It is a fairly common perception that science and Christianity are at odds, that one cannot accept the fundamental claims of Christianity and simultaneously accept the scientific consensus in many cases. Of course, I disagree with this idea, but I would like to argue that one of the main reasons for this perception is the way in which Christians have gone about defining the role of God in the universe.
I’m referring to what is known as the “God of the Gaps” argument. Essentially the argument states that if we don’t understand it, God must have done it. A moment of reflection will reveal that a lot of us likely have slipped rather easily into using this kind of argument from time to time. We don’t know what caused the beginning of the universe: therefore, God must have done it. We can’t explain how DNA came to be: therefore, God must have created it. Of course, I do believe God is the cause of the universe and likely is the source of DNA. But simply asserting these things doesn’t make a good argument or establish God as the cause.
The problem with using gaps in our knowledge as evidence for God is that as our scientific understanding increases, there are fewer and fewer gaps. A long time ago, very little was understood about the world, and many things were attributed to one or more gods. Phenomena such as thunder and lightning were believed to be signs of the gods’ anger, while abundant rain and healthy crops were thought to indicate their favor. But throughout history, as we advanced in our understanding of the natural causes behind such things, it was no longer necessary to invoke divine intervention in order to explain them. As some have put it, as we explain more and more of the gaps in our understanding, there are fewer and fewer places for God to “hide”. Eventually, they suppose, there will be no more gaps; and what would this mean regarding God? Perhaps there would no longer be any reason to believe in Him?
If we simply invoke God as the answer to all questions that have not yet been answered, we would have good reason to fear scientific progress, since each new discovery would chip away at our reasons for believing in God. And it seems there must be something wrong with a viewpoint that discourages and even fears scientific progress. Is there a way around this problem?
I believe there is. John Lennox, professor of mathematics at Oxford, points out that there are different types of explanations that are not mutually contradictory. With this argument he dispels the idea that if science can explain it, God must not be behind it. For example, what is the explanation of the automobile? If you answer “internal combustion”, you would be correct. But if you answer “Henry Ford”, you would also be correct. Each is a legitimate answer that doesn’t negate the other. The difference is that one pertains to mechanism, and the other to agency. Both are needed ultimately to understand everything there is to know about the car engine.
Therefore, saying “God did it” is not really an explanation of how it was done, and therefore, belief in God does not negate the need or motivation to continue working to discover the secrets of the universe that remain a mystery to us. But this also means that we need not fear discovery of the mechanism behind what we observe in the universe. We now know, for example, the meteorological conditions in which snow forms, and that it isn’t kept in storehouses as is stated in Job 38:22. We are free to understand verses such as this as metaphor, poetry, or symbolism, and be fully open to a complete scientific explanation of a particular phenomenon, without letting go of the idea that God ultimately is behind it all.
The God of the Gaps mentality must be avoided because it sets belief in God on a weak foundation. We should not believe in God merely because there are things we don’t understand, and we must be careful not to give anyone the impression that this is the case. If we define God as the explanation behind the things that we don’t understand, we are forced to choose between science and God. The implication is that once we have determined how something works, God is no longer necessary. But, as John Lennox has said: “God is not merely the creator of the bits we don’t understand; He’s the author of the whole show!”
Saturday, December 14, 2019
Saturday, October 26, 2019
Don't Put God in a Box...But What Exactly Does That Mean?
For those of us who were introduced to Christianity at a young age, likely one of the first things we were told about God is that He is big. Of course, as we mature in our thinking, we come to realize that it makes little sense to speak of the dimensions of an immaterial Being. But when we’re younger, this simple statement avoids getting too technical while effectively communicating quite a bit about the nature of God.
Similar to the idea that God is “big” is the admonition not to put God “in a box”. Of course, we don’t literally mean a box anymore than we literally mean “big”, but this phrase is still meaningful to many of us. Usually, the idea behind this phrase is that no limit can be placed on God: because of this, we should not be worried when troubles come, because God will always be “bigger” than the “storm.” In other words, often when we say “don’t put God in a box”, we mean that God is powerful enough to come through in whatever way we might need.
But is this the only possible meaning of this phrase? What if it has less to do with imposing limits on God and more to do with imposing our expectations on God? What if, by trying to avoid putting God in a box, we might actually end up putting Him into an even smaller one?
It may be “putting God in a box”, for example, to declare that we know for sure He will rescue us from a particular problem or situation. By acknowledging that He’s powerful enough to do whatever it is we have in mind, we feel like we’re avoiding putting Him in a box; but have we considered what is actually His will? It’s too easy for us to assume that we know God’s will based on our own sense of what we think is best in any given situation.
So when I think of putting something in a box, I think primarily not of the fact that the contents are limited and contained, but that whatever it is is being placed in a convenient place, ready to be retrieved whenever I need it. I know exactly where it is and I can pull it out whenever I want. When I’m done with it, I can put it away and go about my business.
This brings to my mind the portrayal of Aslan, the lion who plays a role reminiscent of Jesus in The Chronicles of Narnia. In The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, upon hearing that Aslan will be arriving soon (and that he’s a lion), one character nervously asks whether he’s safe. Another character replies “Safe? Of course he isn’t safe! But he’s good.” There is a profound point illustrated in this reply. The point was that ultimately, Aslan was a lion. He had teeth and claws. He was dangerous and caused his enemies to tremble in fear. He sometimes led the characters in the story into danger and asked them to do things they thought would be impossible. Later in the same book, another character remarks that he’s not a “tame” lion. Perhaps most significantly, he seldom did what anyone expected or thought would make sense. Often the characters were very frustrated with his choices. But ultimately, they trusted him, because they knew he was good.
So maybe putting God in a box means to imagine Him as “tame” or “safe.” What are the ways in which we do this?
Perhaps we view our relationship with God primarily as a source of great benefit to ourselves without any sacrifice or risk. It is our nature to imagine ourselves as the center of our own story, and God as a supporting character who merely provides us hope and happiness and assistance when we need it.
Perhaps we take general principles, such as the fact that God is good, and then we draw specific conclusions based on our own assumptions. We assure ourselves that God would never let us be too far removed from our comfort zone or faced with too much difficulty, because we’re sure He wouldn’t give us “more than we can handle.” Or we may be convinced that God will deliver us from a certain trial because “just know” that this would be best in our specific situation. Since God is good, He must agree with us. We may even grasp on an intellectual level that this is a problematic assumption, but when we find ourselves in the middle of trouble, it’s easy for our emotions to take over and to slip into this kind of thinking.
Perhaps we invoke God in the decisions we make, declaring too hastily that we feel a particular choice is what God wants us to do, in order to create a sense of assurance that we have made the best choice (and to discourage anyone from questioning our conclusions). Conveniently, His desires and plans just happen to line up with ours. We pull Him out of our box as if He were a rubber stamp and then put Him away again when we’re done.
Perhaps we simply imagine God as a kindly old grandfather who does little more than spoil His children (or I guess grandchildren in this case). It’s too easy to get so caught up in how much God loves us that we think of nothing else than all the wonderful things ways in which He must want to bless us. God is not merely a wish-granter. Obviously God’s love is a significant part of who He is, but we must be careful not to ignore His other aspects, such as justice, holiness, etc. As I’ve argued in another blog, our happiness is far from God’s greatest desire.
Perhaps we find ourselves in a dire situation and simply make the decision for God that He certainly will use His power to rescue us. This may be one of the most common situations in which, in an effort to liberate God from the box, we actually stuff Him further down in it. In other words, we declare that we’re sure God is going to supernaturally deliver us, and to anyone who questions this, we remind them how big and powerful God is and refuse to doubt that He is able to do whatever it is we need. But the question was never about what God can do, but what He will do. We have decided that He must act...but must He? Only He knows the answer to that question in any given situation.
Ultimately, we must remember that we are merely minor characters in a story of which God is the center. He will not always do what we would like, or what we think is best. In fact, often He will do nothing when we think He should. Part of having respect for God is recognizing our place relative to His and being wary of making too much of our expectations of Him, no matter how much sense they may make to us. Perhaps it’s best to conclude with a slight twist on C.S. Lewis’s description of Aslan: “Good? Of course God is good! But He isn’t tame.”
Similar to the idea that God is “big” is the admonition not to put God “in a box”. Of course, we don’t literally mean a box anymore than we literally mean “big”, but this phrase is still meaningful to many of us. Usually, the idea behind this phrase is that no limit can be placed on God: because of this, we should not be worried when troubles come, because God will always be “bigger” than the “storm.” In other words, often when we say “don’t put God in a box”, we mean that God is powerful enough to come through in whatever way we might need.
But is this the only possible meaning of this phrase? What if it has less to do with imposing limits on God and more to do with imposing our expectations on God? What if, by trying to avoid putting God in a box, we might actually end up putting Him into an even smaller one?
It may be “putting God in a box”, for example, to declare that we know for sure He will rescue us from a particular problem or situation. By acknowledging that He’s powerful enough to do whatever it is we have in mind, we feel like we’re avoiding putting Him in a box; but have we considered what is actually His will? It’s too easy for us to assume that we know God’s will based on our own sense of what we think is best in any given situation.
So when I think of putting something in a box, I think primarily not of the fact that the contents are limited and contained, but that whatever it is is being placed in a convenient place, ready to be retrieved whenever I need it. I know exactly where it is and I can pull it out whenever I want. When I’m done with it, I can put it away and go about my business.
This brings to my mind the portrayal of Aslan, the lion who plays a role reminiscent of Jesus in The Chronicles of Narnia. In The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, upon hearing that Aslan will be arriving soon (and that he’s a lion), one character nervously asks whether he’s safe. Another character replies “Safe? Of course he isn’t safe! But he’s good.” There is a profound point illustrated in this reply. The point was that ultimately, Aslan was a lion. He had teeth and claws. He was dangerous and caused his enemies to tremble in fear. He sometimes led the characters in the story into danger and asked them to do things they thought would be impossible. Later in the same book, another character remarks that he’s not a “tame” lion. Perhaps most significantly, he seldom did what anyone expected or thought would make sense. Often the characters were very frustrated with his choices. But ultimately, they trusted him, because they knew he was good.
So maybe putting God in a box means to imagine Him as “tame” or “safe.” What are the ways in which we do this?
Perhaps we view our relationship with God primarily as a source of great benefit to ourselves without any sacrifice or risk. It is our nature to imagine ourselves as the center of our own story, and God as a supporting character who merely provides us hope and happiness and assistance when we need it.
