When We Can't All Agree

Do you sometimes hear people say, "The Bible is clear on ________" and think, Clear to you, maybe; it's not quite clear to me?

Some issues, what I think are "essentials," really are clear: God created the world; Jesus commanded us to love each other; Jesus never sinned; he died for us.

But Christians who take the Bible seriously can disagree on other issues, particularly on certain "hot topics." On such topics, where sincere biblical Christians may in good conscience disagree, I find Greg Boyd's attitude and example tremendously helpful:

I can fully appreciate and understand how someone for exegetical reasons comes to the conclusion that Calvinism is true… I don't agree with that but I really understand how you can get to that position exegetically.

"Greg on the Open View: Video One"
recorded in 2008 at Azusa Pacific University (video link)

That view, of being able to appreciate and understand how someone can study the Bible and come to a different conclusion than I currently do, is a terrific example for me as I consider some "non-essential" issues.

With that background, let me outline four possible positions regarding an issue which is no longer controversial today, though it was at one time. Ready?

1. The only reasonable position is that it's absolutely OK.
2. I think the Bible permits it, but I understand others may disagree.
3. I don't think the Bible allows it, but I understand others may disagree.
4. The only reasonable position is that it's absolutely forbidden.

Oh, the issue I had in mind was slavery. On that issue I think I find myself at #4, though the viewpoints of 19th-century American Christians—even white American Christians—probably spanned the spectrum. American Christians moved over time away from #1 and toward #4 on slavery.

How about... can women be ordained as elders and pastors? There I think early 20th-century American evangelicals may have been mainly in the #3 and #4 camps, but over time more of us fall into #1 or #2 (though not all of us - click here for example). There we moved overall away from #4 and toward #1, but not all of us. Keller is a #3 on this issue but the PCUSA's position is #1 (link).

There are at least two hot-button non-essential issues in the American church today, which I need not mention here. But on these issues I think #2s and #3s can get along with each other. #1s don't seem to want to tolerate #3s, and #4s don't seem to want to tolerate #2s.

This model, with #1–4, is not original with me, but the originator didn't want to be quoted (I'll update this if they change their mind). I find these categories helpful as I think about these issues, and about others' positions on them.

[A glimmer of] Understanding the PCUSA

Updated 2013-04-07 because shuckandjive.org's domain registration expired; links have been adjusted to point to http://shuckandjive.blogspot.com

I'm a member of Menlo Park Presbyterian Church, which is currently affiliated with the PCUSA, a denomination in some turmoil. Here is an issue that I found vexing; thanks to my friend Simon, to an article by R.R. Reno reminding me about Jonathan Haidt's work on liberals and conservatives, and to a book by Jack Rogers, I now have a glimmer of understanding.

What issue, you ask? Sorry, I got ahead of myself. The issue was ordination of women in the church. To you this issue may be a slam-dunk, but I had to spend some hours studying the Scriptures and considering my own motives and prejudices. Part of my study involved reading a lecture attributed to Tim Keller [online here or here] where I read this rather surprising extract:

Some 15 years ago, we would have entered the Presbyterian Church USA to minister, but we were told that our view of women-in-ministry precluded us from serving there. Though we would have worked beside people with different views, those on the other side of the fence would not work with us.

Women and Ministry [link]
Redeemer Presbyterian Church
By Tim and Kathy Keller 11/89

Jack Rogers reports this has been the case for some time:

In its 1974 decision, the Permanent Judicial Commission in the Kenyon case cited the Confession of 1967. The PJC decision stated that the equality of women and men is an essential of Presbyterian theological beliefs…

Jack Rogers, Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality, p. 48

I found it vexing and incomprehensible that on one hand the PCUSA would consider Tim Keller unfit for ministry, and on the other hand has no problem with someone like John Shuck who believes

that "God" functions as a symbol. The concept of "God" is a product of myth-making and "God" is no longer credible as a personal, supernatural being. For me, "God" functions as a shorthand for the Universe and sometimes for qualities and aspirations I wish to pursue or to emulate.

http://shuckandjive.blogspot.com/2011/06/what-presbyterians-believe-except-me.html

Unlike the Apostles Peter and Paul, unlike the author of Hebrews, Shuck doesn't believe Christ died for our sins:

The passion accounts in the gospels that we hear in church and that we watch on film and that preachers relish in recounting from the pulpits are fictions. Stories. These events didn’t happen. The theological explanation is based upon pure imagination.

http://shuckandjive.blogspot.com/2011/04/empire-strikes-back-sermon.html

He notes in this posting that he has been elected by Holston Presbytery to serve as a voting commissioner to the PCUSA’s 2012 General Assembly.

