Tanget Alert! Women and Christianity
August 18th, 2006
I want to move a discussion that Casey and I started to it’s own post.
On Andy’s follow up to his heavily commented Dear Christians post, I said the following:
…On number #5, there is a lot that could be added at the very end.
This may also allow for a difference in roles for both men and women.
It may also allow for men evolving into dragons. It may not either. I think you are saying that there are different roles for the sexes. The philosopher in me cannot hold to that. The literalistic reader in me must. I am still working thru this because the different roles for different sexes seems so very anti-God to me…
Henry, your last couple of sentences got me a thinking about women’s role in the church. That is one topic that we have never discussed. In America today, that is one topic that is on many peoples minds. I would love to hear what the other authors have to say about women’s roles.
Can a woman preach? elder, deacon, deaconess, teach, teach Sunday school with junior boys in the room? Does having different roles (men and women) make the woman lesser? Is there such a thing as equal but different?
To which I followed up:
Casey,
This is just some top-of-my-head thoughts, I don’t have the time to get into any referenced material.
On the surface of things, I don’t see why a having a penis qualifies one for being an elder, deacon, or teaching other men and not having a penis disqualifies one from doing those things.
I can see where a woman in the early BCEs would not have been effective in teaching, eldering, deaconing, ect because the culture dominated women much more than today.
If the difference between the sexes is hierarchical in nature, then I think there is not a equal but different. If women have to always be in a supporting role, that is not different (besides the scale) to a master and his slave saying that they are equally important, but different….
I have not gotten into this on a study level, mostly because I am afraid that I will find something that I do not like, like the equal but different principle actually being mandated by God. How terrible is that? Anyway, and interesting book that I have read a little bit of and have mixed reservations on is Why Not Women? by Loren Cunningham.
Thoughts? New posts on the topic?
Categories: Culture, Women in Christianity |
Ha…lots of them. But I don’t have time to fully respond right now. I will hopefully be able to work on something later.
Sure sounds to me like you’re imposing your ideals on the roles of men and women over that which scripture may hold.
I am saying that I am conflicted and I need further study on the topic.
I would hate for centuries of domination of women by our culture and our cultural fathers to be read into scripture, no?
It’s hard to “read into” the scriptures male leadership when it says things like “I do not permit a woman to teach” and “The husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church” these are pretty straight forward to me. I think the reading into comes from the feminsit camp. If we are to support some sort of egalitarian view of the sexes than what on earth do these passages mean? Not to mention the fact that in 1 Tim 3 Paul pretty matter of factly assumes that if someone is going to be a leader in the church in twill be a male.
I really don’t have time to get into this right now…
But…
Don’t you think that those passages just may have been cultural, being that at the time women had ZERO rights?
Puritanbob…in some of those same passages Paul says women should keep their head covered and men shouldn’t have long hair. Do you believe either of those?
How is that merely cultural for Paul to assert that women are not to teach nor have authority over men and to expect elders to be men? This was not just to the Corinthians but also to Timothy and Titus in the Pastoral epistles.
Are you trying to say Paul merely reflected the culture in his writings?
Well when dealing with the headcovering Paul actually defined that the womens hair was for a covering so I don’t think we need to wear doilies in the church. And no the passages in Timothy are not couched in the head covering context (which few evangelicals abide by so people try to say well should we abide by Paul’s command for women not to teach if we don’t abide by headcoverings?) Paul at the end of 1 Cor 11 even denotes that this is a cultural issue (the head coverings), yet where Paul speaks of male leadership he does not speak as though it is a merely culture matter. Rather the leadership of males in the church and home is to be a reflection of Christ’s leadership over the church (Eph 5). This order was ordained by God in the creation of males and females as Paul writes:
The headcoverings is to be a reflection of the order of authority which God Himself ordained, thus they aren’t even the main issue.
I really don’t know why I am getting into this right now, so I may need to bow out at some time.
First of all, your point of “it was not just to the Corinthians is not relevant. All of htose societies had very negative fews on women and leadership. So the cultural argument could be valid in all three epistles.
Don’t place words in my mouth. I never said that. But it is clear that we need to understand Paul within the context of the culture that he spoke to.
Ahh…I really don’t have time right now to respond to the rest. Maybe someone else could come in and join the coversation…
This is the problem, is Paul’s forbidding of women to teach and have authority over men not only in the Church but in the home…is this a mere reflection of Paul’s culture or is it God’s design? I argue the latter, lest you have to start to pick and choose which parts of the bible are inspired.
I didn’t think I was putting any words in your mouth I just asked you a question whether that was or was not your opinion of Paul’s writing on gender roles…you still haven’t answered my question. Is Paul’s stance on the roles of Christian men and women a culturally reflective non-inspired (thus non authoritative) stance, or is it inspired by God? It seems like you are saying the former is the case…seems.
