Article Series - Toward an Egalitarian Ecclesia |
A Very Brief Background to Artemis:
The Greek/Roman female deity Artemis/Diana had a twin brother named Apollo. When her mother went into labor, Artemis came out of the womb first. Having preceded Apollo, many female worshipers considered her superior to Apollo because it symbolized the female preceding the male and therefore being superior. After she was born, while her mother was giving birth to her brother, Artemis assisted her mother across a river where she helped her mother give birth. This act made her, in the eyes of the women who followed her, the goddess of protection during childbearing. The problem, however, lied in that she was prone to killing a woman in labor just for the fun of it. This caused women not only to need her assistance, but also to fear her assistance.
Artemis was sort of a Feminist deity of the Greco-Roman world – especially Ephesus, Timothy’s location when Paul wrote to him (as her temple was in Ephesus). Women rallied around here for strength and escape from male oppression, and she gave them an avenue of resistance in a patriarchal culture.
I Timothy 2
As the previous word study from my last post suggests, the problem in the church did not lie in the fact that the women were preaching or having authority, but rather, they were enacting violence (probably through sermonic rhetoric) against the men in their congregations. Paul’s remarks do not forbid a woman “to teach or have authority”, but rather the Gk. word usage and construction of the sentence suggests he is forbidding women to “teach in such a way that oppresses men.” (my own paraphrase)
The Artemis Cult gives us the historical background to understand how this authoritative feminism might have arisen in their midst, and it gives us clear understanding of Paul’s subsequent response. The Ephesian women, through their cultural assumption of female superiority derived from Artemis, oppressed the men in their congregation. Paul responds with some statements regarding Adam and Eve – statements which have been taken to mean male leadership and female subordination. He says,
“For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.”
Adam and Eve
Paul gives 2 reasons women shouldn’t dominate men through their sermonic rhetoric:
- Adam was created first and Eve was created second
- Eve was deceived while Adam wasn’t
Traditionally these two statements have been interpreted to eliminate the possibility of women becoming preachers or pastors. It has been suggested by many that 1. Men are superior to women because God created them first. And 2. Men are superior to women because women are easily deceived and men are intellectually superior.
These statements fall apart when we examine them in light of the Artemis Cult.
How do these 2 reasons fit into the Artemis hypothesis?
First, by maintaining that Adam was the first one created and Eve the second, Paul is not establishing patriarchy based on the order of creation as most biblical Complementarians assume. Rather, Paul is answering the objection of the Artemis Cult. The Artemis Cult assumed female superiority based on the fact that Artemis preceded here male counterpart Apollo. Paul, reorienting the mythology by which these people have ordered their lives, introduces Hebraic narrative as a way of subverting the female dominance. In other words: Paul counters Artemis with Adam, suggesting a new way of viewing the created order and power. He is not establishing male dominance so much as he is disestablishing female dominance. He’s saying, “Female superiority founded upon the Artemis philosophy does not work in this new community because in the new community, founded upon Hebraic narratives of Genesis 1, the male came first. Thus, your premise is really no foundation for the way you ladies are acting.”
Second, he suggests, female superiority in teaching roles cannot be assumed either. After all, it was Eve who was deceived, not Adam. (Where Paul gets this from Genesis I do not know.) The ultimate failure of your first mother is no basis for establishing female dominance – it simply doesn’t work. This explanation also gives us reasons as to why this theology is so foreign to the New Testament outside of this passage. In every other instance Paul blames the sin on Adam (Romans 5). Here, however, Eve is blamed for the Fall. Why the theological shift? Actually, there isn’t a theological shift. Paul is simply arguing that their mother Eve does not provide them with opportunity for female dominance. He is simply trying to get his point across.
Related to this second point, Eve’s deception was probably connected to Adam’s lack of teaching. That is, interpreters throughout the ages have read into the Genesis text that the serpent deceived Eve easily because Adam did a bad job of teaching. Though I have some questions about this interpretation, I do think it can work with my I Timothy 2 interpretation. All a woman in the Artemis cult needed to take leadership was an ecstatic experience. Discipleship was not a prerequisite. However, Paul will not have them transfer this assumption into the ecclesiastical community. Discipleship is essential, and one cannot teach if they have not undergone long term discipleship. The church has stricter standards than the pagan cults did.
In the end, whether this text was written by Paul or one of his disciples, we need to understand that this is not a proof-text for male dominance or solely male leadership in the ecclesiastical arena. Yes, this text IS bringing women down. However, it is not bringing them down from oppression to further oppression; it is bringing them down from a place of dominance to a place of equality with men.
Paul does not assume a gender based hierarchy in this text – or any other for that matter. I will argue over the next few weeks (months?) from each of Paul’s male/female relation texts that this is the case.
*I promised in my last post to comment on the ‘saved through childbearing’ aspect of this text. I would have done it in this post, but that would have made this post so long no one would want to read it. I am working on it, and it will be my next post.
Hi Tom,
I enjoyed reading your post. I’m looking forward to the next one. The Greek Intro was really interesting to me because I like Greek Mythology. If I can make one suggestion, it would be to include a reference to where you got the myth from…but that’s just being picky. Good writing.
Edgar.
Good stuff as usual. As I said before, I think it would strengthen your argument even more if you incorporate Luke’s documentation of strong animosity between the Artemis cult of Ephesus and Paul (Acts 19:21-41). And like Mr. Sanchez above said, it’s always good to reference sources. :)
I really do think the Artemis cult stuff is very interesting. I am sure you know a however is coming. So, however, it still begs the question as to whether this was really what prompted Paul to write these words, you just assume this sort of view of the development of scripture. Letting scripture interpret scripture the text there is no reference to any Artemis cult in any Pauline letters, particularly as having an impact on why he was writing about the roles of men and women. This take on 1 Tim 2 assumes there is this raging female elitist group some how effecting the church Paul is trying calm, you don’t get that from the text you have to read it in.
Paul in talking about the created order of men and women specifically has roles of the genders in mind, which is why you have to do a number on this passage as you write:
Even granting you version of authenitin your paraphrase is simply not an accurate gramatical reflection of the text. The word “OR” is a disjunct you treat it as a conjunction The Greek word is “ουδε” which is in English “neither/nor” (given the previous ouk signifying a not/negation). My point is he is saying women are not to teach NOR have authenitin (again I will assume your version for the sake of argument). You rewrite the text as such: “Women in their teaching are not to act in authenitin”. I can’t see that as anything but rewriting what you want into what is there.
Again gramatically Paul is not saying women in their teaching are not to act in authenitin…grammatically it says women are neither to teach nor exercise authenitin. That is what the text says.
I really used to be a die hard egalitarian as a young Christian, so much so I was actually shocked to find out that some churches didn’t let women be pastors. Eventually I just let the Bible say what it says, I honestly don’t in anyway have this stuff nailed down but what I do know is that I was simply bringing my bias into the text when I breezed over those 1 Tim 2-3 passages with egalitarian glasses on. I don’t mind being the lone dissenter over here, seems like nobody wants to stand up for orthodoxy over here anymore.
Thanks Bob, your points are important and need consideration. I am encouraged by your sincere efforts to understand my arguments. Thank you.
Here are some initial thoughts:
1. As Cheapham noted above, I failed to bring into my analysis the fact that Luke, in Acts, does mention Paul having problems with the Artemis Cult. Though the problems are different in Acts, we do know that Christianity faced considerable difficulties in that area dealing with that particular cult.
2. Related to this, just because Paul doesn’t explicitly mention the Artemis Cult doesn’t rule out the possibility that this could be what Paul is dealing with. How many people do you know are influenced by pragmatism, Postmodernity, or naturalism, yet they do not know this terminology? Or consider that Isaiah was fighting against early Zoroastrianism, yet he never mentions it by name. My point is that certain assumptions about ‘the way things are’ can infiltrate a group without that group even being fully aware of it – especially with new Christians who have only ever breathed the air and drank the water of certain assumptions. As the Artemis Cult would have influenced the way unconverted women saw gender roles and religious service, Paul wants to correct the assumptions they’ve had since before their conversion. I don’t see why this is implausible.