How can Tim Keller be unfit for ministry, and John Shuck be elected by his presbytery as a commissioner for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) general assembly? That was something I found incomprehensible and vexing. But after some helpful input, I now find it only vexing.

A few weeks ago, my friend Simon and his wife joined me for dinner. It was a time of sweet fellowship, getting to know each other a little more and discussing some of these questions. I'll say here that Simon and I don't necessarily fully agree on all issues. Anyway I asked him if he had any insight into the above question: how can the question of "who can be nominated as an Elder?" be essential in a Christian denomination, whereas belief that Jesus Christ died for our sins isn't essential? Simon proposed the following possible position of the denomination:

There's a place for every family member at the table. If you don't believe exactly as we do on some issue (even some very important ones), you can still have a place at the table. But one thing you mustn't do here is oppress your sister.

Side note: What's there not to fully agree with here? Only this: Membership in God's family isn't inherited, or automatic for everyone who, say, goes to a certain church or a certain seminary; to be in God's family someone must welcome Jesus into their life, and believe in him (John 1:12) in order to become a child of God. Put differently, we need to be adopted (Romans 8, Ephesians 1) into the family, or as Jesus said, "born again" (John 3). He also said, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 7:21). These are not proof-texts; Jesus also says that the path leading to life is narrow, and few find it; he talks a lot about those who are on the inside vs on the outside; if a brother refuses to repent even when confronted by the congregation, we should treat him as an unbeliever; he warns us to be aware of wolves in sheep's clothing. Not everyone who claims to be a brother or sister truly is one; I don't see how we can escape our responsibility to at least try to discern whether someone has been adopted and truly is a family member, vs being a wolf in sheep's clothing.

I may not have the exact wording, but need I say I was impressed with this answer? This is at least a coherent position. I don't fully agree with it (more at right), but it is at least comprehensible to me.

Another piece of the puzzle may have to do with being more "contractural" or liberal vs being more "beehive"-oriented or conservative (the quoted terms are from Haidt's 2007 article on misunderstanding religion. Haidt has done some interesting research on ethical perceptions:

In my dissertation and my other early studies, I told people short stories in which a person does something disgusting or disrespectful that was perfectly harmless (for example, a family cooks and eats its dog, after the dog was killed by a car). I was trying to pit the emotion of disgust against reasoning about harm and individual rights.

I found that disgust won in nearly all groups I studied (in Brazil, India, and the United States), except for groups of politically liberal college students, particularly Americans, who overrode their disgust and said that people have a right to do whatever they want, as long as they don't hurt anyone else.
…

Haidt, 2007 [link]

A little later in the article, Haidt lists four principles summarizing a new synthesis in moral psychology. I'm particularly interested in this one:

4) Morality is about more than harm and fairness. In moral psychology and moral philosophy, morality is almost always about how people treat each other. …

OK, so there are two psychological systems, one about fairness/justice, and one about care and protection of the vulnerable. …

But if you try to apply this two-foundation morality to the rest of the world, you either fail or you become Procrustes. Most traditional societies care about a lot more than harm/care and fairness/justice. Why do so many societies care deeply and morally about menstruation, food taboos, sexuality, and respect for elders and the Gods? … If you want to describe human morality, rather than the morality of educated Western academics, you've got to include the [Emile] Durkheimian view that morality is in large part about binding people together.