Sorry you don’t have time but you didn’t answer my question.
I really don’t have the time to spend on properly answering these questions in a way that they deserve.
But to answer your question, I will say this.
The Bible can be inspired by God and still need to be undersood within the context that it was given.
I would agree on the surface of the above statement…by “understood in the cultural context” I would mean we need to be familiar with customs, language, setting and culture of the people addressed in a praticular book. My hangup would be if (not saying you are saying this) you are implying that some of Paul’s writings are mere reflections of his cultural context and uninspired.
I guess I’ll take a stab at this question.
I tend to side with Puritanbob moreso on this issue. There is no clear evidence in Scripture that the church was set up by God to be run by a female/woman. The overseer or this episcope is used in a masculine context. Paul says that the overseer must be “the husband of one wife.” I don’t think that can be taken any other way. This holds true for both 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and for Titus 1:5-9. 1 Cor. 14:34-35 say that women should not be vocal in church but any questions should be asked at home. If you keep reading, vv. 36-40 seem to show that all of what Paul has said, including about women, is a command from God. Hard to argue with that one.
However, I do think it is interesting to note that when I did some research into that Greek term for “overseer” in 1 Timothy 3, it did come up as a femine noun. That does change the argument because the Greek in Timothy is not as clear cut as one would have it be. Titus uses a masculine form of the noun so Paul is telling Titus that the overseer is a male.
At the same time, I don’t want to say that women can’t have the same gifts as a pastor/overseer. Peter quotes Joel 2:32ff in Acts 2 to declare that was happening in the upper room was not a drunken stupor but the sign that the end has come for the Spirit of God has been poured out upon men. Women in that context were to have dreams and visions just like the men. There were no exceptions to that rule. 1 Corinthians 12 does not limit which gender receives what gift. Priscilla, along with her husband, was an influential Christian leader in Rome and in Corinth. Women I think can be leaders in a church but I don’t think that the Bible supports women as the leader.
Henry Thomas and Puritanbob,
Dave is right, the discussion can’t be done justice in the comment section of a blog. It is important before engaging in such a discussion to know where the other side is actually coming from. Throwing random verses at someone doesn’t defeat their argument. There is no definitive answer to many of the questions that are raised by the gender issue, otherwise the church wouldn’t have debated it for centuries.
Christians for Biblical Equality has a clear concise outline of the Egalitarian belief and provides scriptural support which would be a good starting place for you to read if you are interested in entering a discussion on the topic. There are also several free articles on the site discussing some of the passages you have brought up.
I think it would do you good to do some researching on the topic before immediately assuming that those who do not understand passages the same way as you are undermining the authority of scripture.
There is also a wonderful book that offers an in depth look at the gender issue from an egalitarian perspective called “Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy”, I was a teacher’s assistant for a class based off the book, by the book’s editor and it is a really useful and informative tool.
Have fun!
Editors Note: Added the link and changed “Henry” to “Henry Thomas”
I disagree. There hasn’t been a debate for centuries, just since the rise of feminism.
I actually have, I have read better arguments than the one on the page you reffered me to. The arguments just water down the title of “head” and the clearly male designated leadership in 1 Tim 3. The whole chapter refers to leaders in the church in masculine terms, while in chapter 2 of 1 Tim Paul is found saying “I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man”
then he gives the reason “for Adam was formed first then Eve.” Paul appeals to the created order to show that the man is to head over the woman. Now of course this can be abused as all teachings of scripture can so please don’t cite a bunch of wacky abuses and say “see this is what happens!”.
Myste,
I didn’t find that page to be a good argument because there was no real treatment of any text. All that page did was give a point and list some verses. Can you refer me to a site that actually gives some kind of exegesis of a text. Anyone can take a verse and twist it to mean anything–not that this is what that site was doing–so to guard against that we need to be exegetes. This site did not exegete any text.
Editors note: made the link clickable.
the link i provided was to an outline of the egalitarian beliefs it was not meant to be an exegetical puzzle key. that was why i mentioned that the site (www.cbeinternational.org) has several free articles where you can read what egalitarian scholars have written on the more specific texts. i also indicated a book that is worth looking into that goes very in-depth. i cant do the reading for you, at some point you have to just start doing the researching for yourself. articles on women in ministry can be found here and articles specifically dealing with 1 Timothy found here.
i always find it interesting that people take such a strict literalist view of 1 timothy when it comes to the verses regarding women speaking in the church but that they often fail to take the rest of the book literally, “Men are to lift up holy hands when they pray” “women are not to wear braided hair, or pearls or gold” and what Christian or pastor whould answer when asked by a woman how she can be saved: “women will be saved through childbearing”. we can not be selective literalists when interpreting Scripture.
the assertion that this debate has existed only as long as feminism has been in the picture is preposterous. i am not sure which movement of feminism you are referring to but women were ordained as clergy in protestant churces as early as 1810, long before feminism became prominent in society. there are documentations of women’s leadership in churches from as early as the second century and the debates that surrounded them.
