Veracity

10th in a series.

Get your Bible study hat on! 1 Timothy 2:12 is the classic prooftext for saying that women should not serve as either elders or pastors. I will include verse 11, as well, to add some context:

(11) Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. (12) I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

This translation from the ESV makes it seem pretty straight-forward. Not a whole lot of mystery here. No women teaching or having spiritual authority. This is how most Christians have read this verse, throughout the centuries of church history. Why do we even need to talk about it, right?

Nevertheless, evangelical egalitarian scholars of late bring out some interesting observations and questions about this verse. Some will balk at this point, claiming that any challenge to a traditional interpretation of Scripture is, by necessity, an attack on Scripture itself.

However, this is simply incorrect. A possibility? Yes. By necessity? No. The church is always strengthened, not weakened, whenever challenges are faced.

Evidence is evidence, and so any honest look at the Scriptures requires an honest examination of the evidence at hand. But whether or not the evidence surveyed is sufficient to overthrow the traditional interpretation, is an entirely different matter.

In this blog post, and the next two following, I will focus on primarily three challenges and difficulties that egalitarians and complementarians cite, that stem from this single verse (verse 12). Also, how do the differing sides in this debate respond to such challenges, with evidence?

That Little Word “Permit”

First, I want to focus on this highlighted word, “permit.” “I do not permit a woman to…”

Effectively, this is indicating that Paul is not allowing some specific behavior. The question that many egalitarian scholars raise is the possibility of a particular, unique cultural situation, being addressed in this letter. Is Paul “not permitting” something, due to local conditions in the church in Ephesus, which is where Timothy, the recipient of this letter from Paul, is located?

This argument is not one that can be dismissed so easily. After all, Paul also forbids women from adorning themselves with “braided hair” (1 Timothy 2:9 ESV), and I do not know of any Bible teacher today who goes around scolding women for their unacceptable hairstyles in church. And what about jewelry and expensive women’s clothing? Could it be that there is a specific cultural setting at play, here in Ephesus?

…women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works (1 Timothy 2:9-10 ESV).

But a more important reason for possibly rethinking 1 Timothy has do with why the letter was written in the first place. Egalitarian scholars emphasize that Paul wrote to Timothy specifically to address the issue of false teaching happening in the Ephesian church. Paul had charged Timothy to “remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine” (1 Timothy 1:3 ESV). Furthermore, “Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions” (1 Timothy 1:6-7 ESV).

In other words, certain people were infiltrating the church in Ephesus, teaching things for which they had absolutely no clue what they were talking about. Paul wanted Timothy to put a stop to what was going on in Ephesus. So, who were these “certain persons?”

The implication is that Paul’s restriction here, with “do not permit,” in 1 Timothy 2:12, is not universal and therefore, not applicable to all times and all places. Here are just some of the points of evidence that are cited, to support this claim:

• The Greek word for “permit,” epitrepō, is not part of a Greek command tense. When Paul is chastising Christians for improper behavior, he normally does this using command tense verbs. For example, in verse 11, the word “let” is a command. “Not permit” in verse 12 is not a command. If Paul were forbidding women to serve as elders, at all times and all places, why would he not issue this directive in the form of a command, as he does in other areas of ethical teaching?

• Furthermore, as the argument goes, the use of “permit” elsewhere in the Bible is normally associated with a specific, limited, local situation. To treat “do not permit” as a universal norm would go against the typical New Testament usage of the term.

• Notice also that Paul says “I do not permit a woman.” It is curious as to why Paul uses the word “woman” in the singular, and not the plural sense. Paul’s previous command in 1 Timothy 2:8 was to “men,” in the plural, and not in the singular. Why would Paul shift from a plural reference to a singular reference? Is it possible that Paul is speaking in the context of a woman married to a man, as opposed to addressing the behavior of women, in a church service?

• If Paul had a particular woman; such as a woman married to a man, or women in general, in view, this would fit with the suggestion that the “certain persons,” (1 Timothy 1:6-7) who were promoting false teaching in Ephesus, were women.