3. I agree that the best way to interpret Scripture is with Scripture. However, as faithful exegetes, we must also be aware of the surrounding culture. As this example illustrates (if I’m correct), this passage can only be understood with a considerable eye toward socio-religious aspects of Ephesian culture. I do not find it a mere coincidence that the Artemis Cult was popular in Ephesus, the place where Paul has to deal with gender roles.
4. Also, a number of times in this text, Paul points out that the Ephesians are succumbing to ‘godless myths’ and ‘false doctrines’ which ‘promote controversies’ (I Tim. 1:3). And again in I Tim. 4:7 where he warns of godless myths and old wives fables. If the influence of godless myths is present within the community, godless myths which cause controversies, is it too far of a stretch to assume that Paul is dealing with one of these myths in chapter 2? I don’t think so.
5. Concerning the paraphrase: You say that I basically re-write the text to fit my argument. Yes, I suppose you are right. BUT, isn’t that the nature of a paraphrase? Paraphrases are almost never grammatically in line with the Gk, and they always demonstrate the influence of the translator – just ask Eugene Peterson about the overt Calvinistic assumptions in The Message.
6. Concerning oude: I agree that a literal reading is ‘teach or dominate/oppress.’ However, recent grammatical work done on this word demonstrates that if we take this as ‘or’ whatever is on either side must essentially be equivalent, attributed the same value. That is, as authentein is to be taken as a negative word so also ‘teaching’ must be taken as negative (it is a negative kind of teaching). Thus, my paraphrase was an attempt to hold onto the continuity between the two – ‘teach in such as way that oppresses men.’ But you’re right; maybe I should have done something a little more grammatically in tune. Maybe I should have brought in the ‘false teaching’ ideas from the rest of the context of I Timothy – thus, leaving us with something like, ‘I do not permit women to teach falsely, oppressing men.’ Obviously ‘falsely’ is not literal, but it DOES correspond to the grammatical necessities of using ‘oude’ in reference to these two words. (It’s late and I don’t have the resources in front of me – If you would like, I will shoot you the sources of my research later. Just let me know. I don’t want to see escapist or underhanded here – we’re both trying to wrestle with a difficult text.)
7. Finally, and just as a small grievance. Please do not assume that our disagreement is one of orthodoxy vs. heresy (or unorthodoxy). Nowhere in church history has this issue ever been an issue of orthodoxy, and it is not now. I’m enjoying our discussion, and find it even encouraging, but I do not think it is helpful to pit one side against the other in that manner.
Thanks for the great points. I’m looking forward to hearing your response, and the thoughts of others.
Tom
While I don’t have much to add, I am heartfully and mindfully enjoying this. Both the objections (thank you Bob – they were the ones I was thinking of) and the presentation and reply. I am very interested in getting the feedback on this from our other complementarians, Brad and Casey, I am typing at you.
The only thing I would question is if orthodoxy is at stake here – but that is perhaps better left for another forum.
Well… gender roles haven't been a part of any creeds, to my knowledge, until the infamous Baptist Faith and Message (2000). They're nowhere in the Apostles' or the Nicean Creeds…
…so I don't think we can count this as a matter of Orthodoxy.
I agree, JR. With Orthodoxy, salvation is a stake; with orthopraxy, there is wrong behavior and it is wrong, but salvation is not at stake, living at harmony with God’s will is.
I see this as an important matter of orthopraxy.
Hey Tom thanks for the candid reply, this is not only an interesting topic but important for church life. You bring up several points I will give my take on a few that I see as key:
I agree, but neither can you infer that Paul specifically is addressing that problem from the text. This passage doesn’t clearly point to a problem in the church needing to be addressed like in Corinthians. Rather, it seems Paul is giving Timothy general structural principals for the Church.
You are of course perfectly warranted do a cultural contextualization and we should. My point simply is that it doesn’t follow that because there is some female cult in Ephesus that when Paul gives his picture of the roles of men and women (at least seemingly complimentarian on the surface) that his goal is merely to counter balance the pagan leaving us in a neutral egalitarian place.
All this to say we can go back and forth all day about what the context was and try to discern context was in Paul’s mind as he wrote, to a degree I don’t think that really has too much of an illuminating effect on the text. Even with the Artemis cult backdrop I don’t see how that really alters the meaning of the text. All that would warrant is for us to say Paul is responding to a Pagan view of the sexes with the Biblical/God inspired one. That really has no bearing on interpretation.
A paraphrase is supposed to be a sort of interpretation or rewording in plain language THAT IS TRUE TO THE TEXT. Granted most paraphrase Bible’s read their theology into the texts…that’s why I shy away from them and would treat them like commentaries. What your paraphrase does is alter the meaning from “I do not permit a woman to teach nor to authenitin” To “Women in their teaching are not to authenitin”…I think that is more than a re-write into a more plain language, it’s a complete revision. So grammer matters because in grammer is the meaning.
Well, yes and no. You are right that if “OR” is the proper word preceeded by a negative both disjuncts are negated. So literally we have “(a woman is) not to teach and not authenitin” In logicese we can write it as ~(Teach v Authenitin) or ~Teach v ~Authenitin. In either case both disjuncts recieve a negative.
I can see though from this more how the Artemis cult would come into play. If you do read that into the context it would explain why this prohibition on “false teaching” (granting your rendering) is aimed exclusively at women. However, would not men also be teaching this Artemis error?
So this is not a negative “kind” of teaching, rather it is a prohibition on teaching in general and a prohibition on authenitin in general.
I hear you, this is a tough text. The part most perplexing to me is what you are planing to tackle next…”Saved through child bearing”. What I have appreciated thus far is that you are to some extant stating positively what this does mean given your view, most of the time I have found that people dealing with texts that don’t fit their theology spend all their time stating what the text does not mean.
As for the orthodoxy buisness, fine I retract it. I don’t think the creeds needed to say anything until the 20th and 21st centuries because this was just sort of obvious. I will look more into the claim that is wasn’t until 2000 that a creed addressed this, I highly doubt that assertion. I do grant that it is a more recent issue and see that as the case because of the rise of feminism. It seems odd to me that at the same time feminsim was making headway suddenly all these new discoveries in the Greek and historical context were occuring…
I think this gravatar fits my role over here at Mass Theology…
.
Bob, email me the pic and I will make sure it gets up!
Also, sometime it takes a few hours to show up. That might be what is going on.
Did you sign up over at gravatar, I am guessing?
Honzo,
You were wanting my thoughts on this topic.
After reading through the many comments, I simple will say that I think Bob has nicely done a solid defense for holding his (my) view. I try to be open to the fact that I could be wrong on any topic, but I won’t change my mind with the evidence that has been shown (or in my eyes…not been shown yet).
Tom, I think Bob is right with one of his last comments. I appreciate how you make opinion into a workable dialog instead of just pointing fingers and being a naysayer. And Tom, I love what you said about the text is not belittling women. Sometimes it seems like in these conversations…women are dirt. I would hope that any woman reading my comments or hearing me speak would never get that idea.
Tom, if you were going to convince me about the Artemis’s women issues I would have to need two things. First, this is what Bob has said, you would need to convince me that this issue is “in” the text. Paul never refers to it, so I am hesitate.
Second, I have been to Ephesus and I know first hand that there were many different temples with many different gods being worshiped. Why assume that this one temple was central over all other temples? Even if it was, what makes us believe that the people that worshiped at this temple were so large that that their way of living encompassed everyone in Ephesus. (this might be a stupid example of what I mean–but if we studied the 1970′s and found that some people were hippies does that mean that everyone in that time period were hippies? I think not). I guess I would just need some more evidence that proved everyone, or mostly everyone, was in fact Artemis worshipers.
Okay, Casey, so from what I understand, you need two things from me –
1. Locate the Artemis Cult within the text of I Timothy.
2. Answer the question, “why would this temple be central over all other temples?” – demonstrating that all or everyone on Ephesus was a part of this Cult.
