Women in the church
Submitted by Wayne on Thu, 2008-07-31 11:32.
Bible | Doctrine
In 1 Timothy 2:11-15, Paul wrote:
A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.
What does this paragraph mean? Are women not allowed to speak at all, in church, or in some specific settings? Is Paul blaming Eve for The Fall of mankind into sin? Are women forbidden to teach men? Are there limits to this proscription? As has been popularly posited, was Paul a misogynist? Does he want women "barefoot and pregnant" as a way of redeeming themselves? Are we to toss out (or "reinterpret") this portion of God's Word because it offends our sensibilities?
Let's discuss.
Trackback URL for this post:
http://tuscanycircle.net/trackback/1175
Deborah
Submitted by Wayne on Fri, 2008-08-01 09:35.
Wouldn't Judges 4 (the story of Deborah) be in conflict with this passage penned by Paul? Deborah was a judge of Israel, the highest leader of the day. Why wasn't she silent? Why did the men (e.g., Barak) submit to her authority instead of the other way around? Is Scripture self-contradicting in these two passages?
Since nobody else is brave
Submitted by Wayne on Mon, 2008-08-04 08:36.
Since nobody else is brave enough to address these questions and this passage, I'll start providing answers.
Paul is rightly discerning that men and women are different. As stupidly obvious as that sounds, this simple fact seems to elude the vast majority of our culture. We fulfill different roles. We're designed to behave and think differently because we are designed for different, specific purposes. Men are plainly better than women (on the whole) at some things, while women are plainly better than men (again, on the whole) at other things. To deny this is to deny obvious reality. For example, men are inherently stronger than women. This statement is generally true and says nothing about the next man and next woman pulled from a crowd. As another example, women are inherently more nurturing than men. This latter example cuts both ways, as we'll see.
Women are inherently more emotionally driven than men. This fact is a necessity for survival. Children need someone looking after their interests full-time for several years. An emotional attachment is very advantageous to children, then, because they're more likely to have their needs met. They need a caregiver who identifies with them and loves them unconditionally (because they'll mess up often yet still needs their need met). Children need an advocate when the rest of the world is against them. Mothers are designed to fulfill this role.
Men are just too deficient to mother. They tend to be cold and calculating by nature--natural disciplinarians, by contrast. If deemed necessary to preserve others in the family, a male mother just might sacrifice his child; a female mother would never allow such an atrocity (today's child-killing mothers notwithstanding). What makes for poor mothering, though, makes for better governing. Those traits potentially harmful to kids, are just what is needed to negotiate society. When bartering, for example, an emotional attachment is a liability. Most importantly, when discerning the will of the Lord, emotions distort perceptions. This is the crux of Paul's point in this passage, aptly pointed out by his reference to The Fall.
Man's sin at The Fall was not falling for deception. Man sinned by submitting to the woman, failing to lead by example--failing to lead at all. Man is the head of woman just as Christ is the head of the church, yet he utterly failed at this duty in the Garden. (This sin is where the passive, inept, boob-of-a-husband stereotype originates. The reason this stereotype is so prevalent in society and in sitcoms is because it's the original sin of man.) Woman, on the other hand, sinned in her deception, falling for the lies of the serpent. Like it or not, women are wired such that this is their weak point. For example, this is abundantly evident in the effects of suffrage on the American political climate and individual liberty (Vox has a ton of data proving this.)
When it comes to discerning the will of the Lord in His Word, the believer much be able to set aside his own prejudices, desires, and emotions. If he cannot do this, he cannot hope to see reality for what it is. As a lot, women do not excel at this skill. (These days, men don't do so well either, but that's largely a result of the feminization of men. Men will revert when the feminist movement inevitably self-destructs.) This inherent weakness in falling for deception is why Paul warns Timothy not to allow women to preside doctrinally over men.