From a review of the anthropological and evolutionary literatures, Craig Joseph (at Northwestern University) and I concluded that there were three best candidates for being additional psychological foundations of morality, beyond harm/care and fairness/justice. These three we label as ingroup/loyalty (which may have evolved from the long history of cross-group or sub-group competition, related to what Joe Henrich calls "coalitional psychology"); authority/respect (which may have evolved from the long history of primate hierarchy, modified by cultural limitations on power and bullying, as documented by Christopher Boehm), and purity/sanctity, which may be a much more recent system, growing out of the uniquely human emotion of disgust, which seems to give people feelings that some ways of living and acting are higher, more noble, and less carnal than others.

Haidt, op. cit. (emphasis added)

Haidt has written another book, The Righteous Mind, which R.R. Reno read and discussed in the aforementioned article from First Things; apparently Haidt's list now consists of care, freedom, fairness, loyalty, authority, sanctity; liberals care about the first three only and may actively reject the others. Reno quotes Haidt on this: When I speak to liberal audiences about the three 'binding foundations'—Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity—I find that many in the audience don't just fail to resonate; they actively reject these concerns as immoral.

So here's my current whack at what's going on, why Shuck is accepted by the PCUSA but Keller is rejected. First, there has been a shift in the denomination away from an admittedly flawed understanding of how to interpret the Bible. I'm assuming that Rogers has not caricatured some past mental models, but certainly trying to read Genesis 1 as a chronology, or saying creation happened in 4010 BC, or that women mustn't wear braids in church (and how about that gold jewelry?) is a problem. Perhaps the baby has been thrown out with the bath-water, but it's easy to see how this can happen. This may explain why the PCUSA has no theological essentials. (Seriously. There is not a single tenet you must believe—I mean about God or Jesus Christ—in order to be ordained in the PCUSA. I'll happily be proven wrong on this, but I don't think that's happening.)

Second, contracturalists (or "liberals") have risen to power in the denomination. (Note that this is separate and distinct from being theologically liberal.) This is how care, freedom and fairness have become the essentials.

Do I care about care, freedom, and fairness? Yes I do, but who gets to define all these terms? For example, is it fair that someone who believes in Jesus is part of God's family, whereas a much nicer person isn't—even if that person is more polite and patient, gives more to charity—because they don't believe in Jesus?

Would I refuse to attend or support Redeemer Presbyterian Church because they don't ordain women as elders? I would say it's an issue for me but I don't know if it would be a controlling issue. (I disagree with Dr. Keller's views on women in the church, but it's not essential for salvation or fellowship that we agree on that issue.) I think I'd be more concerned if the crucifixion and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ were not preached -- based on my understanding of the Bible, I think this is essential for salvation.

At this point I still disagree with the PCUSA, and I disagree less with them since reading (most of) Rogers's book. But at least the position is comprehensible.

Women in the church: Part 3, 1 Corinthians 14

Other posts on women as elders ⇐click

This is a continuation of Part 2, which began a discussion on parts of this paper (also online here) by Tim and Kathy Keller. The excerpt under discussion is:

The office of elder is forbidden to women.

Elders are to be men (1 Timothy 3:1-3). In 1 Timothy 2:11, Paul forbids women to "teach or have authority" over men. In 1 Corinthians 14:35-36, women are not to take part in determining whether a teacher is teaching sound doctrine. (Note: Paul's command for women to "keep silent in church" cannot mean that they may never speak publicly. That would contradict I Corinthians 11 where women are told to pray and prophesy. It means they are to keep silent when the prophets are judged.)

online here or here

Does 1 Corinthians 14:35-36 mean women can't discern truth?

Dr. Keller says that the passage means that women aren't to take part in determining whether a teacher is teaching sound doctrine. How does that come from this text? 1 Corinthians 14:1-25 summarizes Paul's argument that prophecy is more useful than tongues for edifying the church, a key part being 14:18-19, "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue" (NIV).

Following that, 1 Corinthians 14:26-40 talks about orderly meetings. Here are 14:34-35 in context:

Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. ³⁰And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. ³¹For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. ³²The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. ³³For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints, ³⁴women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. ³⁵If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. ³⁶Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? ³⁷If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. ³⁸If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored. ³⁹Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. ⁴⁰But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.

