Over the weekend I caught up on some of the current thought on complementarianism and read through the comments on the posts I linked to by Mary Kassian. I keep hoping that she will answer the direct questions being put to her and perhaps this week she will. If not, I see nothing more than lots of confusing rhetoric that only makes it more difficult to understand this topic, both in thought and in application. Particularly confusing is Mary’s insistence that complentarianism does not equal “hierarchy,” that it does mean “mutuality” but not “equality.”
I have written a lot about this subject over the past couple of weeks and know some people are wondering “why in the world does this stuff matter?” I want to share one example of why these things are so important, especially for homeschooling moms who are often exposed to teachings that can have huge ramifications.
Last week I saw this picture of the umbrella shared by a homeschooling curriculum supplier. Immediately I thought of Bill Gothard’s “umbrella of protection” and wondered if that was what it was supposed to be. According to Gothard, the benefits of proper authority are represented by this chain-of-command picture of hierarchy within the home. He instructs his followers that when you stay under your proper authority, the protection is like that of an umbrella, the “rain” that glides off symbolizing anything bad that can happen to you. His premise is that bad things can be traced to sins we have committed against authorities. To demonstrate this, he shared how if you go over the speed limit you are coming out from under your God-given authority and getting a ticket or having an accident is Satan’s attack for getting out from “under your umbrella of protection.” I am quite familiar with this teaching and believe it to be not only manipulative and teaching a works based salvation but also reflects the blessing/cursing mentality of so many within the patriarchy movement.
So, when I saw this, I asked the homeschooling vendor if it is a picture of Gothard’s umbrella of protection. I was told that it “represents God’s plan for the family and shows the sin of gay marriage.” Immediately he said to me: “So you don’t believe there are consequences for usurping God’s design for the family?” Why in the world that would be the conclusion after I asked my ONE question? I proceeded to explain that I had never seen this diagram used in any other way. He went on to tell me that he had never heard of Gothard, which is hard to believe given that he is a homeschooling vendor who promotes Voddie Baucham along with other patiocentrists and that the Duggars, who are watched by millions of viewers each week, are very openly associated with Gothard. So, again, understanding the importance of sound theology in life application, I asked the man outright “what does the rain represent in your picture?”
His response: “I have no idea.”
Did you catch this? A man who is brought in to speak at homeschooling conferences and who markets and sells materials for homeschooling families to use for instruction with their children has no qualms about presenting a doctrinal “truth” that he cannot explain, of sharing a picture to represent that truth not knowing what key elements of the picture even mean.
Does it matter that he doesn’t know what he is teaching? Am I causing trouble by asking for clarification? Are there consequences if we don’t get it right? Let me share an example from my own life.
When one of our sons was 2, we had missionaries who stayed in our home for a week one fall. The wife was Indian by birth and still wore the traditional clothing. My son was enthralled with her long, flowing skirts and wanted to run in and out from under them, wanting her to play. Over the next year, he exhibited more and more aggressive behaviors and didn’t respond to the type of corrections his other siblings had responded to.
That next summer, we attended a Gothard homeschooling seminar where we were taught that the Satanic spirit of foreign gods could come into our home through inanimate objects, using the now infamous Cabbage Patch kids story, and immediately I thought of the foreign dress our houseguest had worn and how I had seen our son’s behavior begin to change the week they had stayed with us. The teaching then went on to warn us that we had violated the umbrella of protection somehow if we saw disobedient behavior in our children. Of course I was convinced that this is what had happened and began to think that there was unconfessed sin of rebellion (witchcraft) somewhere. You can only imagine the other thoughts that this led to. Someone along the chain of command had opened the floodgates for Satan to attack us!
Of course, years later we realized that our son was suffering from learning disabilities and perhaps he could even be placed somewhere along the Asperger’s spectrum; all of his symptoms and behaviors are consistent with what we have learned. Oh how I grieve when I think of the spiritual burdens I carried for several years because of this teaching and the pressure I felt to examine every thought, every action, every motive of not only myself but those I saw as “under my umbrella” and to look with suspicion at those above me in Gothard’s (not the Bible’s) chain of command.
There can be lots of big words used to explain the dogma of family relationships and, sadly, the reckless assumptions being tossed about when it comes to complementarianism have consequences in real life. Do all complementarians teach hierarchy? In my opinion, yes they do. Do they all take it to the extreme of the umbrella of protection? No.
Those who claim to be “complementarian” and who influence homeschooling families need to be sure they are teaching sound doctrine and that what they are saying is what others are hearing, using clear words and answering questions with honesty and integrity. They need to recognize that this is a nebulous term that changes with each convention or each pastor who preaches and owns this label. Most importantly, those of us who live within real relationships need to set aside the labels and identify ourselves in ways that reflect something real and true and full of grace.
130 Responses to does it matter what we believe about complementarianism?
Leave a Reply
Be sure to visit Relationship Homeschooling on Facebook!
And you can learn about my thoughts on developing your own philosophy of education as well as finding the methods of homeschooling that work best for you and your children by
looking for my presentations on Home Educating Family's media site.
Join me on an adventure as we study through Chuck Swindoll’s book The Grace Awakening. Each Monday I will post some thoughts from a portion of the book and we will discuss them in the comment section, making special application for moms. (Dads and singles are welcome to join us, too!) You can purchase a copy of the book (there are lots of used copies available via Amazon) or it is also available on audio. I don’t want you to feel like you have to read along to join in the discussion; I want this to be as stress free as possible. But I know you will enjoy the book if you read it……understanding and embracing grace is life changing and many have found this book to be a great encouragement after coming through paradigm based ministries, including some homeschooling groups. Please invite your friends, I know you will be blessed!!! We will be starting on July 23rd!
Laura, recall what I said a few posts previous:
“I hold to the verbal, plenary, inspiration of Scripture (the original autographs, of course) and believe it is the infallible and inerrant word of God”
So then, how do you think I would respond to: “Did everything in Levitical law come from God, or did some of it get put in by people?”
(Here’s fodder for a whole new thread.)
Oh, I know we disagree there, Granddad.
In my opinion, our areas of disagreement are peripheral to Christianity. If I’m wrong and you’re right, it wouldn’t affect my faith in Jesus and my hope for heaven. I hope that you can say something similar – that is, if for instance you found out that Eve being made from Adam’s rib is allegory, you wouldn’t toss the whole thing over and be an atheist.