Thank you for being clear as to exactly what you want from me. It is important in this kind of discussion to be as clear as possible. I don’t know if my answers will suffice you, but let me give it a shot.
1. Question 1
Premise 1 – Luke informs us in Acts that the church at Ephesus had considerable opposition from the Artemis Cult as Paul’s preaching was so successful and people were being converted from that pagan religion.
Premise 2 – We know from our experience that new converts often have difficulty riding themselves of their previous worldviews. They often try to bring these worldviews into the church.
Premise 3 – Paul does reference ‘godless myths’ which only promote controversies within the church. These godless myths are left unnamed for some reason unknown to me. As Paul leaves them unnamed for his own reasons, there is no reason force him to name the Artemis Cult (assuming, my opinion, that this is what he is dealing with).
Premise 4 – When wrestling with a text like this, the best answer is the answer that accounts most adequately for ALL the information. I understand that the Complementarians position has a long standing tradition behind their interpretation of this passage and that tradition should not be easily disregarded. However, I think it has difficulty dealing with all the information in the text – specifically, as Bob said, the ‘they shall be saved through child-bearing.’ Now, I understand that I am yet to demonstrate the superiority of my answer to this odd statement, but that is why I have promised 4 more posts on this topic, the next one dealing with this text.
Conclusion: Though this doesn’t demonstrate empirically that Paul is wrestling with the Artemis Cult in this passage, these 4 premises bring us to a point where we can at least see it as a possible alternative reading of the text. We’ve place Artemis and the church in the same context, we’ve taken into account the difficulties of new converts, we’ve brought in Paul’s references to godly myths and false doctrine throughout I Timothy, and we’ve accounted for (or will account for) all the information within the passage itself.
Again, this may not ultimately be convincing to the degree that you might drop your stance and turn into an Egalitarian. However, it does at least demonstrate that the Egalitarians have a logically consistent position derived form evidence from within the text and the outside culture in Ephesus.
2. Question 2
I have never stated that the Artemis Cult was a dominant Cult in Ephesus. I simply asserted that the Artemis Cult and the church were trying to influence the lives of the same people, and some of the women that were Artemis followers converted to Christianity. How many were there? I don’t know, but apparently enough to cause a bit of a stir in the Ephesian ecclesia. They don’t even necessarily have to be a large group; they just have to be a loud group – a loud group who carried their pagan assumptions into the church. I don’t think this is a too much of an improbability considering other things we find in the text and other things we see Paul dealing with in the rest of his letters.
A WEAKNESS IN MY ARGUMENT – Bob has already hinted at this, but I want to inform you of it so as to let you know that I am wrestling with these thoughts just as everyone else is – even though I’m a bit more convinced by them.
My argument does not demonstrate that Paul allowed women pastors, elders, preachers/teachers. It simply does not do that – for that we’ll have to look at other passages. My argument simply reexamines the passage with this socio-religious observations. These observations call into question the traditional reading that Paul is forbidding women to teach and have authority. Can women teach and have authority according to this passage? I don’t know. I just know that Paul isn’t forbidding it, he’s forbidding something else – that which I have already argued for.
SO WHAT’S AT STAKE FOR ME – What’s at stake for me is not that I convince you all that my view is right and you should change yours (thought that might be a pleasing conclusion). Rather, I want Biblical Complementarians to 1. stop using this passage as proof that women can’t teach and have authority (there are other texts I’m sure they can use if they want to), and 2. To acknowledge that the Egalitarian position, at least in this text, might have a legitimate argument and voice.
I appreciate the discussion, guys and gals. I’m sure we’ll be having plenty more as the posts go on and as you read through my responses here.
Cheers.
I am going to go through some seemingly random thoughts, which I believe are connected, so bear with me until they are connected towards the end.
The Bible is the best commentary on the Bible, that means looking at the Bible holistically. How do you synthesize the complementarian view, or the view that women are not permitted authority etc. when several of the judges were women, several women have books of the Bible dedicated to their stories and their leadership, Jesus is supported by sugar mommas, Jesus allows Mary to sit at his feet, Jesus discusses theology with a Samaritan woman, Paul says, “In Christ there is no Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for we are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28)? What about the theme throughout the Bible of God consistently choosing the least likely characters to do great things for his kingdom – like last born (Jacob, David, etc), foreigners (Rehab, Ruth, women (Deborah, Jaal, Esther, Ruth), children (David, Samuel, Joseph), etc (Matthew 19:30, 20:16; Mark 10:31, Luke 13:30)? What about the Biblical theme of reversals and setting the world right-side up?
Ok, now we look at Jesus for a minute. Jesus was a Jewish rabbi and the rabbis interpreted Torah, providing people with very practical ways to live (embody, fulfill) Torah (The Law). This was called their yoke. Jesus comes along and says that his yoke, his embodiment of Torah, is easy and light (Matthew 11:30). The pharisees and teachers of the law were criticized by Jesus because their yoke (rules to fulfill Torah) got away from the intension of the law, the heart of God, and burdened people.
Why is this important about fulfilling the law? Well, it is important because Jesus did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). If we want to know what the Kingdom of God looks like and how to build, embody, fulfill it, we must look to Jesus. Jesus got to the heart of the law. Example: Jesus keeps getting yelled at for healing on the sabbath. Rabbi had said that “this is work… And this is rest… To fulfill torah you may not do such and such on the sabbath.” Jesus comes and says, “You are not getting the point of the sabbath. Sabbath was made for man not man for the sabbath.” (Mark 2:27). The pharisees’ interpretation of the law added burden and got away from the point.
Now we get back to the issue of women’s roles in the church. The holy spirit was poured out on both men and women (Acts 2:17). Women were evidently leaders in the early church as is evidenced by the way Paul affirms and comments on the work of both women and men. We have these passages in Tim and other places that do not seem consistent and congruent with the themes of the Bible holistically, with Jesus example, or by other comments made by Paul. This is why what Tom says is so important, it is an effort to synthesize and understand these passages in such a way that is consistent with history, seeks to understand what Paul is saying, and is consistent with the totality of Scripture.
Practical embodiment is essential so the real consequences of complementarians or egalitarianism need to be considered. Jesus got mad at the pharisees for burdening the people. I think that we need to honestly look at the consequences and the roots of completmentarian vs egalitarian so that we can see which theology loves God, loves people, and builds the Kingdom of God more. We must get to the heart of the matter, just as Jesus got to the heart of the matter.
Can someone honestly and scripturally answer the following questions: Who gains by keeping all women out of positions of authority over men? Why do men necessarily need to be in the positions of authority? The only reasons I can see why this is forced in churches are related to man’s ego, insecurity, power, and control (not fruits of the spirit). What about women who are intelligent, gifted leaders, excellent communicators, and great administrators? Did God make a mistake in gifting them in those ways? Are they sinning by embracing their identity? What does the Kingdom of God gain by not allowing them to invest their talents? Who is ultimately held accountable for the lack of gain when women are discouraged and prevented from investing?
It is important to work through this issue because we are talking about real people and real consequences that have eternal ramifications. Why would God add a burden that prevents people (both men and women) from freely using their gifts and talents to build the kingdom of God? Isn’t that the problem Jesus had with the Pharisees?
Casey, as you’ve been to Ephesus I’m sure you know then that the Artemis temple was one of the 7 wonders of the ancient world. Over the centuries it was destroyed by both nature and man multiple times, each time it was rebuilt, often more extravagant than before. This would not only require a large and dedicated cult devoted to Artemis and the temple, but one with significant access to funds as they turned down Imperial aid for rebuilding on at least one occasion. Rebuilding specific temples/cult momunents in this manor was actually not an overly common practice in antiquity, and would signify a truly dedicated and powerful cult following.
So, the Artemis cult in Ephesus was a pretty big deal, with multple documented conflicts with early Christianity. It is by no means far fetched to assume it has some agency in this whole matter.
Guys thanks for you polite usage of dialog with me.
