Thanks for posting this thought provoking piece. When we dig into the cultural context of Ephesus it seems there are two options: 1) Paul is giving instructions to Timothy that are time bound and only apply in 1st century Ephesus. Or: 2) Paul is giving instructions to Timothy that are timeless - because they apply to the 1st century context of Ephesus. It seems to me that those who highlight the 1st century context assume that the context must mean option 1. But that necessitates an unspoken presupposition that it couldn't possibly be option 2. Which would also mean God left his church without clarity on something as significant as his will for women in the church for thousands of years until the cultural context could be unearthed. This also leaves us in the awkward position of saying Paul's admonition only meant that to them, then. A hermeneutical move I find difficult to square with the way the church has historically read Paul.
Additionally, when it comes to the definition of authentien, the scholarship is controversial to say the least. As you probably know Andreas Kostenberger makes a compelling case that in this context it means “to have authority” or “to exercise authority” in a neutral or positive sense. Regardless, one cannot avoid the fact that Paul is not permitting women to do something - and that something is grounded in creation order (vv.13-14).
This is why I remain unconvinced of the egalitarian position. While your questions are thought provoking, the mountain of exegetical evidence seems too much to overcome the plain reading of the text, especially given that Paul grounds this text in creation order.
I do want to leave you (and whoever else may read this) with a question that I think is at least worth considering. Could it be that this passage is not a burden to be explained away but a gift to be received? Maybe this is God's good and wise plan for His church? Maybe He's inviting us to trust Him to step out in faith?
I imagine the evidence you're referring to is along the lines of what is mentioned in this article. At the end of the day this evidence only proves my point that egalitarians assume this evidence must mean Paul is addressing a local issue with time-bound instructions rather than a local issue with time-less instructions. Cultural context is helpful when it brings out the meaning of the text. For example, the hot springs that become lukewarm by the time they arrive in Laodicea (Rev. 3:14-22).
When cultural context upends the clear meaning of the text it sows seeds of confusion, reduces confidence in God's Word, and creates a lack of confidence in the laity (how could I possibly understand God's word if I need all this education and scholarship to be able to understand it). I do believe your heart is to honor God but pray that you can see how this way of treating Scripture produces exactly the kind of deception Paul warns about in 1 Tim. 2:14.
This passage clearly shows Paul is providing universal truths to address whatever local problems there are. His instructions are to be applied "in every place" (2:8). He grounds his instructions in creation order (v13) and the consequences of what happens when creation order is upended (v.14). These instructions are so Timothy and the church in Ephesus will know, "how one ought to behave in the household of God" (v.3:14).
While I share the desire for women to flourish within God's design, I would beg you to reconsider your presuppositions and heed the simple teaching of God's Word. Paul calls women to persevere in faith, love, holiness, and self-control, trusting God’s good and wise ordering (1 Tim. 2:15).
Thanks, Lloyd. While I do believe a distinction can be made between principle (reverent prayers in worship) and cultural practice (raising hands), if there is a question, I would much rather raise hands in worship than subvert Paul's clear prohibition against women teaching or exercising authority in this passage. I respect your conviction in this matter. In the same vein, I would advocate literal head coverings before I would upend creation order. That being said, in 1 Tim. 2, once Paul gets to men/women in the church, the principle (women ought not to teach/exercise authority over men) is the practice (women ought not to teach/exercise authority over men). Thus, we are dealing apples and oranges.
Is baptism really so insignificant of a doctrine that we should not expect our officebearers to uphold our position on it? I think we all agree that baptists are Christians, but there are significant differences that have implications on soteriology, sanctification, and especially our theology of covenant. The catechism spends three whole Lord's Days on baptism. That's a lot of volume for a doctrine that doesn't matter when deciding who is qualified to lead our churches. We don't just disagree with baptists about who, how and when to baptize someone, we disagree with them about what baptism is.
One of the qualifications of an Elder is that, "He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it" (Titus 1:9). This means we're not looking for someone who is simply wise and pastoral, although those qualifications are essential as well. It seems to me that rather than lowering the bar when it comes to theological knowledge and conviction, this verse from Titus requires us to raise the bar.