No, wouldn’t become an atheist…….I’d just become consumed with disproving the contention that it was an allegory
@Kelly,
Well, I certainly think of it as scriptural. Maybe you’ll see it differently, but this is where I’m getting it from:
1. That Jesus was the agent of creation: John 1:3, Colossians 1:16.
2. Since Jesus says there will be no male and female in the new creation (or at least no marriage – Matt. 22:30), I conclude nothing compelled God to create that model the first time. Also, I infer from the present creation. Not everything that reproduces does so through the joining of separate male and female bodies (although that mode is certainly prevalent).
3. I conclude that God knew the course of history before any history happened from various passages which refer to his pre-existing plans (Matt. 25:34, John 17:24, Eph. 1:4, Heb. 4:23, 1 Peter 1:20)
4. That marriage was meant to foreshadow Christ I understand from Eph. 5:32.
5. That it is appropriate to apply scripture before Christ to Christ, I understand from his own statements (Luke 24:25-27, John 5:46).
Hello Karen
Wow, 104 comments. I only spent one or two days following the Olympics! So many great stories, such as the US gold medallist who took up hurdling, after his friend dared him to jump over a fence, or the GB gold medallist whose PE teacher told his parents that he was an unremarkable performer. (“He was right,”said the Olympian cheerily, “I was no good at sport at school!”)
Waay back, there was a reference to our modern way of “doing church”. For example, you wrote: “… the notion of a pulpit and one single preacher is quite different than how the early church functioned. In essence, what we see as traditional today is really “new.” ”
‘Grandad’ challenged this: “From the Reformation onward there was a pastor/elder/presbuteros (whatever you wish to call him); whether it was John Calvin, Martin Luther, Jonathan Edwards, or Charles Spurgeon. I don’t think of that as modern, though.”
You would think of it as modern if you lived in a town named after a church that was commissioned by King Harold. (Yes, the Battle of Hastings king.) A few years ago our town celebrated the 950th anniversary of the consecration of the abbey!
So your idea of modern, and mine are bound to be sort of different. For example, many Americans will say that the KJV is written in “Old English”. But the language of Shakespeare/KJV/Renaissance is early Modern English, and Chaucer is in Middle English. You have to go back to the time of the first millenium and King Alfred the Great before it’s Old English.
Mnay of our church rituals are modern. There are things which we do in churches, and it’s assumed that they are right out of the pages of the Bible. I’m not, however, suggesting that all of our practices should be abandoned, just that we can’t assume that things have always been that way.
Arlan, that is an interesting viewpoint! I had never heard of marriage being created FOR illustration. Thank you for explaining how you came to understand it this way.
Anthea, I always look forward to your your perspective from “across the pond!”
I agree that not all traditions are bad BUT we have to be so very careful that they don’t become equal to Scripture.
I once heard this funny story:
A young bride was fixing a lovely ham dinner for her new husband, excited to be using some cookware she had inherited from her family. He came into the kitchen as she prepared to put the meal into the oven and watched her cutting off one end of the ham, setting it aside. He asked her why she did this and her response was “I don’t know, my mom always did.”
The next weekend when he saw his new mother-in-law, the puzzled bridegroom asked her “Why do you always cut off the end of the ham before it goes into the oven and she, too, replied, “I don’t know, my mom always did this!”
A few weeks later the family was gathering for a surprise birthday celebration for Grandma’s 80th birthday. The young man approached the elderly woman and asked her, “Grandma, why did you always cut off the end of the ham before you cooked it?” Her response? “The pan was too short for the whole ham.”
I think we in the church often have the tendency to do the same thing without even knowing where the traditions came from and then too often we hold to them as though they came directly from Scripture!
This is the point I am trying to make about many things, including about women speaking in church. Our modern idea of “church” is so different than what church looked like at the time the NT was written. It is like comparing apples and oranges to make broad sweeping statements about women speaking or praying in church. And John Piper’s notion about the “cone of silence” around the pulpit, which has been adopted by hundreds of congregations based on his teaching, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, especially in light of the context of the Scripture. In fact, the pulpit itself was no where to be seen in the context of Scripture, yet it has become sacrosanct. I am not saying it is always a bad thing, only that you cannot make a case from Scripture for these sorts of things. The pulpit is just one of those things.
Hello Karen
That’s a great story, and it makes a good point.
I read about that “cone of silence”, and I’m mystified as to where John Piper read that in the Bible. I know there’s a circle in Isaih 40, though!
I have googled “John Piper cone of silence” and can’t find anything. Can someone explain just what this is, please?
Kelly, I don’t know if anyone else calls it the “cone of silence” or not. I called it that as a take off on the Get Smart movie bit with the “cone of silence” and it stuck around here! Here is the video where he talks about the pulpit area. Anxious to hear what you all think:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ij9i5pO9zew
Karen, LOL, silly me. No wonder I couldn’t find anything!
Hello Karen
There’s not a lot happening at the Olympics, so I watched that John Piper video you highlighted, and another one by ‘Desiring God’ on female speakers eg Beth Moore.
He made no sense at all. I don’t mean that I did not agree with him, but he that he contradicted himself, so it’s hard to decide what he was trying to say. It was Joycean in its obscurity. At least I could understand the Jack Schaap video!
How is Rev Piper’s maleness compromised by a woman praying – not preaching, praying – up the front? What if the church meets in the round (I’ve been to places which do that)? What’s especially pastoral about a pulpit? It sounds sort of Anglo-Catholic, that sort of fey aesthetic attachment to the altar, and big gold-plated pulpits — as if that’s where all the action is. Then John Piper says that it’s a small part of the life of the church.
I think he should just get a chainsaw licence, and grow a beard. It works for my husband!
See the following:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/08/14/whats-wrong-with-patriarchy/
I have not yet heard the panel discussion.
Why are we compelled to have another name for ourselves? Seems to me that’s the problem! Putting people in boxes and applying a label. Why can’t we just each follow God step by step in faith as each of the Bible “heroes” did? They are each very unique and so are we. If you don’t believe me, just read your Bible…
Susan, I know. I keep reading that a complementarian marriage done right and an egalitarian marriage done right would look the same to outsiders. So why does such a big deal need to be made?
After an incident in my kitchen, my husband asked me not to do stuff in there while I’m barefooted. I like to go barefoot in my house, but out of deference to his wishes I wear at least flip-flops when I’m doing stuff in the kitchen. When I do that I don’t think OH MY GOD AM I SUBMITTING RIGHT NOW? It’s just not a big deal. He loves me and cares about me. So I wear shoes, as he asked me to. How sad would it be if he didn’t care?