Perhaps we take general principles, such as the fact that God is good, and then we draw specific conclusions based on our own assumptions. We assure ourselves that God would never let us be too far removed from our comfort zone or faced with too much difficulty, because we’re sure He wouldn’t give us “more than we can handle.” Or we may be convinced that God will deliver us from a certain trial because “just know” that this would be best in our specific situation. Since God is good, He must agree with us. We may even grasp on an intellectual level that this is a problematic assumption, but when we find ourselves in the middle of trouble, it’s easy for our emotions to take over and to slip into this kind of thinking.
Perhaps we invoke God in the decisions we make, declaring too hastily that we feel a particular choice is what God wants us to do, in order to create a sense of assurance that we have made the best choice (and to discourage anyone from questioning our conclusions). Conveniently, His desires and plans just happen to line up with ours. We pull Him out of our box as if He were a rubber stamp and then put Him away again when we’re done.
Perhaps we simply imagine God as a kindly old grandfather who does little more than spoil His children (or I guess grandchildren in this case). It’s too easy to get so caught up in how much God loves us that we think of nothing else than all the wonderful things ways in which He must want to bless us. God is not merely a wish-granter. Obviously God’s love is a significant part of who He is, but we must be careful not to ignore His other aspects, such as justice, holiness, etc. As I’ve argued in another blog, our happiness is far from God’s greatest desire.
Perhaps we find ourselves in a dire situation and simply make the decision for God that He certainly will use His power to rescue us. This may be one of the most common situations in which, in an effort to liberate God from the box, we actually stuff Him further down in it. In other words, we declare that we’re sure God is going to supernaturally deliver us, and to anyone who questions this, we remind them how big and powerful God is and refuse to doubt that He is able to do whatever it is we need. But the question was never about what God can do, but what He will do. We have decided that He must act...but must He? Only He knows the answer to that question in any given situation.
Ultimately, we must remember that we are merely minor characters in a story of which God is the center. He will not always do what we would like, or what we think is best. In fact, often He will do nothing when we think He should. Part of having respect for God is recognizing our place relative to His and being wary of making too much of our expectations of Him, no matter how much sense they may make to us. Perhaps it’s best to conclude with a slight twist on C.S. Lewis’s description of Aslan: “Good? Of course God is good! But He isn’t tame.”
Saturday, October 5, 2019
Is It True that God Never Gives Us More than We Can Handle?
“God will never give us more than we can handle.” How many times have we heard (or said) this phrase? Likely enough that some may wrongly assume it appears somewhere in the Bible. But is it a true statement?
I suspect the assumption that this idea appears in the Bible is based on 1 Cor. 10:13, which says, “No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.”
While this may seem to be a similar idea, the verse is distinctly talking about temptation, while the phrase we are discussing most often seems to be applied in a more general sense. The context also sheds additional light on Paul’s intended message: he precedes this verse by listing some of the sins the nation of Israel committed in the Old Testament, such as worshiping idols, constantly complaining, and other ways of trying God’s patience. He then makes the statement in the verse above. Even if we were to set aside the fact that this has to do with temptations rather than general trials, it seems to me that his main point is not about how much God will allow them to be tempted, but rather, that their temptations are not unusually difficult or burdensome, and are not greater than what others had faced.
Returning to our main topic, the phrase “God will not give us more than we can handle” likely, in most cases, will be taken to mean that God will not allow us to go through trials, or to suffer, beyond what we can endure, based on our individual tolerance. Perhaps the verse from 1 Corinthians does not say this exactly, but isn’t it something we can conclude based on God’s goodness? If God is good and wants what is best for us, how could He want us to be pushed beyond our breaking point?
To answer this, we must begin by considering what it actually might mean to be burdened with something that is “beyond what we are able to handle.” If something is more than we can handle, does it mean it would result in our death? This seems to be the most logical definition, since, if death were not considered “more than we can handle”, nothing lesser could be either. But clearly this is not the case, since many Christians have gone through trials and suffering that did result in their death, and God let it happen.
What, then, does “more than we can handle” actually mean? I would like to suggest that such a thing does not exist. It can’t, unless God has limitations, because God’s presence and sustenance will always be sufficient for whatever we may face. I don’t believe God closely manages our level of difficulties and trials, choosing a harder life for those who can handle more and going easy on those who can’t handle much. It is not that God limits our difficulties to a particular level, but rather, that nothing could be “more than we can handle” with His help.
This does not, of course, mean that nothing will be difficult. In fact, it means that we can be certain we will face many terribly difficult situations. And the fact that God has promised to be with us through these trials does not mean we won’t experience despair, exhaustion, and sorrow at times, or in extreme cases, even death. We should never make anyone feel as if we’re downplaying the severity of their trials by telling them it’s all okay because God is with them. We will not always be “okay”, but that isn’t the point of this life anyway. Our mission is to serve God, and sometimes this will involve suffering.
Further, if it were true that God prevents each of us from enduring trials beyond our ability to manage, it would mean that God refrains from pushing us toward greater levels of strength and dependence on Him. If we never face anything beyond our current ability, this assumes that our current ability is fixed and can never increase. Does God merely coddle us instead of pushing us outside of our comfort zone? Doesn’t it make much more sense that God would prefer that we face things that seem to be beyond our ability to handle, in order that we may grow more in strength, character, and our reliance on Him?
So, in the end, rather than saying God will not give us more than we can handle, I think we ought instead to say that there is nothing we cannot handle knowing that God is with us and that the purpose of our lives is not personal happiness or fulfillment, but to give our lives for the sake of God’s will for us. And we ought to be willing to suffer through anything as long as it brings Him glory and helps us become more refined and mature.
I suspect the assumption that this idea appears in the Bible is based on 1 Cor. 10:13, which says, “No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.”
While this may seem to be a similar idea, the verse is distinctly talking about temptation, while the phrase we are discussing most often seems to be applied in a more general sense. The context also sheds additional light on Paul’s intended message: he precedes this verse by listing some of the sins the nation of Israel committed in the Old Testament, such as worshiping idols, constantly complaining, and other ways of trying God’s patience. He then makes the statement in the verse above. Even if we were to set aside the fact that this has to do with temptations rather than general trials, it seems to me that his main point is not about how much God will allow them to be tempted, but rather, that their temptations are not unusually difficult or burdensome, and are not greater than what others had faced.
Returning to our main topic, the phrase “God will not give us more than we can handle” likely, in most cases, will be taken to mean that God will not allow us to go through trials, or to suffer, beyond what we can endure, based on our individual tolerance. Perhaps the verse from 1 Corinthians does not say this exactly, but isn’t it something we can conclude based on God’s goodness? If God is good and wants what is best for us, how could He want us to be pushed beyond our breaking point?
To answer this, we must begin by considering what it actually might mean to be burdened with something that is “beyond what we are able to handle.” If something is more than we can handle, does it mean it would result in our death? This seems to be the most logical definition, since, if death were not considered “more than we can handle”, nothing lesser could be either. But clearly this is not the case, since many Christians have gone through trials and suffering that did result in their death, and God let it happen.
What, then, does “more than we can handle” actually mean? I would like to suggest that such a thing does not exist. It can’t, unless God has limitations, because God’s presence and sustenance will always be sufficient for whatever we may face. I don’t believe God closely manages our level of difficulties and trials, choosing a harder life for those who can handle more and going easy on those who can’t handle much. It is not that God limits our difficulties to a particular level, but rather, that nothing could be “more than we can handle” with His help.
This does not, of course, mean that nothing will be difficult. In fact, it means that we can be certain we will face many terribly difficult situations. And the fact that God has promised to be with us through these trials does not mean we won’t experience despair, exhaustion, and sorrow at times, or in extreme cases, even death. We should never make anyone feel as if we’re downplaying the severity of their trials by telling them it’s all okay because God is with them. We will not always be “okay”, but that isn’t the point of this life anyway. Our mission is to serve God, and sometimes this will involve suffering.
Further, if it were true that God prevents each of us from enduring trials beyond our ability to manage, it would mean that God refrains from pushing us toward greater levels of strength and dependence on Him. If we never face anything beyond our current ability, this assumes that our current ability is fixed and can never increase. Does God merely coddle us instead of pushing us outside of our comfort zone? Doesn’t it make much more sense that God would prefer that we face things that seem to be beyond our ability to handle, in order that we may grow more in strength, character, and our reliance on Him?
So, in the end, rather than saying God will not give us more than we can handle, I think we ought instead to say that there is nothing we cannot handle knowing that God is with us and that the purpose of our lives is not personal happiness or fulfillment, but to give our lives for the sake of God’s will for us. And we ought to be willing to suffer through anything as long as it brings Him glory and helps us become more refined and mature.
Saturday, September 14, 2019
Gender Roles Part 4: Addressing Verses Regarding Women in the Family
In this fourth and final part, I will consider the verses that are most commonly used to impose specific roles for men and women in marriage (for example, that the husband is the “spiritual leader” and final decision-maker in the family, that women should not work outside the home, and that wives must submit to and obey their husbands).
“Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.”
Complementarians find several points in Genesis 2 that they believe point to male authority. The first is that the woman was created to be a “helper” for the man. Complementarianism asserts that this means a wife is to serve her husband and be a sort of “assistant” to him; the wife should have no mission or pursuits of her own, but should adapt herself to her husband and support his pursuits and mission. However, the Hebrew word for “helper”, ezer, is used most often in the Old Testament to refer to God Himself as a helper to humanity (see, for example, Exodus 18:4, Deuteronomy 33:26, Psalm 33:20, Psalm 121:1-2, Psalm 146:5, Hosea 13:9). Clearly, then, “helper” cannot imply inferiority or subordination. In fact, a helper often possesses greater ability than the one being helped! Therefore, this verse does not declare women to be assistants to their husbands, but shows that men and women are to share the same mission equally and support each other.
Another claim is that the man’s authority over the woman is indicated by the fact that he was created first and named her. But what does either of these facts have to do with authority? Besides, the animals were created before the man; does this mean they have authority over him?
Complementarians also find significance in the fact that God confronts the man first for eating the fruit, and then the woman. Again, however, there is no reason to assume any hidden meaning behind this order of confrontation. And it’s worth noting that God spoke to each of them individually, rather than just the man, as we would expect if a husband were his wife’s “spiritual covering” and somehow responsible for her.
Finally, one fact misunderstood (or ignored) by the complementarian position is that God’s declaration that the man would rule over the woman was part of the curse. Complementarianism attempts to argue that male authority was in place from the beginning and that the fall merely caused it to become overbearing, but this is simply wishful thinking. There is nothing in the text to indicate this. In fact, there is nothing in the entire Genesis account of the first man and woman that would indicate male authority! If complementarians have no problem with using weed-killer to overcome the curse on the ground, or pain-killers to overcome the curse of pain in childbirth, then they should have no problem with full equality in marriage as an antidote to the curse of husbands ruling over their wives, something Genesis makes clear God never intended.
"Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home....”
“Therefore, I want younger widows to get married, bear children, keep house, and give the enemy no occasion for reproach...”
Despite the fact that these are the only two verses in the entire Bible that would seem to instruct women to be homemakers and not work outside of the home, this view of the role of women is a significant pillar of the complementarian position. However, the main point of the text is not that women should stay at home, but that they should be self-controlled and pure rather than lazy and wandering around gossiping and wasting time. In that culture and time, it was already expected that women would not have careers and would keep the home, so they would not have had any other option. To interpret these verses as offering a countercultural command is to act as though Paul were writing in 21st century America. Paul’s instruction to keep the home (or be “busy at home” according to some translations) didn’t mean all women for all time must be homemakers. Rather, he was contrasting working at home to not working at all (being idle). The underlying principle is that women ought to be productive. In today’s culture, having a career or pursuing an education are valid ways of fulfilling this command.
After all, let’s not forget that when Mary sat down to learn from Jesus, while Martha busied herself keeping the house, it was Mary whom Jesus praised!
“But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.”
The idea that husbands are in authority over their wives is based entirely on the assumption that “headship” that means “authority.” Because of so much popular teaching on the subject, it’s likely many people really do believe the Bible teaches that husbands have such authority.
But the most important point we must understand about this verse is that those who see it as establishing the authority of men over women are reading the Bible as if it were written in English and in the 21st century. We are accustomed to “head” meaning “leader” or “boss”, but this is not what it meant to the Greeks. To read it in this way is to assert that no one was able to understand what Paul really meant until 1,500 years later when the Bible was finally translated into English! In fact, the Greeks did not even consider the head to be the part of the body responsible for thinking, reasoning, and making decisions; they believed it was the heart that was responsible for these functions. In Greek, the word for “head”, kephale, was used as a metaphor for “source” or “supplier of life.” This is clearly the way the word is used in Ephesians 4:15:
“Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ.”
and in Colossians 2:19:
“They have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.”
The point here is that men, who in that culture had greater social status and privileges, were to use those privileges to care for their wives and treat them as equals, rather than taking advantage of those privileges to rule over them. In this way, this command is actually part of Paul’s command to husbands to love their wives! The verse may also be referencing to the fact that woman was made from man in the Genesis creation account (but, as I argued above, there is nothing inherent in that fact that implies men have authority over women).
The order in which each relationship appears in this passage also indicates that “source” rather than “authority” is the sense in which “head” is being used. If Paul were trying to indicate a chain of command, it would have made more sense to say that God is the head of Christ, Christ the head of man, and man the head of woman. Instead, it appears in chronological order: man (and everything else) was created through Christ (see Colossians 1:16), then woman was made from man, and finally God sent Christ to the world.
In fact, there is no mention of authority in this entire chapter, except for verse 10, which speaks of the woman’s own authority (“Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.”). Some modern translations add the idea that this has to do with man’s authority over her, such as the Living Bible (“So a woman should wear a covering on her head as a sign that she is under man’s authority”). But the literal rendering of the verse is “For this cause ought the woman to have power on (her) head.” Once again, any reference to male authority is not found in the original text but has been added later by those who wish to twist the Bible to say what they think it should say.
In the following verse (11:11), Paul says “However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.” Paul then says that while woman originally came from man, since that time man has always come from woman, and we all come from God anyway. It could not be more clear that he is saying we should not make too much out of all this headship stuff, and keep in mind that men and women need each other, while both are dependent on God. The full equality of men and women could not be more explicit.
“Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.”
There are multiple points to be made about this verse. The first is that submission does not mean obedience! But, for a moment, let’s assume the command to submit does mean to obey. If this were so, it would be important to note that both Roman and Jewish law already required wives to obey their husbands. Therefore, to the original audience theses verses would have been nothing new. In this case, they would make the most sense as a command to Christians to live as respectable members of society by following social customs (to the extent possible) in order to avoid turning off the unsaved by their behavior. In fact, Paul’s instructions to wives to submit are fairly watered down for that time and place. While the Roman laws instructed men on how to rule or govern their wives, Paul focuses on telling husbands how to love them(and spends far more time on this than on the brief instructions to wives). He never tells husbands to rule, exercise authority over, or make decisions for their wives. Instead, husbands are commanded to lay down for their wives not only their social privileges and status but their life, as well as to love, honor, and care for them. I can’t think of a greater example of submission than this!
Also, just a few verses later in Ephesians 6:5 (as well as in Colossians 3:22), slaves are told to obey their masters. If telling wives to submit to their husbands is approval (or a command) from God that husbands have authority over their wives, then for the sake of consistency we would also need to interpret the verses about slaves must be interpreted as approval (or a command) from God that people own slaves! But, of course, in this case complementarians suddenly become more open to the idea that Bible verses must be understood in light of the culture in which they were written and being applicable not directly, but according to their underlying principle.
However, as I said, submission is not the same as obedience. More extreme versions of complementarianism teach that wives are to obey their husbands’ commands (in the same way children obey their parents), but no command is ever given to wives in the Bible to OBEY their husbands. Children are told to obey their parents, and even slaves to obey their masters (Eph. 6:1-9; also Col. 3:20-22), but wives are never told to obey their husbands.
Submission has a different and deeper meaning (and wider application) than obedience. To submit is to give up having your own way for the sake of others, to prefer others over yourself, to place the needs of another above your own and take a deferential position. Of course, all believers (not just women) are given these commands throughout the New Testament. For example:
Romans 12:10: “Be devoted to one another in brotherly love; give preference to one another in honor…”
Philippians 2:3: “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves…”
Matthew 20:25-28: “But Jesus called them to Himself and said, ‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.’”
Ephesians 5:21: “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.”
Are we really supposed to believe that these commands usually apply to all believers, but must be dropped when it comes to husbands in relation to their wives? The Christ-like way to live is in submission to others, and there is nothing more contrary to the spirit of what Jesus taught than the idea that a certain class of people should rule over others simply by virtue of who they are.
Not only that, immediately following these verses is the command for husbands to love their wives. If complementarians insist that the command to submit applies only to wives (and husbands do not have a similar obligation), would they also suggest that only husbands should love their wives, and wives have no similar obligation? Obviously they don’t suggest this. So why do they assume love ought to be mutual, but submission ought to be one-sided?
Another reason these verses support mutual submission (and reject unilateral submission) is the fact that the word for “submit” does not even occur in verse 22. In Greek, it literally says “wives, to your own husbands…” It borrows the word “submit” from the previous verse, in which all believers are told to submit to each other. Clearly, this kind of submission has nothing to do with authority or obedience, since would not be possible for people to submit to each other in that sense.
Finally, there are verses that clearly command mutual submission between husband and wife. For example, 1 Corinthians 7:4 says, “The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.” The Greek word for “body”, soma, generally was used in the first century to encompass an individual’s entire personhood, and was not necessarily limited to the physical body. I’m not sure how much more explicitly mutual submission could be communicated.
In light of all this, it would seem there is no biblical basis for anything other than complete equality between husbands and wives in marriage. Both have equal authority, equal access to God, and equal roles in decision-making. And, as I argued in part 2, this is good news, since I believe such a marriage will be far more healthy than one in which the man rules over the woman for no reason. For any who would continue to insist on a hierarchical marriage, what exactly is this idea based on?
Conclusion
Though it wasn’t possible to cover every possible argument, I believe I have presented the essential points in support of biblical egalitarianism. Too often, the gender roles issue is viewed through modern eyes; it is assumed that the complementarian position must be correct because it is so counter to our modern culture. But we must understand the reason behind the commands that seem to support complementarianism. The primary concern of the early church was not to be as different as possible, but to fit in wherever possible (see 1 Corinthians 9:19-23). The church leaders urged Christians to conform to cultural norms (as long as this did not entail sin) to avoid creating a stumbling block for people who may be open to the Gospel but would be turned off by what they considered to be subversive behavior. This is why Christian slaves were told to obey their masters, and all Christians were told to obey the government. If the early Christians were seen as law-breakers and socially disruptive, it would have reflected poorly on the Gospel and Christianity may never have gotten off the ground.
Now, however, our culture is very different from first-century Rome. These verses urged obedience to existing authorities and customs but did not establish who those authorities and what those customs ought to be. This is the ultimate irony of the complementarian position: they believe they are rejecting secular culture and obeying the Bible, when in fact they are not obeying the Bible but are following the societal structure and laws of 1st century Rome!
In the end, the case for gender roles comes down to nothing more than a few isolated verses and a lot of “we’ve always done it this way.” A doctrine that subordinates an entire class of people to another must be required to have more support than four or five proof-texts containing translational and contextual ambiguities, especially considering that the rest of the Bible clearly teaches the equality of men and women.
Besides the potential harm to members of the body of Christ, insistence on traditional gender roles also may cause non-believers to be turned off from Christianity unnecessarily. We must take great care not to create such obstacles when they are not even part of Christianity in the first place.
I have argued that it is impossible to restrict women from certain roles without declaring them to be inherently of lesser value or ability than men; that families and churches will be healthier if men and women work together instead of men arbitrarily ruling over women; and that unbiased study of the Bible reveals that the few verses used to support gender roles have been twisted and misused. Men and women equally reflect the image of God. All believers are “priests” before God (regardless of gender). Jesus is the only mediator between God and humanity. Under the new covenant, there is full spiritual equality for men and women. In light of all this, there is no room for universal hierarchies or principles of male rule. The egalitarian position simply is a much better fit with the entire Bible and the Gospel. We have left discrimination based on social class and race in the past where they belong. It’s time we do the same with discrimination based on gender. God does not command or approve of it, and neither should we.
(Note: If you would like to know more about this topic, I highly recommend the book Good News for Women: A Biblical Picture of Gender Equality by Rebecca Merrill Groothuis. It is a well-researched, well-argued case for complete equality for women and men in the family and in the church. I relied on it heavily for this blog series, particularly when discussing cultural backgrounds and the original Greek and Hebrew.)
Genesis 2:18
“Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.”
Complementarians find several points in Genesis 2 that they believe point to male authority. The first is that the woman was created to be a “helper” for the man. Complementarianism asserts that this means a wife is to serve her husband and be a sort of “assistant” to him; the wife should have no mission or pursuits of her own, but should adapt herself to her husband and support his pursuits and mission. However, the Hebrew word for “helper”, ezer, is used most often in the Old Testament to refer to God Himself as a helper to humanity (see, for example, Exodus 18:4, Deuteronomy 33:26, Psalm 33:20, Psalm 121:1-2, Psalm 146:5, Hosea 13:9). Clearly, then, “helper” cannot imply inferiority or subordination. In fact, a helper often possesses greater ability than the one being helped! Therefore, this verse does not declare women to be assistants to their husbands, but shows that men and women are to share the same mission equally and support each other.
