Tag Archives: gender roles

Coffee and headship

Coffee ServiceWhen I get up in the morning, I make coffee. It reminds me who I am.

I’m not talking about the need for a caffeine fix. A lot of times the coffee sits around over an hour before I drink any. Caffeine doesn’t particularly wake me up. I don’t drink coffee as a drug.

But I prepare coffee for my wife. And I wait to drink it with her. I get out two mugs that match. Not the same mugs every day, but I want our mugs to be the same.

Most of our mugs have been in our home for a decade or two, so they show some wear and tear. I pick out the better of the two mugs and use that for my wife’s coffee.

Most of the time, I prepare both cups and serve her hers, putting in the sweetener and milk that she uses.

So hooray. I do a chore around the house. Am I looking for a medal?

No, it’s not about that. This little morning ritual reminds me who I am. I take seriously what the Bible says about me being the head of my family. (Feel free to argue about whether head means “source” or “leader” or whatever you choose) As head, from what I read in Ephesians 5, I’m called on to do several specific things.

  • I’m to love my wife (and family)
  • I’m to serve her
  • I’m to sacrifice for her

To me that’s what it means for me to be the head of my family. And making coffee in the morning reminds me of that.

Image from MorgueFile.com

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.

Women in the church: Silence is golden?

Bible studyIn 1 Corinthians, Paul spends time answering questions sent to him by the Corinthians and time responding to reports that he received from members of the Corinthian church who visited him. In chapters 12 through 14, he addresses the issue of spiritual gifts and the church.

The last section of chapter 14, beginning with verse 26, Paul addresses the assembly. The section reads as follows:

“What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But all things should be done decently and in order.” (1 Corinthians 14:26–40)

There is some controversy as to whether Paul, in verse 26, is describing the assembly as it is in Corinth or as it should be. Whichever the case, Paul sees the need for correction.

He tells three groups of people that they need to be in control of themselves and be silent at times:

  • Tongues speakers
  • Prophets
  • Women

The tongue speakers were to speak one at a time. If no interpreter was present, they were to be silent.

Prophets were to speak one at a time. If another received a revelation, the first was to be silent. Paul reminds them that their spirits are subject to them (same word used for “submit” in other passages); that is, inspiration from the Holy Spirit did not override the ability of the prophets to control themselves.

Women were to remain silent in the assembly. Paul brings back the concept of shame, which he used when discussing women wearing a head covering in chapter 11. It is shameful for these women to speak. They are to ask questions of their husbands at home.

Several things lead us to think that Paul is addressing a specific problem. The instructions come in the midst of teaching about correcting a chaotic worship service. Paul seems to have in mind here women who are shaming their husbands (similar to chapter 11). The commands are somewhat hyperbolic; Paul talks about women being completely silent in the assembly, which would include singing and other activities. Yet as he explains, the problem appears to have been women asking questions in a disorderly fashion.

I don’t believe in pitting one passage against another. The silence imposed on women in chapter 14 wouldn’t keep them from doing the things mentioned in chapter 11: praying and prophesying.

However, we mustn’t overlook the fact that Paul once again has different instructions for the different sexes. Galatians 3:28 doesn’t change that fact, at least it didn’t for Paul. Women were not to shame their husbands; the same instruction could have been given to the men… and it wasn’t.

Note: There are textual problems with this passage. Patrick Mead (here and here) and Jay Guin (here) have discussed this recently. Guin notes:

I agree with Patrick that 1 Cor 14:34-35 should be considered a part of the original text. However, those who take the opposite view aren’t “liberals” or unworthy of fair consideration. Some very conservative scholars who are experts in textual criticism reject these verses as unlikely to have been in the original.

Mead concludes:

As I mentioned before, these two verses are found in every early manuscript of which I am aware…but not in the same place.

There’s no reason not to deal with these verses. They may occur in a slightly different place, but there is little doubt that they were in the original text.