Now Concerning a Woman's Role in the Church. Part 1

Dear Sister,

Thank you for your gracious letter. You've asked an excellent question. You wanted to know my view on a woman's role in the church and how I understand the "limiting passages" that seem to restrict their functioning. I have been asked this question so many times I've lost count.

To be honest, I'm monumentally disinterested in adding more noise to the ill-fated gender brawl that rages in some Christian circles. It is for this reason that I've been loathe to write on the subject. Yet I keep meeting women who have been spiritually straight-jacketed by what I find to be a wooden interpretation of certain Biblical texts. Their stories have provoked me to tread on this hazardous minefield. And for their sake, as well as for the sake of all my beloved sisters in Christ, I regret not having done so sooner.

---

With that said, I'm now ready to have my ears singed with the hand-wringing, nitpicking, nailbiting, and tooth-gnashing that may be generated by my response.

So let this letter forever settle the whole controversy. Here, dear sister, is the answer to your question. Here is the final word on the subject:

According to Paul, under no condition and under no circumstance may a woman speak in a church meeting. She must never, ever, under any situation, say a word in the church. She must without exception keep absolutely, totally, and completely silent.

Unless . . .

she has her head covered!

Are you clear now?

I trust you are laughing, for I was being facetious. Yet I was also trying to make a point. The fact is that Paul seems to contradict himself on this subject. The so-called "limiting passages" are incredibly difficult to interpret. Given their obscurity, no one can be dogmatic as to what Paul really meant when he penned them. This being so, every interpretation that has been given to these texts has shortcomings. And I will shamelessly admit that this applies to my own.

For the sake of those reading this letter, the "limiting passages" are those texts that seem to put some restriction on a woman's ministry in the church. Interestingly, there are only two such passages in all the New Testament. They are:

1 Corinthians 14:34-35:

Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law also says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in the church (NASB).

1 Timothy 2:11-14

Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and become a transgressor (NRSV).

Before we explore these two passages, let me explain how I arrived at my conclusions.

The Entire Thrust of the New Covenant

Long ago I learned an invaluable lesson: The New Testament should never be handled as a manual of floatable doctrines and isolated teachings. The New Testament is a whole. It is essentially a story. What is written in the letters of Paul and others is part of that story.

The story contains a consistent message. It's the message of the New Covenant. This covenant is not an updating of the Old Covenant. It doesn't include a new set of rules to replace the old set of rules.

The Old Covenant contained a set of rules by which men and women were to live. It also drew sharp distinctions between people-granting special privileges to certain ones. Some were worthy to be God's people (Jews). Others were not (Gentiles). Among those worthy, some were given the honor of being nearest to God (the priests). Others were not (the people). Some were given special ministerial functions (the priests). Others were given smaller functions (the Levites). Still others were given virtually no function at all (the congregation).

When Jesus Christ entered the scene, things radically changed. Our Lord inaugurated a New Covenant which made the old one obsolete. The New Covenant did away with rules. It did away with earthly distinctions. It abolished special classes of people who possessed special privileges.

Under the New Covenant, the Law of God is written on the human heart in the Person of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit has come to indwell all who call upon the Savior-including men and women. Including Jew and Gentile. Including slaves and non-slaves.

All earthly distinctions are abolished by the New Covenant. All ministerial classes are wiped out. To possess the Spirit means to have access to God-no one excluded.

But more, possessing the Spirit means being granted the privilege to minister in God's house. As Joel prophesied, "I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh . . . and your sons [men] and your daughters [women] shall prophesy . . . and upon the servants [male slaves] and upon the handmaidens [female slaves] in those days will I pour out my Spirit (Joel 2:28-29; Acts 2:17-18).

Galatians 3:28 sums up the New Covenant nicely: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." This passage summarizes Paul's understanding of the effect of the gospel on cultural givens like racism, slavery, and gender oppression. This passage is not constricted to "salvation." Instead, it holds social implications for everyone. The New Covenant erases all social and class distinctions. And it has afforded all to receive the Spirit and serve as priests in God's house. That includes women.