1 Corinthians 14:29-40 (NIV)

Here's one possible interpretation of verses 34-35: Perhaps in Corinth some women were disrupting the meetings, particularly when others were prophesying or speaking in tongues. It's no stretch to say that the Corinthians' meetings were characterized by chaos rather than by edification. So perhaps the command in verse 34 was in response to this chaos; that is in fact what 14:30-33 are talking about, i.e., keeping things orderly so that the meeting brings glory rather than disrepute (cf. 1 Corinthians 14:23) to God. And what about "as the Law says"—what can that mean? I suspect there's something in the Law (where?) or in rabbinic tradition about interrupting a prophet who was delivering a message from the Lord.

This commentary offers (scroll down to the commentary on verse 34) the possibility that there were some conditions at Grecian churches in particular, i.e., Corinth and Ephesus (Timothy was in Ephesus at the time of 1 Timothy). “It is noteworthy that there is no hint of such a prohibition to any churches except Grecian.”

Dr. Keller's interpretation—viz., that women must not participate in judging whether a prophet is a true prophet or not—doesn't obviously emerge from the text. I don't see anything in the text about an assessment panel for prophets, or an examination board, or a church council; what I see is chaos vs edification.

The situation with this passage is somewhat similar to the situation with 1 Timothy 2:12, mentioned in part 2, in that the plain sense makes no sense:

• Women must remain silent in church? But they were praying and prophesying there! (1 Corinthians 11)
• Some women were unmarried; some were married to unbelievers (1 Corinthians 7); how could they ask their husbands about the faith?
  (Sumner, Men and Women in the Church, p.251, footnote)

So there is not a lot of disagreement that this passage refers to a very specific situation at a particular time and place; why do evangelical males want to apply it (albeit a nuanced and watered-down version of it) today in North America? How can we say that this only applies to certain kinds of discernment or assessment panels? It certainly isn't obvious how it emerges from the text.

Conclusion

I recently heard Dr. Keller's message at John Stott's memorial service, and I was impressed by his comments about the evolution of Stott's thinking and preaching around social justice issues. Dr. Keller said something to the effect that if a great thinker and preacher like John Stott took years and years to adjust his thinking and preaching to address issues of poverty and exploitation and injustice, "What are my issues?" (quoting from memory; he might have said "blind spots").

I think this showed great wisdom and humility. We all have blind spots, and if it didn't sound like bragging I'd say I'm the blindest of us all. I wonder if this issue of women as elders, or women in leadership in general, isn't one of Dr. Keller's.

And again I'll confess that I have an interest in a more-egalitarian kind of view, but that said, Sumner (who is no feminist) makes a compelling case for the view

• that 1 Peter 3:7 refers to physical/sexual vulnerability of women, not to mental acuity, spiritual sensitivity, strength of character, etc.;
• that 1 Timothy 2:11-14 (with Adam and Eve and all) and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 were specific to a time and place rather than universal; they are not normative for us today.

I therefore think the passages that are definitive on the question of women's roles in the church are Ephesians 4:11 (God calls some to be apostles, some prophets, some pastors and teachers) and Galatians 3:26-28 (in Christ there is no male or female, Jew or Greek; we are all sons of God through Christ). There are probably more, but hey, I'm no theologian.

Women in the church: Part 2, 1 Timothy 2-3

Other posts on women as elders ⇐click

In this posting I'll comment on a paper (also online here) that a sister in Christ referred me to (see Part 1 for context). It's by Tim Keller, whose teaching we both respect, and it makes some very important points: that traditionalists have abused the concept of headship to treat women as inferiors; that some feminists incorrectly claim kephale (typically translated "head") refers to "source" or "origin"; that women in New Testament churches were prophets and did in fact prophesy in church.

I don't agree with Dr. Keller in all points, though, and I hate to disagree with him because I've benefited so much from his teaching and preaching. We listen to his sermons and we've had college students in our home to discuss his book The Reason for God. Here's the part of his paper I don't quite agree with:

The office of elder is forbidden to women.

