55 comments
544 views
I have been blessed to have many enlightening conversations with people in the CRC who disagree with me on the topic of Women in Office. However, I haven't seen a suitable venue for these conversations. Maybe this is it! What are your thoughts on women in office? What is the most vital point (or two) that leads you to endorse or not endorse Women in Office?
Possible points of discussion:
1 Tim 2:12 and the use of "teach" and "authority."
Female leaders in the OT (Deborah, Hannah, etc.)
Potential female leaders in the NT (Junia, Pheobe)
Gal 3:28; 1 Cor 14:34; Lk 24:22
Why did the church not endorse Women in Office until the 1970s when feminism arose?
Comments
As we celebrate Pentecost this week Sunday, the day the Spirit trumped the ***traditional gender barrier by pouring out on both men and women, here's some food for thought...
The apostle Peter quoted the prophet Joel in his Pentecost sermon, declaring, “Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy” (Acts 2:17, emphasis added) when the Spirit was poured out on the men and women gathered in the upper room & each of them received a holy flame.
*** the following article shares a bit of info on how the traditional gender barrier arose over the ages based on pagan philosophies and traditions...
Hierarchy-and-the-Biblical-Worldview.pdf (cbeinternational.org)
praying for the Kingdom church to flourish and thrive in love & truth through the power of the Holy Spirit!
Amen! Men and women are both agents of God's redemptive work for humanity. From my perspective, this use of men and women by God is most beautiful when men and women's complementarity is in view. I agree with the assertion of the linked article, "Hierarchy and the Biblical Worldview" that the neo-platonic notion of the analogia entis or the "great chain of being" is pagan in origin and it has been abused to represent women as lower on an ontological totem pole. Sad! I take a different response, however, as I'm sure you know and as I hinted above.
On another note, I finished Sandra Glahn's book Nobody's Mother yesterday and found her work refreshing in its attention to the biblical data, whether exegetical or grammatico-historical. She argues persuasively that Artemis is in the background of 1 Timothy. Usually, I'm uncompelled by that argument, but her use of new inscriptional archaeological data is enlightening. I still don't think there's enough solid evidence to claim Paul was only precluding female preaching in an Artemisian context, especially since, if he was, his alternative would not be "learn quietly and in submission" but "teach humbly and not like Artemis." Nevertheless, the real gem for me was her very persuasive reading of "she will be saved by childbearing" as a potential (there is no evidence of the quote origin per se, but the concept is certainly Artemisian) quotation of the Artemisian cultic literature. Therefore, Glahn reads Paul as subversively fulfilling Artemis's promise by saying it can be fulfilled only in faith in Christ. I.e., ""She will be saved in childbearing" as Artemis promises, if they continue in faith in Christ."
Rob, you said at the outset of this discussion that you were open to changing your views. However the glacial pace that this is happening, evidenced in your comments, is tormenting me. I’ve given up any hope that there’s a translation of a Greek word that will miraculously open up your mind to the idea the God may want women to be preaching in pulpits. Likewise, there’s no chance that any of your translations of grammatico historologically Paul-splaining will alter the other side’s understanding of what Paul meant.
Hi Rob, thanks for continuing to engage in this discussion (here we are on page TWO of comments!) and pursue reading some of the work that has been recently published...
I engaged directly with Sandra Glahn a little bit, as I disagreed with her emphasis on Artemis while ignoring the 50 other gods/goddesses in the Ephesus region (part of Phrygia, now western Turkey). Some of these goddesses were considered "magna maters"... The Mother of all Gods: The Phrygian Cybele | Ancient Origins (ancient-origins.net)
yes, there has been confusion over the ages of the Greek Artemis & Artemis of the Ephesians... lots of overlap, but some specific distinctions as well. Cybele (Phrygian origins) has often been conflated with Artemis which has added to the confusion. Hecate had her own altar/idol in the temple of Artemis in Ephesus... lots of syncretism going on!
The biggest gap to me is not recognizing the witchcraft/sorcery (ie Hecate the crone goddess of witchcraft) that was rampant in this region and that is a key factor in the lens Paul & Timothy are looking through & dealing with as false teaching. Theologians are avoiding the witchcraft factor for some reason, not denying it (Acts 19:19 is in the bible after all, & it is specifically in EPHESUS), but ignoring it almost completely for the most part for a significant part of the context of 1 Timothy it seems! Sandra does the same!
I did check out Denny Burke's review on her book as well... oh my, very problematic - LOTS OF FALSE STATMENTS... both sides still seem to miss the fact that Jesus says NO ONE is to EXCERCISE AUTHORITY over others in the Body of Christ! Why have we spent a lot of time and ink on whether only women should not exercise authority over men & very little time on that Jesus says NONE OF US are to exercise authority, in Matt 21:25-26, over men or women? So, whether authentein in 1 Tim 2:12 means exercise authority or not (& I believe Paul meant something considerably different**), no one is contesting that exercise authority is what Jesus meant in Matthew, with no gender limitations, yet we ignore this verse! Strong's Greek: 2715. κατεξουσιάζω (katexousiazó) -- to exercise authority over (biblehub.com)
edit #2: I accidently used the wrong link earlier to the word that means lording it over in the same verse: Strong's Greek: 2634. κατακυριεύω (katakurieuo) -- I exercise authority over, overpower (biblehub.com) (**why did Paul not use this Greek(not Geek as I originally posted 😉) word instead of authentein, if exercise authority is what he meant in 1 Tim 2:12?)