With that said, whatever the "limiting passages" mean, they cannot in any way overturn the New Covenant. Neither can they contradict the entire thrust of the New Testament. Hence, the idea that women are excluded from speaking in God's house is a catastrophic breach of the New Covenant. A covenant that has done away with earthly distinctions and treats both men and women as co-priests in God's kingdom.

The Invisible Interpreter

Another lesson I learned in my spiritual journey has to do with the reality of the Holy Spirit. I'm a firm believer in the intuitive work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer. I also hold squarely to the organic nature of the Body of Christ.

The indwelling Spirit gives every believer Divine instincts and impulses that are just as real as our physical senses. Because the Spirit and the Scripture are born out of Divine inspiration, the leading of the Spirit will never contradict the Scripture. Nor will the Scripture contradict the instincts of the Spirit.

With that said, on a purely subjective level, all my spiritual instincts tell me that God wants women to function in the meetings of the church.

I have observed house church meetings and small group fellowships where the women were muzzled. They were prohibited from uttering a word. Only the men spoke. As I sat in those gatherings, everything inside me intuitively knew this was amiss. There was something shamefully artificial about it all. Especially when there were women in the same room who were richer in spiritual life than many of the men. But they were vetoed from speaking simply because they were women.

This practice, to my mind, violates an important spiritual principle. Everything in the Lord's house is governed by "the measure of Christ" (Eph. 4:13). Yet these meetings were governed by external restrictions which produced spiritual limitation. When women who have much to offer in the way of spiritual supply are restricted from speaking in the gathering, the church suffers for it.

I'll articulate the clear impressions I had in those meetings as I watched the men ramble on while the sisters passively spectated: Half the priesthood of God is being smothered and squelched. The sisters are banned from speaking simply because the brothers have intellectually interpreted the Bible to mean that they should. It seems they are blithely ignoring what their spiritual instincts are telling them about the practical fruit of this interpretation. This meeting is grossly lacking in spiritual richness. It reminds me of the so-called "real world" in the movie "The Matrix"-cold, colorless, and tasteless.

Muting the sisters is a good recipe for producing sterile meetings.

When I stepped back from that experience of watching the sisters sit in their seats dumbly, I had to ask myself a telling question: "What clear message is sent by silencing the sisters in the church meetings? Supposing that God originated this idea, what message is He conveying through such a mandate?" The answer is as arresting as it is alarming. The undeniable message is that men cannot learn anything from women. Nor can they be ministered to spiritually by a woman.

Please ponder that for a moment.

If every brother were honest with himself, he would be forced to admit that such a thought is absurd. It is also a poor fit with real life. My own observation is that those who hold to the idea that women must be silent in the church "because the Bible says so" are doing something that's quite plastic. I mean, what man in his right mind (provided he has a normal IQ) really believes he can't learn spiritual things from a woman? Such a belief strains the bounds of credulity until they break.

In my own experience, some of the most wonderful insights shared in church meetings have come from the lips of women. Their contributions have been profoundly rich and meaningful. The women also bring an element in their sharing that the men do not. It's the fragrance of Jesus Christ. Interestingly, throughout Scripture, when the aroma of the Lord is mentioned, women are always involved (Psalm 45:7-9; Luke 23:55-24:1; John 12:3). Women have a unique way of emitting the fragrance of Christ's life to others.

Therefore, I argue that the practice of silencing woman in a meeting is something outwardly imposed rather than the natural expression of authentic Body life.

What Would Happen If . . . ?

Imagine for a moment that the two "limiting texts" didn't appear in the New Testament. What would be the practice of those churches that don't allow their women to speak in the meetings? What would the women prefer to do?

Such an acute question . . . if it can be answered . . . is profoundly insightful. If the group would allow the sisters to speak in their gatherings, then one must question if the practice of silencing them contradicts the natural life of the Spirit.

To my mind, it does.

Interestingly, some of the men who hold to the "women-must-be-silent" doctrine have admitted to me that they are puzzled as to why God asks for such a thing. Some of them have highly lauded the contributions of their wives in spiritual matters . . . only to express confusion as to why they cannot share such contributions in public gatherings.

I applaud these men's desire to be faithful to their understanding of Scripture. But I challenge the accuracy of that understanding on both spiritual and Biblical grounds. And I would urge them to re-examine their interpretation based on these deeper observations.