Elders are to be men (1 Timothy 3:1-3). In 1 Timothy 2:11, Paul forbids women to "teach or have authority" over men. In 1 Corinthians 14:35-36, women are not to take part in determining whether a teacher is teaching sound doctrine. (Note: Paul's command for women to "keep silent in church" cannot mean that they may never speak publicly. That would contradict I Corinthians 11 where women are told to pray and prophesy. It means they are to keep silent when the prophets are judged.)

online here or here

Does 1 Timothy 3:1-3 mean women can't be elders today?

This is my first issue. If in Romans 12:1 we think "adelphoi" (translated "brothers") addresses both men and women, why would we think "husband of one wife" is exclusively masculine? I'm not saying that it absolutely must refer to both men and women, but if you say 1 Timothy 3 proves elders shall all be male, then I say it's not self-evident why "husband of one wife" must refer only to men, since "brothers" is understood to include both males and females (come to think of it, "sons" in Galatians 3:26-28 prima facie includes both males and females).

Does 1 Timothy 2:12 mean women can't teach in church today?

Next is the thorny issue of 1 Timothy 2:12, which reads "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." What does this mean? Was it addressing only a specific local condition at a specific time (like Old Testament prohibitions against bacon and shrimp)? Or is it universal and therefore applicable to today (like Old Testament prohibitions against theft and murder)?

The short version (and we need one, since I drone on for over 1200 words, starting at the next paragraph) is that

• Whereas 1 Timothy 2:8-10 surely refers to a specific local situation (we don't believe men must lift their hands while praying today, we don't forbid braids on women, or gold wedding bands today; and
• Whereas 1 Timothy 2:15 surely refers to a specific local situation (else women would be saved via childbirth, rather than being saved by grace); and
• Whereas 1 Timothy 2:11-14 is sandwiched between those two passages that certainly refer to specific local situations; and
• Furthermore, even conservative evangelicals don't apply or preach 1 Timothy 2:12 as written; they don't forbid women (think Elisabeth Elliot, Anne Graham Lotz) from teaching men about the Scriptures in books or speeches today;
• Therefore we are forced to conclude that 1 Timothy 2:11-14 must refer to a local situation and therefore is not universal; it is not normative for today.

If it isn't obvious, I owe much of my understanding of this passage to Professor Sarah Sumner and her marvelous volume, Men and Women in the Church. Details follow.

There's a principle of interpretation that says if the plain sense makes sense, look for no other sense. But does the plain sense make sense? I'll claim it doesn't. Let's have a look.

¹²I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. ¹³For Adam was formed first, then Eve. ¹⁴And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. ¹⁵But women will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

1 Timothy 2:12-15 (NIV)

How is the plain sense not make sense? Let me count the ways.

• A woman can't teach? Yet Priscilla taught Apollos (Acts 18:26).
• Women must be silent? But women prayed and prophesied in church (1 Corinthians 11:5)
• Adam is preferred because he came first? So Ishmael was preferred over Isaac, Esau over Jacob, Manasseh over Ephraim? Not so much. And John the Baptist has more authority to teach (etc.) than the Lord Jesus Christ?
• Eve was deceived and became a sinner; how did Adam become a sinner? Willfully, right? (Note that Adam was with Eve when she was deceived -- Genesis 3:6.)

  Women are disqualified from teaching because Eve was deceived, whereas Adam was willfully disobedient and so it's okay for men to teach?

  And if women can't teach men because they're deceived, wouldn't that make it all the more dangerous for women to teach other women? If women can't teach men because women are deceived, then women shouldn't teach anyone, especially other women, who according to this interpretation are all the more easily deceived. Yet Paul encourages older women to do just that: to teach younger women (Titus 2:3-5).

• Women will be saved through childbearing—not saved by grace through faith? (Ephesians 2:8)

No, the plain sense makes no sense, so we must look for another sense. I've heard or read two explanations that do make sense. The first is due to Jack Crabtree, and I heard it back in the '80s; the main thing I remember from that was the idea that this chapter is elliptical—Paul is reminding Timothy of some issue they've discussed before, and these points about Adam and Eve and childbearing are points (as points from an outline) of their discussion.