Anyways…straight to the point. Even though I like your ideas and your study and your insight–the truth is that your “radically new idea” is simply a theory.
Even so your comments are logical and consistent (and for that matter they are interesting). You and I have to admit (and tom you already have) that this is simply a theory.
And as far as theories go, it is difficult to choose to place full believe in something that is not in the text as complete proof. Obviously, I value your insights and your study in the subject and I look eagerly towards your next post.
But their is a difference in saying…the text is saying this…and the text might be referring to Artemis. I am not trying to hold on to my conservative belief, I am just trying to gain perspective.
Even so I like your theory I have to admit that it is just a theory. A very well studied hypothesis, but still it is just a guess (an educated one no doubt).
Tom, you might like this. It seems that you last comment gave me some insight into your thoughts. As you are comparing these different approaches you made reference to the fact that we should not have a strict understanding of women being less:
It seems that you might be a little frustrated at these issues (and rightfully so). The greek word for “forbid” in this text simply means “to turn to.” I do not turn to women to do this (not because they are less, but because they can do other things) so I turn to men to teach.
If I were in your shoes, I think this word “forbid” should deserve some study. I think this word clarification can help resolve some tension between the two ideas of 1. Women are nothing and 2. women are valued (but might have other responsibilities)
I am not promoting my beliefs here ( I don’t know if I like this opinion), all I am trying to do is to find the heart of this text. And the forbidden issue is something that I can draw out of this text and so…see this…Paul isn’t a sexist pig…and neither should we be.
I wanted to reply to some of the ideas Jesse Black puts forward in the comment section here. We are beginging to leave the Artemis scope and even just this text and stepping back and trying to see the big picture in Jesse’s comments, this is needed.
Firstly, Jesse states:
Well, there was only one actually and that is Deborah. As a Complementarian I would see this instance in several ways 1)It is descriptive not poscriptive, it is not stated that this is how it should be. On the same note it is not stated that Deborah in leadership is wrong. 2)Deborah’s role as judge is not analogous to NT pastoral leadership. The OT counter part to NT pastoral leadership is that of the priesthood. There were never any women priests, Deborah did not make sacrifices for the people etc.
As far as narratives about women, Jesus’ being supported by women, and having Mary sit at His feet, I don’t see what bearing any of that has on the ministerial/leadership roles of men and women. I just means Jesus took money from women who believed in Him, He encouraged Mary to listen to His teaching…
This is a huge and weighty text. It is an unambiguos declaration that all people, irregardless of race, gender or socio status are of equal value before God in Christ. As a complementarian that isn’t a problem since I hold to that. The issue is that in that equality are there differing vocations and roles for different members of the body? I answer in the affirmitive. It is rather plain that no matter how much I would desire it I can not be a mother it is not part of my nature nor my calling. Does this mean that there is some inequality between the sexes because there is something women can do that I can not? Not at all. I think the same is applicable to differing roles given to the different sexes by God.
I think we as Christians too often adopt unchristian ideas and use them as our standards. So part of the feminist movement was seeing equality between the sexes based on the right to do the same things. I would say that is NOT biblical and it also is not rational.
True, but it begs the question as to whether an egalitarian view falls under the umbrella of a “light yoke”.
Women were evidently leaders based on the way Paul affirms that there is work for women to do in the church? Again this begs the question. There can be (and I would say there is/are) plenty of roles/duties for women in the church, many of them things which men can not and should not do. I think of Titus ch 2 where one role is for older women to instruct the yonger women seemingly in very intimate matters like what it means to be a good mother. That is not the job for any man, mothers need to instruct mothers.
I haven’t seen this at all. Quite the opposite actually, Paul’s seemingly complementarian teaching is quite in line with the rest of scripture. There were no female priests, and in 1 Tim 3 Paul is fairly obviously assuming that those in a teaching/pastoral leadership position are going to be male. Every pronoun referring to the qaulifications of an elder is masculine, “he” is to be a “husband of one wife” the “father of faithful children”…
I don’t think that question is Biblical. Our standard as to how the church should be run is not pragmatic based on “gains” but is to be Biblical…what does the Bible say?
Because that is the way God has ordained it in His word. He has given different roles for the genders by His design for our good.
Well not to be a smarty pants…you need to read your Bible more if that’s the only reason you can see for churches viewing the roles of men and women this way.
Well, I am in hearty support of intellectual women influencing the Church. One of the best books I have read as of late is Nancy Pearcey’s “Total Truth” it really is brilliant and I recommend it. Honestly, I hear your complaint here and would to a degree voice it myself. In many respects I think women feel paralyzed from acting in the church and this should not be so. I really don’t have a view that has this stuff down in an air tight fashion as to what precisely are the roles. However, it is fairly clear that pastoral and elder roles are for men and there is a difference in the roles of men in women.
Also, if I understand the scriptures rightly and God has ordained complimentarian roles for men and women I don’t think He is going to by His Spirit give a gift/call to women to be in pastoral ministry. So again you beg the question as to whether God does gift women for leadership…you assume that He does.
Well again, if complementarianism is Biblical then God is not giving women talents that they are to stuff away in some hole.
Again this begs the question, not only as to whether God gifts women to leadership but also that different roles being laid out is “burdensome”. It is adding burden only if it isn’t Biblical, which is what the Pharisees were doing. Jesus said they “Nullified the law with their traditions.” So again the issue is whether different roles for the sexes is Biblical, if it isn’t you are right this is adding a burden.
However, when Paul says things like “I do not permit a woman to teach” not to mention that every single time he lays out the qualifications for elders/deacons he assumes they are men through the masculine pronouns and references to their wives and children they are the fathers of (see Titus 1, 1 Tim 3 etc) it certainly would seem like he has different roles in mind for different folks. Just the fact that in Titus ch 2 Paul lays out what women should be doing and then the young men and then the slaves shows that there are different roles for different folks and one of those demarcation lines is gender based.
Bob, I always smile (sometimes I even laugh to myself) when I read your comments. I enjoy you passion and your zeal for standing for truth.
Keep up the fight.
Puritanbob, I think you have really glossed over Deborah’s story and her importance. Your description of the Judges account as merely “descriptive” doesn’t hold weight when the biblical writers praise her for allowing Israel to prosper, refering to her as the “mother of Israel” (Judges 5:7). Deborah and her leadership are unquestionably held in high regard by the writer of Judges and the people of Israel.
And how was Deborah as a judge not analogous to NT “pastoral leadership” (not sure what that means exactly)? What is a pastor other than the leader of an individual Christian community? That is precisely her role. The priesthood has no role whatsoever in the book of Judges, as the judge was the sole conduit to God that the people had during that time.
In reality, the priesthood would be a bad example for leadership in Christian communities, as their disconnect from the common people was criticized throughout Israelite histroy (just read the first chapter of Isaiah, et al). Furthermore, the priests of the temple existed in Paul’s day, and I don’t recall him appealing to such figures as models of leadership.
thank you tom, for inviting me into the conversation. i not only appreciate the amount of research that you’ve put into your remarks, but also your conversational tone. i will try my best to honor both.
while i think that it is well within reason to understand 1 tim in the context of the artemis cult (also other mystery cults, gnosticism all of which practiced different forms of gender bending), i don’t think a local interpretation is dependant on historical context. as puritanbob suggests, it is sometimes best to let scripture speak for itself and to itself.
on that note, it is hard to reconcile 1 tim as an permanent prohibition on teaching in light of paul’s other statements about teaching. for example, col 3:5-17 describes general rules for “church” behavior. teaching appears in a long list of shared activities: mutal forgiveness, kindness, love, and admonishment. it would be ridiculous both to assume that paul intended these activities to be restricted by gender or to assume that teaching is the one activity that bears restriction.
