All right, let’s get back to the discussion of gender roles in the church. Thanks for the discussion last time; special thanks to those who recruited others to join the conversation.
One big issue that has to be dealt with is the Bible’s relationship with its historical and cultural context, especially when it comes to gender roles. It’s hard to deny that the Bible paints a male-dominated picture of the world. You find the occasional queen, prophetess, and female judge, but overwhelmingly, it’s a man’s world. So, in such a testosterone-laden context, was the Bible merely a product of that society or did it help shape it?
It’s the question I asked before: did the Law prohibit pork because the Jews didn’t eat it or did the Jews refrain from pork because the Law prohibited it? Did the Mosaic Law establish a system of male leadership because of the society the Hebrews lived in or did the Law seek to shape the Israelites into the society he wanted?
More specifically for us Christians, when Jesus chose only men to be among the Twelve, was that a concession to society or an example for the church? When Paul told Timothy and Titus to appoint men as elders, was that merely a reflection of the world Paul knew or was that an inspired directive? (we can also ask if that was only for Ephesus and Crete or if other churches followed that practice)
I’d like to hear your thoughts on the matter.
To your list of questions you can add this one: When God told Eve that her husband would rule over her, was He simply stating the way things WOULD be because of man’s (usual) superior physical strength and aggression – or was He stating the way He INTENDED it to be?
Tim: Good questions.
While going through Acts, Dr. Rick Oster at HST taught us something in passing that I found rather profound regarding this issue. In chapter 13, we read in v.50 that “the Jews incited the devout women of high standing and the leading men of the city…” – and this is a rather significant point we often overlook.
The normal way we think of ancient Greek culture is not what is represented in Acts or in historical reality. Here we have women of high standing, with high civic positions, high socio-economic status, high religious positions. And this we know was true in Rome and in Greece as well as in western and southern Asia Minor. These women were not “out of sight out of mind” and there is a ton of archeological evidence and inscriptions testifying to the high-standing women in all the areas I just mentioned (private and public). Thus, Christianity would not have been viewed as a women’s liberation movement because they were already liberated.
All that to say that when Paul points to “roles” he is being rather counter-cultural in his pronouncements.
To go with this, it is insightful that in each of the cases where headship is discussed, Paul appeals to pre-fall realities (Eph 5:31; 1 Cor 11:7-9; see also 1 Tim 2:13), as opposed to post-fall consequences or culture. Additionally and perhaps even more significantly, Paul also links the mutual loving headship/relationship to divine realities (Eph 5:32; 1 Cor 11:3) as opposed to post-fall consequences or culture. Thus, to dismiss the pre-fall realities of the loving husband and wife relationship as God ordained would be to logically dismiss such things as “Christ is the head of the church” and how the marriage mysteriously symbolizes Christ and His Bride. For one example.
Grace be with you –
Jr
I forgot to point out the other Acts example. In Acts 17:12 it is clear that not only were there high-positioned women in culture, but they became believers. Little doubt they heard the same directives from Paul re:”roles” as we read in Eph, Cor, and the Pastorals.
Grace be with you –
Jr
Jerry, I suppose he saw the great job the male of the species did in leading the female, he thought he would put him in charge eternally. (my answer)
Or maybe it was just to punish the more intelligent of the species by, putting the man in charge. (my wife’s answer) :)
Very interesting point, Jr. I hadn’t thought of that.
My understanding is that Jesus chose only men to be among the Twelve because firstly the twelve were symbolic of the twelve tribes of Israel so therefore had to be male and secondly it was highly culturally inappropriate for women to traipse around the countryside along with a bunch of single men. That doesn’t mean that women leaders are inappropriate today. Jesus encouraged and empowered Mary, he watched gladly as the Samaritan women was the first person to preach the good news that he was the real deal…
When Paul told Timothy and Titus to appoint men as elders, was that merely a reflection of the world Paul knew or was that an inspired directive?
We have the example of Lydia seemingly hosting a house church, of Junia an apostle, of Phoebe a deacon, Priscilla a teacher, and numerous other women in the NT, the women mentioned in Romans 16, . Women were functionally involved in leadership in the first century church. We can’t let the witness of Scripture be ignored because of two directives to specific churches in the pastoral epistles in patriarchal times.
Wendy, it’s surprising how little of my understanding is based on those two passages that you mention. Not sure if I’ve brought them up yet. I do plan to deal with them, along with other parts of the Bible.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Wendy: It is undeniable that there were women in ministry roles in the early church. There were deaconesses (no doubt), and women who at least hosted house church meetings and did some kind of teaching. I have no objections regarding these things. But I draw issue with your last sentence that “We can’t let the witness of Scripture be ignored because of two directives to specific churches in the pastoral epistles in patriarchal times.”
That statement is historically inaccurate. The 1st-century world was not homogeneous. As mentioned in previous comments; we know from archeological and other historical evidence that in the first century women were in high civic positions, high religious positions, and in high-class positions economically. As Acts 17:12 points out, a number of them became believers. Yet Paul still wrote what He wrote in his letters, and (this is the biggy), he based his teaching on pre-fall decrees and divine realities and *not* on post-fall cultural necessity.
Additionally, it was mentioned that “it was highly culturally inappropriate for women to traipse around the countryside along with a bunch of single men.” – But yet we have Luke 8:1-3 which mentions that accompanying Jesus and the Twelve were “many” women. And what were they doing? They were traveling with Jesus and the Twelve “on through cities and villages” as He proclaimed and brought the good news of the kingdom of God.
I just find it hard to believe it was so culturally inappropriate when it is clear that single (and married) women did, in fact “traipse around the country side” with a band of single (and married) men. :)
Grace be with you –
Jr