At the same time, when we first moved into a house with a garage, I told him that I thought we should make it a habit of not running the car engine with the car in the garage, even if the door is open, for safety reasons. Because I don’t know that carbon monoxide might not get sucked into the house somewhere. I think he thinks that’s not really an issue, but out of deference to my wishes, if he needs to run the car engine for some reason he backs it into the driveway.
I have a feeling that there are those who could write entire theological treatises on the state of our marriage and whether it’s sufficiently Godly, based on just these two things. And it’s silly, in my opinion. 99% of it is probably just “respect the other person, and act like you have some manners.”
Granddad, perhaps you are not surprised that the Laura in the discussion over there is me.
Laura, I hadn’t read through those comments until this am and still want to go back and read more slowly and thoroughly. What keeps coming to me is this: Don’t these people pay attention to what each other is teaching and writing on this subject? And if they do, do they do it with any discernment or, using their own phrase, “understanding of the trajectory?”
Thatmom, what I am getting is fear.
It’s why my questions keep getting glossed over.
John Carpenter told me that if my husband submits to me then he is not obeying God. I offered two examples of husbandly submission and asked if he really would not do those things and he reacted harshly because he can’t go there. He can’t reconsider his position, he can’t even approach questioning his position. Same when I asked, if every word off Paul’s pen has the exact weight of the words of Jesus (paraphrasing there, but that’s pretty much what he said,) does he in fact believe that young widows are sinful if they do not remarry as Paul directed in that letter to Timothy, and should they be directed to do so from the pulpit. Of course he doesn’t think that (I hope) but he reacted angrily there too instead of answering the question.
I really think it’s fear.
I think I participated too much in the back-and-forth. Sometimes I know when to quit challenging folks and sometimes I keep going when I shouldn’t. I know you can say something and the person you are talking to says NO WAY and so you stop, and if you stop they go away and think about it and can actually come around to your point of view. But if you keep pushing, they won’t. So I should have stopped.
Making the presumption that “these people” refers to theologians such as Keller, Carson, Piper, Grudem, Duncan, etc. I would say that they do pay attention to what each other writes. But could it be that slight variations in their hermeneutic accounts for the differences? (I have intentionally excluded fellows like Phillips, Swanson, etc.)
Within the folks who are posting to this blog I have recognized at least 7 different hermeneutical positions:
….Protestant
…….Arminian
…….Calvinistic
……….Baptistic
……….Reformed (i.e., Presbyterian)
….Catholic
….Orthodox (Eastern, I assume)
No doubt there are more; and we could subdivided each group even further.
I think the fear is, that if we start questioning where do we stop, and where will we end up then. I used to be afraid of tumbling down that slope but then I tumbled down it and happily did not find myself going over a cliff. Not at all. There something inside that very strongly says “this is truth”. I know we can’t rely on that because we’re flawed and have biases and so on, but that is the thing that has kept me tethered when those questions have really been hard. Maybe having been there is why I don’t fear to look at the epistles and really ask whether everything in there is meant for me. A lot of it definitely is. Some of it has good stuff for me even if it’s not directed at me – where Paul is pleading with Euodia and Syntyche to get along, for instance; I’m not either of those women but I see the importance of people not fussing and fighting. But where Timothy is instructed to drink wine for his stomach and his other ailments – no, I go to the doctor when I’m sick. So do most people (although some don’t, as we know.) We’re all drawing a line, whether we admit it or not. Better to admit it and go on.
You just have to open the balled-up fists and let it happen.
Paul’s admonishment to Timothy is how I justify my occasional glass of good red wine.
Well, it certainly is a response to the tee-totalling Southern Baptists.
This comment showed up this afternoon.
Yes, this is so confusing. Barely two months ago Joe Carter writing for TGC says:
“Evans [Rachel Held Evans] claims that complementarianism is patriarchy, and here she *stumbles upon the truth*… the *patriarchy* of marriage models the patriarchy of the Godhead. (*emphasis added) http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/06/08/debatable-is-complementarianism-another-word-for-patriarchy/
BTW, Owen Strachen in the recent Journal for Biblical Womanhood and Manhood writes:
“For millennia, followers of God have practiced what used to be called patriarchy and is now called complementarianism.”
Hm.
While I’m talking to myself …
I had an argument once on a secular blog when somebody talked about a “real man” and I challenged him to distinguish between real men and unreal men, or between manliness and simple maturity. I’m not saying that you can’t distinguish, I just wanted him to flesh out his thoughts. He got all flustered and said that I *must* know the difference and was just being silly. Couldn’t get him to offer one attribute that would become a man, that would not also become any grown person.
You probably saw this story about a 22-year-old woman who found her father under his car being crushed and suffocated, and who lifted the car off of him and used CPR to restart his heart. This is not the usual thing we think of as being womanly, is it? But it is mature and responsible, and she and her father both are very glad she did it.
I’m still thinking about this.
Laura, dying to talk about this but out of town and pressed for time….more later.
I would say we have to be careful. For example, even on the Gospel Coalition, you have men who are very careful to define their terms. For example, D.A. Carson, who teaches at Trinity, has a very helpful article called What’s Wrong with Patriarchy?. For example, he writes:
In a similar vein, while “patriarchalism” may refer, rather neutrally, to a social order in which fathers rule, the mental associations connected with the term may be hugely variable. For some, it may conjure up order, stability, and fathers of the “Father Knows Best” variety. When one examines family breakdown in many of our communities, with fathers known rather more for their absence than for anything else, a little “patriarchalism” may have its attractions. On the other hand, for many others “patriarchalism” conjures up macho condescension toward women, self-promoting arrogance at the expense of “the little woman,” and even (God help us) terrifying sexual abuse. Why would any Christian organization want to defend such grotesque distortions of what God has ordained? Similarly, “traditionalism” in male/female relationships calls to mind, for some older Americans, the stable families of the Eisenhower years (even while all sides acknowledge that the white picket fences sometimes enclosed more unseemly realities), but for many others “traditionalism” is associated with nothing more than preserving the status quo. If one associates that status quo with a refusal to overcome manifold injustice, then traditionalism itself is evil.
I also found this interesting, especially in the discussion of how we have to define our terms according to the scriptures:
So John Piper and others coined the expression complementarianism. One of its virtues was its newness: it did not (yet!) have a history of wretched connotations. Denotationally it encapsulated what many of us were trying to say. The Bible does not present men and women as if they are interchangeable in every respect, save for the fact that only the woman has a uterus and can therefore produce babies. Rather, both men and women were made in the image of God and are of equal worth before him, but in God’s good design they fit together in mutually complementary ways that go way beyond mere sexual mechanics. The substance of this complementarianism has to be filled out by careful and reverent study of Scripture, study that is as suspicious of agenda-driven traditionalism as it is of agenda-driven egalitarianism.
