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!
Indeed, may the Lord give you peace and fresh vistas of His love, Bonny. I totally understand and don't expect you to feel the need to defend your pastorate here. This is just an opportunity for those interested to discuss this important question. May the Lord bless you and your family. I pray the Lord gives you His comfort in this extremely difficult time.
Thank you so much for this comment, Kathy! I really appreciated the historical context regarding the 1960/70s WIO debate. Indeed, women are just as gifted and important to the church as men!
I wonder, however, if it's true that we need women in leadership to avoid abuse. That seems to me to paint male leadership in a demeaning light, as if men can't but be abusive without women by their side. What about single men? Churches where women aren't available to lead? Are they doomed to be abusive? This is my response to your statement: "The lack of women in any leadership positions was named as an important part of what prevents abuse from being taken seriously. My experience in Safe Church work confirms the importance of having both women and men in leadership positions to deal effectively with abuse within church communities."
To your third point, it sounds like you're saying complementarianism is unjust toward women. Is that correct? Perhaps I misunderstood your third point. But if that is what you meant, again, I find that demeaning to God-honoring people—both men and women (like John Piper and Jackie Hill Perry)—who are complementarian. In my experience, complementarianism is very just toward women because it honors the roles God has given them (raising children, teaching women and children, and serving the church in non-teaching roles, etc. etc.).
Finally and most importantly, though you raise excellent pragmatic arguments for your position, I think pragmatic arguments are always secondary to Scripture. If God says, "Don't do it," but we think "doing it" is better for us, that doesn't excuse not following Scripture. Hence, the main topic of this post is hermeneutical, not pragmatic. As an example, your argument that the fruit of women in office is good fruit is the exact same argument proponents of same-sex marriage use. They say same-sex marriage is good for the church, so we should do it. But again, the argument is about what God says, not what we think it best for us.
Thanks again for engaging and may the Lord bless you as you serve His church.
Hetty, I know this can be frustrating for some. I regret that it is. My prayer is that we all settle into the roles God has given us and we flourish under His will which is always best for us. Also, though I'm not among them unfortunately, I know many men who are just as empathetic and caring as women! For example—Jesus! But, I don't know any men who can bear a child. That is a God-given task only women who are called to do it can fulfill.
Hetty, I understand that frustration. Also, I'm not saying you should have a baby. I'm saying the roles of men and women in the church are different. Though we disagree over the extent of the difference, biology requires you to agree that there are some things essential to the church that men cannot do, like have babies (no babies, no more church militant). To that extent, we have some agreement. Of course, this assumes you agree that only women can have babies.
Kathy, I apologize for misunderstanding you. I thought you indicated men are incapable of preventing or acknowledging abuse. But now I understand your point is that it is easier to acknowledge abuse when women are present to receive reports. I agree with that! But, remember, women don't need to be pastors to be on staff or serve as volunteers as abuse of power reporters, etc. Also, male pastors can improve in the way they present themselves so that women will feel more comfortable reporting abuse to them. Though this may be difficult in some contexts, it is the biblical standard (abuse was reported to the apostles, cf 1 Cor 5) that make pastors should strive for.
I'm grateful for your work in understanding and ostensibly contributing to the work of ensuring justice for women. It is sorely needed and a God-honoring pursuit. Again, however, I don't think women need to be ordained for this to occur.
To your third point, I agree the CRCNA wasn't motivated by feminism in the 1960s and following. However, one question I have is why it just so happens that the Church never really thought about women in office until 1960s feminism. Do you attribute that to coincidence?
Finally, what about what the Bible says? To repeat an above post, Though you raise excellent pragmatic arguments for your position, I think pragmatic arguments are always secondary to Scripture. If God says, "Don't do it," but we think "doing it" is better for us, that doesn't excuse not following Scripture. Hence, the main topic of this post is hermeneutical, not pragmatic. As an example, your argument that the fruit of women in office is good fruit is the exact same argument proponents of same-sex marriage use. They say same-sex marriage is good for the church, so we should do it. But again, the argument is about what God says, not what we think it best for us. If a Christian is convinced that the Bible prohibits the ordination of women, do you think the pragmatic argument you make (i.e. look at the fruit) should outweigh the scriptural argument? What would you say to someone (like me) in that position?
I’ll try to focus on some highlights and respond where I have the most pressing question, or think a response would be most suitable to all the wonderful comments you’ve provided. In regards to this post, two things stand out.