The lovely Carol reminded me about one of Crabtree's points: that although Eve was deceived and sinned, it was Adam that's held responsible. (Genesis 3:14-17, Eve doesn't get a "Because you have done this" as the serpent did or a "Because you listened" as Adam did; Romans 5:14 "Adam sinned," 5:22 "...in Adam all die," etc.) It seems to me that Crabtree concluded that penultimate responsibility for a congregation needed to be with a man. (Ultimate responsibility lies of course with the Lord.) This made some sense to me at the time, but I now find the short version above compelling.

Another Crabtree makes a more detailed case in this paper why the passage need not (and indeed cannot) be understood to be universal just because Adam and Eve are cited. (I guess that makes three.)

Professor Sarah Sumner, in Men and Women in the Church (referenced in Part 1), adds a lot of detail; I'll summarize a few of her comments here. In no way do I do her book justice; if you're interested enough in this issue to read this, you probably should buy the book and study it the way the Bereans studied the gospel (Acts 17:11). Some of her points:

• All Scripture is inspired by God, and in particular 1 Timothy 2:8-15 is; it's also relevant today and profitable for believers today; it is not irrelevant. This does not, however, mean that it's profitable when it's misunderstood. (207)
• As mentioned above (by me), if a straightforward reading makes sense, we seek no other kind of reading. By "makes sense" we mean "makes sense to believers"—not to unbelievers. For example, a talking donkey (Numbers 22), the virgin birth (Matthew 1, Luke 1), a floating ax-head (2 Kings 6) don't make sense to unbelievers, but we who follow Christ believe miracles are possible and are consistent with God's omnipotence. (208-209)
• A straightforward reading of 1 Timothy 2:12 is not sensible and indeed is not practiced consistently, even by conservative complementarian evangelical men. Many of us have heard of Elisabeth Elliot “because she's been teaching us the Scriptures for decades” (210-211). Evangelical men

  respond to 1 Timothy 2:12 as if Paul had said, “I do not allow most women to teach men in person, but I do allow for exceptions, and I do allow for women to teach men through other mediums such as books and radio...

  Sumner, op. cit., p. 211

• We tend to interpret 1 Timothy 2:8-10 (men lifting hands to pray; women to abstain from braids, gold, pearls and expensive clothes) as being only for 1st century Ephesus; 1 Timothy 2:11-12, though, we think applies to us (albeit with a nuanced interpretation). (212-213)
• If the order of creation is the basis by which we say women shouldn't teach men the Bible on Sunday mornings, then women shouldn't teach men piano or math or English, right? Or at the very least, women shouldn't teach men the Bible any other time, or via books or blogs or essays.

  But do people say it's wrong for women to teach men the Bible in church on Sundays but okay at other times? How is that different from saying adultery is bad in church on Sundays but okay at other times and places? (227)

• 1 Timothy 2 isn't the heart of the issue for "conservatives" (Dr. Sumner's vocabulary); it's honoring male headship (228-229)

She summarizes the argument on pages 257-258, which I'll incorporate here.

Perhaps the most significant point of agreement between both sides of the debate has to do with 1 Timothy 2:15. Most of us think it's best to understand 1 Timothy 2:15 as Paul's response to a specific heretical teaching. …

… The critical point is that it doesn't make sense to say that verse 15 must be alluding to a local heresy and that verses 13-14 can't be alluding to a local heresy. Thus I am not persuaded by any argument that says 1 Timothy 2:15 alone is situational while 1 Timothy 2:11-14 are universal.

• Both sides generally agree that 1 Timothy 2:8-10 alludes to a local situation. (It's absurd to conclude that men, not women, must pray with lifted hands, and that women, not men, are prohibited from wearing gold, pearls, and beads.)
• Both sides generally agree that 1 Timothy 2:15 alludes to a local situation (i.e., to a local heresy).
• It is likely, therefore, that the verses sandwiched in between, namely 1 Timothy 2:11-14, also allude to a local situation, especially since both sides agree that all four verses, as traditionally understood, give rise to a number of difficulties.
• The question, then, is this: Was there any known heresy in first-century Ephesus? If so, then the conclusions of this summary are confirmed.