Carson points out that, when he seeks to discuss these complementary roles, he seeks to do so from the scriptures. The problem with a lot of the folks in the patriarchalist movement is that they do not do this. Many of these folks know far more about history than they do about how to handle the text of scripture. While I do believe that the Bible teaches these distinct roles for men and women in the church and the home [Genesis 1-2, 2 Timothy 2:11-14], those roles must be filled out Biblically. Simply going back to history, and pulling historical roles is not helpful, and is what got us into this mess in the first place.
Adam, I don’t know whether or not you had the chance to read Mary Kassian’s article called Complementarianism for Dummies that she posted about a month or so ago on her blog but she gives a brief historical background of the Danvers Statement and the reason they decided they needed to identify a label for what they believed. What was very telling to me is that she said they did this in reaction to the culture, which is also what Carson said on the GC sight last week. (I am working on another piece where I will quote them verbatim.) It wasn’t because they read the Scriptures and found complementarity it was that they saw how some people were living out the Scriptures and disagreed with it. I think that is problematic. There are other concerns I really wish they would address. Carson also talked about reading the Scripture and taking it at face value, particularly 1 Timothy and not looking at the context. I was floored. There certainly are many other passages they don’t apply that standard to and they don’t even apply the whole of the “silent women” passages to this standard. For example, they culturalize head coverings. They culturalize slavery, too but no one seems to be willing to address that one. (I was going to use the word contextualize here but know it has a much different connotation these days so I did not.) More later…..
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2012/08/it-honors-christ-and-is-biblical-for.html
and
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2007/04/are-sisters-free-to-function-by-jon.html
Adam, would love your take on these articles……
Karen,
I am not sure what is meant by a “reaction to culture.” We are called of God to counter ungodliness in our culture. That is why I have been so vocally in opposition to the homosexual agenda. Still, we must do it from a *Biblical* perspective. The question is whether we are countering cultural movements because they are inconsistent with scripture, or whether we are countering cultural movements because we see that our culture is evil, and thus we think that we must counter everything in culture, ignoring the doctrine of common grace.
As far as “culturalizing” passages, one must look at authorial intent. If you culturalize everything, then you are left with liberalism, the notion that everything in the Bible was simply to that time and culture with no relevance today. If you apply everything directly, you get syncretism, the notion that we have to live in the culture of the Ancient Near East, and do everything as they did it in the Bible. The problem with each of these positions is that it does not understand that authors have certain views of reality, and those views of reality can be used to separate what the author views as universal, and what the author views as a mere expression of a universal.
For example, although the headcovering is spoken of in terms which go back to the book of Genesis, there are nonetheless cultural elements in the context. Hence, you have the principle of female submission expressed in terms of a cultural norm [the head covering]. However, when you get to 1 Timothy 2, you have no such cultural elements in the context. Worse than that, you have things that are universal, not only elements of creation, but the offices of the church which follow. Unless one is willing to argue that the offices of the church are merely cultural, one would have to say that this command is not cultural.
I think what Carson is saying is that the intent of the passage is exactly what it says at face value. You can disagree with him, but there are many passages for which I would say that is true. Leviticus 18:22 means what it says on face value, as does Romans 1:26-27. While others might try to argue for a cultural interpretation of those passages, I believe that you will always run into hermeneutical problems if you do, especially with regards to the author’s view of the world, and his intent.
Also, it is precisely this context which I think addresses the first article by Burleson that you quoted. Paul is specifically dealing with women teaching in the context of the official teaching offices of the church, such as the elder. Hence, he is not addressing times outside of the functioning of the official teaching offices of the church. While it would be inappropriate for a woman to teach as pastor, it would not be inappropriate for her to teach the pastor or other men casually over dinner, or even in public conversation after the sermon. And, as I have said before, when the pastor or any church leader is wrong, there is always the scriptures that are the authority above all, and there is never anything inappropriate about anyone, in a orderly fashion, correcting someone in authority by means of the authority over them, namely, the scriptures.
So, no, I don’t deny that women can teach men. I deny that it can be done in the context of the official teaching offices of the church. Hence, all of the references to women teaching men even in the second article you posted would simply be irrelevant, unless one could show that it fit the following context of 1 Timothy.
There are some that are relevant to issues of leadership in the church. For example:
Paul entrusted his letter to the Romans to Phoebe, and she delivered it. She was a deacon in the assembly at Cenchrea and Paul had the highest regard for her (Rom.16:1-2). Paul recognized her as a prostatis, which carried with it the idea of leadership (cf. 1 Thess.5:12).
**Paul designated Priscilla and Aquila as his “co-workers” (Rom.16:3). The same word is used with reference to people like Timothy and Titus.
The main problem here is with the notion that, if the same word is used, then it must mean the same thing. Hence, because the term διακονος is used of the office of deacon, it must mean that Phoebe was a deacon, because she also has the term διακονος used of her as well. The problem is that the term διακονος is also used of the civil governments [Romans 13:4], which can hardly be said to possess any church authority. In Jesus’ famous statement about the greatest being the servant of all, the word for “servant” is διακονος [Mark 9:35]. It is even used of a simple household servant [John 2:5]. It is even used in church contexts where the office of deacon is clearly not meant, such as 1 Timothy 4:6.
This same problem exists for the term “coworkers.” While it is true that it is used of Timothy and Titus, it is also used of Urbanus [Romans 16:9], Epaphroditus [Philippians 2:25], Jesus Justus [Colossians 4:11], and Aristarchus and Demas [Philemon 24]. In 3 John, you simply have coworkers designated as “brethren” [3 John 5-8]. Because you have so many minor names for which this term is used, and because of the fact that it is just simply used generically of “brethren,” it is hard to think that this is meant to be a specific term for a church office.
As is the case with all words, you can’t simply say “this word is used over here in this other place in scripture; therefore, it must mean the same thing in the text we are studying.” If one wants to argue that there are positions of church office indicated by an individual word in a particular text, they must argue it from the context. It is easy to simply insert the word into a search engine, and show that the word has many different meanings depending upon context, because all words do. Hence, one must show, from the context, that Paul is meaning to designate particular offices with these usages of these terms, especially when these tend to come in the personal sections of the letter, and not necessarily in the sections of the letter that are discussing official business of the church.