I'm keenly aware that there do exist men who are chauvinistic, gender-hierarchical, patriarchical, sexist (pick-your-adjective) legalists who have been oppressing females all their lives. These befuddled souls are eager to latch onto any Bible verse that can be twisted to billy-club women. They are quite clever at masking their own personal biases against women with Scripture verses. And they will judge anyone who defends women speaking in the church as pursuing a modernist heresy. But I'm not appealing to such people in this letter.

On the flip side, I've been in scores of meetings where the women spoke with the men present. All of the churches I work with do so. The immense spiritual benefit to both the sisters and the brothers during such meetings is undeniable. Further, the spirit of every believer in the room knows that it's both proper and necessary for women to function and share Christ. The marks of the Holy Spirit's presence-"life and peace"-are unquestionably present (Romans 8:6).

In this connection, in every organic expression of the church that I'm aware of, the sisters function in the meetings as do the brothers. (This has been true in my own experience ever since I began meeting in homes in the 1980s.) By my lights, it is only when we get exposed to the "limiting passages" and adopt a certain interpretation of them that things begin to change. They devolve from liberty to suppression. This is never a sign of God's fingerprints; for "where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty" (2 Corinthians 3:17).

Now before someone reading this letter clips the previous paragraphs out of context and labels me a "spiritual subjectivist" . . . and before I'm accused of exalting my subjective leadings above the Scriptures (which I predict someone will do) . . . let me repeat what I said at the front. The Scripture and the internal witness of the Spirit always go hand-in-hand.

Consequently, if our interpretation of the Bible smacks square in the face of what our human spirit is telling us . . . and if it flat-footedly denies what is practically real in our own lives (that men can learn spiritual things from women), this should force us to seriously re-examine our interpretation of certain Biblical passages.

I said all that to make a simple point: My interpretation of the "limiting passages" perfectly mirrors what my spirit tells me what is right, proper, natural, and spiritually viable in a church meeting. It also maps perfectly to those organic expressions of the church with which I'm familiar. Thus on a spiritual, practical, and intellectual plane, I'm at peace with it.

I would suggest that anyone who wishes to upgrade their thinking on this subject take all three elements (spiritual, practical, and intellectual) into consideration. Disregarding one of them can easily lead to a skewed perspective.

To put it another way, the culture of NewTestament-styled church life precludes any interpretation of the "limiting passages" that bans women from speaking in church meetings.

What Saith the Big Picture?

Before we approach the "limiting passages," a basic question must be answered: "What is the overall teaching of the New Testament on a woman's role in the church?" . . . "What is the big picture about women in ministry?"

You'll find that it's perfectly consistent with the broad principles of the New Covenant.

What follows is a chronological survey of women in ministry in the New Testament. Since I don't have a concordance in front of me, I'm doing this from less than inspired memory:

* Elizabeth and Mary (not Zachariah and Joseph) are the first to receive the message of Christ's birth into the world. They are honored and blessed by angels. They are also the first to sing and prophesy about the Christ child.

* The prophetess Anna receives honorable mention as one who speaks of the Messiah to those who have waited for Him (Luke 2:36-38).

* During our Lord's earthly ministry, a group that Luke calls the Women were just as well known as the Twelve (Luke 8:1-3; 23:49, 55; 24:24). In fact, the twelve male disciples were a rather pitiful bunch when compared to the Lord's female disciples (see Chapter 16).

* Both the Twelve and the Women were among the 120 who waited for the coming of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 1:14). The Women, along with the men, spoke in tongues, declaring the "great things of God" (Acts 2:1-11).

* The Holy Spirit was poured out upon women and men alike-the result being that "your daughters shall prophesy" (Acts 2:17-18).

* In Christ, all earthly barriers have been destroyed. Galatians 3:28 boldly declares, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Women, therefore, are not second-class citizens in the church of God.

* Paul and Silas plant a church in Philippi. It begins with all women. Lydia is one of them. She hosts the church meetings in her home. It's inconceivable to think that the women in the church in Philippi could not speak or function in the meetings. The reason? The church was made up mostly of women (Acts 16:12ff.).

