Tuesday, February 07, 2006

Final Entry: Response on Women

When a person learns to read the books of the Bible in their original context, one of the first principles they learn is that each author and potentially even each book may have its own vocabulary, its own style, and its own conceptual framework. You will misinterpret the original meaning of James if you assume it uses the word "works" or even "faith" in the same way as Paul. You cannot assume that Matthew uses the word "righteousness" the same way as Paul either. Indeed, you cannot assume that Paul himself will present the same exact conceptual framework as you move from one of his letters to the next.

With this fact in mind, and given that 1 Timothy contrasts on so many different levels with Paul's earlier letters, I suggest that it is not only legitimate, but almost necessary, to sit loosely to it, at least at first, when looking at what Paul and other NT authors have to say about women in the rest of the NT. We will come back to 1 Timothy and cautiously ask whether it clarifies the interpretation of Paul elsewhere. But we will neither shove it down Paul's throat elsewhere nor shove Paul elsewhere down 1 Timothy's throat either. As much as is in our power, we will let each passage speak for itself.

The Age of the Spirit
What does it mean when Hebrews takes the idea of the new covenant in Jeremiah 31 in relation to what Christ has done: "I will give my laws to their mind and write them on their hearts"? 2 Corinthians may have the same passage in mind from Jeremiah when Paul considers himself minister of the new covenant, "not of the letter but the Spirit" (2 Cor. 3:6).

So this new covenant in Christ, in which God writes His laws on the heart in the age of the Holy Spirit, does it send the Spirit mostly to men or to women as well? It sends the Spirit equally to women as well. Consider what Acts 2 has to say in its interpretation of the Day of Pentecost, the commencement of the age of the Spirit: "I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh and your sons and your daughters will prophesy... and indeed on my male servants and on my female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit" (2:17-18). Paul actually adds "and daughters" to his citation of 2 Samuel 7:14 in 2 Corinthians 6:18, including women as children of God. And of course the well-known passage Galatians 3:26-29 explicitly includes women as children of God.

Of course those who disagree with women in all roles of ministry will acknowledge all these things. But they will trump them with their understanding of 1 Timothy 2, and it alone. But if we bracket consideration of that verse until we have looked at the rest of the NT, we immediately notice that we would not expect any NT author to forbid women from ministry given this basic theology of the Spirit. We are never given any reason to believe that women have any difference from men at all on the level of the Spirit. And Paul calls them sons in Galatians 3:26 without distinction from men, all who have been baptized into Christ "have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is not 'male and female.'"

While I cannot prove it for certain, the slightly different wording of the last "not 'male and female'" statement, in the context of new creation (cf. 2 Cor. 5:17), makes me think that this is a poetic reference to Genesis 1:27. God created them different, male and female, but in Christ they are all sons, the creation distinction is undone, there is not male and female any more but you are all sons. While some have attacked this line of thought, I find it perfectly plausible and incapable of disproof.

So I am not surprised to find women in roles of ministry in the early church. I am not surprised to find Lydia at Philippi or Priscilla in Corinth and Ephesus. I am not surprised to find that a woman was notable among the apostles (Rom. 16:7) or that Phoebe is entrusted as the voice of Paul to take Romans to the Roman church at Rome to read it to them in Paul's place (if Romans 16 goes with Romans, that's the most likely way to read it; but some think it was a letter of commendation to the church at Ephesus). At the very least, Paul calls her a deacon (16:1), not deaconess. He uses the same word he used of Timothy in 1 Timothy.

I am not surprised to find that Philip had four virgin daughters who prophesied (Acts 21:9) or that women prayed and prophesied at Corinth (chap. 11). I am not surprised to find that Euodia and Syntyche were Paul's fellow workers at Philippi (Phil. 4).

To me, the spiritual logic seems very straightforward:

1. The Spirit is poured out equally on men and women.
2. One of the functions of the Spirit is to lead us into truth (e.g., John)
3. Therefore, women can equally lead into truth just as men.

Here's a follow up:

1. Women can lead equally into truth as men.
2. Ministering involves leading others into truth (among other things).
3. Therefore, why would God not call women to minister?

The best answer I've heard anyone give in response is "that's just not the way God planned it." Surely no one today would dare argue "because women's bodies cancel out their spirits." Of course that's what a lot of ancients thought and indeed, that's ultimately the logic behind Aristotle's "the husband is the head of the wife."

So how do we know that God did not plan for women to be able to minister to men? Didn't they minister when they prophesied? When Huldah, a woman, was the highest spiritual authority in ancient Israel in 2 Kings 22:13, 14-20, doesn't this imply that a woman can be the highest authority for a denomination?

And do you think that there will be subordination of women in heaven? Clearly not, for they neither marry nor are given in marriage. They are like the angels. So what is the difference down here? Is it the obstacle of the female body or mind? That won't hold up anymore. Is it the sin of Eve? Sorry, that's blasphemy. Again, you just have to say, God just wants it that way.

