Over at Jesus Creed Scot Mcknight is going to have a conversation regarding womens roll in church. Although I already have a beleif regarding the issue I’m still interested in seeing others interpretation. He began by asking what type of issues readers feel necessary to discuss. So of course a couple of guys brought up the typical versus regarding women in church (1 Corinthians 14:34-36 and 1 Timothy 2:12). But then a fellow mentioned Galatians 3:28. Feeling like I was out of the loop I went to that verse to see what it had to say. It says:
Galatians 3:28
28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Then I thought to myself…”And?”…Ok…Maybe I missed something in context. So I read the verse in the context of the chapter and this is what I got out of it.
Basically the chapter starts with this theme as interpreted by yours truly.
You dumb Galatians. Why do you think you are justified by living by the law? You aren’t! You are justified by faith. This was done so that the gentiles could get in on Abrahams goods. Then it goes on to talk about, The Promise and the law didn’t negate it, but was put in place until The Promise came. So now you think the law imparts righteouness? Nope. The only thing the law did was held you prisoner and pointed to the coming Promise because it was your only way out. And now you have a way out! Your not under the law anymore! You are now Sons of God! No, no your not God but you are heirs according to The Promise! So it doesn’t matter if your Asian, American, African, male or female. If you have faith in Christ and therefore belong to him there is no distinction of male or female. You are a Son of God, a Christian!
Where does this chapter say anything about women in church? Being generous the only thing I could say is that because God doesn’t see a distinction, women can serve in the same manner as men. But thats not whats its talking about. Its talking about regarding your salvation there is no difference. Where as in the other versus mentioned above(1 Corinthians 14:34-36 and 1 Timothy 2:12) it is reffering to conduct in church. And it is very specific.
People try to give examples of women that teach kids, or missionary women to say that it is allowed by churches that follow the no women leading doctrine. What you think because someone says a women should not be teaching a man that that means a women can’t raise her own kids? Or a women can’t witness? No its talking about women in relation to men in the church. People got to learn to stay on topic and read in context.
So I guess what I’m trying to say is regardless of how you feel about the issue at least read in context. Is that to systematic? Seriously, is there something I’m not catchng? Let me know.
Emergent disclaimer: I do not have a hold on truth nor do I claim so. I’m just trying to watch my doctrine like you.
At the risk of sounding like I’m trying to win an argument with you, may I point out that your interpretation of Galatians 3:28 (and you nicely provide the context, which I do not see as misinterpreted) is consistent with a “complementarian” stance. And certainly, if one takes the passages you mention (1 Corinthians 14:34-36 and 1 Timothy 2:12) as “primary” or “clear,” there is nothing about the Galatians passage that would serve to “contradict” them, or otherwise to “prove” that God allows for women in such ministerial roles as “pastor.” This was not my intention in bringing up the topic on Scot McKnight’s blog.
Rather, I am trying to point out that, far from seeking to “circumvent” the Bible, or otherwise “get out of” the supposedly-clear teachings in 1 Cor. and 1 Tim., “egalitarians” take the “neither male nor female” passage at its surface. We do not dispute that it refers to our “core identity” as Christians (I think you and I would agree at this point). However, we do not take the language of this passage as limited to the status of our salvation, but as affirming that our identity as Christians is the most primary definition of who we are in God’s sight. But (we would argue) our justification is just the starting point! Taking passages such as 1 Cor. and 1 Tim. in this light, it seems clear (to us, but obviously not to others) that Paul was speaking to a specific situation and a specific purpose, but not saying that women could never lead a church in a role such as “head pastor.” Others could demonstrate this more fully, but I’d be getting off track to continue in this vein.
Like I said, I do not expect to “win an argument” with you. However, I would consider my purpose served if those who interpret the Bible as not permitting women to take such leadership roles would understand that those of us who interpret the Bible as allowing such are reading the same Bible, with the same intention to interpret it faithfully, not following cultural trends such as secular feminism, but simply trying to discern what God intended for all of God’s people with all the tools that God gave us. We simply have differences of opinion of exactly what the correct interpretation is, and humbly ask for God’s forgiveness on those areas where we may have “gotten it wrong” while we continue to press forward seeking God’s Truth.