Junia and Andronicus (wife/husband or sister/brother) were greeted by Paul as “outstanding among the apostles” (Rom.16:7). They were his relatives and had been in prison with him. There were people called “apostles” who were not among the Twelve, like Barnabas. Junia was also among such apostolic workers. There is no reason to think that she was the only such female apostle.
The question is whether she was an apostle at all. Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, whose views I am closest to on this issue, has actually done an extensive study on this passage, and has came to the conclusion that what this text is referring to is that she was well known *by* the apostles; in other words, it speaks of her notoriety, not her membership.
1 Timothy is not a church manual for a pastor. It is a mandate for an apostolic assistant to deal with serious issues involving false teaching in Ephesus. Unfortunately, some women had become involved in this problem.
The problem is that the text of 1 Timothy itself doesn’t bear this out. If it is just a matter of false teaching, then why does Paul lay out the qualifications for elder? That makes no sense. The problem is an oversimplification. While Timothy was certainly itinerant, that does not mean that he did not have authority. Consider:
2 Timothy 4:2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.
This comes after 2 Timothy 3:16, which speaks of “teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness,” which, according to traditional Protestant understanding, is dealing with the regula fide, and the sufficiency of scripture to function as the regula fide. Then, only a few verses later, Paul instructs Timothy to do just that, obviously on the basis of scripture, clearly thinking of Timothy as the “man of God.”
I think the problem here is reductionism. It is true that Paul is dealing with false teaching, but he is instructing Timothy on how he is to function as a minister in the context of such false teaching, as is evident by him laying out the qualifications for church office. The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, how much more should a church be following God’s instructions in church leadership when they are dealing with false teachers!
The same Greek word, hesuchia (quietness), is used in verse 2 with reference to all believers leading a quiet life, in verse 11 with reference to a woman learning in quietness, and in verse 12 with reference to a woman being in quietness. The word simply does not mean “silent.” Verse 2 obviously does not envision us leading a “silent” life, but rather a life in which we are not known as rabble-rousers. Thus, any Bible version that has the woman in “silence” (2:11-12) reveals some level of bias, is a very inaccurate translation and leaves an impression upon the mind that is not from the Lord.
Again, I have to note this linguistically unacceptable notion of leaping across contexts, and picking words out of entirely different contexts, and reading them back into the passage you are studying. Does the fact that we use the verb “to beat” both in the context of assault and in the context of a basketball team necessarily mean that, when a basketball team “beats” their opponent, they inflict physical wounds on them? When a lawyer “grills” a witness on the witness stand, does that mean that he is roasting him on a fire, because the same word is used for grilling hamburgers in other places?
In verse 2, Paul is dealing with the quiet life of the church and its relationship to the secular governments. He is not dealing with the teaching ministry of the church. When he does deal with the teaching ministry of the church, he goes on to qualify what he means in terms of “exercising authority” in the context of the functioning teaching offices of the church. Hence, the two contexts are not parallel.
“In all submission.” Again, the New Testament clearly teaches that “submission” is to be an attribute of all believers, not just the sisters.
–Rom.13:1,5 — every person is to be subject to the civil authorities.
–1 Cor.14:32 — the spirits of the prophets are subject to [under the self-control of] the prophets.
–1 Cor.16:15-16 — the brethren are to submit to those who lay down their lives for others.
–Eph.5:21 — all Christians are to mutually submit to one another in the fear of Christ.
–James 4:7 — we are all to submit to the Lord.
–1 Pet.5:5 — “all of you, be subject one to another.”
However, again, where is the context of the official teaching offices of the church? Where is the context of elder and deacon? As I said, this is like saying that a hit song must involve a song striking something, because something is struck when someone gets a hit in baseball. The mere fact that a word is used in other contexts with other senses does not mean that you can automatically import all of those other senses in the context of the passage you are discussing.
We must ask, do only women learn in all submission? Do men somehow learn in a different way, without submission? Aren’t “quietness” and “submission” necessary qualities in order for anyone to learn? If this is indeed the case, then are we not warranted to suggest that there must have been a problem with some women, or a woman, which accounts for why Paul would issue this special directive?
I think that the answer is that there must be a teacher if there is learning. What Paul is saying is that, in the context of the official teaching offices of the church, only men must teach, and women must learn in the same kind of quietness and submission as everyone else. This is born out by the fact that, when he goes on to give the qualifications for elder, he specifically assumes he is a man [the husband of one wife]. Also, if Paul was addressing one specific woman, are we really to suggest that Paul was saying that only certain women should not “adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments?” Paul is clearly addressing men [verse 8] and then women [verses 9-15], and yet, he speaks of “all men everywhere” in verse 8. Are we to assume he does not mean all women everywhere in verses 9ff?
We apparently assume that “male headship” means “authority over” and connect it with decision-making. But in the first century it was the “heart,” not the “head” that was connected with decision-making, and there is much evidence to suggest that “authority over” was generally not connected to the concept of “head” (cf. Laurie Fasullo, “What About the Word Kephale (‘Head’) in the N.T.?”).
That dead horse has been beaten to a pulp. While I don’t agree with Grudem on everything, I agree with his analysis of kephale, and would point people to his discussion for the other side of the coin. Also, for what it’s worth, although Grant Osborne, my hermeneutics professor disagrees with Grudem about women being able to be a pastor, he nonetheless believes that Grudem is right about this word.
First, it must be pointed out that there is no command (imperative) from Paul in this text. The wording in the King James Version, “I suffer not a woman,” can certainly sound like a command, but it isn’t. Instead, it is a simple present tense, “I am not now permitting a woman….” This could imply a shift in Paul’s strategy because of the problems that existed in Ephesus. Timothy had worked with Paul for years and was not used to hearing restrictions on the sisters from Paul. But now Paul announces, “I am not now permitting a woman….”
The question is one that is dear to my heart, and that is the question of pragmatics. There is no doubt that the form is not an imperative, but the question is whether the *illocutionary force* of this speech act is the same as that of an imperative. Remember, when we deal with illocutions, we are dealing what the author is intending to accomplish. If the illocutionary force of this speech act is what Searle called a “directive,” then it bears the exact same illocutionary force as an imperative would in this context. For example, if I am a boss, and I say to a new worker, “I don’t permit my workers to leave early,” I am forbidding him from leaving work early, even though I do not use the imperative.