There is only one verse in the whole NT that even could possibly point in a different direction, 1 Timothy 2:12. Let's say you have dismissed my exegesis in the previous post. Let's say that this verse isn't primarily thinking of husband-wife relationships. Let's say for the sake of argument that it surprisingly is setting down a general rule: women shouldn't teach men. The actual example of the Bible would still lead us to see this rule as a general rule rather than an absolute without exceptions. Here is one myopia of current fundamentalism, it makes exceptionless rules that were not such in the ancient context.

Sure, the sense of ancient Israel was that a man would most of the time be the leader, the general, etc... But there was a place for the exception, the Deborah, the Judith (although fictional), etc... Against this context, surely Acts 2 points to the spiritual ministry of women as a sign of the new age of the Spirit. In that sense, we should expect more and more women in the age of the Spirit to speak for God.

I have serious questions about someone who wants the Scripture to come out against women in all roles of ministry. I understand and respect the person who believes the Scripture teaches something and, while not understanding why women would not be called to minister, submits to what they believe that teaching is. But I have serious questions about anyone, male or female, who deep down doesn't want women to be able to minister to men. What's going on there?

So the spiritual ministries of women on all levels is a sign of the end times, a part of the age of the Spirit and something we should celebrate. Biblical opposition to it ultimately boils down to one verse, a verse that seems in tension with other verses, especially in the light of what actually happened in the earliest church and the earliest relevant principles set down. Indeed, the church order of overseers and deacons in 1 Timothy seems more developed than anything we see before that point. I'm not sure we ever see as much ministerial specificity anywhere else in the NT. It just may point to a time when the need for more standardization was increasingly being felt, especially as a time when the apostles would pass was in view.

So I ask you to pray and reflect on these questions: Does it really make spiritual sense to bar women--especially those who believed they are called--from any role that they seem to be gifted and graced to do? Am I really opposed to women in ministry because of the Bible or because of something in my heart that I need to address?

What if I'm wrong and I'm actually putting a stumblingblock in front of someone? What if I am hindering someone God has called from obeying Him? Why don't I let God sort it out--if women in ministry is not in God's plan, then surely He won't bless any woman in such a ministry. But if I am opposing God's plan, then there is nothing I can do to stop the marching forward of God's kingdom. Basically, I'm road kill.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

Now I know why you did not have a chapter ready for your philosophy class to read the other night Dr. Schenck... although, I would have to say that I personally find the topic of women in ministry a much more facinating read than philosophy. Thank you for taking the time to explain in more detail your beliefs on this matter, I enjoyed reading it.

Anonymous said...

Now I know why you did not have a chapter ready for your philosophy class to read the other night Dr. Schenck... although, I would have to say that I personally find the topic of women in ministry a much more facinating read than philosophy. Thank you for taking the time to explain in more detail your beliefs on this matter, I enjoyed reading it.

tonymyles said...

Okay... let's say for the sake of argument that is is all correct per the Scripture you cited.

What about the fact that in Genesis 2 we see God breathing into Adam and then making Eve out of Adam's rib? Is He telling us in the ideal setting of creation something we should pick up on? Granted, he has redeemed all things now... but what about those first two chapters? :)

Ken Schenck said...

Kristen: How to slice up the pie of time... Most of the time I blog when I'm home with little ones and there's little chance of serious school work getting done... Riggs asked me the other day when I found time to read a little physics. I said from 3-6 when my wife is working at Marion HS.

Ken Schenck said...

Tony: Again, there is one verse that could lead us in this direction, 1 Tim. 2:13. But Paul also defends the resurrection by reference to baptism for the dead. In other words, Paul's arguments don't always have the same level of investment. What do we make of Paul's comments in Romans 9 that God can make some humans a certain way so that He can fry them? What do we make of his argument in Galatians 3 that the word seed is singular and therefore that the statement "the promise is to you and your seed" is a reference to Christ? In Romans Paul treats the same word seed in reference to all the true descendants of Abraham--a plural, in other words. You just can't actually know anything about Paul's arguments and not conclude that his arguments don't always hold the same amount of investment or force. He makes some for effect and some are more effective than others.

With regard to birth order, how much force does this argument really have ultimately with regard to women in ministry? Is it a "look, God could make people just to fry anyway so who are you to question Him letting the Gentiles in?"

Here I must say that the argument logically doesn't have much force. For example, I'm the fifth born in my family. Does that mean that I can minister to any of my four older siblings? I mean really, do we ever wonder why so many non-Christians think Christians are stupid. Most likely answer, we are half the time.

Ken Schenck said...

P.S. That last comment is not directed at any individual specifically (e.g., I'm not saying you are stupid, Tony). I do get very irritated with my fellow Christians all the time, though, when I feel they act just as brainless as the Muslims burning cars in Pakistan. One thing I want you to know is that my anger is (in a Freudian way) really directed at myself. I look back at the things I was zealous for in college and then how my education for the next ten years beat me senseless and almost made me lose my faith. So I look back at myself and think, man, you were such an idiot. I should pray not to get so embarrassed by my fellow Christians when I see them thinking thoughts that seem wholesale ignorance. I'm sure I'll have to wear a dunce cap for several centuries in heaven for the areas of my own stupidity.