First, you said, “I believe tradition of man/elders has elevated authority, power, titles, hierarchy, degrees, institutions at the expense of the Spirit & ALL the gifts especially prophecy (for both men & women), at the expense of the one another commands/principle, at the expense of the priesthood of all believers, at the expense of Jesus saying we (men & women) are not to "lord it over"/exercise authority over in the Body of Christ.”
To which I mostly agree! I think the Church, whatever the gender of the officer, has the unfortunate capacity to stifle the work of the body. I’ve also noticed that much of this stifling is bottom-up. That is, many people are content just being spectators and not, to use John Wimber’s phrase, “doing the stuff.” But, our difference lies here: I think the solution to this problem is a proper understanding of the priesthood of all believers. I think the CRC has endorsed a “dominee” understanding of pastors as if they are the only people allowed to pray, speak about the gospel, or teach. This is unfortunate and unbiblical. From my perspective, women should be empowered to teach women and children, share the gospel, pray for everyone in person or when absent, publicly share what God is doing in their lives, and yes, even share a prophetic word in submission to the elders if the woman (or man!) feels led. In sum, yes there’s stifling but I think the solution is in broadening our understanding of what lay Christians can do, not broadening our understanding of the pastorate. Ironically, from my perspective, the latter merely continues the unhelpful trend of intimating that only pastors, whether male or female, “can do the stuff.”
Second, you say, “Rob mentions that being pragmatic is secondary to God's word... I was thinking about this & I had to laugh... God forming Eve from Adam is very pragmatic! the only time God said "it is not good..." during creation is after Adam was created, when Adam was alone... the only time God said "very good" is after He created Eve! Problem solved! We are mandated to steward/rule over creation together, not over each other!”
I think your point here is that God is pragmatic? I’m not quite sure what you were intending with the reference to God creating Adam and Eve as it relates to the question at hand. Perhaps you could flesh that out a bit?
On the other hand, I noticed that your dichotomy in the last sentence is this: we either rule together or over each other (“We are mandated to steward/rule over creation together, not over each other!”). Unfortunately, this is a caricature of complementarianism that I hear often. A CRC pastor recently told me the linchpin in his becoming an egalitarian was his belief that Genesis teaches men are women are equal. I said I wholeheartedly agree!
No complementarian believes men and women aren’t equal in their inherent value, or that men should “rule over” women. Rather, complementarians believe that women should willingly submit to the delegated male authority of the church. If women reject this leadership, they are free to do so. The picture is of willing submission and loving leadership, not unwilling submission and ruling over. Furthermore, **women do participate in the creation mandate to rule creation.** We are all prophets, priests, and kings. Women rule over creation with men, but they do not lead men, according to the comp. view. This is analogous to our position with God—we rule over creation as we follow God. For women in the church, it’s the same relationship. Hence, Paul says, “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman…” (1 Cor 11:3).
Hi Kathy, thanks for your response and patience (despite not being given a choice on my tardiness...)
Thanks for clarifying regarding pragmatics. But, I think there is often a divide between pragmatics and the Bible. Not always, but there is often. For example, do we search the scriptures to shape our worship? Or, do we shape our worship based on what we think will gain the most people? One is a pragmatic option that many take, and the other more biblical. Of course, the pragmatists will use the Bible. But the question is whether the Bible is the sole rule of life and faith, or if it is a contributing factor to other pragmatic considerations. That is the huge burden on my heart in this discussion. I'm not saying you do this, but I do get the sense that some enter this discussion—from whatever side—and look to practical considerations as if they held as much sway as Scripture.
That said, I share your desire to see the church lead in justice. Obviously, we have different views on what that justice is. For you, it's equal roles of women. To me, that isn't justice but is rather a modern invention that the Bible refutes all the while supporting equal status of males and females. So, that's probably part of the reason why the Church hasn't lead here—we can't figure out what we want to lead!
Thank you for this wealth of information! I'll try to respond to it more fully later. As I've been promoted to research regarding "authority" in 1 Tim 2:12 (as you mentioned above) I found something really helpful that you might like to see. I don't know if you've heard of Mike Winger, but he's a strong Christian who I've met. He has an 11 hour YT video on this topic (yikes!). But, it has chapters in it and there is a very helpful section on "authority." The most important thing to keep in mind, I think, is what the word meant when Paul wrote it. We see words changing meaning before our eyes in the digital word (see this article for 24 examples: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/10/15/24-words-that-mean-totally-different-things-now-than-they-did-pre-internet/). The same happened more slowly in Paul's day, as always. So, "authority" had a negative connotation at one time, but what was the meaning at Paul's time?