Most egalitarians do not see men and women as androgynous, but recognize holistic differences... however, traditionally, women have been considered inferior in various ways & this included the thinking of the church fathers. To say this lens of inferiority regarding women didn't influence how they interpreted scripture would be & has been harmful to the Body of Christ for far too long. Recognizing women as equal & created in the image of God has mostly been since the 1970's.
I believe the 59 "one another" commands are the lens of how we love our brothers and sisters in the Lord. I think we need to use the language of "serving" a lot more than focusing on "leaders" or "pastors" & "authority" and "submission"
I believe collaboration/cooperation/sharing responsibilities as we work together (synergeo/co-laboring) is a far better translation/understanding of the Greek word "hupotasso" instead of submit in the non military context of relationships in the family & church...
I believe intentionally praying together consistently will help shift the power dynamics to "one another" instead of authority over...
I believe how women (especially women's input/voice) have been traditionally limited in the Body of Christ is an example of how traditions of man/elders have nullified God's word, which God warns us can happen!
Until we understand it's not about authority and power over, we will continue to cheat the Ekklesia of the full richness of fellowship walking in God's ways with one another as the family of God!
Hi Bev!
Indeed, page two of a fruitful discussion! I am so grateful to God for the ability to discuss these important things in this way.
Thank you for the very interesting background to the other gods in Ephesus. I haven’t studied that, but from what you say I’d agree that that background is very important indeed. Anytime I hear someone say, “this or that god is what this or that author had in mind” I am sceptical because we all know how polytheistic Rome was. So, your point that there may be other gods / witchcraft at play in Ephesus sounds right on the money. It’s most definitely a fruitful area of study and it seems scholars aren’t giving it its due. This is another reason why I’m very cautious to take an alternate meaning to a text based on such things—we find out new things every day and the evidence would need to be near 100% certain to overturn a traditional interpretation. The Church can misinterpret for a time, but to hold that she has misinterpreted for two millennia would need the sort of evidence that would convict someone in a court of law: “beyond reasonable doubt.” There are lots of reasonable doubts to be dealt with!
In regards to Matt 20:25-26, I think the verb that scholars base their interpretation on is the first one: κατακυριεύω which is translated either “lord it over” or “dominate” in the 9 standard translations I checked. The softest translation is in the KJV which has “exercise dominion over.” BDAG has these meanings for this word “1) to bring into subjection, become master, gain dominion over, subdue; 2) to have mastery, be master, lord it (over), rule.” It seems that this first words helps us understand the meaning of the word you mentioned, the second one in the verse, which is less frequently used in the NT (κατεξουσιάζω). For the latter, BDAG notes that it may inherently have negative connotations: “exercise authority, perhaps tyrannize τινός over someone.” Therefore, I think Jesus’s point in this text is not that there should not be any good authority over one another in the Church, but that the authority must be expressed in a way different from Gentile domineering.
The NT has a lot to say about authority: elders are “shepherds” (1 Tim 3). Shepherds have authority over the sheep, which is why Jesus is referred to as the “over shepherd” (1 Pet 5). Good authority is very present in the biblical data when considering the Church: Timothy is to “command certain ones not to teach a different doctrine” (1 Tim); wives are to “submit to their husbands” (Eph 5); children are to “obey their parents” (5th commandment recited in Eph 5); the elders in Jerusalem made binding decisions regarding circumcision in Acts 15; the author to the Hebrews says, “Obey your leaders and submit to them—for they keep watch over your souls” (13:17). Many more references could be made. The Bible unequivocally teaches that good authority must be present in the Church.
Unfortunately, as you point out, this clear biblical teaching has been hijacked, as Glahn points out, by neo-platonic / Aristotelian conceptions of femininity as a deformed masculinity. That is, the Church took the good biblical teaching and assumed it meant that women were ontologically inferior. But, as Glahn must concede, there was always a minority report who held to true biblical femininity as not ontologically inferior, but just functionally distinct, as nature itself teaches.
Therefore, as you point out, the language of “serving” is a very good one when considering good, biblical authority. As a pastor, my primary role is to serve my flock. I must also lead them, but this leadership should be modeled after Jesus who was a servant-leader (e.g. washing the disciples’ feet). This does not negate leadership, but it refocuses it in a biblical frame rather than a Gentile one where leaders are permitted to “lord over” or “domineer” their people. Unfortunately, the Church has often failed that test and has indeed allowed—and even encouraged—leaders to lord, rather than serve.
I think you’re on the right track in the sense that leadership should look more collaborative than it does. But I do not think this means that ὑποτασσω and words like it do not mean “submit.” We submit to God everyday but it is a beautiful, even collaborative thing! The Church must do the same.
Grace and peace to you my ontologically equivalent and spiritually superior sister in Christ!
Rob
Let's Discuss
We love your comments! Thank you for helping us uphold the Community Guidelines to make this an encouraging and respectful community for everyone.