Another claim is that the man’s authority over the woman is indicated by the fact that he was created first and named her. But what does either of these facts have to do with authority? Besides, the animals were created before the man; does this mean they have authority over him?
Complementarians also find significance in the fact that God confronts the man first for eating the fruit, and then the woman. Again, however, there is no reason to assume any hidden meaning behind this order of confrontation. And it’s worth noting that God spoke to each of them individually, rather than just the man, as we would expect if a husband were his wife’s “spiritual covering” and somehow responsible for her.
Finally, one fact misunderstood (or ignored) by the complementarian position is that God’s declaration that the man would rule over the woman was part of the curse. Complementarianism attempts to argue that male authority was in place from the beginning and that the fall merely caused it to become overbearing, but this is simply wishful thinking. There is nothing in the text to indicate this. In fact, there is nothing in the entire Genesis account of the first man and woman that would indicate male authority! If complementarians have no problem with using weed-killer to overcome the curse on the ground, or pain-killers to overcome the curse of pain in childbirth, then they should have no problem with full equality in marriage as an antidote to the curse of husbands ruling over their wives, something Genesis makes clear God never intended.
Titus 2:3-5
"Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home....”
1 Timothy 5:14
“Therefore, I want younger widows to get married, bear children, keep house, and give the enemy no occasion for reproach...”
Despite the fact that these are the only two verses in the entire Bible that would seem to instruct women to be homemakers and not work outside of the home, this view of the role of women is a significant pillar of the complementarian position. However, the main point of the text is not that women should stay at home, but that they should be self-controlled and pure rather than lazy and wandering around gossiping and wasting time. In that culture and time, it was already expected that women would not have careers and would keep the home, so they would not have had any other option. To interpret these verses as offering a countercultural command is to act as though Paul were writing in 21st century America. Paul’s instruction to keep the home (or be “busy at home” according to some translations) didn’t mean all women for all time must be homemakers. Rather, he was contrasting working at home to not working at all (being idle). The underlying principle is that women ought to be productive. In today’s culture, having a career or pursuing an education are valid ways of fulfilling this command.
After all, let’s not forget that when Mary sat down to learn from Jesus, while Martha busied herself keeping the house, it was Mary whom Jesus praised!
1 Cor. 11:3
The idea that husbands are in authority over their wives is based entirely on the assumption that “headship” that means “authority.” Because of so much popular teaching on the subject, it’s likely many people really do believe the Bible teaches that husbands have such authority.
But the most important point we must understand about this verse is that those who see it as establishing the authority of men over women are reading the Bible as if it were written in English and in the 21st century. We are accustomed to “head” meaning “leader” or “boss”, but this is not what it meant to the Greeks. To read it in this way is to assert that no one was able to understand what Paul really meant until 1,500 years later when the Bible was finally translated into English! In fact, the Greeks did not even consider the head to be the part of the body responsible for thinking, reasoning, and making decisions; they believed it was the heart that was responsible for these functions. In Greek, the word for “head”, kephale, was used as a metaphor for “source” or “supplier of life.” This is clearly the way the word is used in Ephesians 4:15:
“Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ.”
and in Colossians 2:19:
“They have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.”
The point here is that men, who in that culture had greater social status and privileges, were to use those privileges to care for their wives and treat them as equals, rather than taking advantage of those privileges to rule over them. In this way, this command is actually part of Paul’s command to husbands to love their wives! The verse may also be referencing to the fact that woman was made from man in the Genesis creation account (but, as I argued above, there is nothing inherent in that fact that implies men have authority over women).
The order in which each relationship appears in this passage also indicates that “source” rather than “authority” is the sense in which “head” is being used. If Paul were trying to indicate a chain of command, it would have made more sense to say that God is the head of Christ, Christ the head of man, and man the head of woman. Instead, it appears in chronological order: man (and everything else) was created through Christ (see Colossians 1:16), then woman was made from man, and finally God sent Christ to the world.
In fact, there is no mention of authority in this entire chapter, except for verse 10, which speaks of the woman’s own authority (“Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.”). Some modern translations add the idea that this has to do with man’s authority over her, such as the Living Bible (“So a woman should wear a covering on her head as a sign that she is under man’s authority”). But the literal rendering of the verse is “For this cause ought the woman to have power on (her) head.” Once again, any reference to male authority is not found in the original text but has been added later by those who wish to twist the Bible to say what they think it should say.
In the following verse (11:11), Paul says “However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.” Paul then says that while woman originally came from man, since that time man has always come from woman, and we all come from God anyway. It could not be more clear that he is saying we should not make too much out of all this headship stuff, and keep in mind that men and women need each other, while both are dependent on God. The full equality of men and women could not be more explicit.
Eph. 5:22-24
“Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.”
There are multiple points to be made about this verse. The first is that submission does not mean obedience! But, for a moment, let’s assume the command to submit does mean to obey. If this were so, it would be important to note that both Roman and Jewish law already required wives to obey their husbands. Therefore, to the original audience theses verses would have been nothing new. In this case, they would make the most sense as a command to Christians to live as respectable members of society by following social customs (to the extent possible) in order to avoid turning off the unsaved by their behavior. In fact, Paul’s instructions to wives to submit are fairly watered down for that time and place. While the Roman laws instructed men on how to rule or govern their wives, Paul focuses on telling husbands how to love them(and spends far more time on this than on the brief instructions to wives). He never tells husbands to rule, exercise authority over, or make decisions for their wives. Instead, husbands are commanded to lay down for their wives not only their social privileges and status but their life, as well as to love, honor, and care for them. I can’t think of a greater example of submission than this!
Also, just a few verses later in Ephesians 6:5 (as well as in Colossians 3:22), slaves are told to obey their masters. If telling wives to submit to their husbands is approval (or a command) from God that husbands have authority over their wives, then for the sake of consistency we would also need to interpret the verses about slaves must be interpreted as approval (or a command) from God that people own slaves! But, of course, in this case complementarians suddenly become more open to the idea that Bible verses must be understood in light of the culture in which they were written and being applicable not directly, but according to their underlying principle.
However, as I said, submission is not the same as obedience. More extreme versions of complementarianism teach that wives are to obey their husbands’ commands (in the same way children obey their parents), but no command is ever given to wives in the Bible to OBEY their husbands. Children are told to obey their parents, and even slaves to obey their masters (Eph. 6:1-9; also Col. 3:20-22), but wives are never told to obey their husbands.
Submission has a different and deeper meaning (and wider application) than obedience. To submit is to give up having your own way for the sake of others, to prefer others over yourself, to place the needs of another above your own and take a deferential position. Of course, all believers (not just women) are given these commands throughout the New Testament. For example:
Romans 12:10: “Be devoted to one another in brotherly love; give preference to one another in honor…”
Philippians 2:3: “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves…”
Matthew 20:25-28: “But Jesus called them to Himself and said, ‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.’”
Ephesians 5:21: “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.”
Are we really supposed to believe that these commands usually apply to all believers, but must be dropped when it comes to husbands in relation to their wives? The Christ-like way to live is in submission to others, and there is nothing more contrary to the spirit of what Jesus taught than the idea that a certain class of people should rule over others simply by virtue of who they are.
Not only that, immediately following these verses is the command for husbands to love their wives. If complementarians insist that the command to submit applies only to wives (and husbands do not have a similar obligation), would they also suggest that only husbands should love their wives, and wives have no similar obligation? Obviously they don’t suggest this. So why do they assume love ought to be mutual, but submission ought to be one-sided?
Another reason these verses support mutual submission (and reject unilateral submission) is the fact that the word for “submit” does not even occur in verse 22. In Greek, it literally says “wives, to your own husbands…” It borrows the word “submit” from the previous verse, in which all believers are told to submit to each other. Clearly, this kind of submission has nothing to do with authority or obedience, since would not be possible for people to submit to each other in that sense.
Finally, there are verses that clearly command mutual submission between husband and wife. For example, 1 Corinthians 7:4 says, “The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.” The Greek word for “body”, soma, generally was used in the first century to encompass an individual’s entire personhood, and was not necessarily limited to the physical body. I’m not sure how much more explicitly mutual submission could be communicated.
In light of all this, it would seem there is no biblical basis for anything other than complete equality between husbands and wives in marriage. Both have equal authority, equal access to God, and equal roles in decision-making. And, as I argued in part 2, this is good news, since I believe such a marriage will be far more healthy than one in which the man rules over the woman for no reason. For any who would continue to insist on a hierarchical marriage, what exactly is this idea based on?
Conclusion
Though it wasn’t possible to cover every possible argument, I believe I have presented the essential points in support of biblical egalitarianism. Too often, the gender roles issue is viewed through modern eyes; it is assumed that the complementarian position must be correct because it is so counter to our modern culture. But we must understand the reason behind the commands that seem to support complementarianism. The primary concern of the early church was not to be as different as possible, but to fit in wherever possible (see 1 Corinthians 9:19-23). The church leaders urged Christians to conform to cultural norms (as long as this did not entail sin) to avoid creating a stumbling block for people who may be open to the Gospel but would be turned off by what they considered to be subversive behavior. This is why Christian slaves were told to obey their masters, and all Christians were told to obey the government. If the early Christians were seen as law-breakers and socially disruptive, it would have reflected poorly on the Gospel and Christianity may never have gotten off the ground.
Now, however, our culture is very different from first-century Rome. These verses urged obedience to existing authorities and customs but did not establish who those authorities and what those customs ought to be. This is the ultimate irony of the complementarian position: they believe they are rejecting secular culture and obeying the Bible, when in fact they are not obeying the Bible but are following the societal structure and laws of 1st century Rome!
In the end, the case for gender roles comes down to nothing more than a few isolated verses and a lot of “we’ve always done it this way.” A doctrine that subordinates an entire class of people to another must be required to have more support than four or five proof-texts containing translational and contextual ambiguities, especially considering that the rest of the Bible clearly teaches the equality of men and women.
Besides the potential harm to members of the body of Christ, insistence on traditional gender roles also may cause non-believers to be turned off from Christianity unnecessarily. We must take great care not to create such obstacles when they are not even part of Christianity in the first place.