• The reference to a singular “woman” raises yet another question as to the context of the passage. Historically, Bible translations, such as the NIV, have put headings, at the top of 1 Timothy 2, like “Instructions on Worship.” This suggests that the passage is about appropriate behavior in a church service. The problem with doing this type of thing is that these headings are simply not found in the original text. Many egalitarians protest that a church service setting is not in view. Rather, the setting is more general than that, talking about the personal lives of Christians, as in perhaps domestic relations between a wife and her husband. Notice that the ESV has softened its heading to be understood in a more neutral way, “Pray for All People, which may or may not refer to a Christian worship service.

The larger context that egalitarian scholars point out is that Ephesus was known for its great temple to Artemis, the goddess of the hunt, as well as being a fertility goddess. This temple was enormous, one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. Egalitarian scholars suggest that the influence of Artemis pagan worship, which included a male and female priesthood,¹ was so strong in Ephesus, that it spilled over into the Ephesian church, influencing a number of the women to succumb to heresy.

Historical evidence indicates the Artemisian religion was so dominating, that women undergoing childbirth would feel compelled to offer sacrifices to the pagan deities. Perhaps Paul knew that some of the women in the church were continuing to have one foot in the church and another foot in the world, and participating in such pagan rituals. In order to stop the heresy from spreading, Paul was seeking to silence these renegade women, or perhaps at least the unamed leader of the women, or perhaps wives having a wrong influence over their husbands. Instead, these particular women (or a particular woman) needed to learn Christian truth properly, and to learn so quietly!

If this analysis holds, it would indicate that, yes, the situation in Ephesus was unique, which is why Paul’s “I do not permit a woman,” should only be taken as addressing the situation in Ephesus, and not something applicable to all times and all places. But is the evidence to support this argument strong enough to persuade?

Mmmmph! Perhaps the Egalitarians Get It Right?…. Or Do They? A Complementarian Response

The complementarian scholarly response is to say, “NO.” It is true that much of what Paul has in mind in 1 Timothy is to address false teaching creeping into the churches. But it does not necessarily follow that every detail in the letter is addressing matters of false teaching. Instead, if we consider that Paul was writing 1 Timothy, after having had years of experience in planting churches, it would be reasonable to conclude that Paul had many “lessons to be learned” that would be applicable to all churches, and not just to the church in Ephesus. Here are some points of evidence that complementarians cite:

• For example, the verses being examined are part of a larger passage of directives given to both women and men. Looking at an earlier part of that passage, 1 Timothy 2:8, gives us a clue: “I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling” (ESV). Notice the phrase “in every place.” If this group of directives that Paul is giving is strictly applicable only to Ephesus, then the qualification “in every place” would have no meaning. Instead, this would indicate that Paul’s directives are applicable everywhere he has been ministering, not just in Ephesus.

• To think that Paul was only concerned about false teaching creeping into the Ephesian church, specifically, ignores the fact that Paul talks a lot about false teaching in plenty of his other letters! To insist otherwise is to dismiss the very ad-hoc nature of Paul’s letters, which all tended to touch on various topics, as matters arose to his attention, when writing specific churches or specific people.

• Some egalitarian scholars contend that the false teaching in Ephesus, that Paul is critiquing, closely matches the Gnostic heresy of the early church, that exalted the feminine above the masculine (a future blog post in this series will detail this). But complementarian scholars point out that the clear evidence for the Gnostic heresy historically comes from the 2nd century A.D., and not from the 1st century, when 1 Timothy was written. To extrapolate from the 2nd century context back into a 1st century context requires the demonstration of evidence that we simply do not yet have.

• Paul elsewhere (1 Timothy 3:2) gives the qualifications for overseer as being a “one woman man,” which many would say, implies being male. The same qualifications are also found in Paul’s letter to Titus, whose church was in Crete, hundreds of miles away (see Titus 1:6 ESV). This would argue against the possibility that Paul’s instructions to Timothy in Ephesus were only limited to Ephesus. The appeal to Ephesus as a unique, cultural situation loses its force, thereby lending this verse to having a more universal and non-time bound application.

• The claim that the false teachers Paul had in mind were women, is difficult to sustain, since Paul specifically names Hymenaeus and Alexander, who were men, as false teachers (1 Timothy 1:19-20 ESV). Paul does not name any women specifically as false teachers in either of his letters to Timothy.