In fact the first witnesses to Jesus resurrection and the first to proclaim it were women. Jesus commanded them “Go and tell my brothers” encouraging and endorsing them to speak to the men with authority, and even the disciples doubted and tried to dispute their message.
There is an excellent section in DBE dealing with the history of Women in the Church that i would suggest everyone read, chapters entitled: The Changing Roles of Women in Ministry: The Early Church Through the 18th Century, Evangelical Women in Ministry a Century Ago: The 19th and Early 20th Centuries, and Contemporary Evangelicals for Gender Equality.
as to “watering down” the meaning of the word head, i woud add this from one of the CBE articles listed on the site, “Contrary to popular opinion, the word translated “head” in Corinthians and Ephesians does not suggest male authority over women, unless we read the meaning of “ruler” or “the one in charge” into the word “head.” Although many people have taught man’s rule over woman as God’s design, such a model of relating to one another is untenable in light of the Corinthian context. For, if “head” in 1 Corinthians 11 does suggest a hierarchy or chain of command, then how would we understand the immediately preceding verse, “God is the head of Christ” (1 Cor 11:3)? Applying such a definition of “head” to the Godhead would imply that hierarchy and inequality exist within the Trinity, a teaching that the early councils rejected as the heresy of Subordinationism. “Head,” therefore, cannot mean “ruler” or “one with authority” in the above passage.”
seeking an accurate interpretation of a word as opposed to insinuating a heretical relationship within the trinity is not a “watering down” but rather a responsible way of handling Scripture.
if you are concerned with egalitarians treatment of scripture i think it would do you well to read the Introduction to the DBE book which is available in full text here (PDF).
speaking of women in ministry, have you noticed how decidely male this site is, i think it is high time you had some female representation, or you had better consider changing the site to “theology for the maleness”
Editors note: I have made the links clickable.
“i always find it interesting that people take such a strict literalist view of 1 timothy when it comes to the verses regarding women speaking in the church but that they often fail to take the rest of the book literally, “Men are to lift up holy hands when they pray” “women are not to wear braided hair, or pearls or gold” and what Christian or pastor whould answer when asked by a woman how she can be saved: “women will be saved through childbearing”. we can not be selective literalists when interpreting Scripture.”
I hear similar arguments often. The point of braided hair is that women (and men for that matter) are not to be vain and worry about outward appearences as they are to care of the inner spiritual issues. It’s not a question of literal versus allegorical but simply what is the point of the text? Frankly, I think churches that forbid lifting up of hands in light of what Paul says are being disobedient. Worship is to engage not only our minds but our bodies as well. Now while I am not advocating the Chraismatic free for all I think our bodies are for more than carrying our brains around. We simply can not be strict literalists or allegorists because the bible employs both metaphor and straight forward doctrine.
“the assertion that this debate has existed only as long as feminism has been in the picture is preposterous. i am not sure which movement of feminism you are referring to but women were ordained as clergy in protestant churces as early as 1810, long before feminism became prominent in society. there are documentations of women’s leadership in churches from as early as the second century and the debates that surrounded them.”
Must be the Unitarian church you refer to, because all the orthodox denominations until the rise of liberalism and feminism held to the teaching of 1 Timothy 3. Your assertion before was that this has been a hot button issue for centuries seems unfounded still. But this is the real absurdity of your argument:
“as to “watering down” the meaning of the word head, i woud add this from one of the CBE articles listed on the site, “Contrary to popular opinion, the word translated “head” in Corinthians and Ephesians does not suggest male authority over women, unless we read the meaning of “ruler” or “the one in charge” into the word “head.”
Eh? Some more:
“Applying such a definition of “head” to the Godhead would imply that hierarchy and inequality exist within the Trinity, a teaching that the early councils rejected as the heresy of Subordinationism. “Head,” therefore, cannot mean “ruler” or “one with authority” in the above passage.”
Well, here is what the argument seems to be.
1)The bible says husbands are “head” of their wives
2)The bible says God is the “head” of Christ
3)If God is the head of Christ than there is an inequality in the Godhead
4)Thus “head” does not mean authoritative over
.:5)Therefore when a husband is the “head” of the wife this must mean egalitarianism.