The other issue here is the notion of the present tense here being understood as “I am not now.” The problem is that this assumes that all uses of the present tense are deictic. They very clearly are not. For example, a common argument from the hyperpreterists is that, because 1 Corinthians 15:42-44 uses the present tense of the resurrection, that means that the resurrection happened during the time of Paul. The problem here is the distinction between metalinguistic tense [M-tense] and linguistic tense [L-tense]. There are some languages that have no tenses in their verbs. Yet, temporality is still intended. These languages have M-tense, but are L-tenseless. L-tense refers to the particular grammatical form, whereas M-tense refers to the tense that is intended. The problem is that, while you can have languages that are L-tenseless and yet have M-tense meanings, you can likewise have certain statements in various languages that are L-tensed, but are M-tenseless. This is the case in New Testament Greek. For example:
Hebrews 3:4 For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God.
Does that mean that, because the author of Hebrews uses the present tense “built” that he was meaning to suggest that every house was currently being built by someone? Such is absurd. The point is that, if certain verbal forms are M-tenseless, then they are not deictic, meaning, that they don’t mean that the action is happening in relation to the speaker. Greek Grammarians use the designation “Gnomic Present” to refer to this kind of present. Dr. Daniel B. Wallace describes the present in this way:
The gnomic present is distinct from the customary present in that the customary present refers to a regularly recurring action while the gnomic present refers to a general, timeless fact. It is distinct from the stative present(a subcategory of the customary) in that the stative present involves a temporal restriction while the gnomic present is generally atemporal.
There are two predominant semantic situations in which the gnomic present occurs. The first includes instances that depict deity or nature as the subject of the action. Statements such as “the wind blows” or “God loves” fit this category. Such gnomic presents are true all the time. There is a second kind of gnomic, slightly different in definition: the use of the present in generic statements to describe something that is true any time (rather than a universal statement that is true all the time). This kind of gnomic present is more common. Thus, pragmatically, it is helpful to note a particular grammatical intrusion: A gnomic verb typically takes a generic subject or object. Most generics will be subjects (but note the first example below). Further, the present participle, especially in such formulaic expression as πας ο + present participle and the like, routinely belong here. [Daniel Wallace. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, and Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament CD Rom Edition]
In fact, Wallace heavily criticizes the descriptive present view of 1 Timothy 2:12 with the following, suggesting instead the gnomic present:
If this were a descriptive present (as it is sometimes popularly taken), the idea might be that in the future the author would allow this: I do not presently permit . . . However, there are several arguments against this
1) It is overly subtle . Without some temporal indicator, such as αρτι or perhaps νυν, this view begs the question. (2) Were we to do this with other commands in the present tense, our resultant exegesis would be both capricious and ludicrous. Does μη μεθυσκεσθε οινω…,αλλα πληρουσθε εν πνευματι in Eph 5:18 mean “Do not for the moment be filled with wine, but be filled at the present time by the Spirit” with the implication that such a moral code might change in the future? The normal use of the present tense in didactic literature, especially when introducing an exhortation, is not descriptive, but a general precept that has gnomic implications.(3) Grammatically , the present tense is used with a generic object (γυναικι), suggesting that it should be taken as a gnomic present.(4) Contextually, the exhortation seems to be rooted in creation (note v13 and the introductory γαρ), rather than an address to a temporary situation. [Wallace, ibid].
The point Wallace is making is that this bears all of the hallmarks of a gnomic present. It is has the illocutionary force of a command in the context of didactic literature, it has a generic object, and it is connected to something that is not part of the time period under discussion. Hence, we are probably not dealing with a descriptive present, but rather, a statement of general truth, obviously limited to the context of the official teaching offices of the church in the next chapter.
Two infinitives. When Paul says, “I am not now permitting a woman,” he follows with a neither…nor construction involving two infinitives, didaskein (to teach) and authentein (to have one’s way with, to dominate). It must be asked, how are the two infinitives to be correlated? Philip Payne and others suggest that the best fit is that of goal or purpose. In other words, Paul in this Ephesian situation where some women were propagating error does not want them to teach with the purpose or goal of having their way with (or dominating) a man. Payne sees the closest English parallel to how these two infinitives are employed to be our idioms: hit ‘n’ run, eat ‘n’ run, hence, teach ‘n’ dominate – to teach with the goal of dominating (with false teaching). It is this specific type of teaching that Paul is not permitting.
The problem with this view is that επιτρεπω is a verb requiring a complementary infinitive to complete its meaning. Without a complementary infinitive, this sentence makes no sense:
*I do not permit a woman.
Now, obviously, the rest of the meaning could be filled by context, but such a sentence, as it stands, makes no sense. The immediate question that comes to your mind when you see “I do not permit a woman” is “to do what!” This is a common situation in which you find complementary infinitives. Complementary infinitives are defined as:
The infinitive is very frequently used with “helper” verbs to complete their thought. Such verbs rarely occur without the infinitive. This finds a parallel in English. [Wallace, ibid].
Wallace, in fact, lists επιτρεπω as one of those verbs. If this is the case, and it certainly bears all of the hallmarks of it, then these infinitives would simply be completing the thought of the verb “permit.” Hence, the teaching and exercising authority would be what Paul does not permit a woman to do [again, obviously in the context of the discussion of elders and deacons which is to follow].
If there is a divine law that women-teaching-men is sinful, then there can be no exceptions.
This statement struck me. Can God not put his commands in particular contexts, so as to effect the intent of what he is saying? Can he not put a prohibition on female teaching in the context of the teaching offices of the church? I would say that all of God’s commandments must be understood in the light of their context. It is precisely this lack of understanding of the intent of God’s commands that leads to the nonsense found in the Christian Patriarchy movement.
But the vital matter that must be reckoned with is that authentein simply does not have the meaning “exercise authority over.” In classical Greek literature before Christ, the word was used to refer to a murderer or to one who contracted for a murder to take place. Linda Belleville observes:
If Paul had wanted to speak of an ordinary exercise of authority, he could have picked any number of words. Within the semantic domain of “exercise authority,” biblical lexicographers J.P. Louw and Eugene Nida have twelve entries, and of “rule” [and] “govern” forty-seven entries. Yet Paul picked none of these. Why not? The obvious reason is that authentein carried a nuance (other than “rule” or “have authority”) that was particularly suited to the Ephesian situation . . . . [Louw and Nida] put authenteo into the semantic domain “to control, restrain, domineer” and define the verb as “to control in a domineering manner”: “I do not allow a woman…to dominate a man” (1 Tim.2:12) . . . . [They] also note that [authentein] is expressed idiomatically as “to shout orders at” . . or “to bark at”. . . . So there is no first century warrant for translating authentein as “to exercise authority” and for understanding Paul in 1 Timothy 2:12 to be speaking of the carrying out of one’s official [teaching] duties. Rather the sense is the Koine [common Greek] “to dominate; to get one’s way.” (“Usurping,” pp.211,216).