That's the key question addressed here: https://youtu.be/GvLqRpGCayA?si=1XI63M2IeWyvWSh8&t=13004
Sorry for the delay, Bev. You certainly are a wealth of information! Unfortunately, I don’t have time to respond to everything you wrote. Thus, I’ve selected some key points and responded in kind here. Thank you for your though provoking insights!
Are both words positive? This is unlikely since there are no good examples of authentein in a purely negative sense at the time of Paul. However, even if they are both positive, Paul would only limit women from teaching in a domineering way, but he should do so for the men especially. Which leads to the next point:
You say Paul’s switch from women (pl) to woman (sing) is significant, but I don’t see how. The only way that would be significant in my mind is if he had a specific woman in mind but then his prohibition would leave domineering teaching open to the other women. Furthermore, if Paul meant he was only speaking about a single woman, we would expect a definite object marker like “that” (ekei; εκει). Also, Paul could have just as easily said, "I don't permit a woman (sing) or a man (sing) to..." What if this community just had female teachers? That would be strange since Paul was writing to Timothy as their leader (a man) and gave other instructions to male leaders (1 Tim 3).
This is my own point (not a response): Does not “in all submission” (v. 11) provide the opposite of “authentein”? Whether authentein means “domineer” or “have authority” Paul makes clear what he does want—submission. A woman cannot reasonably teach and have good authority while remaining in submission to the men that she has authority over.
Murder? As with the prohibition to domineer and teach doctrine based on heresy, Paul would not need to specify, “I don’t permit women to murder men” or “I do not permit women to rule in a sinful way and teach heresy.” These things are obvious. Paul was a busy man. He didn’t need to state the obvious. “Murder” being mentioned earlier in the letter doesn’t mean that’s what Paul was talking about here any more than my mention of singular and plural in the second paragraph above means I’m referring to singular and plural now. Mentioning something earlier doesn’t mean what is currently being written has the same theme as a topic.
Why did Paul / the HS choose such a rare word? Great question! But, I do not think this question is sufficient to overthrow the basic sense of the text. There are many hapax legomenae in the NT yet we never allow these to overthrow our interpretation if the general sense is clear. In this case, Paul’s positive exhortation (to submit) and his grounding it in creation (Adam and Eve) make for a clear passage. Even if we had much more evidence that authentein was used in a negative way in Paul’s day, it would still be difficult to overturn the basic sense of the text since these other aspects are clear (“Adam and Eve” “submit”).
So, I do agree this is a strange word. But, it would need to be convincingly negative for me to change my view. As I see it, there is a 80/20% chance it means “authority” / “domineer” respectively. I would need to know it meant “domineer” at least 99% if not 100% to change my mind, since the rest of the passage and Bible seem to clearly to accord with the traditional interpretation, not to mention—very importantly—the fact that reversing our interpretation would require that the church misunderstood not only this verse but it’s ecclesiology for ~2000 years. That is to say, reversing the Church's 2000 year old teaching would need a very solid argument that authentien is negative, but the argument is tenuous, as you point out. Furthermore, even if authentien was certainly negative, Paul could still prohibit women from teaching in a positive sense as well. E.g. "The women shouldn't be in authority at all. But, they're even domineering. I don't permit such domineering!" The third sentence obviously doesn't preclude the first.
Thank you for this article! Among the things mentioned, we can also be workers in the harvest, seeking to call people to repent and believe in Jesus. That is the core mission of RGM, the CRCNA, and the Church! The time of waiting we are in is for the purpose of bringing God's elect into His Kingdom.
“Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now commanding men that everyone everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He determined, having furnished proof to all by raising Him from the dead.”” (Acts 17:30–31, LSB)
Posted in: A Christian Discussion on Women in Office
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
Posted in: A Christian Discussion on Women in Office
Indeed, may the Lord give you peace and fresh vistas of His love, Bonny. I totally understand and don't expect you to feel the need to defend your pastorate here. This is just an opportunity for those interested to discuss this important question. May the Lord bless you and your family. I pray the Lord gives you His comfort in this extremely difficult time.