Ken Schenck said...

P.S.S. If my interpretation of Galatians 3:28 is right, then in Christ "not male and female" means the undoing of the distinction between male and female made in creation.

tonymyles said...

I get you... and yet I don't think it's as tidy as we'd like.

I like your birth order metaphor (being the fifth born), but you were born in the same way as your siblings. It took procreation and then a delivery.

What if, though, the first born in your family was created differently - instead of a human conception what if God himself breathed the life into your mother's womb? Might there not be something special or different than the siblings that followed? I think we make a big deal about this every Christmas... perhaps there was something different about Adam.

I agree, though, that in Christ there is no male or female. However, in what sense? Back to Jesus, he was a human so in this way he was equal to his brothers. And yet he was something "more," too... in this way elevated.

The order of creation as I see it speaks of God's ideal. Anything after that is something he allows until full redemption of all of creation takes place.

Does God allow women to minister his redemptive message? Yes.

Does God allow men to minister his redemptive message? Yes.

Did God desire to ever have to have things get messed up in such a way that a redmeptive message would even be needed in the first place? No.

Regarding Gentiles... if the fall had never occurred would there have even been such as thing as a Jew?

Ken Schenck said...

Tony: If you are taking this in the husband headship direction, I will just agree to disagree. Although I think some rigid, husband-has-to-be-the-head-even-if-he's-an-imbecile-on-every-level notion sells God and the gospel short. Someone had to be created first.

I suppose someone could argue that Paul's first defense--"Adam first then Eve" is about headship. Then you could argue that the second argument "Eve deceived" is about teaching.

But ultimately, I believe this whole argument doesn't take into account the flexibility of how NT authors used biblical texts. They did not assign a single meaning or application to an OT text and their interpretations almost always read the texts out of context! So Paul reads the Genesis story very differently than an ancient Israelite would have.

And while he gives us one authoritative interpretation of it for one context, everything we know about how NT authors used texts leads us to believe that the same text could be used validly in other ways as well. For example, it would not contradict anything the NT authors do if one of them had argued that Eve was more important than Adam because God made her last, just as God made the animals in the lead up to man in Genesis 1. I want to emphasize this point: it would not be unlike the way NT authors argued to claim that Eve is the supreme creation because after God made the animals and made man, he ended with the crown of His creation: woman.

As it is none of the NT authors actually make such an interpretation, but believe me, some NT authors, including Paul, make arguments from the OT that are far less in context than my hypothetical here (e.g., many connections Matthew draws).

I would say that institutionalizing an interpretation (yours) of an interpretation (Paul's) of a story (Genesis) that ultimately was mostly about why certain things in the world are as they are--why men have to work so hard, why women serve their men and have painful labor, why snakes don't walk and don't get along with humans--means we better have our spiritual glasses on. Notice, for example, that in the original story, the woman's desire is to her husband as a consequence of her sin in the original story, it doesn't seem to me that the subordination of Eve to Adam was originally the point of the creation order in that story.

By the way, to show us that we're probably getting too detailed here, notice that if we take Genesis 1 and 2 completely literally and completely historically, they seem to contradict each other somewhat. In other words, both seem to be at least somewhat symbolic.

In the second story, Adam is made before there are any plants or trees (2:5, 9)--some versions alternate between the words ground and earth but it's the same Hebrew word. In the first story, all these things are made before humanity. Of course there are always ways to force texts together if you're more interested in a particular theology of the Bible more than the Bible itself.

I would suggest that we are immature in our understanding of the Bible if we take these accounts as video feed, live from the garden.

Revem said...

Hi

Its great to see you clearly explain why you believe women are able to minister equally with men. I am a female minister and have a similar discussion with people on a semi-regular basis. I also have a blog if you are interested in looking at it. Revem

Blessings

tonymyles said...

Thanks for the added details on this... as I said (and as I believe you did, too, in so many words), it's not as tidy an issue (on either camp) as we'd like it to be.

Maybe that's the conclusion I'm most comfortable with versus arguing for or against perfect egalitarianism on this issue.

Cheryl Schatz said...

There is a concern in 1 Timothy 2 about Paul's reference to creation and the first one created. What is the Holy Spirit telling us and how does all of this relate to 1 Timothy 2:15 and salvation? The answers to these questions are dealt with in a new DVD set called "Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?" This multi-media presentation deals with all the passages of scripture that seem to restrict women in ministry. WIM systematically presents the answers in context and presents historical sources from Jewish tradition that has rarely been seen by most Christians but impacts our understanding of the hard passages. You can read the reviews of this DVD here http://mmoutreach.org/wim.htm. This DVD set should be in every church and every women's ministry. Audio tapes from John MacArthur and the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood are used throughout to contrast the Complementarian position with the view that scripture in context upholds women's equal rights to minister.

Cheryl

Ken Schenck said...

Thanks for drawing attention to this material, Cheryl.