as to what paul writes in galatians 3:28… it is also hard to read 1 tim as a permanent prohibition in light of what paul says about women. this verse is a groundshaker. the language he uses is only found in the new testament to refer to genesis 1:27. the words for male and female are not masculine and feminine (a social construct, which is the modern understanding of gender), but anatomical. i certianly don’t understand paul to say that in christ we are without anatomical distinction. i think he uses this language to point to the essential and fundamental identity change we have in christ. this is further supported by the other pairs. consider that the ancient world thought that greeks and jews, slaves and freemen were different kinds of people. there was very little social mobility in greek/roman culture. these were huge differences to overcome in christ.
related to that text, the church certainly does not assign different vocations to jews and greeks, slaves and free. again, it would require us to assume that this pair, solely because it concerns gender, is isolated for the other pairs in the list.
another strong paul-women passage is romans 16. the pressence of women in ministry in this passage is overwhelming (even without arguing for junias to be returned to junia as it most certainly was originally.)
to get back to 1 tim, paul’s “i do not permit…” is present tense (i do not permit now). is there anything in the passage to indicate that he intended his prohibition to have any application outside of the problematic congregation at ephesus or, more to the point, that he intended the prohibition to be permanent? if we accept that somehow eve did not learn adequately, then is paul not suggesting a period of tutelage for women in that congregation who were, possibly more familiar with pagan religious practice? (quietness is a student position, not necessary a completely silent one, and certianly one only intended to last a season and outgrown.)
as to deborah and priesthood… the highest office in the nation of israel was that of prophet. whereas the priest approached God, God approached the prophet. additionally, the prophet Huldah instructed both king and high priest. (1 kings 22:11-23:25) deborah was not only a judge, but a prophet as well. (judges 4:4) interesting that the text mentions her husband’s name, placing him in the nation of israel and therefore under her civil and religious authority. truth is, there is very little correlation between the OT offices and the NT and also between NT offices and our modern ones. that being said the importance of prophecy in the NT church can not be ignored. did prophets “outrank” teachers? i’ll leave that to someone else, but it seems inconsistent to acknowledge women in one office, but not in the other. (1 Cor 11:2-16 for all else that it says does acknowledge women as prophets.)
thank you for giving me the opportunity to enter into your conversation. i look forward to tom’s further posts and reading your further comments.
Also, the priests were not only just men, they were also just Jewish (this would discount Gentiles if we are following the parallel) and they were only Levites.
Hey my picture got up…right on! It is from the “Mr Grumble” book, I think it is fitting because I seem to often be the nay sayer…just having a little fun at my own expense. One small correction in my last comment when I spoke of the Deborah account as “proscriptive” I meant prescriptive. To reply to some of the comments though…
It is not my intention to minimize Deborah’s significance or her role, I am just clarifying that her position is not analogous to NT pastoral leadership, her position was civil, she was a judge and yes a prophetess. My point in all of that was merely to say that you can’t point at the sole female civil judge in OT Israel and use that as a model for NT church leadership, the OT type of pastor is the priesthood which was unanimously male.
Well, because the role of judge is in the civil sphere whereas the role of the priest was in administering the word and sacraments. By pastoral leadership I mean those who administer the word and sacraments. So this was NOT Deborah’s role, she never made a sacrifice, shen never entered the tabernacle, or provided atonement etc. Her role and the role of the judges was civil, remember there was no king in Israel in Judges. As far as the priesthood having no role in the book of Judges I don’t know how you can make such an erroneous statement, the Ark was still in Israel we know this because it is there when Samuel rises to be judge. Granted Judges like th book is titled focuses on the judges but to say that there is no role for the priesthood and the judges did all of that…
I agree, because we are in a new covenant. Also, I am not saying that we are to look at the OT priesthood as the standard of leadership, I am just saying that it is the OT counter part to NT, all I am saying out of that comparison is that in the OT no priests were female, likewise Paul in 1 Tim 2 and 3 holds to male church leadership. That is why we are talking about the Artemis cult and stuff you know, the passage we are examining at least SEEMS to teach a complementarian view so egalitarians need to deal with it. Again I am not basing my complementarian NT views primarily on the OT priesthood, I am just saying that OT administration of the word and sacraments would seem analogous to NT administration of the word and sacraments. As far as my using the OT priesthood as the standard for NT church order, are you not doing the same by pointing to the Judges (a form of government done away with with Saul)as some sort of standard to go by because one of them happened to be a woman?
I do want to be clear though that I don’t in any way think that men are inherently better than women or anything like that. My position is simply that in our equality (Gal 3:28) God has ordained differing roles not just for the sexes, but all types of vocations (Titus 2).
Puritanbob,
Like I said before, the priesthood has no role in the book of judges, they are not mentioned even once. Nor is the tabernacle, ark of the covenant, or anything that has to do with the priesthood. There was nothing erroneous about my statement, because it is a statement of fact. What were they doing? Who knows, but it was obviously so unimportant as to be unmentioned for the lengthy period of time that the Book of Judges covers. Their impact upon the people and the events of their lives is essentially non-existent in this book.
Furthermore, your distinction between “civil” and religious leadership is one that is absolutely foreign to the text (and to antiquity in many ways). The Judges fulfilled both roles, as they were both the prophetic spokespersons for God as well as the civil/military leaders. Our modern distinctions of “Secular” and “religious” really have no parallel in antiquity. While we try to seperate the civil from the sacred, such distinctions really break down when studying many aspects of the ancient world.
I don’t have time to get into the other broader points you are making. Even so, I felt it necessary to point out your lack of appreciation for Deborah and her importance in understanding what the Bible has to say about female leadership. You’re allowing the opinions you’ve formed from other texts to shape your conception of Deborah’s story, rather than taking it on it’s own terms. You’d certainly say the same thing to egalitarians about their readings of certain texts, which is likely a fair critique in certain instances. Even so, it was worth correcting.
Well, I would join you in abhorring the distinction between secular and sacred cheapman, because that’s not what I intended in civil and religious distinctions. All life is under God, in the civil or in the church. My point was simply to show that there is a difference between the roles of the judges and that of the priests, you want to blur that distinction and make the judges role both civil and priestly. Again, no judge offered atonement for the people or entered the holy place…this is because as you pointed out the book is about the judges not the priesthood. To infer from that that the priesthood just kind of went under and wasn’t doing it’s job is purely spacious, that’s why your statement is erroneous, you seem to paint the picture like the judges took over for the priesthood and this is an argument from silence. As I said already they MUST have been doing there job because when we come to Samuel we see Eli and his boys taking care of the tabernacle, just because it wasn’t mentioned in judges it doesn’t follow that this fell by the wayside. The whole counsel of scripture points us to think otherwise. We can go round and round on this one because the debate is over pure conjecture on your part.
Well I think that is fine if my opinions based on other texts are accurate… :) How do I take this on “it’s own terms”? I thought I already did as follows: Deborah was a judge and was a prophetess her role dealt primarily with the civil issues of Israel (settling disputes and being guided by God in such matters) she did not make atonement nor minister at the tabernacle that was reserved for men, Levite men as Jesse points out. It doesn’t follow that Deborah’s role as judge is prescriptive for NT church leadership. That’s my assessment, how is that unfair? What am I not appreciating?
Oh and just so we don’t appear to be in total conflict cheapman, I also am a big MST3K fan…
Ultimately, I don’t know if the comp or egal view is correct. Philosophically and empirically the egalitarian view seems to be the correct one. A primae facie scriptural analysis favors the complementarial view, much to my chagrin.
Jessie, I think you asked the excellent questions of “whom is being served by each interpretation?” and “what is at stake?” with each one. These are excellent questions with several answers. Who is being served? The question seeks to find out if vested interests are marring the debate. On the surface it seems to be the case. Many men are in favor of the comp. view. However, I know a great many women that subscribe to it as well. Are these women deluded, or so dominated that they don’t know what is good for them? I think that something besides a quest for power or a retention of power is the motivating factor here. From listening to people on both sides of the debate, the concern for genuine orthopraxy is the motivating desire here. People are genuinely concerned with following God in the correct manner.
