoughts:

  • I don’t think Paul is saying that only men are to pray. He knew how to express that… and didn’t do so. (Few people limit Paul’s instructions in Titus 2:2 to men or 2:3 to women; why would we do so in this case?)
  • Paul is interested in men stopping their arguing and spending their time in prayer.
  • While this passage clearly shows that lifting hands is an acceptable prayer posture, I don’t think Paul is commanding that be done. He’s saying lift your hands in prayer, not in anger.
  • Women were to avoid showy clothes and hairstyles. (“Dress modestly” is contrasted with “dress ostentatiously” in the Bible. The concern isn’t about showing ankles or showing cleavage. It’s about showing off.)
  • If women wanted to “show off,” they were to do so with their good works. That’s a concern of Paul in 1 Timothy (note 1 Timothy 5:10).

One reason that we’ve focused on this passage as being about male-only prayer is we don’t want to live out the rest of it. Power struggles are common in the church; who wants to feel like they have to give that up to pray?

Somehow we’ve twisted “don’t wear expensive clothes” to “wear the best clothes you have.” Really?

And I come from a tradition that gave up hand lifting during prayer about a century ago; some people do it during songs, but few during prayer.

Here’s the summary: Don’t fight. Don’t try and outdo each other with your appearance. Outdo one another with good works. And pray.