First of all, this argument ignores Sassurian distinctions between diachronic and synchronic analysis of language. You can’t go to classical literature hundreds of years before Christ, and assume that the word bore the same meaning in classical literature that it does at the time of the New Testament for the simple reason that words change their meaning. Consider the word “let” in English. At the time of the translation of the King James Version, the verb “to let” had two different meanings: “to release” and “to bind.” For example, this helps make sense out of this verse:
2 Thessalonians 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
One might read this passage today, and think that it means that he who releases will release until he is taken away. That is nonsense, though. However, even worse, I think an illustration that I heard from Eric Svendsen is appropriate at this point. Let’s say someone has stolen your wallet, and you are chasing him down. A police officer catches him, and you are looking for the right word to tell that police officer to hold him tight. You could use “hold on!” or “grab hold.” However, then you remember that there was a usage of the term “let” in the King James that means “to hold onto,” and so you yell, “Let him go!” Now, what do you think that police officer is going to do? This is why one cannot go back before the time of the New Testament to find the meanings of words. One has to address contemporaneous usage.
More than that, while the term does have a domineering connotation, it must be kept in the context of the “teaching” we found earlier, and will be addressed later. The problem with the argument is that it assumes that words can be isolated from their context. The rulership aspect of the term is used, I believe, because of its relationship to the teaching of the scriptures as part of the ministry of the church. The authority of the minister, however, is not above what the scriptures teach. In order to be exercising this authority, he must be teaching what the scriptures say, as we saw from the passage in second Timothy. Nevertheless, context is everything, and one cannot just look at general semantic domains, without understanding how a particular word is used in the context. That will provide particular nuances and connotations that may not otherwise be present.
Consider, for example, Jesus’ statement here:
Luke 14:26 “If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers
Now, if you look at the very same lexicon that Belleville cites, you will see that it falls under the semantic domain of “hate, hateful.” Would it be appropriate to use Belleville’s argument, and say that, if Jesus had wanted to use a word meaning “loved less,” he could have used one of those entries in Louw and Nida which mention love and affection, but he didn’t, so he meant we have to hate our parents? No, because Jesus wants you to understand what he is saying in context, especially of priorities and loyalties.
We must remember that our Lord taught us that in his kingdom “authority” – who’s in charge – is to be a non-issue (Matt.20:24-28; 23:11; Mark 9:34; Luke 9:46; 22:24). The idea of one person having dominion over another or others is the essence of all that is antichrist. No one is to be the top-dog, and there are no positions of authority. I don’t know how many times I’ve heard, “women shouldn’t be in positions of authority.” The truth is, neither males nor females are to be in positions of authority! There is no chain-of-command in Christ’s domain. The greatest position is at the bottom of the ladder. Those with the most spiritual influence will live as those with no authority. They will live as slaves and children – who had no status in first century culture. The greatest in Christ’s kingdom lays down his life for others – which is precisely what Jesus did as the servant par excellence.
In this vein we must rid ourselves of the traditional idea that some kind of inherent authority resides in the position of “teacher” (or, in our day, “preacher”). Christ is the one with all authority in his kingdom, and he oversees his assemblies with his word. Everything that is brought before the brethren is weighed and evaluated in light of the truth as it is in Jesus. Hebrews 5:12 says, “by this time you ought to be teachers, [but] you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again.” Obviously, not every person has the gift of teaching (cf. James 3:1), but all the brothers and sisters can be teachers in some way and contribute to the learning process in the assembly. Again, the New Testament is not against women teaching, but Paul does put the kibosh on a woman teaching with the goal of dominating a man.
And yet, we have:
2 Corinthians 13:10 For this reason I am writing these things while absent, so that when present I need not use severity, in accordance with the authority which the Lord gave me for building up and not for tearing down.
1 Thessalonians 2:6 nor did we seek glory from men, either from you or from others, even though as apostles of Christ we might have asserted our authority.
Titus 2:15 These things speak and exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.
1 Peter 2:13-14 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, 14 or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.
Revelation 2:26-27 ‘And he who overcomes, and he who keeps My deeds until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations; 27 and he shall rule them with a rod of iron, as the vessels of the potter are broken to pieces, as I also have received authority from My Father;
I would say that the main problem with the argument is, again, reductionism. There is no doubt that Christ is ruler of all, and has all power and authority. However, that says nothing about subordinate authority under the authority of his word. To deny the need for subordinate authority would be to throw the church and the state into utter chaos. Everyone is entitled to make the decisions of the president. Everyone makes the decision as to what will be taught next Sunday. Subordinate authority is not only scriptural, it is necessary to prevent utter chaos.
Many take “male headship” to mean that the husband has “the final say.” But how could that be in light of 1 Cor.7:1-7? The husband, Paul teaches here, cannot unilaterally announce, “We are going to be physically separated for awhile.” Such action can only take place if they mutually agree on it. If this is the case in an important issue like physical separation, one would assume that the goal in marital decision-making is for the couple to be one-minded. In light of this passage what “male headship” actually entails needs to be revisited.
The problem is that we are talking about authority over each other’s *bodies.* Paul is dealing with a sexual relations as the marital debt which is mutually owed to one another in marriage. If it is a mutual debt, then refraining from something could only be by an agreement from both parties. Again, you can’t simply leap out of the context you are addressing, find the word somewhere else, and assume that you can read it back into the text you are studying. Because of the fact that the word “heat” can be used to refer to temperature, does that mean that when a criminal is “feeling the heat” that his body temperature is rising as well? It is a fundamental linguistic flaw that I am seeing throughout this article.
Keep in mind that Eve was already in Adam’s side before her appearance on earth. The name “Adam,” in fact, includes Eve – “When God created Adam, he made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them ‘Adam’” (Gen.5:1-2). This was a type of Christ and his bride. Just as Adam fell into a deep sleep when his wife came forth from his side, so Christ descended into the sleep of death and when his side was pierced the bride was birthed.
The problem is that the Hebrew term אדם probably doesn’t mean the proper name “Adam” here, but it is probably an illusion to Genesis 1:26-27 where the term אדם means “mankind.” The reason is the plural pronoun “them” in “he called them ‘man.’” When אדם is the antecedent of plural pronouns like this, it means “mankind.” Hence, the point of the passage is not that Eve was already in existence, but that mankind is divided up into two kinds: male and female.