---

Figure 20.1. Summary of the current debate regarding 1 Timothy 2

Sumner, op. cit., p. 258

Okay, I'll grab the mike back now and make two points:

1. 1 Timothy 1:3-4 makes it quite clear that there is at least one local heresy: As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work…
2. Does the phrase "Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!" ring any bells? Acts 19:23-41 describes a great disturbance surrounding silver statues of the goddess Artemis. H'm…

   Oh, Dr. Sumner was way ahead of me; she points out this same passage (but referencing 19:24-35, though I enjoy the rest of the story) on pp. 260-261.

Personally, I find the bit about 2:8-10 and 2:15 being specific/local, hence 2:11-14 must also be specific/local, persuasive. If we add the observation that evangelical men agree that women can teach men other than from the pulpit on Sunday mornings, I think we have a compelling argument that 2:11-14 cannot possibly be universal. I'll go further and say Dr. Sumner is right that the real issue is about honoring male headship (and if I were opinionated and imprudent, I'd add "and male insecurity"—but I'm not).

I'll address 1 Corinthians 14 in my next posting.

Women in the church: Part 1, 1 Peter 3:7

Other posts on women as elders ⇐click

Is it Scriptural for a woman to be an elder? The issue came up recently in the context of a church committee I'm involved with. To be clear, I was asking one of my sisters in Christ if she would be open to being nominated as an elder; she asked if the Bible said this was okay, versus just our church's culture saying it's okay.

This prompted me to find our copy of Sumner's Men and Women in the Church, a brilliant volume which impressed me again with its clarity and its zeal for the Church. I want to consider this question objectively (Jesus himself said, "If anyone wants to do God's will, he will know whether my teaching is from God or whether I'm just making this stuff up," so I want to do God's will, whatever it is) but I must confess here that as a member of an egalitarian church body, I wanted the answer to be "yes it's okay." My pastors all believe it is, as do my fellow elders (we have pastors and elders who are women).

The chain of reasoning is rather long, so I'll post it a little at a time. The first text we'll consider is 1 Peter 3:7, which reads, "Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers." (NIV) On the basis of this passage, one might wonder whether it's okay for women to hold leadership positions.

Sumner wondered this herself as she prayed for clarity on the issue. If we look up "weaker" or "weak" -- well, here's what the free online dictionary has at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/weaker#MainTxt:

weak
adj. weak·er, weak·est

1. Lacking physical strength, energy, or vigor; feeble.
2. Likely to fail under pressure, stress, or strain; lacking resistance: a weak link in a chain.
3. Lacking firmness of character or strength of will.
4. Lacking the proper strength or amount of ingredients: weak coffee.
5. Lacking the ability to function normally or fully: a weak heart.
6. Lacking aptitude or skill: a weak student; weak in math.
7. Lacking or resulting from a lack of intelligence.
8. Lacking persuasiveness; unconvincing: a weak argument.
9. Lacking authority or the power to govern.
10. Lacking potency or intensity: weak sunlight.

…(remainder elided)

If women fit that description, then, well, maybe better not to lead, she thought.

But then she remembered her seminary training: it's a no-no to get detailed meanings from a dictionary; one may start there, but it's important to see how a word is used elsewhere in the New Testament or, if no other uses are found, extra-Biblical contemporary literature.

The word translated "weak" is asthenees, which is also translated (elsewhere) as "sick"; it appears also in 1 Corinthians 1:25: "...and the weakness of God is stronger than men" and 2 Corinthians 13:4 "he was crucified in weakness." Sumner notes that a better translation in these three passages is "vulnerability", but even if we leave "weaker" as it is, an important clue to its meaning in context is its position here in a command to husbands regarding wives—specifically, a sexual context. No mention is made of how daughters are weaker, or how women in general are weaker; this "weakness" or "vulnerability" thing is only talked about between husbands and wives.

Her point is that a woman is vulnerable to a man in a way that no man is vulnerable to a woman, viz., sexually. Also, the typical husband is physically stronger than his wife.

The conclusion here is: if you thought that 1 Peter 3:7 says women are weaker in the sense of lacking authority or potency, and hence shouldn't be elders or pastors, then, well, it doesn't say that.