Posted in: A Christian Discussion on Women in Office
Thank you Bev for this and the other comments! What I've read so far is very interesting and thought-provoking. I hope to respond soon!
Posted in: A Christian Discussion on Women in Office
Thank you so much for this comment, Kathy! I really appreciated the historical context regarding the 1960/70s WIO debate. Indeed, women are just as gifted and important to the church as men!
I wonder, however, if it's true that we need women in leadership to avoid abuse. That seems to me to paint male leadership in a demeaning light, as if men can't but be abusive without women by their side. What about single men? Churches where women aren't available to lead? Are they doomed to be abusive? This is my response to your statement: "The lack of women in any leadership positions was named as an important part of what prevents abuse from being taken seriously. My experience in Safe Church work confirms the importance of having both women and men in leadership positions to deal effectively with abuse within church communities."
To your third point, it sounds like you're saying complementarianism is unjust toward women. Is that correct? Perhaps I misunderstood your third point. But if that is what you meant, again, I find that demeaning to God-honoring people—both men and women (like John Piper and Jackie Hill Perry)—who are complementarian. In my experience, complementarianism is very just toward women because it honors the roles God has given them (raising children, teaching women and children, and serving the church in non-teaching roles, etc. etc.).
Finally and most importantly, though you raise excellent pragmatic arguments for your position, I think pragmatic arguments are always secondary to Scripture. If God says, "Don't do it," but we think "doing it" is better for us, that doesn't excuse not following Scripture. Hence, the main topic of this post is hermeneutical, not pragmatic. As an example, your argument that the fruit of women in office is good fruit is the exact same argument proponents of same-sex marriage use. They say same-sex marriage is good for the church, so we should do it. But again, the argument is about what God says, not what we think it best for us.
Thanks again for engaging and may the Lord bless you as you serve His church.
Rob
Posted in: A Christian Discussion on Women in Office
Hetty, I know this can be frustrating for some. I regret that it is. My prayer is that we all settle into the roles God has given us and we flourish under His will which is always best for us. Also, though I'm not among them unfortunately, I know many men who are just as empathetic and caring as women! For example—Jesus! But, I don't know any men who can bear a child. That is a God-given task only women who are called to do it can fulfill.
Posted in: A Christian Discussion on Women in Office
Hetty, I understand that frustration. Also, I'm not saying you should have a baby. I'm saying the roles of men and women in the church are different. Though we disagree over the extent of the difference, biology requires you to agree that there are some things essential to the church that men cannot do, like have babies (no babies, no more church militant). To that extent, we have some agreement. Of course, this assumes you agree that only women can have babies.
Posted in: A Christian Discussion on Women in Office
Kathy, I apologize for misunderstanding you. I thought you indicated men are incapable of preventing or acknowledging abuse. But now I understand your point is that it is easier to acknowledge abuse when women are present to receive reports. I agree with that! But, remember, women don't need to be pastors to be on staff or serve as volunteers as abuse of power reporters, etc. Also, male pastors can improve in the way they present themselves so that women will feel more comfortable reporting abuse to them. Though this may be difficult in some contexts, it is the biblical standard (abuse was reported to the apostles, cf 1 Cor 5) that make pastors should strive for.
I'm grateful for your work in understanding and ostensibly contributing to the work of ensuring justice for women. It is sorely needed and a God-honoring pursuit. Again, however, I don't think women need to be ordained for this to occur.
To your third point, I agree the CRCNA wasn't motivated by feminism in the 1960s and following. However, one question I have is why it just so happens that the Church never really thought about women in office until 1960s feminism. Do you attribute that to coincidence?
Finally, what about what the Bible says? To repeat an above post, Though you raise excellent pragmatic arguments for your position, I think pragmatic arguments are always secondary to Scripture. If God says, "Don't do it," but we think "doing it" is better for us, that doesn't excuse not following Scripture. Hence, the main topic of this post is hermeneutical, not pragmatic. As an example, your argument that the fruit of women in office is good fruit is the exact same argument proponents of same-sex marriage use. They say same-sex marriage is good for the church, so we should do it. But again, the argument is about what God says, not what we think it best for us. If a Christian is convinced that the Bible prohibits the ordination of women, do you think the pragmatic argument you make (i.e. look at the fruit) should outweigh the scriptural argument? What would you say to someone (like me) in that position?