“Adam was formed first” has a real punch with Artemis in the background. The Diana-cult taught that Zeus and the Titaness Leto had twins and the female came first – Artemis originated before Apollo.
As far as the assumed Artimis background, and the statement of Adam being created first being the background to this, the problem is that Artimis, Diana, and Zeus is that these were deities, not humans, as Adam and Eve were. Hence, what would be the relevance to the creation of the first humans? The statements about their only being one God who created all men would have sufficed to refute the notion of gods being born. Worse than that, the context is clearly not ethical behavior, as the teaching and exercising of authority clearly relates to what immediately follows in chapter 3 in the discussion of the teaching offices of the church. That is hardly dealing with behavior, but church structure. Combine that with the fact that Paul assumes that the person assuming such a role will be male, and it makes the case even more airtight.
Worse than that, wouldn’t the main corrective to a female-centered view of life be to point people to a Christ-centered view of life? That theme is all over Paul’s teachings, and yet, for some reason, in the perfect place for dealing with the “divine feminine,” he does not bring it up. The difficulty in relating it to the text itself, as well as the deafening silence of the themes in scripture that would directly refute these notions from the temple of Artimis I would say should lead us away from this explanation
I generally agree with the notion that the text does not mean that women are more likely to be deceived than men. Indeed, I agree with my professor, Dr. John Feinberg, that we don’t know the meaning of Paul’s rationale. While Paul’s commandment is clear, his rational is not as clear. Hence, I do think we should be careful about wild eyed explanations for the background of this rationale, from both sides of the isle.
It is fascinating to take note of the parallels between 1 Tim.2:11-15 and Rev.2:20-24:
Paul – “I am not now permitting a woman….”
Jesus to Thyatira – “You permit the woman….”
Paul – “to teach with the goal of dominating a man….”
Jesus to Thyatira – “she teaches…my servants to commit fornication….”
Paul – “the woman [Eve] being deceived….”
Jesus to Thyatira – “she deceives my servants….”
Paul – “she will be delivered through childbearing if they remain in faith….”
Jesus to Thyatira – “I will cast her [‘Jezebel’] into a bed….and I will kill her children with death.”
The problem is, if you look at the parallels closely, they don’t hold up.
For instance, in the first alleged parallel, the author translates both as “permit.” However, not only are the two Greek words different [επιτρεπω in 1 Timothy 2:12, and αφεις in Revelation 2:20], but the context are totally different. The one text is in a context where the teaching offices of the church are laid out directly following, and the other is in the context of moral teaching [committing fornication and idolatry]. The actual background for this passage in Revelation is the pagan queen Jezebel from the Old Testament. Her offense was not one of authority, but one of idolatry and immorality. This also explains the last alleged parallel, and that is the casting of her into bed, and the killing of her children with death. The parallel her is between the fertility cults of Jezebel’s Canaanite religion, and the religion of the people of Thyatira. There is also the problem of Eve=Jezebel [which, if John had meant to parallel this passage, why didn't he use Eve instead of Jezebel]? Again, all that is similar between this two passages is the notion of teaching, being deceived, and childbearing. Both passages are in totally different contexts, and even use totally different words. Consider the word “deceived.” In 1 Timothy 2:14, it is απαταω, while in Revelation 2:20 the word is πλαναω. However, what is most important here is not the distinction in words [although that is somewhat important], but the distinction in context. When neither the words or the context are the same, there is no parallel.
I believe those were the substantial points of the article. I think the concern I would have is with hermeneutics, especially jumping from context to context simply on the basis of the fact that the same word is found in this other context. My other concern would be the reductionism. Since Paul addresses moral and ethical concerns, he cannot write about the teaching structure of the church, or, if God gave a command, he could not put it in a context so that we know when and how to apply it, or, if Christ has all authority, he cannot delegate that authority to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. These kinds of oversimplifications simply add to the hermeneutical problems. However, my main concern is hermeneutical, I believe that hermeneutics are the key to avoiding patriarchy of Vision Forum on the one extreme, and egalitarianism on the other extreme. We need to be balanced, and hence my deep concern for the hermeneutical and conceptual reductionism.
God Bless,
Adam
I was a deacon at our church in Memphis for several years.
When I was first installed, the senior minister said that none of us deacons should wait to be asked to do something. We should find a need and then fill it.
He had mentioned that the welcome books weren’t put out at early service a time or two, so after church that day I asked the elder sitting next to me who was in charge of setting up for early service. Because I was in the choir, I always went to the 11:00 service so I wouldn’t have known. She told me who that was, and how to recognize him, so I went to the early service the next Sunday and after it was over, approached him and asked if he needed backup. And I got an earful. He was just a deacon like anybody, but somehow because he was willing to take responsibility, there were more and more tasks piled on him, and if he wasn’t there on any particular Sunday things fell through the cracks. So I took notes while he told me everything he did (and it was a lot) and then I immediately took two items off his plate, permanently. I began showing up before early service every Sunday to make sure everything was done – there were deacons always signed up but he and I were the only continuity, really – and ended up usually staying to help take up the offering and serve communion, before hurrying home to get my family ready for Sunday School and then attend the 11:00 service. The deacons who were signed up for that month were supposed to, but they frequently showed up in shorts or whatever and didn’t plan to stay for the service, so I was almost always needed to do that. And the mornings he was out of town and I was on my own, I turned in the collection and gave the front office the headcount and so on.
I did this for years.
Was God displeased with me for being a deacon, since I am a woman? I never felt like it. I always felt like I was where I was supposed to be, doing what I was supposed to be doing.
Adam,
I tried to follow your comment and I admit that I gave up. The thing that concerns me is how the average Christian is supposed to understand the Bible if they don’t have access to all of the information and technique required by your explanation? How would my grandmother understand this? How would my niece who never went to college? I am college educated and a thinker but not seminary trained. However, even with my desire to understand these topics because they impact me directly, I gave up.
If the Bible can only be understood in all its nuances and subtleties if one has advanced theology degrees or untold hours on their hands to pursue very high level self-education, then what happens in the Body? The vast, unwashed masses become completely dependent on the educated clergy to tell them what to think.
I am all for understanding context and what the original intent of the author was. But I also believe God gave the Bible as a guide for living to people who were not educated and would not be educated. Should it really be this difficult for us to understand?
Warmly,
Sallie