I have argued that it is impossible to restrict women from certain roles without declaring them to be inherently of lesser value or ability than men; that families and churches will be healthier if men and women work together instead of men arbitrarily ruling over women; and that unbiased study of the Bible reveals that the few verses used to support gender roles have been twisted and misused. Men and women equally reflect the image of God. All believers are “priests” before God (regardless of gender). Jesus is the only mediator between God and humanity. Under the new covenant, there is full spiritual equality for men and women. In light of all this, there is no room for universal hierarchies or principles of male rule. The egalitarian position simply is a much better fit with the entire Bible and the Gospel. We have left discrimination based on social class and race in the past where they belong. It’s time we do the same with discrimination based on gender. God does not command or approve of it, and neither should we.
(Note: If you would like to know more about this topic, I highly recommend the book Good News for Women: A Biblical Picture of Gender Equality by Rebecca Merrill Groothuis. It is a well-researched, well-argued case for complete equality for women and men in the family and in the church. I relied on it heavily for this blog series, particularly when discussing cultural backgrounds and the original Greek and Hebrew.)
Saturday, September 7, 2019
Gender Roles Part 3: Addressing Verses Regarding Women in the Church
As I mentioned at the end of part 2, we can all easily think of multiple verses that seem to contradict everything I’ve said thus far. In parts 3 and 4, I would like to address each of these verses in turn. As it turns out, there are surprisingly few verses that even seem to support the complementarian position, and each one has translational ambiguities and contextual considerations that cannot be ignored. In other words, support for the complementarian position is far thinner than many realize (despite the emphasis placed on it by so many popular Christian authors and speakers). This is why it’s so important for us to know the Bible ourselves and not merely trust others to interpret it for us. Ample support should be demanded for a belief system that does something as drastic as universally consigning all women to a subservient and subordinate position. And, as I will argue, I do not believe the complementarian position has such support.
When considering the verses below, we must keep a few things in mind. First, to inquire about the true meaning of a verse is not to deny biblical authority. Like it or not, there are many ambiguous or unclear verses in the Bible (and many different interpretations of such verses). Sometimes, when we feel strongly about a particular verse, we have a tendency to simply accuse anyone who disagrees with us of disagreeing with the Bible (or with God). But we must never confuse a questioning of our preferred interpretation with a questioning of the Bible itself. both complementarians and egalitarians accept the authority of the Bible; the point of disagreement is whether deeper study is necessary in order to understand a particular verse or command.
Second, we must avoid treating the Bible as if it were a magic book that fell out of the sky one day and was written directly to us, in English, in the 21st century; as if every sentence were a specific command that is directly applicable to our specific situations without any attempt to look deeper and understand the underlying principles being communicated. In reality, we must study the Bible, not simply read it. We must understand everything in the context not only of the entirety of the Bible, but also of the time and place (and to whom) it was written. Of course, there ARE some portions that are simple and direct; my point simply is that we cannot assume this universally or in the cases we prefer without justification.
Third, we must keep in mind that it is possible for a particular command to be specifically applicable only in a limited sense (based on cultural context, to whom it was written, etc.). This does not mean that these verses are useless to us, because they still communicate an underlying principle that does have a universal application. But if we refuse to look deeper and instead insist on the “plain meaning”, we’ll miss the actual point of the verse. One example is the command to “greet one another with a holy kiss” in Romans 16:16. When was the last time you went around church kissing everyone? If we took this literalistically as a command for all time to always greet each other with a kiss, we would be following an empty ritual but entirely missing the real point, which seems to be that we should be warm and friendly toward one another. If we do this in a way that is more applicable to our particular time and culture (such as shaking hands or hugging), we would certainly be fulfilling this command (more than we would if we did not make the effort to fully understand it).
With that, let us turn to the verses that have convinced so many that women should not be pastors, teach, or have authority over men in the church.
When Paul says women must be silent, he could not have meant complete silence, since three chapters earlier, in chapter 11, he was talking about regulations for both men and women speaking and prophesying in the public assembly (1 Cor. 11:4-5). So what did he mean? As it turns out, the same word used to refer to women’s silence in this verse is used in reference to those who spoke in tongues without an interpreter present (in 1 Corinthians 14:27-28). Here Paul was stressing the need for order during the church service; if an interpreter was not present, no one should speak in tongues to the entire congregation (since it would not be edifying to them). But this was not a command not to speak at all.
In the same way, Paul’s concern here seems to have been order in the churches. At that time, most women were lacking in religious education and were apparently interrupting the preacher to ask questions (a common practice at the time). Paul’s point was not that there is something spiritually offensive to God about anyone of the female gender speaking inside of a church building, but that it was better for the women to learn from their husbands at home (again, not because men are inherently better at understanding and interpreting the word of God, but because at that time only men had access to religious teaching). Interestingly, Paul’s commands were radical for the time, since it was not customary for women to receive such instruction at all. Paul is actually providing a way for the women to receive religious instruction and answers to their questions so they could catch up and be as equipped and knowledgeable as the men.
Therefore, this verse is best interpreted as specific instructions that apply directly only to the situation and people to which it was originally written, but with an underlying principle that is universally applicable (the importance of maintaining order in the church). Since Paul’s concern is only disruptive interruptions from people lacking in religious education, there certainly is no basis for using this verse as a universal prohibition of women speaking or teaching in church.
The points I made above regarding 1 Corinthians 14 apply here as well. Additionally, however, the word for “quiet” is the same word used to instruct the entire church in 1 Timothy 2:1-2, which says: “I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people - for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.” Once again, clearly it does not mean absolute silence, but respectful attention or a quiet demeanor. And this is required of all believers, not just women.
It’s interesting to note that, in the Ephesian church in which Timothy served, there was an idea being circulated that Eve was created before Adam and that somehow this meant she was superior to him. This explains why Paul emphasized the creation order in verses 13 and 14. He was not, however, grounding a universal prohibition against women teaching on the creation order, as is often assumed, but is countering false teaching.
Additionally, when Paul says women can’t have “authority” over men, the Greek word he uses is authentein, which is never used to indicate legitimate authority, but rather a negative, domineering, even violent exercise of authority. The Greek word for general, legitimate authority was exousia. So it seems Paul was not forbidding authority in general, but overbearing authority, which, of course, would be forbidden for all believers (not just women). Again, there was false teaching being spread in the Ephesian church about the supposed superiority of women, so his comments were written specifically to counter this. This was not intended to be a universal prohibition for all time against women having authority over men.
It is really grasping at straws to try to use this verse to prohibit women from leadership positions. Complementarians point out that it says “the husband of one wife,” and since women can’t be husbands, this must mean elders should be men! But this is missing the point. The concern here is that elders not be polygamists and be faithful to their spouse. Paul could easily have said “an overseer must be a man,” but he didn’t. While complementarians generally insist on accepting the “plain reading” of the text, here they suddenly abandon that position.
In a later verse, Paul says that an elder must have obedient children. If we were to read this in the same way the complementarian reads the above passage, we would take this as an implicit command that all elders have children. But, of course, no one understands it in this way (as far as I know!), therefore revealing the inconsistency with which complementarians approach such verses. And let’s not forget that Paul himself was not married, and therefore, under the simplistically literal interpretation of these verses he himself would have been disqualified from being an elder!
But perhaps the most obvious evidence that these few verses were never meant to universally prohibit women from leadership and teaching roles is that there were, in fact, so many women in such positions, both in the Old and New Testaments:
• Miriam was a prophetess (Exodus. 15:20).
• Huldah was a prophetess (2 Kings 22:14-20; 2 Chron. 34:11-33).
• Noadiah was a prophetess (Nehemiah. 6:14).
• Isaiah’s wife was a prophetess (Isaiah 8:3).
• Deborah was a judge and prophetess (Judg. 4-5).
It’s interesting to note that all of the examples thus far are from the Old Testament. To suggest that women were allowed such positions at this time but then the standards changed when the church was established is to say that there are MORE restrictions on women under the new covenant than under old!
There are also many examples of women in leadership and teaching positions in the New Testament:
• Anna was a prophetess (Luke 2:36).
• Phoebe was a deacon (some translations say “servant” or “leader”) at the church in Cenchrea (Romans 16:1-2).
• Junia was an apostle (Romans 16:7). Some translations actually change her name to the male form, “Junias,” even though there is no evidence of “Junias” being used as a man’s name at this time, while “Junia” as a female name was quite common. This alteration was first made in the 13th century in an attempt to avoid acknowledging that at least one of the apostles was a woman.
• Euodia and Syntyche (Phil. 4:2-3), Chloe 1 Cor. 1:11), Lydia (Acts 16:40), and Nympha (Col. 4:15) all are mentioned as Paul’s co-workers in ministry. It is likely they were church overseers.
• Priscilla and Aquila are mentioned seven times in the New Testament, and Priscilla’s name appears first five of those times. This is a clear indicator that she was the leader of the church that met in their home (it was conventional to list the leader’s name first).
If there were something permanent and universally true about women that compelled God to forbid them from being in such positions, why would He have made so many “exceptions”?
An additional interesting point is that in Titus 2:3, in which older women are instructed to teach younger women (a favorite verse among complementarians, as we’ll see in part 4), the Greek word for “older women” is presbutis.” If this sounds familiar, that is because it’s the feminine version of presbyteros, from which we derive the word “Presbyterian” in English. In Greek this word meant either “aged man” or “aged woman” (depending on whether masculine or feminine form was used), but in either case, it was generally used in the New Testament to indicate an elder in the church. This means that Titus 2 most likely is not merely referring to older women, but to female elders!
If the few verses that initially seem to forbid women from teaching and holding leadership positions in the church are understood as universal commands, we would be forced to conclude that the Bible contradicts itself each time it mentions (and commends) women who held exactly these types of positions. Shall we ignore the evidence and arguments throughout the Bible that indicate full equality for women, and instead hold onto our traditions based on only a few verses read simplistically and without the attempt of further study? Or will we recognize the cultural and contextual nuances present in these few verses and accept the overall message of the Bible?
Given all of this, I must conclude that there is no biblical basis for keeping women from teaching and having authority in the church. And, of course, this is great news: women who may have been held back by others or their own hesitation based on such verses can be free to pursue God’s call on their lives, without having to worry that the abilities with which He has blessed them have to be ignored because of their gender. And the entire church will benefit from all that these women have to offer in ministry, as well as from the freedom of letting go of petty squabbles over who is permitted to serve God freely and who is forbidden from the same, on the basis of gender alone. For anyone who would continue to maintain that women should not hold such positions, I must ask: what exactly is the basis of view?
In part 4, I will conclude by considering each of the verses traditionally used to impose a hierarchical order within the family.