And let's be honest about the dynamics here. Even conservatives are tempted to allow the Reformed Baptist into our councils because we don't doubt that person's faith whereas, conservatives draw the line when it comes to affirming same sex marriage because that is considered a "salvation issue". The potential "Reformed Baptist" is the token conservative weak spot. If we compromise on that one, then we have no way of guarding any other doctrine. There are only two ways to move forward. One would be to stand our ground against the baptist serving. The other would be to change our theology, which would be impossible given that infant baptism is built in to the fabric of our theological system.
As someone who served on Committee 8 and Committee 9 in 2023 and 2024, I can say plainly that this came up early and often in our conversations. We worded our synodical report precisely the way we did so as to encourage raising up officebearers who would affirm our theology (including our theology of baptism). At the end of the day I know our intentions better less than what is meant by the words we did use. But our intention was clear: every officebearer in the CRC should wholeheartedly agree with the confessional theology we profess, baptism included.
I am also grateful for the clarity. I think the reason the "middle ground" is shrinking is because it's not really possible to have a middle ground on the issue of SSM. I would liken it to not being sure whether to get on the Ark or not. This is why, even though the issue of baptism is similar procedurally, it's not really similar ethically. Either same sex marriage is an ethical good or it is damnable evil. Someone either needs to be assured and comforted in their chosen identity or taught to put to death their evil desires.
And even if we grant that it's possible to be genuinely not sure. In my mind, someone who is not sure on a subject that carries such gravity with respect to how we read and understand the Bible and how we minister to people who experience same sex attraction, should not be in a leadership position. Leaders need knowledge and conviction. I think Joel's framework (i.e. there being tension between intellectual assent and emotional reservations) could work with baptism but I struggle to see how that framework could work with SSM. One could navigate being an Elder in a paedobaptist church with some slight emotional hesitation on that doctrine. There would rarely if ever be a pastoral conflict. But it would be impossible to do so with any hesitation on SSM. People who experience same sex attraction need to know "thus saith the Lord". There mental health and biggest life choices hang in the balance.
Posted in: Getting the Whole Picture: Women and Ministry in 1 Timothy
Hi Bev,
Thanks for posting this thought provoking piece. When we dig into the cultural context of Ephesus it seems there are two options: 1) Paul is giving instructions to Timothy that are time bound and only apply in 1st century Ephesus. Or: 2) Paul is giving instructions to Timothy that are timeless - because they apply to the 1st century context of Ephesus. It seems to me that those who highlight the 1st century context assume that the context must mean option 1. But that necessitates an unspoken presupposition that it couldn't possibly be option 2. Which would also mean God left his church without clarity on something as significant as his will for women in the church for thousands of years until the cultural context could be unearthed. This also leaves us in the awkward position of saying Paul's admonition only meant that to them, then. A hermeneutical move I find difficult to square with the way the church has historically read Paul.
Additionally, when it comes to the definition of authentien, the scholarship is controversial to say the least. As you probably know Andreas Kostenberger makes a compelling case that in this context it means “to have authority” or “to exercise authority” in a neutral or positive sense. Regardless, one cannot avoid the fact that Paul is not permitting women to do something - and that something is grounded in creation order (vv.13-14).
This is why I remain unconvinced of the egalitarian position. While your questions are thought provoking, the mountain of exegetical evidence seems too much to overcome the plain reading of the text, especially given that Paul grounds this text in creation order.
I do want to leave you (and whoever else may read this) with a question that I think is at least worth considering. Could it be that this passage is not a burden to be explained away but a gift to be received? Maybe this is God's good and wise plan for His church? Maybe He's inviting us to trust Him to step out in faith?
Thanks for posting. Blessings.
Posted in: Getting the Whole Picture: Women and Ministry in 1 Timothy
Dear Bev,
I imagine the evidence you're referring to is along the lines of what is mentioned in this article. At the end of the day this evidence only proves my point that egalitarians assume this evidence must mean Paul is addressing a local issue with time-bound instructions rather than a local issue with time-less instructions. Cultural context is helpful when it brings out the meaning of the text. For example, the hot springs that become lukewarm by the time they arrive in Laodicea (Rev. 3:14-22).
When cultural context upends the clear meaning of the text it sows seeds of confusion, reduces confidence in God's Word, and creates a lack of confidence in the laity (how could I possibly understand God's word if I need all this education and scholarship to be able to understand it). I do believe your heart is to honor God but pray that you can see how this way of treating Scripture produces exactly the kind of deception Paul warns about in 1 Tim. 2:14.
