September 14, 2006

• Women should not be silent...

  Not much posting these days because of the mental, verbal and virtual discussion over women in ministry.  If you haven't been following, you'll have to read my original post and the comments from my second post.

  Background information
  The first time I ever came across the 1 Timothy passage, I went and asked my pastor about it.  What does it mean?  I had only been a Christian for less than a year and was eager -- very eager -- to know the Truth and to live it out - whatever the truth may be.  Rather than pressing his viewpoint (complementarian), Pastor Ron gave me guidelines for understanding hard passages of Scripture.  He said that we always have to ask whether something that is written is a principle or a prescription.  In other words, was what was written meant only for the people at that time within that culture -- and so therefore what principles can we apply from it?  Or is what was written a prescription -- something we must apply directly?  He urged me to study the Scriptures, wrestle with the Holy Spirit and come to conclusion.    So I studied both sides of the argument in great depth for a long time - to the point where I was able to argue either side for either side.

  When it comes to studying the Scriptures, I believe that good hermeneutics always considers the larger context to which it has been written and examines whether the exhortations from that time apply directly to us today.  The epistles were not written in a vacuum but written to address a certain time and situation.  I believe that we would be misunderstanding God's heart if we do not consider the original intention of the original author.  I believe this is the approach we must take when studying these hard passages currently under scrutiny about women's role in the church.  The 1 Timothy 2:11-15 passage is one of the most pointed texts used for the stance that "women cannot be pastors/preachers/teachers" -- but I believe the notes from the study of that passage which I posted a few days ago tells us the contrary -- that women can teach and have authority over both women and men.  My conviction on the matter is not based on feelings (as some have pointed out because of my "dreamers" post).  On the contrary, Scripture has persuaded me from my original inclination toward the position that "women can't teach" to the truth that "women can teach". 

   

  After I posted the exegesis of 1 Timothy, among others' comments, I was sent an email of disagreement which referenced Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, a compiliation of essays which includes arguments that women should remain silent in the church.  I was challenged to read chapter 9, which was written by Douglas Moo and discusses the 1 Timothy 2:11-15 passage at length.  For most who hold this view, this book is probably the authority on this stance (especially since it has John Piper's stamp of approval on it).  These were some of my thoughts as I was reading this essay -- which may or may not address some of the questions that may have come up:    

    

  Implications

  What happens when you apply the stance that women cannot teach?

  P. 180 from RBMW, "All Christians are encouraged to study the Scriptures; but Paul expressly limits 'teaching' to a restricted number who have the gift of teaching.  Of course, if we define teaching in a broader sense - the communication of Christian truth through private conversation, family devotions, etc. - we may conclude that all Christians do indeed 'teach.'"  But he goes on to argue that women cannot teach if it means to "be engaged in expositing and applying biblical truth to men." I absolutely agree that teaching should be left to those who have been called and have been given the gift of teaching, but I believe that God can give the gift of teaching ("expositing truth") to women.  This point of view, which Douglas Moo asserts, that women can teach in certain contexts but not in others seems inconsistent.  He is claiming that a woman can teach another man something if it's one-on-one or for family devotions to her grown children, but if it's a bit of a larger group, then she cannot teach.  How does the number of people, the room they are in ( i.e. sanctuary) or formality of the context (sunday worship service vs. small group) make a woman's insights in the Word less valid -- or even invalid?    

   

  P. 181, "...we argue that the teaching prohibited to women here includes what we would call preaching, and teaching of Bible and doctrine in the church, in colleges, and in seminaries.  (Who decides these things?  So does this mean women can't teach in Christian colleges but can they teach in Christian high schools?  What makes a woman able to teach an 18 year old when he's in high school, but then suddenly when he graduates high school and enters college, her teaching becomes invalid? )  Other activities - leading Bible studies, for instance - may be included, depending on how they are done.  (So I  presume that "depending on how they are done" means that a woman can facilitate a study; she can ask questions but as soon as she proclaims truths which the Word is saying, then it is wrong.  How can this be right?)  Still others - evangelistic witnessing (but what if she was preaching the gospel to men, is that then wrong?), counseling, teaching subjects other than Bible or doctrine (so she can teach men about literature or math but she can't teach them about the Bible? ) - are not in our opinion, teaching in the sense Paul intends here."

   

  These "rules" and "guidelines" defining when and where women can teach seem arbitrary to me.  Some churches/denominations say women can teach high school boys, some say not.  Some say women can teach men in Sunday school classrooms, as long as it's not on the pulpit.  Some say women can "share" on the pulpit, just not teach (is this just a matter of semantics?)  Women are permitted to share their testimonies and experiences but cannot share from the Scriptures in an authoritative way - to encourage and exhort the congregation to follow Truth?  Come on.  God is not so arbitrary as this, is He?  The inability to apply this stance across the board shows the inconsistency of this line of thinking. 