(Note: If you would like to know more about this topic, I highly recommend the book Good News for Women: A Biblical Picture of Gender Equality by Rebecca Merrill Groothuis. It is a well-researched, well-argued case for complete equality for women and men in the family and in the church. I relied on it heavily for this blog series, particularly when discussing cultural backgrounds and the original Greek and Hebrew.)
When considering the verses below, we must keep a few things in mind. First, to inquire about the true meaning of a verse is not to deny biblical authority. Like it or not, there are many ambiguous or unclear verses in the Bible (and many different interpretations of such verses). Sometimes, when we feel strongly about a particular verse, we have a tendency to simply accuse anyone who disagrees with us of disagreeing with the Bible (or with God). But we must never confuse a questioning of our preferred interpretation with a questioning of the Bible itself. both complementarians and egalitarians accept the authority of the Bible; the point of disagreement is whether deeper study is necessary in order to understand a particular verse or command.
Second, we must avoid treating the Bible as if it were a magic book that fell out of the sky one day and was written directly to us, in English, in the 21st century; as if every sentence were a specific command that is directly applicable to our specific situations without any attempt to look deeper and understand the underlying principles being communicated. In reality, we must study the Bible, not simply read it. We must understand everything in the context not only of the entirety of the Bible, but also of the time and place (and to whom) it was written. Of course, there ARE some portions that are simple and direct; my point simply is that we cannot assume this universally or in the cases we prefer without justification.
Third, we must keep in mind that it is possible for a particular command to be specifically applicable only in a limited sense (based on cultural context, to whom it was written, etc.). This does not mean that these verses are useless to us, because they still communicate an underlying principle that does have a universal application. But if we refuse to look deeper and instead insist on the “plain meaning”, we’ll miss the actual point of the verse. One example is the command to “greet one another with a holy kiss” in Romans 16:16. When was the last time you went around church kissing everyone? If we took this literalistically as a command for all time to always greet each other with a kiss, we would be following an empty ritual but entirely missing the real point, which seems to be that we should be warm and friendly toward one another. If we do this in a way that is more applicable to our particular time and culture (such as shaking hands or hugging), we would certainly be fulfilling this command (more than we would if we did not make the effort to fully understand it).
With that, let us turn to the verses that have convinced so many that women should not be pastors, teach, or have authority over men in the church.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35
“The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.”
When Paul says women must be silent, he could not have meant complete silence, since three chapters earlier, in chapter 11, he was talking about regulations for both men and women speaking and prophesying in the public assembly (1 Cor. 11:4-5). So what did he mean? As it turns out, the same word used to refer to women’s silence in this verse is used in reference to those who spoke in tongues without an interpreter present (in 1 Corinthians 14:27-28). Here Paul was stressing the need for order during the church service; if an interpreter was not present, no one should speak in tongues to the entire congregation (since it would not be edifying to them). But this was not a command not to speak at all.
In the same way, Paul’s concern here seems to have been order in the churches. At that time, most women were lacking in religious education and were apparently interrupting the preacher to ask questions (a common practice at the time). Paul’s point was not that there is something spiritually offensive to God about anyone of the female gender speaking inside of a church building, but that it was better for the women to learn from their husbands at home (again, not because men are inherently better at understanding and interpreting the word of God, but because at that time only men had access to religious teaching). Interestingly, Paul’s commands were radical for the time, since it was not customary for women to receive such instruction at all. Paul is actually providing a way for the women to receive religious instruction and answers to their questions so they could catch up and be as equipped and knowledgeable as the men.
Therefore, this verse is best interpreted as specific instructions that apply directly only to the situation and people to which it was originally written, but with an underlying principle that is universally applicable (the importance of maintaining order in the church). Since Paul’s concern is only disruptive interruptions from people lacking in religious education, there certainly is no basis for using this verse as a universal prohibition of women speaking or teaching in church.
1 Timothy 2:11-12
“A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.”
The points I made above regarding 1 Corinthians 14 apply here as well. Additionally, however, the word for “quiet” is the same word used to instruct the entire church in 1 Timothy 2:1-2, which says: “I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people - for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.” Once again, clearly it does not mean absolute silence, but respectful attention or a quiet demeanor. And this is required of all believers, not just women.
It’s interesting to note that, in the Ephesian church in which Timothy served, there was an idea being circulated that Eve was created before Adam and that somehow this meant she was superior to him. This explains why Paul emphasized the creation order in verses 13 and 14. He was not, however, grounding a universal prohibition against women teaching on the creation order, as is often assumed, but is countering false teaching.
Additionally, when Paul says women can’t have “authority” over men, the Greek word he uses is authentein, which is never used to indicate legitimate authority, but rather a negative, domineering, even violent exercise of authority. The Greek word for general, legitimate authority was exousia. So it seems Paul was not forbidding authority in general, but overbearing authority, which, of course, would be forbidden for all believers (not just women). Again, there was false teaching being spread in the Ephesian church about the supposed superiority of women, so his comments were written specifically to counter this. This was not intended to be a universal prohibition for all time against women having authority over men.
1 Timothy 3:2
“An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money.”
It is really grasping at straws to try to use this verse to prohibit women from leadership positions. Complementarians point out that it says “the husband of one wife,” and since women can’t be husbands, this must mean elders should be men! But this is missing the point. The concern here is that elders not be polygamists and be faithful to their spouse. Paul could easily have said “an overseer must be a man,” but he didn’t. While complementarians generally insist on accepting the “plain reading” of the text, here they suddenly abandon that position.
In a later verse, Paul says that an elder must have obedient children. If we were to read this in the same way the complementarian reads the above passage, we would take this as an implicit command that all elders have children. But, of course, no one understands it in this way (as far as I know!), therefore revealing the inconsistency with which complementarians approach such verses. And let’s not forget that Paul himself was not married, and therefore, under the simplistically literal interpretation of these verses he himself would have been disqualified from being an elder!
But perhaps the most obvious evidence that these few verses were never meant to universally prohibit women from leadership and teaching roles is that there were, in fact, so many women in such positions, both in the Old and New Testaments:
• Miriam was a prophetess (Exodus. 15:20).
• Huldah was a prophetess (2 Kings 22:14-20; 2 Chron. 34:11-33).
• Noadiah was a prophetess (Nehemiah. 6:14).
• Isaiah’s wife was a prophetess (Isaiah 8:3).
• Deborah was a judge and prophetess (Judg. 4-5).
It’s interesting to note that all of the examples thus far are from the Old Testament. To suggest that women were allowed such positions at this time but then the standards changed when the church was established is to say that there are MORE restrictions on women under the new covenant than under old!
There are also many examples of women in leadership and teaching positions in the New Testament:
• Anna was a prophetess (Luke 2:36).
• Phoebe was a deacon (some translations say “servant” or “leader”) at the church in Cenchrea (Romans 16:1-2).
• Junia was an apostle (Romans 16:7). Some translations actually change her name to the male form, “Junias,” even though there is no evidence of “Junias” being used as a man’s name at this time, while “Junia” as a female name was quite common. This alteration was first made in the 13th century in an attempt to avoid acknowledging that at least one of the apostles was a woman.
• Euodia and Syntyche (Phil. 4:2-3), Chloe 1 Cor. 1:11), Lydia (Acts 16:40), and Nympha (Col. 4:15) all are mentioned as Paul’s co-workers in ministry. It is likely they were church overseers.
• Priscilla and Aquila are mentioned seven times in the New Testament, and Priscilla’s name appears first five of those times. This is a clear indicator that she was the leader of the church that met in their home (it was conventional to list the leader’s name first).
If there were something permanent and universally true about women that compelled God to forbid them from being in such positions, why would He have made so many “exceptions”?
An additional interesting point is that in Titus 2:3, in which older women are instructed to teach younger women (a favorite verse among complementarians, as we’ll see in part 4), the Greek word for “older women” is presbutis.” If this sounds familiar, that is because it’s the feminine version of presbyteros, from which we derive the word “Presbyterian” in English. In Greek this word meant either “aged man” or “aged woman” (depending on whether masculine or feminine form was used), but in either case, it was generally used in the New Testament to indicate an elder in the church. This means that Titus 2 most likely is not merely referring to older women, but to female elders!
If the few verses that initially seem to forbid women from teaching and holding leadership positions in the church are understood as universal commands, we would be forced to conclude that the Bible contradicts itself each time it mentions (and commends) women who held exactly these types of positions. Shall we ignore the evidence and arguments throughout the Bible that indicate full equality for women, and instead hold onto our traditions based on only a few verses read simplistically and without the attempt of further study? Or will we recognize the cultural and contextual nuances present in these few verses and accept the overall message of the Bible?
Given all of this, I must conclude that there is no biblical basis for keeping women from teaching and having authority in the church. And, of course, this is great news: women who may have been held back by others or their own hesitation based on such verses can be free to pursue God’s call on their lives, without having to worry that the abilities with which He has blessed them have to be ignored because of their gender. And the entire church will benefit from all that these women have to offer in ministry, as well as from the freedom of letting go of petty squabbles over who is permitted to serve God freely and who is forbidden from the same, on the basis of gender alone. For anyone who would continue to maintain that women should not hold such positions, I must ask: what exactly is the basis of view?
In part 4, I will conclude by considering each of the verses traditionally used to impose a hierarchical order within the family.
(Note: If you would like to know more about this topic, I highly recommend the book Good News for Women: A Biblical Picture of Gender Equality by Rebecca Merrill Groothuis. It is a well-researched, well-argued case for complete equality for women and men in the family and in the church. I relied on it heavily for this blog series, particularly when discussing cultural backgrounds and the original Greek and Hebrew.)
Saturday, August 31, 2019
Gender Roles Part 2: The Case for Equal Roles for Men and Women
In my last post, I argued that the Bible, as a whole, teaches very clearly the complete equality of men and women (in function as well as value). Note, by the way, that “equal” does not mean “same.” Egalitarianism embraces the differences between the roles and functions of individuals, but denies that an entire class of people ought to be excluded from certain roles or positions simply because of their gender. In this post, I will present a case for an egalitarian model of marriage, as well as complete freedom for women to serve in any ministry in the church without restriction based on their gender.
We’ll begin by discussing the idea that the husband is the leader and final decision-maker in the family, and that his wife must obey him. It may surprise some to hear that the Bible never commands husbands to rule, lead, or make decisions on behalf of their wives! This is an idea that is merely read into the text based on prior assumptions (and, unfortunately, is perpetuated by a lot of popular Christian speakers and authors). The Bible clearly tells husbands to treat their wives as equals, to love them, respect them, care for them, and even to lay down their lives for them; but a command to husbands to rule over or lead their wives is conspicuously absent.