* Priscilla and her husband, Aquila, teach Apollos the way of the Lord more fully (Acts 18:26). It's noteworthy that four out of the six times that Priscilla and Aquila are mentioned in the New Testament, Priscilla's name appears first (Acts 18:18, 26; Rom. 16:3; 2 Tim. 4:19). This is ancient shorthand signifying that Priscilla was more spiritually prominent. Also, the fact that her name appears first when she and her husband instructed Apollos indicates that she led in that exchange (Acts 18:26, NASB and NIV).

* Philip the evangelist had four daughters who were prophetesses (Acts 21:9). This means they prophesied. (Note that first-century prophecy was always done in and among the church. Now think about it: If a woman is prophesying by God's Spirit and revealing Jesus Christ, why on earth would a man be barred from hearing it?)

* In 1 Corinthians 11:4-5, Paul says that women may both pray and prophesy when the church comes together (1 Cor. 11:1-34). The context of this passage makes clear that Paul is referring to public meetings where both men and women are present.

* When Paul wrote his letter to the Roman Christians, he honored the following women for their service in the church: Phoebe, Priscilla, Mary, Tryphena, Tryphosa, Persis, Julia, and the sister of Nereus (Rom. 16). In this chapter, Paul lists about twice as many men as women. But he commends more than twice as many women as men.

* Paul mentions Junia as a fellow-apostle (Rom. 16:7). This is the most natural way to construe the statement "notable among the apostles." ("Junia" is clearly a feminine name.)¹

* In Philippians 4:2-3, Paul makes special mention of Euodias and Syntyche who helped him in the work.

* Paul reminds Titus that the older women should be "teachers of good things." They ought also to teach the younger women (Titus 2:3-5).

* Paul commends Timothy's mother and grandmother. There's good reason to infer that these two women taught Timothy the holy Scriptures since he was a child (2 Tim. 1:5; 3:15).

So clearly: Women were active in ministry in the first-century church. Because they were recipients of the Spirit, they were just as much a part of the believing priesthood as were men. We find them prophesying publicly. Praying publicly. Teaching publicly. We also find them "contending side by side" with Paul in the Lord's work. What is more, Paul calls some women "co-workers," a term he applies to his male associates.

That said, some have interpreted the "limiting passages" to mean that women must de facto be excluded from sharing in a meeting when men are present. But this conclusion runs against the grain of the broad principles of the New Testament. For this reason, advocates of the "women-must-not-speak" position are forced into completely non-Scriptural dances distinguishing between "sharing" (when only sisters are present) and "teaching" (when men are present). But this is pure invention. And it's dissonant with the New Testament context.

There's no evidence anywhere that Paul or his entourage ever excluded anyone from ministry on the basis of gender. Paul happily worked alongside women like Priscilla, Euodias, and Syntyche without any supercilious hokum about Divinely ordained female inferiority. Further, there's no analog for the "women-cannot-speak-with-men-present" idea in any of Paul's other letters. In short, both Paul's letters are consistent with the revolutionary sentiment that he voiced in Galatians 3:28.

The truth of the matter is that the "limiting passages" are highly obscure. Anyone who asserts that they are clear and direct is living in a fog of presumption and academic naivety. For one thing, such an assertion reflects a benighted dismissal of texts like Acts 2:17; Gal. 3:28; 1 Cor. 11:5; and 1 Cor. 14:26, 31.

Pick up any decent commentary. Look up the "limiting passages," and you'll discover the various ways these texts can be interpreted due to the ambiguity of the language. The fact that competent evangelical scholars disagree on the meaning of Paul's word-usage in these verses attests to their obscurity.

It's my opinion that we should always interpret the obscure by the clear, not the other way around. When we interpret the clear and consistent thrust of Scripture in light of one or two obscure passages, we end up rupturing the core message of the Bible. And we are forced to do all sorts of exegetical gymnastics to make the many clear passages fit our interpretation of the few obscure texts.

Therefore, when an obscure passage seems to be at odds with the clear thrust of Scripture, we must look carefully at context.

Frank Viola

//www.ptmin.org

{mos_fb_discuss:5}

Написать комментарий