Posted in: A Christian Discussion on Women in Office
Dear Bev,
I’ll try to focus on some highlights and respond where I have the most pressing question, or think a response would be most suitable to all the wonderful comments you’ve provided. In regards to this post, two things stand out.
First, you said, “I believe tradition of man/elders has elevated authority, power, titles, hierarchy, degrees, institutions at the expense of the Spirit & ALL the gifts especially prophecy (for both men & women), at the expense of the one another commands/principle, at the expense of the priesthood of all believers, at the expense of Jesus saying we (men & women) are not to "lord it over"/exercise authority over in the Body of Christ.”
To which I mostly agree! I think the Church, whatever the gender of the officer, has the unfortunate capacity to stifle the work of the body. I’ve also noticed that much of this stifling is bottom-up. That is, many people are content just being spectators and not, to use John Wimber’s phrase, “doing the stuff.” But, our difference lies here: I think the solution to this problem is a proper understanding of the priesthood of all believers. I think the CRC has endorsed a “dominee” understanding of pastors as if they are the only people allowed to pray, speak about the gospel, or teach. This is unfortunate and unbiblical. From my perspective, women should be empowered to teach women and children, share the gospel, pray for everyone in person or when absent, publicly share what God is doing in their lives, and yes, even share a prophetic word in submission to the elders if the woman (or man!) feels led. In sum, yes there’s stifling but I think the solution is in broadening our understanding of what lay Christians can do, not broadening our understanding of the pastorate. Ironically, from my perspective, the latter merely continues the unhelpful trend of intimating that only pastors, whether male or female, “can do the stuff.”
Second, you say, “Rob mentions that being pragmatic is secondary to God's word... I was thinking about this & I had to laugh... God forming Eve from Adam is very pragmatic! the only time God said "it is not good..." during creation is after Adam was created, when Adam was alone... the only time God said "very good" is after He created Eve! Problem solved! We are mandated to steward/rule over creation together, not over each other!”
I think your point here is that God is pragmatic? I’m not quite sure what you were intending with the reference to God creating Adam and Eve as it relates to the question at hand. Perhaps you could flesh that out a bit?
On the other hand, I noticed that your dichotomy in the last sentence is this: we either rule together or over each other (“We are mandated to steward/rule over creation together, not over each other!”). Unfortunately, this is a caricature of complementarianism that I hear often. A CRC pastor recently told me the linchpin in his becoming an egalitarian was his belief that Genesis teaches men are women are equal. I said I wholeheartedly agree!
No complementarian believes men and women aren’t equal in their inherent value, or that men should “rule over” women. Rather, complementarians believe that women should willingly submit to the delegated male authority of the church. If women reject this leadership, they are free to do so. The picture is of willing submission and loving leadership, not unwilling submission and ruling over. Furthermore, **women do participate in the creation mandate to rule creation.** We are all prophets, priests, and kings. Women rule over creation with men, but they do not lead men, according to the comp. view. This is analogous to our position with God—we rule over creation as we follow God. For women in the church, it’s the same relationship. Hence, Paul says, “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman…” (1 Cor 11:3).
Posted in: A Christian Discussion on Women in Office
Hi Kathy, thanks for your response and patience (despite not being given a choice on my tardiness...)
Thanks for clarifying regarding pragmatics. But, I think there is often a divide between pragmatics and the Bible. Not always, but there is often. For example, do we search the scriptures to shape our worship? Or, do we shape our worship based on what we think will gain the most people? One is a pragmatic option that many take, and the other more biblical. Of course, the pragmatists will use the Bible. But the question is whether the Bible is the sole rule of life and faith, or if it is a contributing factor to other pragmatic considerations. That is the huge burden on my heart in this discussion. I'm not saying you do this, but I do get the sense that some enter this discussion—from whatever side—and look to practical considerations as if they held as much sway as Scripture.
That said, I share your desire to see the church lead in justice. Obviously, we have different views on what that justice is. For you, it's equal roles of women. To me, that isn't justice but is rather a modern invention that the Bible refutes all the while supporting equal status of males and females. So, that's probably part of the reason why the Church hasn't lead here—we can't figure out what we want to lead!