One important question never addressed by complementarianism is why women need to be led at all. Leadership of one individual over another is reasonable only if one is in need of being led and the other is qualified to lead. There is, however, no reason (biblical or otherwise) to think women are particularly in need of leadership, nor that men are naturally qualified to lead as a result of nothing but their maleness. Rather, we see a natural variation among individuals regardless of gender. If all husbands are to lead (even though some are not necessarily qualified), and if wives are no more in need of leadership than their husbands, then this arrangement is entirely arbitrary and potentially harmful. If women are not universally less mature than men, they ought to be treated as full adults capable of making decisions for themselves in the same way men are. When decisions are made for them, this is not “doing them a favor.” How can they grow to intellectual, emotional, and spiritual maturity if they are treated as children incapable of making decisions and unfit to have responsibility for themselves?
Complementarians sometimes admit that there is no gender-determined difference in qualification, but declare that the distinction is merely for the sake of order. They fear that without a clear chain of command a marriage will be directionless, inefficient, or even chaotic. They say things like “a ship can only have one captain” and “someone has to make the final decision.” In fact, sometimes they even assume that if the husband is not the leader, he must be passive and timid, and it must be the wife who is leading! But this does not at all reflect a true egalitarian marriage, and it shows that the complementarian position does not seem able to conceive of a relationship of true equals.
In reality, however, egalitarian marriages thrive without a chain of command. The answer to the complementarian’s concerns is patently obvious: all major decisions MUST be made together. The couple must work together and compare viewpoints until both are in agreement. Learning to compromise and work with others is simply part of being an adult, and the complementarian marriage cannot benefit from the attempt to bypass such an important part of a relationship. For the sake of artificially avoiding all conflict, they have removed one of the greatest opportunities for a married couple to grow in character and maturity, as well as to become closer to each other. The result may be a conflict-free home, but can there be real closeness?
To designate the husband as the final decision-maker simply because he is male is completely arbitrary. At least complementarians insist that a wise husband will consider his wife’s input, but he is not required to and may be less likely to do so if he is so convinced that she is somehow unfit to make such decisions as a result of her female nature. Therefore, it is probable that this arrangement will result in poor decisions being made at times because the full input of both spouses is not being utilized.
There is always the possibility that some major decision will come up that must be made immediately and on which the husband and wife disagree. What to do in this case? I would argue that this is a rare situation, but perhaps every couple ought to discuss such a scenario ahead of time and decide together what should be done. Maybe they consult a trusted third person with whom they are both comfortable. Or perhaps whichever spouse has more knowledge regarding the particular issue or will be more affected by the decision would have preference. Either way, choosing a final decision-maker arbitrarily is the worst possible solution. It would be no different from making such a choice based on hair color or taking turns depending on the day of the week. Ultimately, when each spouse truly has the other’s best interest in mind, it will be possible to work together effectively without an arbitrary hierarchy.
Another concern of complementarianism is that an egalitarian marriage contradicts the biblical commands regarding submission. But this is not true. An egalitarian marriage is not devoid of submission; in fact, it has MORE submission than a complementarian marriage, for the submission is mutual; each spouse submits to the other! Submission is not the same as obedience. To submit is to give up having your own way for the sake of others, to consider others more important than yourself and to give preference to others, all of which are instructions given to all believers (both male and female) throughout the New Testament. A marriage of mutual submission simply is one in which neither spouse demands the right to have their own way but is willing to make sacrifices for the good of the other (contrasted with the complementarian model, under which only wives are to allow their husbands have their way). Submitting to others is an important element of Christ-likeness; why would a husband be exempt from this requirement in his relationship with his wife?
Besides, how can a husband grow and be teachable without a submissive spirit? It’s hard to think of a better facilitator of growth than a husband and wife, who know each other better than anyone else, motivating and encouraging each other to greater maturity and character. Under the complementarian model, husbands are often responsible for “instructing” and managing the growth of their wives, but for wives to do the same is considered a breach of “headship.” The husband is therefore deprived of one major benefit his wife may provide.
The egalitarian marriage model leads naturally to mutual respect, affection, appreciation, and commitment, aspects of a relationship that may be much more difficult if one partner holds permanent and universal authority over the other. A complementarian relationship, on the other hand, has all the elements of authoritarianism: absolute obedience (except commands to sin), comprehensive authority over the entire life of another individual, and no accountability to the person being ruled over. It is simply impossible for a husband in such a situation to treat his wife as his equal, no matter how kind he is. Don’t get me wrong: certainly complementarians do instruct husbands to treat their wives kindly and respectfully. But there is a far greater risk of abuse in an arrangement in which the husband is assumed to have divinely sanctioned authority on the basis of his gender alone, and is not accountable to his wife.
Another complementarian idea is that the husband is the wife’s “spiritual covering,” and as “priest of the home” is ultimately responsible for her spiritual well-being (though nothing like this is ever stated in the Bible). The details vary, but the basic idea is that the husband has been given the spiritual responsibility to interpret and teach her God’s word and will, and that he is in some sense a mediator between her and God. This is a seriously problematic idea. All believers have equal access to God under the new covenant and so are responsible for themselves before God. Any other arrangement would imply that men and women are not on the same spiritual level, that men are somehow better able to represent God to their families and churches, and are better equipped to communicate with God. Beyond that, what does this say about the sufficiency of Jesus’ role as mediator between humanity and God? Apparently Jesus isn’t enough, or else why would it be necessary for husbands to be “supplementary” mediators? This arrangement is more like the old covenant, under which some were chosen to be priests based on external physical characteristics, rather than the new covenant, under which the priesthood of all believers was established.
This arrangement runs the risk of causing the spiritual stunting of women, leaving them more easily deceived and manipulated by false teaching since they must always depend on men for instruction and discernment. It could also be spiritually harmful to men by creating the perfect breeding ground for arrogance, an unteachable spirit (if being male means you have a unique ability to understand God’s will and speak for Him, how can you ever be wrong?), and a sense of superiority over women, not to mention the inevitable burnout as they try to fill a role that is meant to be filled only by Jesus Himself (Heb. 9:11-15).
Therefore, the idea that the supposed roles of men and women in marriage are “different but equal” is disingenuous and misleading. If men are given the right to have control over their own lives as well as the lives of women, while women must hand over the right to control their lives to men, this is the definition of inequality.
It should be noted that a couple may, of course, choose whatever structure they like for their marriage. If they want a hierarchical structure, it is no one else’s business. However, I would argue that a marriage in which both spouses truly respect each other as equals, work together as a team to make all decisions, and never pull rank on each other, is far more natural and has a greater chance of being healthy and fulfilling; not to mention the fact that only in an egalitarian marriage are both spouses required to treat each other in a truly Christ-like way. Further, as I will argue in part 4, I believe there is no biblical command for a hierarchical structure in marriage, and therefore, those who reject it cannot be accused of disobeying God.
Let us now turn to the role of women in the church. Generally speaking, the complementarian view is that while women do play an important role in the church, leadership roles are to be reserved for men. Additionally, while men may teach other men, women may only teach other women and children. There are varying opinions on how far these restrictions go; some believe women cannot hold any leadership position and should not even speak in church; others believe only the role of senior pastor must be exclusive to men, but that a woman may teach the entire congregation as long as she is “under the authority of a man.” Nevertheless, they all have in common the idea that there are some restrictions on women regarding ministry positions, while men have no such restrictions.
Some believe these restrictions exist not because of any difference in ability or qualification between the genders, but merely to maintain order in the church, while others believe there are more specific reasons. One such reason is that women supposedly are more easily deceived than men (though this is never stated in the Bible!), and so should not be allowed to teach the entire congregation. One must wonder, however, if this were true, what kind of sense it would make for a woman to teach other women and children, who would themselves be most vulnerable to false teaching, and to avoid teaching the men who supposedly would be most likely to detect falsehoods?
Another justification given for the exclusion of women from leadership roles is that women were not allowed to be priests under the old covenant, so they should not be allowed to be pastors under the new. But it was not only women who were excluded from the priesthood in the old covenant; most men were as well! Priests had to be male, descendants of Aaron, and without any physical defects. It is important to understand why God would institute such qualifications. As humans, we tend to look at and consider what is external, while God looks at the heart (1 Samuel 16:7). The point, then, was to create certain standards for the priesthood based on what humans value in order to teach us about being holy and set apart in a way we could understand. However, under the new covenant, the lesson had been learned and the priesthood of all believers was established. Hence, there is no longer any reason to hold onto the old qualifications regarding race, physical appearance, or gender; we must now look at the heart as God does.
Complementarians also point to the fact that the 12 disciples were all male as evidence that the leaders of the church must be male. But, similar to the point made above, Jesus’ disciples were also Jewish. We don’t require all pastors to be Jewish, so why require them to be male? Of course, the reason for the 12 disciples being male is perfectly clear:Jesus was operating within a patriarchal society in which it would have been inappropriate and counter-productive for any of his close followers to be women. But this fact cannot serve as justification for assuming a universal, permanent standard regarding the role of women in the church. Jesus was merely recognizing and operating within the culture of the time.
I will say more on the topic of women serving as leaders and teachers in the church when I address the verses used to exclude them from such positions. For now, however, imagine how much healthier a church could be if it were to allow all its members to serve in whatever capacity God called them to serve. There certainly is no benefit from refusing to hear from half of the members of a church simply because they are women. A church that does not discriminate in this way will have more time and energy to focus on important matters of ministry and outreach, rather than busying themselves trying to make sure women are not “usurping” the roles supposedly ordained by God for men alone. We would never dream of assigning or restricting such roles based on race or social status, so why insist on it based on gender?
Thus far, I believe there is a strong case for biblical egalitarianism. But what about those verses we all undoubtedly have in mind that have been conspicuously absent from anything I’ve yet written? Doesn’t the Bible tell wives to submit to their husbands? Aren’t women told to be silent in the churches, and never to teach or have authority over a man? It would be impossible to present a complete argument for the egalitarian position without discussing such verses. I will turn to these in parts 3 and 4.
(Note: If you would like to know more about this topic, I highly recommend the book Good News for Women: A Biblical Picture of Gender Equality by Rebecca Merrill Groothuis. It is a well-researched, well-argued case for complete equality for women and men in the family and in the church. I relied on it heavily for this blog series, particularly when discussing cultural backgrounds and the original Greek and Hebrew.)
We’ll begin by discussing the idea that the husband is the leader and final decision-maker in the family, and that his wife must obey him. It may surprise some to hear that the Bible never commands husbands to rule, lead, or make decisions on behalf of their wives! This is an idea that is merely read into the text based on prior assumptions (and, unfortunately, is perpetuated by a lot of popular Christian speakers and authors). The Bible clearly tells husbands to treat their wives as equals, to love them, respect them, care for them, and even to lay down their lives for them; but a command to husbands to rule over or lead their wives is conspicuously absent.
