Now Concerning a Woman's Role in the Church. Part 4

The Bottom Line

So where does this leave us? I can't speak for anyone else, but it leaves me here: The "zipper-position" which takes away a woman's right to speak in a church meeting reflects a very brittle approach to the New Testament. It's an unwarranted assumption that's based on a common, but obvious, culturally generated misinterpretation of Paul.

The truth is that women are no less vital a part of the church than are men. Men are in dire need of women to show them Christ. (Keep in mind that the church-the ekklesia-is a female!) In addition, unlike the situation in the first century, women in our time are well educated. They are not our social inferiors.

Therefore, Paul's injunctions in the "limiting passages" only apply to women who are disrupting the church meetings by uninformed and disruptive questions. They also apply to women who are spreading false doctrines or seizing authority over men. In that light, consider this weighty text of Scripture:

As it is, there are many parts, but one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!" On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. (1 Corinthians 12:20-25, NIV)

To exclude women from functioning in the church gatherings is to resurrect the clergy system with new garb. The men become the new clergy caste. Only they are worth a hearing. The women become the new laity caste. What they have to say isn't as valuable. In fact, it's not valuable enough to be heard. So they are closed off from functioning in God's house.

At bottom, if we give only men the right to speak in the gathering, we have unwittingly re-established the clergy-laity dichotomy. "One anothering" goes out the window. The old leaven of authoritarianism is dressed in new clothing. And all our rhetoric about restoring the priesthood of all believers devolves into just that . . . rhetoric.

The Lord Jesus Christ is the sole mediator between the human race and God. In mediating us to God, He has established a new priesthood. And that priesthood includes both men and women. It would have been highly convenient for Paul to install some kind of restricted order of priests to water down a woman's high calling as Christ's kin, sadly the Lord's followers took that path rather quickly. But Paul himself refused to do so.

This is pretty diffuse, but I hope you get my drift: The New Covenant makes us all priests, and Body life (which includes open-participatory church meetings) is the obvious practical expression.

To put it in a sentence: Breaching the main thrust of the New Covenant and the entire message of Scripture on the basis of two obscure passages has the tragic side-effect of creating a male clergy caste.

Because the sisters are part of the royal priesthood (to borrow Peter's phrase), the New Testament invites them to testify, instruct, exhort, prophesy, sing, and pray in the meetings of the church (1 Cor. 11:5; 14:26, 31; Col. 3:16; Heb. 10:24-25). The sisters are free to open their mouths and feed their fellow brethren with Christ. In so doing, they glorify God and help build the church.

So dear sister, I implore you: We need your part in the church meetings. We need your unique contribution whenever we gather. We need the texture of your personality as you share Jesus Christ with us. We need your wisdom, your good sense, and your unique insight. We need the fragrance of Christ that you so wonderfully emit.

To muzzle you is to mute half the priesthood. It's to cause a major part of Christ's Body to be paralyzed. The meetings of the church are the natural outflow of the spiritual experience of each of the saints. To deprive you from participating in this outflow is to bottle you up. It is to suppress your spirit. To deny you the right to function is to suggest that you do not hear from God. To silence you in the gathering is contrary to the very fiber of the church.

We need your part in the church.

What About Head Covering?

I'll close this letter with another oft-asked question: "What is your position on women's head covering?"

Early in my spiritual journey, I was introduced to an interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 which concluded that because Paul used spiritual and theological arguments to persuade the sisters to cover their heads, they should do the same yesterday, today, and forever. And I found it fairly convincing.

As I began to look into the matter further, I was introduced to an interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 which concluded that Paul was really dealing with a culturally-sensitive issue. But since the cultural factors no longer make the issue relevant, the sisters are no longer obligated to have their heads covered. And I found it fairly convincing. (Head covering in the first-century Roman empire had special significance. When a Roman woman married, she wore a veil in public. The veil was a social indicator that she was married. An unveiled woman signified to others that she was unmarried. Thus for married women to wear veils in public was a matter of decorum and supreme importance in Roman society. Married women who did not wear veils in public settings were viewed as shaming their husbands and portraying themselves as promiscuous wives, i.e. unashamed adulteresses. For a detailed discussion on the cultural meaning of the marriage veil among the Romans of the first century, see Bruce Winter, After Paul Left Corinth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), Chapter 6 and Bruce Winter, Roman Wives, Roman Widows: The Appearance of New Women and the Pauline Communities (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003).

The reality is that 1 Corinthians is drenched in obscurity. Therefore, every interpretation of this passage has its own difficulties. But there's one sentence that clears up the entire matter for me. I shall quote Paul:

Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?

What is my position on head covering? I stand with Paul: Sister, the decision is yours. "Judge for yourself," and follow your own conscience on the matter.

What About Wives Submitting to Their Husbands?

Once this chapter is published, some "which-side-are-you-on" consumers will hopelessly demarcate me into a warring camp. Unfortunately, hornets cannot be prevented from buzzing. But if the truth be told, I don't fit neatly into any category. I'm neither a touchy-feely "Christian-feminist" nor a slashy-burny "patriarchal traditionalist" as will be made clear now.

ALERT: May the extremists on both sides prepare to descend into grunts.

As far as the marital relationship goes, the husband/wife relationship is an earthly picture of the heavenly reality of Christ and His Bride. So I take at face value Paul's injunction for wives to be subject to their husbands (Eph. 5:22: Col. 3:18; see also 1 Pet. 3:1-7). Yet I'm quick to add that this passage has been all-too often lifted out of its proper context and misused by controlling husbands who wish to dominate their wives. In addition, Paul is a strong proponent of Christians submitting to one another in the fear of Christ (Eph. 5:21).

Jesus Christ doesn't dominate nor subjugate His Bride. Male domination of women, therefore, is a symptom of man's fallen nature (Genesis 3:16). It's not a Divine mandate. Yet submission and subjugation are two very different things.

I drone on. Hopefully, somewhere in this lengthy epistle you have found an answer to your question. I trust that my other sisters in Christ who read it will find within these words liberty and freedom from religious suppression.

Perhaps more rounds are needed, but this is all I have time for at the moment. Maybe someday I'll try to redress the deficiencies. So please accept it in that vein: It's a stab at something, not a finished product.

Your brother in the costly but glorious quest,⁶

Frank

A note to those who have read this letter over my shoulder. If you happen to be one of those rare breeds who desires scholarly support for the views expressed in this chapter, I recommend these two books by my friend Ben Witherington: Women in the Earliest Churches and Women in the Ministry of Jesus. I also resonate with F.F. Bruce's treatment of the subject in A Mind for What Matters. Chapter 17 contains a superb discussion on a woman's role in the church. Further, N.T. Wright has addressed the "limiting passages" very well in his Paul for Everyone series. To my mind, Bruce, Witherington, and Wright are among the greatest New Testament scholars this century has produced.

Написать комментарий