The conflict between the primae facie readings of the pastorals and the philosophic and empirical analyses is the heart of the matter. It is why some seek out another interpretation of the pastorals and why some hold on to the traditional interpretation so fiercely. I blame neither for their attitudes. Each is reasonable and not based in ulterior motives. However, it makes for unity (both in spirit, mind, and practice) on the matter very difficult.
However, the difficulty of the subject matter and our attachments is no reason to not work through it together. That is why I am so glad for everyone’s participation here. I look forward to hearing the rest of Tom’s interpretation.
I go with the interpretation that explains the features of the text the best overall. So far no interpretation of the texts have been able to illuminate the women being saved through childbirth to my satisfaction. All have been bailouts of some form or another, or introduce more problems than they have solved.
so no one has touched huldah’s story. i would think it would be germane given that both the “civil” and the religious spheres are under a woman’s instruction. (sorry, it’s 2 kings 22… notice the parallels to 2 kings 19 where Isaiah is consulted. Isaiah and huldah do not function differently because of their gender.)
the whole separate but equal thing is no easier to swallow than it was in the segregated south. (remember how the church “biblically” defended that?!) equality is equal access. if you deny equal access, then you need to own the inequality inherent to that restriction.
I think Theotica has made some good points that need to be dealt with.
I would be interested in hearing BC’s reply to her comments regarding the construction of gender roles in the first century, and also her comments on power.
It really doesn’t seem that you can say ‘equal but different roles’ when those role differentiations are drawn along roles of power – and where there is a difference of power, there is no equality.
I hear you theotica, I used to hold to that sort of thinking myself. My hang up is that it isn’t Biblical. As I already pointed out there were jobs that women were not allowed to do by God’s ordaining (priesthood) and if I am correct church leadership. YET, the Bible clearly teaches that men and women are of equal value, that is CLEAR. Therefore, equality is not based upon functionality.
I would also point to the difference in God designed constitution between the sexes to further show that there are different roles for them. No matter how much I may desire it I simply can not be a mother, does this lead to an inequality between the sexes because women are able to do something I can not? Well given your definition of equality you would have to say yes because it is based on functionality. Like wise handicapped individuals given your definition of equality would also be unequal. I could continue with other examples but for the sake of being succinct I will stop here.
When we look at what equality is based on Biblically we find that equality is not based on ability to do certain tasks but rather on the fact that we are made in the image of God and members of Christ’s body. Based on this members can have different roles yet be of equal value as Paul describes in 1 Cor 12 and 14. This is why I said that the definition of equality often used (by Christians even) simply is NOT Biblical but is borrowed from secular gropings for a basis of equality.
i would challenge your definition of Biblical. was gender equality part of biblical location of the church in greco-roman times? no. for the record, paul didn’t even have a greek word for woman that did not include a patriarchical connotation: it was either woman/daughter/virgin or woman/wife. no woman on her own terms. that suggests to me a strong cultural location on paul’s end (language is certainly secular). again, slavery was clearly accepted in paul’s church as a reality, but does that indicate to the church today that slavery is a christian practice? clearly (gosh, i hope clearly) not. if we practice biblicalism the way you’ve defined it, then the church is not more than an archeology project, doomed to perpetual primitivism.
it’s particularly interesting to note the progression of the pairs in galatians 3:28. jew and greek, they were working that one out in paul’s church at the time. slave and free, paul allowed that to stand and the church sorts it out as we go. i don’t think it’s ridiculous to suggest that male and female equality is the issue for our church and our time.
again, as far as equality goes, without application, equality is meaningless. if we look at galatians again, paul here is addressing sonship in Christ, but there is an expectation that that sonship demonstrates itself in practice. what does my equality in God’s image mean on the ground? faith is believing behavior. i can’t say i believe i am your servant if i don’t actually wash your feet.
huldah?
the priesthood has no place in the NT. there is no biblical evidence that the NT sacrements were exclusively practiced by a certain class of people. and besides, teaching is the issue here and teaching wasn’t a duty given to priests, it was the pervue of rabbis.
as to the disabled and equal access. two things. one, they don’t have equal access because society and technology etc. were created by “abled” people with “abled” assumptions. two, society has been working to provide equal access despite this shortsightedness. in the christian context, women just might have decreased function in the church because the church has largely been governed and shaped by non-women. two, it might be time to start working toward providing equal access.
and since you brought up 1 cor 14, in verses 33-35, paul is quoting an incorrect teaching which is why he rebukes so strongly in verse 36. there are a lot of linguistic clues that this is the case.
and the childbirth thing… it is through childbirth that Eve’s seed will triumph. i’ve never really understood how she’s the only one who gets blessed in the curse and yet she’ll forever be the one who “was deceived”. i can understand that your jealous, but believe me, women will never cease try to find a way to provide you with equal access to that blessing. :D
The Biblical model of leadership is one of downward mobility and service. And as far as the parallel with the priests, I think this is a bad example…. Besides, Peter says that we are all a royal priesthood.
Bob, you cannot be a mother because you do not have the equipment physiologically. It is impossible for you to bear children. Do you think it is impossible for women to teach and lead, or is it wrong for women to teach and lead? These are very different realities.
If a woman cannot teach (is incapable of teaching because those sorts of gifts are an impossibility), then we should not put women in any teaching position especially over children, who are the most vulnerable to believing false things.
If women should not teach (because it upsets an order that God put in place and it is detrimental to the growth of the Kingdom of God, inhibits people from loving God and loving others), then it is important to keep women out of those positions because it is sinful.
Telling a woman who is intelligent, articulate, gifted in leadership, and feels strongly called to do ministry, that she is sinning by teaching, preaching, etc, adds a tremendous burden to her. This is the human side of the issue. There are only a few options: either she is not actually gifted, she is not actually called, or she is not sinning. The question is: which is true.
If women are incapable of being leaders, teaching, etc, then we have to figure out how to explain all of the women throughout the Bible (many of whom have been named throughout our discussions), who effectively held positions of leadership.
This issue, for a number of people, is an issue of identity and call. I know a number of young women who want to serve Jesus, are gifted leaders, are intelligent, articulate, and are not operating out of “impure” usurping authority (sinful) frames of mind. At my church, one of our pastors is a woman and she preaches on a regular basis. Our senior pastor has said that she has as much natural teaching/preaching ability as anyone he has met. And if you told him that this women cannot be in her position, he would fight you tooth and nail because she is effective for the Kingdom of God.
What about the other specifics in 1st Timothy? If he is to be the husband of but one wife, can single men be “overseers” and deacons? What about all those church leaders who have rebellious children (1 Tim 3:4)? Shouldn’t they be removed from positions of authority based on 1st Tim? And what about 1st Timothy’s talk of widows lists and who can be on them? Or the way we treat our slaves and how we teach our congregations to treat their slaves (Titus 2)? Have you been drinking a little wine with your water (1 Tim 5:23)? Our logic should be consistent.
Is it wrong for men to learn from a woman’s teaching? Does it hurt men to learn from women? Does it hurt women to teach? How come some men can learn from women and are willing to follow without being emasculated? Should an ineffective man be in a position over an effective woman?
Again I ask, how do you address the themes in the Bible of reversals, redemption, first will be last, turning cheek, unlikely being chosen.
I do not think that using the physiological argument for non-physiological roles is strong or compelling. Besides, in all the passages that Bob is using about the roles of women, it speaks of marriage and children. Is that the major role for women in the body of Christ, procreation? What about when Paul says it is better to be single? Does that only speak to men? If all the men are remaining single aren’t they wronging the women who need to be married in order to fulfill their gender role? Does that mean women should marry anyone (ever a non-christian)? What about single women? What about leaders like mother Teresa? Maybe we should have more protestant convents so that all the single women can be married to Jesus.