   

  From the Bible

  Bottom of p. 183 from RBMW admits that though Paul had exhorted believers to greet one another with a holy kiss, we ought not do so today because that was fitting for the culture at that time but is not fitting for our culture today.  So my question is how do we know that kissing is something we should drop but that 'women remaining silent' is something we should maintain?  Wasn't that exhortation only relevant to that time when women were uneducated rabble-rousers?  How did Douglas Moo decide which to keep and which to drop?  The answers do not satisfy.  His arguments could seem rational, but you must admit at the end of the day that it's totally subjective.

   

  p. 185, "Gen 2:14 in conjunction with 1 Timothy 2:13, is intended to remind the women at Ephesus that Eve was deceived by the serpent in the Garden (Gen 3:13) precisely in taking the initiative over the man...in the same way, if the women at the church at Ephesus proclaim their independence from the men of the church, refusing to learn in 'quietnes and full submission', seeking roles that have been given to men in the church, they will make the same mistake Eve made and bring similar disaster on themselves and the church."  I think this is a slippery slope argument.  But this argument is not only bad because it's saying if A, then an exaggerated B will definitely happen.  (Disaster, huh?)  It's bad because I am not sure that A is even true.  "indpendence from men" "seeking roles that have been given to men"   The author is assuming that it's a given that roles of authority have been given to men over women.  What is the biblical basis for that thinking?  Have these roles really been given to men?  And furthermore, was it independence of man or independence of God that was the sin issue?  It was God!  Eve disobeyed God and sinned against God, not Adam.  Moo goes on to say the following to prove his meaning:

   

  P. 185, "Both the logic of this passage and the parallel in 1 Cor 11:3-10 make this clear: for Paul, the man's priority in the order of creation is indicative of the headship that man is to have over woman."  I do not see this conclusion as clear.  "First" does not mean "priority" nor does it imply "head".  For all we know, second could be best.  After all, God made Eve last -- to crown all his creation -- and furthermore, it was only AFTER she was made that He said "VERY good."    (not that i am making an argument that women are better than men; but if people are going to make an argument for headship based on order of creation, then i'd say this argument is also legit.)

   

  The idea of headship from order of creation is also disproven in the evidence we have that God had a personal, intimate relationship with BOTH Adam and Eve before the fall.  It wasn't that he had a relationship with Adam only and had him teach and pass down information as a chain of command (as many would argue).  God had relationship with both BEFORE THE FALL as we can see by Gen 3:2-3 when she quotes God as having told both of them not to eat of the tree (see my xanga entry for this argument).  There was no hierarchy/headship/ruling prior to the fall.  The "ruling" of man over woman which we see today is a result of the curse, an adverse consequence of the fall, and NOT what God had originally intended when He created man and woman in His own image.

   

  Moo continues his arugment:  p. 185, "The woman's being created after man, as his HELPER, SHOWS the position of SUBMISSION that God intended as inherent in the woman's relation to the man..."  I am pretty appalled by this argument.  I know it *does* sound plausible IF you didn't know the actual meaning of the word "helper" which is used here, but Douglas Moo should've done his homework.  The word for "helper" in this verse in Hebrew is "ezer".  The word ezer is used very often in the psalms -- each time in reference to God.  For example, Ps 46:1, "God is...an ever-present HELP in trouble."  EZER is used to describe God's help for us.  Ezer means "divine aid and assistance."  God's help toward man would NEVER be defined as a lesser, more subordinate one helping a superior (as is argued here about woman being man's helper).  God is actually superior and WE are the ones who are at a loss and needing help, and He helps us.  He is not at a position of submission toward man, the one He helps, right?  In the same way, I do not believe we can argue that since God says that it wasn't good for man to be alone and he needed a woman to be his ezer, woman is therefore in a position of submission and man is in position of authority (or "head").  If anything, we can see that it's men who are at a loss and needy, and NEED women's help.    A woman is needed to be a man's divine aid and assistance; an extension of God to him.  

   

  In the end...
  This debate could go on and on forever -- we can talk about the 1 Cor passage and all the other passages -- we can read all the scholars' exegeses on the matter, but in the end, in the end, we must just admit that the arguments for both sides are very strong and convincing.  And from both sides, I think we can break down all the arguments to two things:  One:  when Paul wrote the letters to the churches, it was to the cultural context of spiritually uneducated women who instigated dissension and disseminated false teaching.  and Two:  We must decide whether we believe that his encouragement for those women from then to be silent to be true for the spiritually educated women of today?  The thing we cannot agree on is whether the answer is yes or no.

   

  So, in the final analysis, I think we need to take a step back and ask ourselves and ask God what the Truth is.  What is God really like?  What would be consistent to what we know of His character?

   

  And then...Could it be possible that God desires for both men and women to teach and preach?  If it is true, then many churches have done a disservice to the body by prohibiting women from preaching, and, furthermore, have sinned in their prohibition of women to exercise the gifts that God has given them -- and they will be accountable to God alone.  If it is not true, then the women who have been used mightily by God to edify and encourage others and expanded His Kingdom -- have sinned? 

   

  I agree with Daniel's sentiments -- On the day when I am standing before God, I'd rather be one who strove to honor Him by speaking Truth than by remaining silent about Him. 

  • 12:27 pm
  • 20 Comments