One important question never addressed by complementarianism is why women need to be led at all. Leadership of one individual over another is reasonable only if one is in need of being led and the other is qualified to lead. There is, however, no reason (biblical or otherwise) to think women are particularly in need of leadership, nor that men are naturally qualified to lead as a result of nothing but their maleness. Rather, we see a natural variation among individuals regardless of gender. If all husbands are to lead (even though some are not necessarily qualified), and if wives are no more in need of leadership than their husbands, then this arrangement is entirely arbitrary and potentially harmful. If women are not universally less mature than men, they ought to be treated as full adults capable of making decisions for themselves in the same way men are. When decisions are made for them, this is not “doing them a favor.” How can they grow to intellectual, emotional, and spiritual maturity if they are treated as children incapable of making decisions and unfit to have responsibility for themselves?
Complementarians sometimes admit that there is no gender-determined difference in qualification, but declare that the distinction is merely for the sake of order. They fear that without a clear chain of command a marriage will be directionless, inefficient, or even chaotic. They say things like “a ship can only have one captain” and “someone has to make the final decision.” In fact, sometimes they even assume that if the husband is not the leader, he must be passive and timid, and it must be the wife who is leading! But this does not at all reflect a true egalitarian marriage, and it shows that the complementarian position does not seem able to conceive of a relationship of true equals.
In reality, however, egalitarian marriages thrive without a chain of command. The answer to the complementarian’s concerns is patently obvious: all major decisions MUST be made together. The couple must work together and compare viewpoints until both are in agreement. Learning to compromise and work with others is simply part of being an adult, and the complementarian marriage cannot benefit from the attempt to bypass such an important part of a relationship. For the sake of artificially avoiding all conflict, they have removed one of the greatest opportunities for a married couple to grow in character and maturity, as well as to become closer to each other. The result may be a conflict-free home, but can there be real closeness?
To designate the husband as the final decision-maker simply because he is male is completely arbitrary. At least complementarians insist that a wise husband will consider his wife’s input, but he is not required to and may be less likely to do so if he is so convinced that she is somehow unfit to make such decisions as a result of her female nature. Therefore, it is probable that this arrangement will result in poor decisions being made at times because the full input of both spouses is not being utilized.
There is always the possibility that some major decision will come up that must be made immediately and on which the husband and wife disagree. What to do in this case? I would argue that this is a rare situation, but perhaps every couple ought to discuss such a scenario ahead of time and decide together what should be done. Maybe they consult a trusted third person with whom they are both comfortable. Or perhaps whichever spouse has more knowledge regarding the particular issue or will be more affected by the decision would have preference. Either way, choosing a final decision-maker arbitrarily is the worst possible solution. It would be no different from making such a choice based on hair color or taking turns depending on the day of the week. Ultimately, when each spouse truly has the other’s best interest in mind, it will be possible to work together effectively without an arbitrary hierarchy.
Another concern of complementarianism is that an egalitarian marriage contradicts the biblical commands regarding submission. But this is not true. An egalitarian marriage is not devoid of submission; in fact, it has MORE submission than a complementarian marriage, for the submission is mutual; each spouse submits to the other! Submission is not the same as obedience. To submit is to give up having your own way for the sake of others, to consider others more important than yourself and to give preference to others, all of which are instructions given to all believers (both male and female) throughout the New Testament. A marriage of mutual submission simply is one in which neither spouse demands the right to have their own way but is willing to make sacrifices for the good of the other (contrasted with the complementarian model, under which only wives are to allow their husbands have their way). Submitting to others is an important element of Christ-likeness; why would a husband be exempt from this requirement in his relationship with his wife?
Besides, how can a husband grow and be teachable without a submissive spirit? It’s hard to think of a better facilitator of growth than a husband and wife, who know each other better than anyone else, motivating and encouraging each other to greater maturity and character. Under the complementarian model, husbands are often responsible for “instructing” and managing the growth of their wives, but for wives to do the same is considered a breach of “headship.” The husband is therefore deprived of one major benefit his wife may provide.
The egalitarian marriage model leads naturally to mutual respect, affection, appreciation, and commitment, aspects of a relationship that may be much more difficult if one partner holds permanent and universal authority over the other. A complementarian relationship, on the other hand, has all the elements of authoritarianism: absolute obedience (except commands to sin), comprehensive authority over the entire life of another individual, and no accountability to the person being ruled over. It is simply impossible for a husband in such a situation to treat his wife as his equal, no matter how kind he is. Don’t get me wrong: certainly complementarians do instruct husbands to treat their wives kindly and respectfully. But there is a far greater risk of abuse in an arrangement in which the husband is assumed to have divinely sanctioned authority on the basis of his gender alone, and is not accountable to his wife.
Another complementarian idea is that the husband is the wife’s “spiritual covering,” and as “priest of the home” is ultimately responsible for her spiritual well-being (though nothing like this is ever stated in the Bible). The details vary, but the basic idea is that the husband has been given the spiritual responsibility to interpret and teach her God’s word and will, and that he is in some sense a mediator between her and God. This is a seriously problematic idea. All believers have equal access to God under the new covenant and so are responsible for themselves before God. Any other arrangement would imply that men and women are not on the same spiritual level, that men are somehow better able to represent God to their families and churches, and are better equipped to communicate with God. Beyond that, what does this say about the sufficiency of Jesus’ role as mediator between humanity and God? Apparently Jesus isn’t enough, or else why would it be necessary for husbands to be “supplementary” mediators? This arrangement is more like the old covenant, under which some were chosen to be priests based on external physical characteristics, rather than the new covenant, under which the priesthood of all believers was established.
This arrangement runs the risk of causing the spiritual stunting of women, leaving them more easily deceived and manipulated by false teaching since they must always depend on men for instruction and discernment. It could also be spiritually harmful to men by creating the perfect breeding ground for arrogance, an unteachable spirit (if being male means you have a unique ability to understand God’s will and speak for Him, how can you ever be wrong?), and a sense of superiority over women, not to mention the inevitable burnout as they try to fill a role that is meant to be filled only by Jesus Himself (Heb. 9:11-15).
Therefore, the idea that the supposed roles of men and women in marriage are “different but equal” is disingenuous and misleading. If men are given the right to have control over their own lives as well as the lives of women, while women must hand over the right to control their lives to men, this is the definition of inequality.
It should be noted that a couple may, of course, choose whatever structure they like for their marriage. If they want a hierarchical structure, it is no one else’s business. However, I would argue that a marriage in which both spouses truly respect each other as equals, work together as a team to make all decisions, and never pull rank on each other, is far more natural and has a greater chance of being healthy and fulfilling; not to mention the fact that only in an egalitarian marriage are both spouses required to treat each other in a truly Christ-like way. Further, as I will argue in part 4, I believe there is no biblical command for a hierarchical structure in marriage, and therefore, those who reject it cannot be accused of disobeying God.
Let us now turn to the role of women in the church. Generally speaking, the complementarian view is that while women do play an important role in the church, leadership roles are to be reserved for men. Additionally, while men may teach other men, women may only teach other women and children. There are varying opinions on how far these restrictions go; some believe women cannot hold any leadership position and should not even speak in church; others believe only the role of senior pastor must be exclusive to men, but that a woman may teach the entire congregation as long as she is “under the authority of a man.” Nevertheless, they all have in common the idea that there are some restrictions on women regarding ministry positions, while men have no such restrictions.
Some believe these restrictions exist not because of any difference in ability or qualification between the genders, but merely to maintain order in the church, while others believe there are more specific reasons. One such reason is that women supposedly are more easily deceived than men (though this is never stated in the Bible!), and so should not be allowed to teach the entire congregation. One must wonder, however, if this were true, what kind of sense it would make for a woman to teach other women and children, who would themselves be most vulnerable to false teaching, and to avoid teaching the men who supposedly would be most likely to detect falsehoods?
Another justification given for the exclusion of women from leadership roles is that women were not allowed to be priests under the old covenant, so they should not be allowed to be pastors under the new. But it was not only women who were excluded from the priesthood in the old covenant; most men were as well! Priests had to be male, descendants of Aaron, and without any physical defects. It is important to understand why God would institute such qualifications. As humans, we tend to look at and consider what is external, while God looks at the heart (1 Samuel 16:7). The point, then, was to create certain standards for the priesthood based on what humans value in order to teach us about being holy and set apart in a way we could understand. However, under the new covenant, the lesson had been learned and the priesthood of all believers was established. Hence, there is no longer any reason to hold onto the old qualifications regarding race, physical appearance, or gender; we must now look at the heart as God does.
Complementarians also point to the fact that the 12 disciples were all male as evidence that the leaders of the church must be male. But, similar to the point made above, Jesus’ disciples were also Jewish. We don’t require all pastors to be Jewish, so why require them to be male? Of course, the reason for the 12 disciples being male is perfectly clear:Jesus was operating within a patriarchal society in which it would have been inappropriate and counter-productive for any of his close followers to be women. But this fact cannot serve as justification for assuming a universal, permanent standard regarding the role of women in the church. Jesus was merely recognizing and operating within the culture of the time.
I will say more on the topic of women serving as leaders and teachers in the church when I address the verses used to exclude them from such positions. For now, however, imagine how much healthier a church could be if it were to allow all its members to serve in whatever capacity God called them to serve. There certainly is no benefit from refusing to hear from half of the members of a church simply because they are women. A church that does not discriminate in this way will have more time and energy to focus on important matters of ministry and outreach, rather than busying themselves trying to make sure women are not “usurping” the roles supposedly ordained by God for men alone. We would never dream of assigning or restricting such roles based on race or social status, so why insist on it based on gender?
Thus far, I believe there is a strong case for biblical egalitarianism. But what about those verses we all undoubtedly have in mind that have been conspicuously absent from anything I’ve yet written? Doesn’t the Bible tell wives to submit to their husbands? Aren’t women told to be silent in the churches, and never to teach or have authority over a man? It would be impossible to present a complete argument for the egalitarian position without discussing such verses. I will turn to these in parts 3 and 4.
(Note: If you would like to know more about this topic, I highly recommend the book Good News for Women: A Biblical Picture of Gender Equality by Rebecca Merrill Groothuis. It is a well-researched, well-argued case for complete equality for women and men in the family and in the church. I relied on it heavily for this blog series, particularly when discussing cultural backgrounds and the original Greek and Hebrew.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)