B-W
Comment heard. Although it will definitely take some rereading I will respond. I’m obviously dealing with someone with superior theological skills. Also thanks for commenting here I knew I wasn’t even going to make this point over on Scots blog.
You worded your position very well. Upon second reading I was able to understand. I do not have a full knowledge of the “egalitarians” and “complementarian” terms you used. If there was a chance that I would end up egalitarian I would need more info.
I honestly can’t comprehend interpreting Gal 3:28 to be applied in other areas as you speak of. I can’t say that I would change my position but that wasn’t really the point of my post or Scots. So the purpose of hearing other interpretations has been fullfilled. I’ll be looking forward to hearing more of these interpretations. Thank you for being humble in your speech.
I do not have a full knowledge of the “egalitarians” and “complementarian” terms you used.
Part of the reason I tend to put “complementarian” and “egalitarian” in quotes is because they are simply the words many of us use to describe whole groups of people, who often have differing shades of opinion even within the groups themselves. For my purposes, I use “complementarian” to describe people who do not believe that the Bible allows women to ordained ministry positions within a church. They tend to affirm that women are called by God to different roles within ministry. They do not consider these roles to be “lower” roles (although some from outside may beg to differ), but “complementary” to the roles that God has called men to. Such a position takes seriously the apparent differences between men and women, not just physically, but in personality and temperment.
“Egalitarians,” on the other hand, argue that the Bible, rightly interpreted, shows that God calls both men and women to all kinds of roles, both ordained and un-ordained, within the church. People from outside may argue that such a position does not take the differences between men and women seriously enough, but note that egalitarians do not argue that men and women are “the same.” Merely that God calls some women to the same roles that God calls some men to (and vice-versa, although this is usually implicit rather than explicit). The “equal” implied in “egalitarian” refers more to “equal opportunity” than to “equal result.”
I hope that makes things a little clearer. I appreciate your willingness to dialogue.
B-W,
I absolutely appreciate the courtesey shown in your responses. I feel strange saying this to a theologian with a Master of Divinity…but I don’t agree with your interpretation. But thank you for interpreting your thoughts a little more!
Perhaps the most Christlike discussion of a theological topic on record! You guys rock. Randy–I couldn’t have worded your explanation better myself. I thought B-W’s comments clarify some things on the other side, but I have to agree with all of what Randy said. Even if you don’t have an M-Div you qualify as a great exegete in my book. This is how all discussion should be! I have one question for B-W, please. I understand what you are saying–that Paul’s exhoration in Corinthians and Timothy is case specific–but if that is true, where do we draw the line–must we throw out the rest of the letter, and how do we know? Or if it is circumstantial, does that mean we should not apply it today? (i.e. most do use other circumstancial verses as basis for Christian living today) disclaimer: I am not saying I see the verses as circumstantial–just going with it for sake of the questions. I appreciate your comments and insight. Both of your were concise, thorough and Christlike! Great job to you both striving to look at the text in context and tackle a very timely issue. And Randy, I’m sure B-W would agree with me that it is okay to disagree with someone who has an M-Div or a even PhD–we are all still learning and growing and are in this to help each other out! Great discussion guys!
Eric, My head just grew a little. Thanks, we made have to have a good theological discussion to remind myself who I am. haha
Yeah I agree with your question. Where do you draw the line? I was thinking about it and realized that it would have to apply in all situations where men and women meet. What we do with men loving their wifes as Christ loved the church. That seems like pretty specific instructions for men.
We know that there is no distinction in Christ but it seems that Christ knew there was a distinction on earth simply with how he made us. This is one area emergent is slipping. They always want to say hands off when it comes to men/women and various gender rolls. They do this because either they don’t want to step on toes or because they don’t have an answer. But there is an answer. Its grace.
I understand what you are saying–that Paul’s exhoration in Corinthians and Timothy is case specific–but if that is true, where do we draw the line–must we throw out the rest of the letter, and how do we know?
“Where do we draw the line” is a good question, and one that I think we must ask, but please forgive me if I do not attempt a full answer in this context. Suffice it to say that I do not think that passages such as these are “thrown out” if they are demonstrated to be speaking to a context other than ours. We merely say that the meaning of the passages for us today must take into account what it meant then, and then apply that meaning to the modern context. Egalitarians still consider 1 Timothy (and other books that contain debated passages) to be the Word of God, and valuable for teaching to modern audiences.