Theotica,
I just want to point out Nehemiah 8:8 "They read from the book, from the Law of God, clearly, and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading." The priests here are teaching the people the Word of God. Also in Leviticus 10:10-11 Yahweh tells Aaron, "10 You are to distinguish between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the clean, 11 and you are to teach the people of Israel all the statutes that the Lord has spoken to them by Moses." It is clearly a priestly function to teach the people of Israel the Word of God, in this case the Torah. Just thought I would clarify this interesting discussion.
thanks hank. i was reading backwards from the NT where rabbis are an important teaching class.
we’ve still got huldah hanging out there.
jesse black, beautiful arguments. in a similiar debate with a pastor friend over this very issue, i said “i don’t get to stand before jesus and say ‘mr. so-and-so wouldn’t let me obey my calling.’ that just won’t cut it.”
i think what’s most frustrating to me in the complementarian point of view is the implied (and inherent) superiority of the white males who most forcefully argue for it.
Take, for instance, the Southern Baptist Convention, one of the most vocal defenders of complementarianism (if not outright patriarchy). Where in Southern Baptist churches are women "permitted" to serve (notice the paternalistic vocabulary)? They can be the Church Hostess (run the kitchen), or they can teach, but only other women, children, and maybe teens (depending on the church). And what are the two largest missions offerings the SBC does every year? Lottie Moon (missionary to China) and Annie Armstrong (urban missionary in the USA). Both of these women taught men and started churches. So why do we name missions offerings after them? Because they didn’t teach white men. According to the SBC, women can "teach and have authority" over other women, children, and brown people – all of which are implicitly inferior (intellectually and spiritually) to the white males who have power in that denomination (I should mention that I’m an ordained SBC minister, so this is not an outsider-critique).
The complementarian view always gives positions of power and authority to men and assigns women positions of support and service. It’s no surprise, then, that these same men are the loudest advocates (or, for that matter, that a cruel twist of hegemony has convinced their wives to accept the status of second-class human).
Talk is cheap, and we can say "Equal, Equal, Equal" all day long, but until we embrace the NT’s example of radical egalitarianism, we are deluding ourselves and stifling the Imago Dei that shines brightly in more than half of the persons on this planet.
Jr,
that does not disqualify the interpretation complementarianism. but i do agree that the loudest voices are white men.
Hank, I agree. That in and of itself does not disqualify the interpretation, but it does explain why the interpretation is held onto so tightly if the interpretation is disqualified on other grounds.
Agreed
On the developing tangent of the evil patristic white men…(this is a side not on a side note I suppose) it seems the only group in our culture that can get ripped on is white men. In one of my Bible classes my Lutheran professor was just ripping on how dumb Adam was and how suave and pragmatic Eve was. I couldn’t help but think that if he did the opposite he’d be hissed off campus and probably out of the state. You see it on TV as well, white men just want to drink beer, watch football, drive FORD, take viagra etc, and this is all funny and slipped into comedy shows. In television (espescially the sitcoms) women are always portrayed as the intellectuals and men the dumb loafs watching sports and asking for sex. Granted, the old movies were certainly both sexist and racist, but I just find it interesting that the only group not immune from getting trashed is white men. (Close tangent)
Back to the meat, it is clear I need to clarify. I knew when I drew on the mothering anology people would respond as they did, I just hoped they wouldn’t so we wouldn’t get bogged down. I really am enjoying this discussion btw, and am particularly pleased with the fact that this hasn’t crumbled to cheap name callings…yet. Jesse Black, although I disagree with you I greatly appreciate your responses, I sincerely mean that. You write:
“Bob, you cannot be a mother because you do not have the equipment physiologically. It is impossible for you to bear children. Do you think it is impossible for women to teach and lead, or is it wrong for women to teach and lead? These are very different realities.”
The point still stands that there are different abilities, and given the functionality view of equality, thus inequality. That was my main thrust. Also, it must be noted that our physiology from a Christian perspective is based on God’s design, I would say there is overlap in our God designed physiology and God ordained roles. One example is indeed mothering. You are right though of cours a woman is physically able to step up into a pulpit and start talking, and that is different from whether or not it is in fact in line with the Biblical perameters of who should be in the pulpit ministering word and sacrament.
“This is the human side of the issue. There are only a few options: either she is not actually gifted, she is not actually called, or she is not sinning. The question is: which is true.”
I completely agree.
“If women are incapable of being leaders, teaching, etc, then we have to figure out how to explain all of the women throughout the Bible (many of whom have been named throughout our discussions), who effectively held positions of leadership.
Well, I see the women who were in roles of leadership in the Bible were civil and not priestly. As for this Huldah business I don’t see what the fuss theotica is making around her is all about.
This is where I think you go wrong though Jesse:
“This issue, for a number of people, is an issue of identity and call. I know a number of young women who want to serve Jesus, are gifted leaders, are intelligent, articulate, and are not operating out of “impure” usurping authority (sinful) frames of mind. At my church, one of our pastors is a woman and she preaches on a regular basis. Our senior pastor has said that she has as much natural teaching/preaching ability as anyone he has met. And if you told him that this women cannot be in her position, he would fight you tooth and nail because she is effective for the Kingdom of God.”
It seems like your justification for the notion that women preaching is warranted is that: a) one of your pastors is a woman, and b)others say she is clearly gifted/called to be in that position, and lastly c)what sounds like the head pastor will stoutly defend her ministry. I don’t think those are good reasons for endorsing ANYBODY’S ministry.
“What about the other specifics in 1st Timothy? If he is to be the husband of but one wife, can single men be “overseers” and deacons?
Well, yes. The point is that he is not a polygamy practitioner, not that he must be married in order to be qualified. Remember Paul himself wasn’t married. Logically you can see it as he must have no more than 1 wife (having more than 1 wasn’t that big of a deal to the pagans mind you).
“What about all those church leaders who have rebellious children (1 Tim 3:4)?
Well according to the text they are disqualified, if your kids are living like hell under your family lead and you want to lead the flock of God…maybe more churches should start doing these things again, but that’s not how you get 5000+ member churches…(I am glad my denomination is fairly faithful to exercise church discipline)
“Shouldn’t they be removed from positions of authority based on 1st Tim?
You got it.
“And what about 1st Timothy’s talk of widows lists and who can be on them? Or the way we treat our slaves and how we teach our congregations to treat their slaves (Titus 2)? Have you been drinking a little wine with your water (1 Tim 5:23)? Our logic should be consistent.
Well I agree with that last statement, we need to be consistent. I have no problem at all with churches implementing the guidelines Paul gives us here, that’s why they were given. As for the little wine with water, that was specifically for Timothy because of the stomach issues Paul refers to. But it also shows us that Paul wasn’t a prohibitionist…isn’t it neat how all scripture really does have something to say to us today? (sorry that was just a side not doxology)
“Is it wrong for men to learn from a woman’s teaching? Does it hurt men to learn from women? Does it hurt women to teach? How come some men can learn from women and are willing to follow without being emasculated? Should an ineffective man be in a position over an effective woman?
These kinds of question are not how we determine whether or not this is how our churches should be governed, this is a secular approach. The ethic of our culture is “Do what feels right as long as you don’t hurt others.” So that which hurts others is wrong, women teaching doesn’t necessarily hurt therefore…
“I do not think that using the physiological argument for non-physiological roles is strong or compelling.
That wasn’t my argument for complementarianism (for that I would point to scripture), it was a reductio ad absurdum to the functionality = equality. The idea that if we cant do the same things then we are not equal.
“Besides, in all the passages that Bob is using about the roles of women, it speaks of marriage and children. Is that the major role for women in the body of Christ, procreation? What about when Paul says it is better to be single? Does that only speak to men? If all the men are remaining single aren’t they wronging the women who need to be married in order to fulfill their gender role? Does that mean women should marry anyone (ever a non-christian)? What about single women? What about leaders like mother Teresa? Maybe we should have more protestant convents so that all the single women can be married to Jesus.”
I think these are good questions, I certainly don’t think that the only role for women is child rearing but it is one the Bible describes. Women are to teach Titus 2, do good charitable works (Acts 9:26) etc. I just want to frankly admit that I don’t have this all together. It is clear to me that the NT restricts leadership in the church to men, but then what do the women do? Can they share words from the pulpit for the whole body? Can a pastor even step aside and let a woman give an entire message on the Lord’s day? I really don’t know, nor do I claim to.