This teaching of Paul's falls naturally out of a righteous recognition of the differences between the sexes. It's also a policy, if you will, in response to generalized trends. As policies are inherently impersonal, it does not make mention of the rare exceptions to the rule (e.g., Deborah). Of course, general policies must also give way to the specific will of the Lord. In other words, He can appoint a woman as leader anytime He wants. Those discerning the will of the Lord should easily recognize this exceptional change in leadership when He calls for it. Generally, though, men and women alike would do well to be very wary of female leadership in churches, whether they be overtly in office or merely the pants-wearer behind the men, so to speak.
Having said this and having upset all those who hate God's Word (feminists, etc.), I'll remind everyone of the strict requirements for male leadership in the church. In numerous places, the Word of God lays out both explicitly and implicitly the qualifications for teachers, pastors, deacons, and such. There are also accompanying warnings of the responsibility these leaders have for the lives and souls of others, answering to God should they lead others astray. Men also have extra responsibilities for being the leaders of their own households--not that many step up to such Godly duty and honor today, and not that such failure by men justifies sinful leadership by women. Men need to set aside their now decades-long feminism, step up to the doctrinal plate, and rightly divide the Word according to the interpretation of the Holy Spirit, teaching others righteously.
Here's my head
Submitted by Charla on Mon, 2008-08-04 10:55.
When it comes to discerning the will of the Lord in His Word, the believer much be able to set aside his own prejudices, desires, and emotions. If he cannot do this, he cannot hope to see reality for what it is. As a lot, women do not excel at this skill.
To this, I disagree. I've heard many stories where the wife was able to discern the Lord's will before her husband, yet in her submission to God and her husband, did not tell her husband but waited for God to reveal His will to the husband in His timing in such a way that the husband would understand. When the husband finally "gets it," it serves as confirmation in the wife of what she heard from God herself earlier.
To say that the we can only lead from our logical, reasoned responses is incomplete. God made us to have emotions, to be able to relate to Him. He is emotional, and is concerned about our emotions. "The Lord is close to the brokenhearted and binds the wounds of those who are broken in spirit." He communicates to each, man and woman, in ways that we can understand.
Generally, though, men and women alike would do well to be very wary of female leadership in churches, whether they be overtly in office or merely the pants-wearer behind the men, so to speak.
I can't agree with this either. It doesn't make sense to me to have a male leader over a women's group, for example. I believe it would be hard for women to receive instruction on things that only a woman understands in the depths of her soul. I'm not saying that it's not possible, because I have received decent instruction from men about family issues, marriage issues, etc. But only a woman can understand another woman's feelings about things as these feelings are shared among our gender. And the same goes for men.
As for having a woman lead a whole church, well, it depends on the woman. There are some women who are more like men in their emotions and thinking processes that women. These would be the same women that excel in business, for example.
What about the hermeneutics of this passage? Who was Paul speaking to and in what timing? Was he addressing a particular issue in the church or just to Timothy? Were the women dressing in excess of extravagance to gain attention and that's why he had to mention no braids or gold in previous verses? Were there women who were over-dramatic in their worship, or trying to over-speak the leader and not being silent during worship? The passage says, "But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet." That sounds a lot like Paul to me, "I." Yes I know all scripture comes from God, but this really sounds like a personal utterance concerning something that was going on at the time.
Generally, I would agree with the spirit of the passage.
Clarification
Submitted by Wayne on Mon, 2008-08-04 11:26.
I've heard many stories where the wife was able to discern the Lord's will before her husband, yet in her submission to God and her husband, did not tell her husband but waited for God to reveal His will to the husband in His timing in such a way that the husband would understand.
These anecdotes are certainly plentiful, but they merely show men's failure as leaders more than anything else.
To say that the we can only lead from our logical, reasoned responses is incomplete.
I didn't say this. I said emotions distort perceptions of reality. I would never suggest emotions are bad. They are neither bad nor good. They just are. They can be helpful and they can be harmful. Emotions should not be discounted or ignored, but neither should they be our master.
