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.