For example, one theory (and I don’t insist that it is any more than that) regarding 1 Timothy 2:8-15 is that Paul was writing to Timothy while Timothy lived in Ephesus. Ephesus was well known as the “city of Diana (Artemis)” (check out Acts 19:23-41 for some of Paul’s interactions in Ephesus re: this goddess). The temple of Artemis (at one time, one of the Wonders of the World, although that temple was replaced by the Christian era by another temple of Artemis) was a major fixture there and, in accordance with the practices of the Artemis cult, all the priests were women, to whom men were subordinate. If Paul were speaking to such a context, this text takes on a whole new dimension. It need not mean “women may not ever hold such leadership positions in the Christian church,” but rather “women may not consider themselves as superior to men” to an audience that would have understood (because they knew Paul and his teachings, such as those in the Galatians passage I mentioned earlier) that men and women are to be considered equals. If you’re interested in a more scholarly discussion on the matter, try this link (skip down to the 1 Timothy section, unless you really want to read the whole thing), whereby N.T. Wright considers an interpretation to the Greek text that remains responsible to the original language and context, but reads very differently than modern English readers have understood it.
B-W First let me commend you on a few things. I’m glad to see that you chose to retain even the verses that you believe are case specific, and to retain the entire Bible on equal terms. Secondly, if I were trying to demonstrate your case, I could not see a better way to attempt to make it while retaining the authority of Scripture. Both you and Dr. Wright were concise and careful in your presentation. Nice job. I have a few things to add–and while I now have a more thorough understanding of your position, I must still retain the one that I have for the following reasons:
1. Context–I appreciate the fact that you used the letter, historical and linguistic context in your discussion. I will start with the broader Biblical context. I am not implying that men and women, or anyone in Christ are not equal in terms of anything other than roles in the church and use of gifts etc. All are equal in the eyes of Christ, but not all serve in the same roles. There is no distiction between myself and a Christian mayor or governor in the eyes of Christ, but I do not, nor should I attempt to serve in the role Christ has given to them, if I do not have that role. Romans 13 makes it clear that all positions of authority are ultimately given by God. That does not excuse abuse of those positions, but certainly any position of authority has been allowed by God, and that person is then responsible for the good or bad stewardship of that position. The Bible is full (as Randy pointed out) of distinctions made for the purpose of building up the church–i.e. various gifts (not all are … are they? according to Paul) Also in regard to material giving not all are equal, those with wealth are to share with those who have none–2 Cor 9 etc. Believers are equal in standing before Christ, but not in their role in the body. Paul does not see the distinction in roles to be one of in-equailty before Christ or degredation as many would see it today. Paul seems to see it in the same sense as his body analogy–not all are hands or feet or eyes–or in regard to ministry–I plant, Apollos watered, but God caused the growth. All are servants, but not all have the same role–distinction to ultimately demonstrate the glory of God. Part of the male female distinction shows the richness and value of diversity in the eyes of God. As does the body of Christ–it has various colors, ages, races, talents and abilities as well as roles. Those who teach should teach, those who show mercy etc… all to the glory of God. Paul is very clear that not everyone utilizes every gift, nor should they.
2. Immediate context–Wright says that the submission in verse 11 could be taken as submission to God. I find this to be a bit of a stretch in a few ways. a) the antonym of the word is used in regard to men in the next verse. The two verses are connected by a conjuction. b) The root of the subjection word is the same (hupo) root used in the 1 Corinthians 14 passage also in regard to men and in regard to behavior in the church meeting (ekklesia) This is also the same root for the word found in Ephesians 5:21-29–used in 21 and ellited (for emphasis) in v.22 in regard to husbands. Paul continues his husband wife distinction in the following verses where he explains that the role of the husband is as the God appointed head in the same way that Christ is head over the church. All instances in these passages are used of women in regard to husbands (or men) and most in the context of church meetings. While the authority verse (1 Tim 2:12) could be taken as implying role equality, I do not believe the submission term in the immediate context(hupo…) can be taken that way, since the context and the other contexts connect the submission to husbands and usually in regard to the church. The term carries with it the idea of self-subordination and I believe was also used in terms of military rank–not to devalue, but to show who was ultimately accountable before the emperor (or in our case God) I think it is important that we make it very clear that submission is not, nor ever was meant to be degrading or de-valuing, but rather a role distinction meant to demonstrate the relationship of Christ and His church (Eph 5:32 and context) While Paul does talk about Eve being deceived, this fits broader context about Satan being a deceiver and is not limited to women in the rest of the letter (notice emphasis on devil and deception–1:19-20, 3:6-7, 4:1-3, 6-7, 16, 5:15, 6:20-21) Later in 1 Timothy Paul not only gives instruction for distinctions in the role of gender, but also distinctions in the role of age (2 Tim 5:1-2 ff ) These are also in regard to teaching and instruction while not necessarily in regard to church meetings.