What that verse does say is: because a wife is vulnerable to her husband in a way that he's not vulnerable to her, it's a really really bad idea for the husband to exploit the physical advantage he has over her, because

1. she's also an heir with him of the grace of life; and
2. if he does exploit her rather than treating her with respect, his prayers will be hindered.

I think Peter's pretty clear on that last part. Anybody want to sign up for having your prayers hindered?

So the "weakness" here means physical/sexual vulnerability and it's a warning issued to husbands: Don't use your relative physical/sexual invulnerability to disrespect your wife. This verse says nothing about women's intellect, leadership ability, wisdom, integrity, clarity of thought, rationality, etc. -- oh, except the part about "heirs with you," which makes it sound like women are equal.

More soon on another passage, maybe 1 Timothy 2:12 or Ephesians 5:21-33.

What do elders do? And who can be one?

A parable:

A stream runs through a village somewhere in Europe, where many years ago the villagers hired a man to be the Keeper of the Stream. He was to look after it and keep it free from pollution and such.

Some time later, there arose a Mayor of the village who knew not the Keeper of the Stream. "Why are we paying this fellow? I've never seen him do anything!" In fact, nobody in the village had seen the Keeper at his work. What did he actually do? Nobody knew. So they stopped paying him, and the Keeper moved elsewhere.

Soon the villagers noticed that the stream had changed. The flow became irregular. Sometimes it tasted funny. Children became sick.

For years, the Keeper of the Stream had patrolled the banks and guarded it against pollution and blockage. His work was unseen but vital.

I just discovered that the above is told more eloquently by Swindoll under the title "Keeper of the Spring" -- link

---

One function of elders is to watch for things that can go wrong; their work is thus like the Keeper's work, watching out for "rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers," people who "claim to know God but by their actions... deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good" (from Titus 1).

Another, which we heard about at last night's orientation, is to encourage the pastors and staff and each other (to "catch someone doing something right"). Every congregation has its critics, and a timely word, aptly spoken (Proverbs 15:23, 25:11) from an elder can bring life and joy to the hearer.

More generally, as Paul writes to Timothy, elders "direct the affairs of the church" (1 Timothy 5:17).

Who can be one?

The New Testament books of Titus and 1 Timothy list some qualifications; Titus has "elder" and 1 Timothy has "overseer" but the lists are quite similar. The way we understand these passages, particularly the part about "husband of one wife," is that Paul was making a negative requirement during a time of rampant promiscuity and polygamy; the church was not to be like that. We don't understand Paul to be restricting these offices to be only for males (else what did he mean by Galatians 3:28?); rather, he was requiring purity and temperance in these matters.

One newly-nominated elder, when invited to consider becoming one, thought herself unqualified and wanted to decline. But then she heard a message from John chapter 6, about the boy with two small fish and five barley rolls. Would she be like the boy with the five barley rolls and two fish, she asked herself? Would she bring to Jesus what little she had?

So she agreed to be considered and in due course was nominated; we'll be installed along with the other nominees next week. As I reflected on my friend's story, Isaiah 66:2 came to mind:

All these things my hand has made 
and so all these things are mine, 
    declares the Lord. 
But this is the (wo)man to whom I will look: 
    (s)he who is humble and contrite in spirit, 
    and trembles at my word. 

Isaiah 66:2 (parentheses mine)

I'm proud to call this woman my friend. Look at Isaiah 66:2 -- that's her! She was humble, in not thinking too much of her capabilities; she was also humble in agreeing to be considered. The word of the Lord came to her in the sermon; she changed her mind based on that word.

I won't go into her church experience in much detail, or you might recognize her (and I might embarrass her) -- but I will reveal that Proverbs 10:11 ("The mouth of the righteous is a fountain of life...") applies, as her words of encouragement have worked powerfully in many lives -- including mine.

Do elders have to teach the Bible?

No. You may be thinking of 2 Timothy 2:24-25, which talks about the Lord's servant needing to be "kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged," etc. But I'm thinking about 1 Timothy 5:17, which talks about elders, "especially those whose work is preaching and teaching" (emphasis added). That "especially" tells us that not all do.