• Finally, coming back to that little word “permit.” Notice that the use of “permit” is stated in the negative here, as in “I do not permit.” The fact that it is negated, indicates that the negative use of “permit,” simply can not mean a local, time-bound application, as many egalitarians claim. Instead, it must mean an unlimited, timeless application.²

There are several additional, nuanced arguments advanced by both egalitarians and complementarians, on the subject of “is this just a non-universal, limited cultural application?” But hopefully you get the idea how this tit-for-tat works among scholars who debate these issues. No one gets a free ride here.³

But there is more to this verse, namely 1 Timothy 2:12, that requires further consideration, revealing some other tough problems. Stay tuned for the next blog post….

Notes:

^{1. According to research done by S.M. Baugh, in his essay, “A Foreign World: Ephesus in the First Century,” in Women in the Church, Third Edition , editors Andreas Kostenberger and Thomas Schreiner, ( p.34ff), the Artemis cult in Ephesus did have female and male priests, and many egalitarian scholars concur. So if this analysis holds true, then N.T. Wright is entirely incorrect in saying that there were only (or primarily) female priests in the Artemisian cult, as Wright states in a popular YouTube video.  Wright’s egalitarian argument hangs a lot on the claim that the Artemisian cult had essentially an all-female priesthood.  ↩}

^{2. The language of not permitting “a woman” (singular) to teach/exercise-or-assume authority over “a man” (singular), does not get a whole lot of attention in the complementarian literature I have surveyed. It is generally assumed that Paul is not addressing any particular woman or man, but rather women and men as gender categories. For example, Andreas Köstenberger argues that the change from plural to singular, in verse 12, serves as a “topical frame indicating a change of subject…..most likely in order to prepare for the reference to Eve in verse 13.” Where it gets really tricky for complementarians is whether or not this restriction in verse 12 applies to all women and all men, in a corporate church setting. Does this mean that any man can teach a woman? What if the woman has been a growing Christian believer for many years, and the man has only been a Christian for a week? Does this permit that young Christian man to teach a mature woman in the faith? Most probably not, but it does leave the question open as to whether or not teaching/authority is the domain of men in general, in a local church, or is this particularly the domain of the elders only; that is, an all male eldership, and therefore not applicable to non-elders? Complementarians themselves are divided on this question.  ↩}

^{3. It bears saying that a common objection to 1 Timothy 2, in general, promoted by egalitarians, is that this passage MUST be culturally-limited in application, otherwise, Paul’s command that women should not wear “braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire,” (verse 9) of that they should “remain quiet” (verse 12) in church, is rendered absurd. But such an answer does really address what the specific cultural situation Paul had in mind. Rather than neutralizing the Word of God here, on this point, we should seek to try to find out what these particular commands/statements by Paul, actually mean. Granted, there have been traditional scholars who have misread this passage, so the egalitarians have some substance to their objection. But we must not allow that to distract from an honest, open look at the text. Yes, there are difficulties with this text, but recent scholarship has provided us some very helpful points of evidence that can help us to piece together a coherent understand of what Paul is after. With respect to the “braided hair” part, we have evidence that braided hair, along with excessive jewelry was a sign of prostitution, or the flaunting of wealth, in the first century.  In other words, Paul is asking his readers not to dress like prostitutes, or flaunt their wealth (see Urban Legends of the New Testament, by David Croteau, p. 211-214). Regarding the request that women are to “remain quiet,” we must follow the principle of having Scripture interpret Scripture, and recall 1 Corinthians 11 teachings about women praying and prophesying. Surely, women are not remaining quiet here!! Instead, it is best to understand this within the context of Paul encouraging the women to “learn quietly.” In a day and age where few women, if any, received formal education, Paul’s command here is a radical one, affirming the women SHOULD be educated!! Instead of dismissing this as a cultural “one-off”, we as Christians should see Paul’s writing here for what it is, a radical affirmation of the dignity and worth of women.  ↩}

8th in a series. We are about halfway through…

Here is a topic we normally do not like to talk about.

If you appreciate thoughtful, video podcasts, that deal with egalitarian versus complementarian issues in the church, this would be a good one. The presentation is worth listening to, but I will summarize it here, if you lack the time to watch and listen:

In January, 2019, British evangelical broadcaster Justin Brierley moderated a discussion between Natalie Collins and Phil Moore, examining the #MeToo movement’s impact on the church. Egalitarian vs. Complementarian: Which position offers the best solution to the problem of abuse of women in the church?