3. As for the Ephesian context–it is interesting to note that Paul uses the phrase in 1 Tim 2:8 to begin that paragraph “I want the men in every place to pray” followed to the previously discused distinctions. Paul does not seem to be setting this up as a case specific situation for the church at Ephesus, but rather a model for the body of Christ in every place–and if I may be so bold–in every time. While the last part (time)cannot be demonstrated clearly from the text, at the very least Paul’s scope for this passage is not something he is limiting to the context of the Ephesian church, but is rather his desire for the body of Christ in every place. Notice how many contractions link the passage as well as its content (men and women).
4. If as Ephesians 5:23-24 says, the husband is head of the wife as Christ is to the church, and that the wife is to submit to the husband as the church does to Christ, that opens up a wealth of related passages regarding to authority and submission in which it is clear that Christ, in regard to placement in God’s structure of roles is as head, authority etc. This is not to say that Christ is by any means tyrannical, hateful, abusive or chauvanistic. Christ loves the church, as its head, and serves as the example to husbands whom He has placed in a head position to demonstrate His great love for the church. To deny the divine design of gender roles is to miss out on the most beautiful picture of all, that of Christ giving up His life for his bride. This in no way excuses abuse of that role, in fact, as head the husband is ultimately responsible before God. We must be careful, in light of abuses of these roles, not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. In true submission to Christ and only then, can the husband and wife paint the beautiful picture of Christ and His bride.
These are the main reasons I continue to hold the view I hold. Thank you for your comments and the link to the Wright article. Feel free to respond with questions or comments. I appreciate your willingness to dialogue as well as your use of context and historical background and other sources. I think the church is in a good place, even if when we disagree, we know why we disagree. I think that is far healthier than holding to something just because. You have all done a great job with the “why” and context etc. I have appreciated this discussion. And thanks Randy for letting me expand on some of your comments and good insight.
A very long post, and getting into areas that I did not intend to go (as I said at the beginning of this thread, this really isn’t an effort to persuade. Simply to make the case that those of us who allow for women in ordained positions feel that, far from ignoring certain parts of the Bible, we have a Biblical basis for such a position.), and so I will not take the time to attempt to refute your points here, other than to say that most of these claims are not new to me. I simply do not think most of the arguments you cite are compelling. This is, ultimately, a matter of interpretation, and we will simply have to leave it at that. To do more would require more time (and possibly, an entirely different pedagogical venue) than a blog like this provides.
That said, I have also appreciated the atmosphere of reasoned discussion without knee-jerk reactionism that has permeated this thread. Thank you very much.
I agree whole-heartedly that it was a long post.
Thanks for your discussion and courteousness. It is good to know that no matter the position, there are those who strive to deal with the text in a thorough and thought-out way. Thanks!
I just woke up from a little nap to this! Feels like a smack in the face. Non the less I’m happy to see the great conversation. I’ll respond after I have a chance to take it all in. I bet you can’t wait and are on pins and needles!
Perhaps one of the most compelling ideas for me is the role that women and men play in life in general. I say this knowing very well that Emergents claim this can not be a valid response because it is impossible for all men to act masculine and all women feminin. I understand their need for concern but to make my point I must avoid avoiding like they do. I have seen in my own life how men and women long to fill different roles. And while I can’t explain that idea to prove scripture supporting my opinions, I have seen that it does hold some truth that is valid.