God's will is often in disagreement with our own desires. Without the ability to temporarily rise above our emotions, we significantly increase the risk of wrongly perceiving God's will. Being able to put emotions into a proper perspective (i.e., not being subject to them, not letting them be our master, rising above them, etc.) is essential to discern reality, including God's Word and will. God may indeed speak to us through our emotions, even, by giving us a drive, say, to do this or that. However, if we cannot step outside of that drive in order to analyze it, we would merely be controlled by it. Today's feminized pseudo-men notwithstanding, men are naturally more capable of this. In discerning doctrines that may differ with desires, this trait is advantageous. (In interpersonal relationships, it is often a problem.)
It doesn't make sense to me to have a male leader over a women's group, for example.
I was speaking primarily of leadership in a doctrinal sense, as was Paul, I believe. I'm sorry I didn't make this clear.
But only a woman can understand another woman's feelings about things as these feelings are shared among our gender. And the same goes for men.
In general terms, I would tend to agree. However, being the same sex only increases the odds of understanding. It does not guarantee it any more than differing sex forbids it. I must disagree with the "only" qualifier, then, unless something like "usually" is added.
As for having a woman lead a whole church, well, it depends on the woman. There are some women who are more like men in their emotions and thinking processes that women. These would be the same women that excel in business, for example.
Again, there are general trends and then there's the next, specific case. As a rule of thumb (i.e., stemming from the general), having women in positions of doctrinal leadership is problematic. (Men have their failures in doctrinal leadership, too, but that's another comment I'm posting here.)
[T]his really sounds like a personal utterance concerning something that was going on at the time.
It came from the Lord, ultimately, of course, but Paul's qualification is what makes it a policy rather than a commandment, I believe. There are reasons for policies; they grow from general trends. They do not, however, need to exclude rare exceptions to the general trends.
Men's failures
Submitted by Wayne on Mon, 2008-08-04 11:27.
Having asserted that men are less prone to deception than women and therefore better equipped, theoretically, to discerning proper, Biblical doctrine, I'll now bash the tar out of men for their nearly utter failure at this very task.
I have yet to meet a pastor/minister/priest who can demonstrate competency at understanding Scripture and gleaning proper doctrine from it. Without exception so far, they get their doctrine not from Scripture but from seminary. I can only guess where these seminar teachers get their doctrine. Much of it, I'm sure, is simply from their own teachers; some, though, probably comes from their own spiritual baggage in attempts to justify their own sins. They'll certainly pay for the ungodly influence they exert over others they teach (both the errant teachers and the subsequently errant pastors). These are just one class of example of how men have failed in their duty to understand and pass on Scripture.
Manly leaders of families are also a rarity today. True, the very ungodly feminist movement has its share of blame, but ultimately, men are responsible for their own choices. They choose to be passive, allowing their wives to lead, and indulge in the original sin all over again. They seem to prefer to marry their mothers and let their wives/mothers tell them what to do, act as their conscience, and maintain familial authority. They stagnate at adolescence, seeing their wives as merely a continuation of their mothers, an authority figure against whom they rebel. How embarrassingly sad for these "men".
The Word speaks out a few times about women's roles. They are told to submit, for example. Too many women get all bent out of shape when they read these passages in the Word--revealing volumes, if you ask me. In contrast, huge portions of the Word are all about instructions for men, their responsibilities, their duties, their submission to Christ, etc. By far, men have the greater responsibility--greater in volume, say, but not importance. Men today are simply not living up to their responsibilities, and many of society's woes are the result of their failures.
No takers yet?
I would have thought this topic would stir some lively discussion. True misogynists enjoy Bible passages that put women "in their place", while more "enlightened" believers enjoy reinterpreting this passage to push it into into historical irrelevance. Those few who insist on taking the Bible at face value tend to struggle with the passage, caught between God's obvious Word and cultural customs that conflict.