Natalie Collins, a gender justice specialist, has done important work to raise awareness of abuse of women in the church. Phil Moore is a London pastor, concerned about many of the same issues, that Natalie raises. However, the two could not be any more different in diagnosing the root of the problem of women’s abuse, and in offering a solution.  For Natalie, complementarian theology, that emphasizes male leadership in the church and in the home is to blame. Male headship IS the problem. Instead, an egalitarian response is needed. For Phil, the problem is that complementarian theology has been done badly, and it just needs to be done, and acted out, rightly, in order to address the problem. Male headship, done correctly, IS the solution.

Natalie’s passion is driven by the fact that domestic abuse, and sexual abuse in general (including children), has been an overlooked problem in evangelical churches. But this is changing. This is not just a Roman Catholic problem with priests. In 2018, a report in Texas revealed that over the past 40 years, there were 400 allegations against 168 male church leaders in 200 independent, fundamentalist Baptist churches. The Houston Chronicle in February, 2019 reported that in the Southern Baptist denomination, one of the largest evangelical groups in the United States, roughly 380 Baptist leaders and volunteers faced allegations of sexual abuse, involving more than 700 victims, over the past twenty years, since 1998. About 220 offenders have been convicted or took plea deals, 100 are still in jail. The rest? They could still be serving in churches.

Add on top of that, there is the recent situation involving Rachael Denhollander, the woman who exposed the sexual abuse perpetrated by USA Gymnastics doctor Larry Nassar. Denhollander and her husband then went on to eventually persuade Al Mohler, the president of the Southern Baptist Seminary, after seven years, to finally withdraw unquestioning support of Sovereign Grace Ministries pastor, C. J. Mahaney, who has been accused of covering up long standing claims of sexual abuse, by either staff or other volunteers in Mahaney’s churches.

In nearly all of these cases, particularly those involving women, the failure to act to investigate, much less discipline, the claimed perpetrators was due to a sense of deference to the male-led leadership. A 2017 report in Christianity Today magazine indicates that many Christian leaders want their churches to be safe havens for victims of domestic abuse, but they do not know how to do that. Two in five evangelical pastors personally know of someone, mostly women, who have suffered from domestic abuse. Yet only one out of two evangelical churches have a specific plan in place to help victims of domestic abuse.

And those numbers only correspond to cases that have been reported. How many women in evangelical churches suffer abuse, but never report it?

A crucial question to ask is this: If your church is a male-led church, and a woman were to come forward, with a claim that she was being abused by her husband, would that male-led church leadership believe her enough, to be willing to even investigate her claims, and offer protection?

As this is a serious problem, we should be thankful that women like Natalie Collins are sounding the alarm. But does Collins’ proposed solution effectively address the problem?

For example, at the 48:15 mark into the discussion, Phil appealed to a passage that has often puzzled me. It is worth thinking about this one crucial Bible passage:

Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered (1 Peter 3:7 ESV)

From a 21st century perspective, reading this passage comes across as condescending towards women.  Woman as the “weaker vessel?” That does not sound very fair, does it?

Yet as Phil Moore explains the passage, here Peter is not downgrading the women, as Peter fully believes in the equality of men and women. Peter is not saying women “you are the weaker vessel, so behave like this.” Rather, Peter is addressing the men, saying, “Guys, understand, she is weaker than you…. If you treat your wife badly, God will not hear your prayers.”

In other words, Peter is admonishing the men, in the most severe terms, …. that are never spoken against women, by the way, …. such that the men are challenged not to use their physical strength, or any other advantage, as an excuse for abusing women. Men can not do that, and think that they are worshipping God at the same time. Instead, Christian men and women are to think of themselves as co-heirs together, “of the grace of life,” and thereby behave appropriately towards one another.¹

Natalie Collins, on the other hand, was unfortunately rather dismissive of the text, and never adequately offered an alternative interpretation that could improve upon Phil’s interpretation. As a speaker for Christians for Biblical Equality, I was disappointed that Natalie advanced relatively little in terms of Scriptural application, in comparison to Phil. In fairness, not all egalitarians approach this issue in the same way that Natalie did.