That’s some pretty tricky (or sloppy) exegesis. Nonetheless I think it is pretty simple. Christ incarnate was subordinate to God, He prayed to Him, and sought to do His will not His (Christ’s) and sought the glory of the Father above all things. That’s what it means for God to be the head of Christ.
This is in relation to His earthly pilgrimage not His eternal nature, Christ also acts as our representative and mediator, as a high priest He had to take on the role of accountability on our behalf. So all that to say “head” describes Christ relationship to the Father on our behalf as our mediator. That’s not too tricky, and it maintainst the clear meaning of the Greek.
Here is a very good blog post that addresses this issue.
This is my hang up with the arguments against exclusive male leadership, the article on the page Dave referred us to states:
” Junia is classed as an apostle and indeed in Romans 16 women are commended nearly twice as much as men; and
Euodia and Syntyche were apparently labourers with Paul for the gospel“
Junia an “apostle”? Really lets see what it says:
Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.”
I see nothing to indicate that Junia is an apostle here, Paul is merely saying greet her for me, also greet my kinsmen and fellow prisoners. You have to want to see female leadership in the text to interpret it saying: Yep Junia wsa an apostle. Now I don’t disagree that there were women who laboured with Paul in the gospel, and evangelism, however there simply is no scripture declaring female church leadership…we find the contrary that Paul teaches that women are not to have authority over men.
“Must be the Unitarian church you refer to, because all the orthodox denominations until the rise of liberalism and feminism held to the teaching of 1 Timothy 3.”
I assume that by “the rise of liberalism and feminism” you are referring to some time around the 1960’s. Women had been ordained by various protestant denominations for up to a century and a half before this time.
Ordination of women (in non-Unitarian churches) before 1960:
1810 - Disciples of Christ
1853 - Congregationalist
1880 - United Methodist
1889 - United Bretheren
1893 - Presbyterian
1944 - Anglican Communion
1949 - Church of Scotland
And you suggest that denominations ordaining women somehow are not “holding to 1 Timothy 3″. Though you need to recognize that not holding to the traditional interpretation of a text is not the same thing as throwing the text out all-together. Those who no longer use scripture to justify slavery are not simply “not holding” to the Biblical verses referring to slavery, nor are they throwing those verses away, they are just understanding them in terms of a different interpretation than was traditionally held to.
“That’s some pretty tricky (or sloppy) exegesis. Nonetheless I think it is pretty simple. Christ incarnate was subordinate to God, He prayed to Him, and sought to do His will not His (Christ’s) and sought the glory of the Father above all things. That’s what it means for God to be the head of Christ. This is in relation to His earthly pilgrimage not His eternal nature”
if your interpretation of the word “head” is true, it would follow that one member of the Godhead “is” (not “was” as you suggest) in subordination to/authority or rulership over another member. This is also known as the heresy of subordinationism: (http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/free_articles/Kevin%20Giles.shtml)
“Christ also acts as our representative and mediator, as a high priest He had to take on the role of accountability on our behalf. So all that to say “head” describes Christ relationship to the Father on our behalf as our mediator. That’s not too tricky, and it maintainst the clear meaning of the Greek.”
Are you suggesting that for a man to be the head of a woman means that he is her representative, mediator, or high priest? If Christ is our mediator, how could you then justify that men would in turn be a mediator for women? Hebrews and 1 Peter make it clear that Christ is the permanant and only intercessor and that all of his followers are a part of the priesthood. To interject one human before another in representation, intercession, or mediation before God would negate Christ’s office as eternal High Priest.
For a more throrough exegesis of the term “head” as it relates to Christ and the Church and therefore to husband and wife, see Gil Bilezikian’s essay: I believe in Male Headship (http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/free_articles/male_headship.shtml)
I’m sorry people, any book written by MEN for MEN and for the advancement of MEN that subordinates 52% of the population is not worth the paper it’s written on.
The world will truly be a peaceful place when religion has no place in it!
The Bible was not written for men only and clearly places many women in positions of prominence, such as Rahab, Ruth and Esther.
Sonya,
Just about any book in Antiquity will written by men. There are some radically egalitarians concepts in there, such as in Christ there is no male nor female.
If you take a close reading, I don’t think the “for men and for the advancement of men” is really there.
There are some legitimate issues about women’s rights that you can bring up. Also, if you want to talk about the Church (any and every professing christian, from catholic to puritan to restorationist to pentacostals) and how they actually have treated and still do treat women, that is another issue. Just look in these comments for a perspective on that. There are people within Xianity that grapple with these issues.
But to make a blanket statement rejecting the Bible and all of Christianity, I think that is a bit hasty.
Furthermore, I think there are plenty of arguments for the necessity of religion. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. In purely atheistic rationalist systems, there can be a tendency towards dehumanizing people, just like you can with religious systems.