I don’t think we need convents or anything like that, honestly I want to be an encourager of women in ministry I want more deep intellectual Christian female authors, I don’t want to discourage these things at all. All that I do know is that the Bible does describe different roles for the sexes, and it seems evident that church leadership is by God’s design for men.
the big deal about huldah is that she was a prophet who instructed both king and priest. again, i move that prophets, not priests are closer to the new testament norm.
i’m very sorry, but you can’t encourage women to write without acknowledging them as legitimate teachers. and if you equate teachers with leaders, then leaders as well.
nothing to say about galatians? or the language in 1 tim being present tense and possibily limited in scope? thoughts on 1 cor perhaps? there’s a lot of stuff still left to be said. or that is unsaid.
i’m enjoying the conversation too. besides, some of my best friends are white males! :D
Bob, Just as a side note, I think you should reconsider this statement:
“The point is that he is not a polygamy practitioner,”
There is very little, if any, polygamy in 1st century Roman culture. The Romans did not practice it, the Jews did not practice it. Also, we have no evidence in any of Paul’s other letters that Christians were having a problem with it. That said, I think Jesse’s question still stands in need of a sufficient answer – are single men qualified for the pastorate? I know its a little off topic, but I think it goes to the heart of where this discussion is going.
Us egalitarians do not think it is clear that God definitively established different roles for the sexes for all churches for all time. Again, I say that this issue must be seen in the light of the redemptive work of Christ, the examples throughout the Bible of leadership and headship, the themes of God choosing the unlikely and the idea of servant leadership. We cannot look at Paul’s letters separate from the character of God and the consistent Biblical themes.
The reason I brought up the idea of yoke and fulfilling Torah is because it is essential to understand the heart of the law – what is the burden we are putting on people and is it a godly burden? The law and the prophets are summed up in this: Love the Lord your God and love your neighbor…. If over half of the followers of Christ are not permitted to teach and speak and lead, how does the Kingdom of God gain? Is God loved more? Are people loved more? Faith must always be practical – we embody what we believe or else we do not truly believe it. Truth must always reflect the character and nature of God because he is Truth!
My questions are not coming from a “secular” perspective, but one of trying to find God’s heart in all this, his character, and to understand his purpose. I do not think that God sets up purposeless hoops to jump through in order to test obedience.
I want to understand how the Body of Christ and the Kingdom of God benefit from preventing women from realizing their leadership and speaking talents (you do not need a course to become a great speaker, even as a woman). I want to know what this reveals about God’s character. I also want to know how allowing gender to become a non-issue (which is really what egalitarians are saying – that gender should be a non-issue when it comes to serving God) harms the image of God and the work of the church.
There are plenty of scriptures that seem to indicate that women are permitted (sons and daughters prophesy – keep in mind that prophesy is not just speaking about the future, but is speaking the truth of God) to teach, speak, and lead.
[...] presents I Timothy 2 and the Artemis Cult posted at Theology for the [...]
Hank,
JR also is pointing out that even if the interpretation is valid (which he rejects) the overall application of it is inconsistent. The principle is unjustly applied with the White MalesTM holding onto the top of the power tree.
I know it’s kind of a dead thread here but I want to clarify on the “One wife” business. Tom states:
“There is very little, if any, polygamy in 1st century Roman culture. The Romans did not practice it, the Jews did not practice it. Also, we have no evidence in any of Paul’s other letters that Christians were having a problem with it. That said, I think Jesse’s question still stands in need of a sufficient answer – are single men qualified for the pastorate? I know its a little off topic, but I think it goes to the heart of where this discussion is going.”
This statement is true and false. So I half recant. It is true that in 1st century Rome polygamous marriage was not lawful, (point taken) however adultry was seen as just matter of fact. Men were expected to have multiple mistresses and even to participate in group sex. To end the string of undocumented historical assertions I would point you to “lex de adulteriis” enacted by Augustus to try and curb the rampant adultry being practiced. Augustus’ decree shows that not only was adultry so rampant that the emperor needed to kick in but also permitted men to divorce there wives rather frivolously. As far as group sex I reference Catullus’ “Palatine Anthology 5.49″. There are rather also clear statements in Josephus by the way on polygamy being practiced among the Jews, for instance:
“He also allotted one of Aristobulus’s daughters to Antipater’s son, and Aristobulus’s other daughter to Herod, a son of his own, who was born to him by the high priest’s daughter; for it is the ancient practice among us to have many wives at the same time….Now Herod the king had at this time nine wives; one of them Antipater’s mother, and another the high priest’s daughter, by whom he had a son of his own name.” (Antiquities of the Jews 17:15, 19)
So where does this leave us in interpreting “husband of one wife” (1 Tim 3:2)? Well I think polygamy is included in the prohibition. But that is not all. We read Christ’s words on divorce:
“It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery. And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (Matt 5:31-32) Also:
“And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” (Matt 19:9)
The point is that divorce and remarriage is adultry according to Christ. As I noted already in Augustus’ decree this was permissable (the decree was made in 18 bc I think), also the fact that the Pharisees are asking about this issue lends suspect to think that divorce and remarriage were fairly accepted. That said, I see husband of one wife not only prohibiting polygamy but also one who has divorced and remarried from leadership.
To say that one must be married to be in leadership makes hash out of this because the human author of these authoritative words was not married, as I said already. We know Paul wasn’t married from (1 Cor 9:5), this also debunks Catholic rubbish about celibacy. So, my initial from the hip statement was a bit premature in stating that the point is that he does not practice polyamy as the meaning of 3:2 of 1 Timothy, it is that but much more.
I did not realize there were Egalitarian and Complementarian camps on this issue,
but am thankful for the careful presentation of arguments on both sides which illustrate these issues. In a debate sense, I see that the Complementarian debater is relying on the primacy of tradition, and falls into the fallacy of consistency in Biblical interpretation. My experience in many churches, Bible studies, reading and teaching Bible classes, is that often we don’t appreciate the value of literary conventions in the written Word. The Bible is written word, and thus literature. The interpretation of all literature is enriched by knowledge of literary conventions and historical context. God spoke to persons, and they wrote as persons in finite time and place. There has been much adjustment, translation, editing, fixing, even editing since the words were first written. One thing that has been true in all this, and must be included in the interpretation process is that theological and cultural power has been in the hands of men for the most part in the West, since the words were written. It is any wonder then, in the instructions for the churches, which have been the main center of Western culture for centuries, that women’s role as subordinate has survived as an unchanging “Truth”. We have managed to cast aside the instructions for slaves to obey their masters, or explain it away as a historical comment, but have kept the instructions about the differences in sexes.
I personally think that at some future time men will be able to rear embryos in artificial chambers if they so desire. Women will be able to convert other female cells to sperm cells through genetic alteration, and fertilize eggs produced from male skin cells. What then? There are children doused with estrogen at birth who have male SECONDARY sex characteristics, but are mentally and emotionally female. All of this enriches life on earth, society and our main function as humans: to worship God, and love our neighbors. Our only commandments. Fear of and resistance to change in tradition and in our understanding of all the possibilities of life is not from God. Order is good, but how much and at what cost?
[...] Our Tom on I Timothy 2 and the Artemis Cult [...]
I don’t have time to read through all the posts, but I do want to say that there is an excellent work by Clinton Arnold on the concept of the powers in Ephesians. Arnold argues for the Artemis cult as a context for understanding this oft misunderstood term. He also mentions that the Artemis of Ephesus pre-dates the popular Greek mythology concerning her. What this may mean is that the whole birth narrative concerning Artemis and Apollo may not have been known in Ephesus at the time, or might not have been considered important.
[...] a year ago I wrote a number of posts on the topic of Evangelical Feminism vs. Biblical Complementarianism. This post will further that [...]
[...] Highlights of the Carnival are Pseudo-Polymath’s Patriotism: Eschatological or Immediate and I Timothy 2 and the Artemis Cult by Theology for the [...]