Peace to you,
Rob
Posted in: A Christian Discussion on Women in Office
Hi Bev,
Thank you for this wealth of information! I'll try to respond to it more fully later. As I've been promoted to research regarding "authority" in 1 Tim 2:12 (as you mentioned above) I found something really helpful that you might like to see. I don't know if you've heard of Mike Winger, but he's a strong Christian who I've met. He has an 11 hour YT video on this topic (yikes!). But, it has chapters in it and there is a very helpful section on "authority." The most important thing to keep in mind, I think, is what the word meant when Paul wrote it. We see words changing meaning before our eyes in the digital word (see this article for 24 examples: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/10/15/24-words-that-mean-totally-different-things-now-than-they-did-pre-internet/). The same happened more slowly in Paul's day, as always. So, "authority" had a negative connotation at one time, but what was the meaning at Paul's time?
That's the key question addressed here: https://youtu.be/GvLqRpGCayA?si=1XI63M2IeWyvWSh8&t=13004
Peace,
Rob
Posted in: A Christian Discussion on Women in Office
Sorry for the delay, Bev. You certainly are a wealth of information! Unfortunately, I don’t have time to respond to everything you wrote. Thus, I’ve selected some key points and responded in kind here. Thank you for your though provoking insights!
Are both words positive? This is unlikely since there are no good examples of authentein in a purely negative sense at the time of Paul. However, even if they are both positive, Paul would only limit women from teaching in a domineering way, but he should do so for the men especially. Which leads to the next point:
You say Paul’s switch from women (pl) to woman (sing) is significant, but I don’t see how. The only way that would be significant in my mind is if he had a specific woman in mind but then his prohibition would leave domineering teaching open to the other women. Furthermore, if Paul meant he was only speaking about a single woman, we would expect a definite object marker like “that” (ekei; εκει). Also, Paul could have just as easily said, "I don't permit a woman (sing) or a man (sing) to..." What if this community just had female teachers? That would be strange since Paul was writing to Timothy as their leader (a man) and gave other instructions to male leaders (1 Tim 3).
This is my own point (not a response): Does not “in all submission” (v. 11) provide the opposite of “authentein”? Whether authentein means “domineer” or “have authority” Paul makes clear what he does want—submission. A woman cannot reasonably teach and have good authority while remaining in submission to the men that she has authority over.
Murder? As with the prohibition to domineer and teach doctrine based on heresy, Paul would not need to specify, “I don’t permit women to murder men” or “I do not permit women to rule in a sinful way and teach heresy.” These things are obvious. Paul was a busy man. He didn’t need to state the obvious. “Murder” being mentioned earlier in the letter doesn’t mean that’s what Paul was talking about here any more than my mention of singular and plural in the second paragraph above means I’m referring to singular and plural now. Mentioning something earlier doesn’t mean what is currently being written has the same theme as a topic.
Why did Paul / the HS choose such a rare word? Great question! But, I do not think this question is sufficient to overthrow the basic sense of the text. There are many hapax legomenae in the NT yet we never allow these to overthrow our interpretation if the general sense is clear. In this case, Paul’s positive exhortation (to submit) and his grounding it in creation (Adam and Eve) make for a clear passage. Even if we had much more evidence that authentein was used in a negative way in Paul’s day, it would still be difficult to overturn the basic sense of the text since these other aspects are clear (“Adam and Eve” “submit”).
So, I do agree this is a strange word. But, it would need to be convincingly negative for me to change my view. As I see it, there is a 80/20% chance it means “authority” / “domineer” respectively. I would need to know it meant “domineer” at least 99% if not 100% to change my mind, since the rest of the passage and Bible seem to clearly to accord with the traditional interpretation, not to mention—very importantly—the fact that reversing our interpretation would require that the church misunderstood not only this verse but it’s ecclesiology for ~2000 years. That is to say, reversing the Church's 2000 year old teaching would need a very solid argument that authentien is negative, but the argument is tenuous, as you point out. Furthermore, even if authentien was certainly negative, Paul could still prohibit women from teaching in a positive sense as well. E.g. "The women shouldn't be in authority at all. But, they're even domineering. I don't permit such domineering!" The third sentence obviously doesn't preclude the first.
Posted in: Is Christmas the Appetizer?
Thank you for this article! Among the things mentioned, we can also be workers in the harvest, seeking to call people to repent and believe in Jesus. That is the core mission of RGM, the CRCNA, and the Church! The time of waiting we are in is for the purpose of bringing God's elect into His Kingdom.
“Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now commanding men that everyone everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He determined, having furnished proof to all by raising Him from the dead.”” (Acts 17:30–31, LSB)