Tag Archives: roles

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.