This passage clearly shows Paul is providing universal truths to address whatever local problems there are. His instructions are to be applied "in every place" (2:8). He grounds his instructions in creation order (v13) and the consequences of what happens when creation order is upended (v.14). These instructions are so Timothy and the church in Ephesus will know, "how one ought to behave in the household of God" (v.3:14).
While I share the desire for women to flourish within God's design, I would beg you to reconsider your presuppositions and heed the simple teaching of God's Word. Paul calls women to persevere in faith, love, holiness, and self-control, trusting God’s good and wise ordering (1 Tim. 2:15).
In Christ,
Patrick Anthony
.
Posted in: Getting the Whole Picture: Women and Ministry in 1 Timothy
Thanks, Lloyd. While I do believe a distinction can be made between principle (reverent prayers in worship) and cultural practice (raising hands), if there is a question, I would much rather raise hands in worship than subvert Paul's clear prohibition against women teaching or exercising authority in this passage. I respect your conviction in this matter. In the same vein, I would advocate literal head coverings before I would upend creation order. That being said, in 1 Tim. 2, once Paul gets to men/women in the church, the principle (women ought not to teach/exercise authority over men) is the practice (women ought not to teach/exercise authority over men). Thus, we are dealing apples and oranges.
Posted in: Guidance on "Affirming the Confessions"
Hey Paul,
Is baptism really so insignificant of a doctrine that we should not expect our officebearers to uphold our position on it? I think we all agree that baptists are Christians, but there are significant differences that have implications on soteriology, sanctification, and especially our theology of covenant. The catechism spends three whole Lord's Days on baptism. That's a lot of volume for a doctrine that doesn't matter when deciding who is qualified to lead our churches. We don't just disagree with baptists about who, how and when to baptize someone, we disagree with them about what baptism is.
One of the qualifications of an Elder is that, "He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it" (Titus 1:9). This means we're not looking for someone who is simply wise and pastoral, although those qualifications are essential as well. It seems to me that rather than lowering the bar when it comes to theological knowledge and conviction, this verse from Titus requires us to raise the bar.
And let's be honest about the dynamics here. Even conservatives are tempted to allow the Reformed Baptist into our councils because we don't doubt that person's faith whereas, conservatives draw the line when it comes to affirming same sex marriage because that is considered a "salvation issue". The potential "Reformed Baptist" is the token conservative weak spot. If we compromise on that one, then we have no way of guarding any other doctrine. There are only two ways to move forward. One would be to stand our ground against the baptist serving. The other would be to change our theology, which would be impossible given that infant baptism is built in to the fabric of our theological system.
As someone who served on Committee 8 and Committee 9 in 2023 and 2024, I can say plainly that this came up early and often in our conversations. We worded our synodical report precisely the way we did so as to encourage raising up officebearers who would affirm our theology (including our theology of baptism). At the end of the day I know our intentions better less than what is meant by the words we did use. But our intention was clear: every officebearer in the CRC should wholeheartedly agree with the confessional theology we profess, baptism included.
Rev. Patrick Anthony
Posted in: Guidance on "Affirming the Confessions"
Hey Paul,
I am also grateful for the clarity. I think the reason the "middle ground" is shrinking is because it's not really possible to have a middle ground on the issue of SSM. I would liken it to not being sure whether to get on the Ark or not. This is why, even though the issue of baptism is similar procedurally, it's not really similar ethically. Either same sex marriage is an ethical good or it is damnable evil. Someone either needs to be assured and comforted in their chosen identity or taught to put to death their evil desires.
And even if we grant that it's possible to be genuinely not sure. In my mind, someone who is not sure on a subject that carries such gravity with respect to how we read and understand the Bible and how we minister to people who experience same sex attraction, should not be in a leadership position. Leaders need knowledge and conviction. I think Joel's framework (i.e. there being tension between intellectual assent and emotional reservations) could work with baptism but I struggle to see how that framework could work with SSM. One could navigate being an Elder in a paedobaptist church with some slight emotional hesitation on that doctrine. There would rarely if ever be a pastoral conflict. But it would be impossible to do so with any hesitation on SSM. People who experience same sex attraction need to know "thus saith the Lord". There mental health and biggest life choices hang in the balance.
Posted in: Using Only 3 Words, How Do You Currently Feel About Church?
Bride of Christ.