Natalie did suggest that many Christians think that Peter considers women to be weaker vessels, because they believe that women are more easily deceived than men. But as Phil pointed out, there is nothing in 1 Peter 3 that indicates that this is the case.

Too her credit, Natalie does expose a popular misbelief, that can paralyze women. For example, a woman friend of mine, when she was a teenager, about age 14 or 15, was raped by the son of the pastor of her church, who was about 3 years older than her. After he raped her, he told her that she could not say anything against him, because no one would believe her. Rather, she should keep silent about the incident.

That is a terribly egregious example of completely butchering a verse in the Bible, “the women should keep silent in the churches” (1 Corinthians 14:34 ESV).

For folks like Natalie, much of what drives egalitarians crazy is the appeal, made by at least some complementarian advocates, that firmly believes in a hierarchy of order, as associated with traditional patriarchy. Traditional patriarchy only perpetuates domestic abuse. Phil sought to answer that in a different way, emphasizing that men need to learn how to become better men. I do not believe that Natalie heard that from Phil.

Furthermore, many egalitarians assume that if you get completely rid of complementarian theology, that this will solve the problem of the abuse of women in the church. However, if there is any one particular thing we can learn from the 2018 tragedy in leadership at Willow Creek Church, one of America’s largest and most influential egalitarian churches, it is that abuse still can happen at an egalitarian church. No church, whether it be complementarian or egalitarian, is immune from abuse.

Nevertheless, the podcast is a good discussion, and as Jennie Pollock says, it is “an exercise in disagreeing well.” Give it a listen if you have the time.

Notes:

^{1. The NIV translation of referring to the woman as the “weaker partner,” is unfortunate. As the ESV says “weaker vessel,” it implies that the woman’s weakness is on the outside, an external physical characteristic, as opposed to something intrinsic to her being. The NIV’s “weaker partner” loses that sense of distinction, implying that the woman’s weakness is more intrinsic. The ESV rendering is to be preferred. Likewise, the Christian Standard Bible (CSB) is like the NIV is in having “weaker partner,”  but at least it is an improvement over the previous Holman Christian Standard Bible translation (HCSB), which has “weaker nature.” If I think of woman as analogous to a “weaker vessel,” I think of something like a ship carrying precious cargo. But strangely, the history of bible interpretation injects ideas into the text that are hard to make sense of. For example, in Martin Luther’s commentary on 1 Peter 3:7, he says, “The husband is also God’s instrument [or vessel], while the wife is weaker bodily, as well as more timid and more easily dispirited.” I get the “weaker bodily” part, as a boat vessel or cargo vessel, can be weak, with respect to the cargo being carried inside of that vessel. But what is a “timid” or “more easily dispirited” boat, or truck, or moving van? When did boats and trucks have feelings? ↩}

7th in a series.

So, how good is the teaching women receive from women Bible teachers, in your church? Is it top quality, grade AAA? Or is it the leftovers?

 

I am taking a break from the heavy biblical interpretation part of this blog series, to highlight a single, important issue. Have you ever noticed, that for the most part, when it comes to the leading women’s ministry speakers and authors, in evangelical Christianity today, we rarely know what church they are affiliated with? But when it comes to Christian speakers, who are men, the church or institution name recognition is much higher?

Think about some of the men:

• John Piper. Well, we know (at least I do) that he is with Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
• Tim Keller. Redeemer Church in New York City.
• Andy Stanley. Northpoint, in Atlanta, Georgia.
• John MacArthur. Grace Community Church in Southern California.

Now, compare that to some of the women:

• Beth Moore. Uh…. I think she is Southern Baptist…. I think.
• Ann Voskamp. I have no clue.
• Nancy Leigh DeMoss. “Revive our Hearts” radio, but her church??? Mmmm……
• Kay Arthur. She is the Precepts lady, but what church??? I can not tell you, because I just do not know.
• Lysa TerKeurst. …… Gotta go look that up somewhere….

I know that all of the above women leaders are attached to local churches, with some accountability structure in place, but the fact that their affiliation does not stick out is very telling. Titus 2:3-4 encourages the older women to “teach what is good, and so train the young women….”

The fact that local churches do not figure prominently with these nationally and internationally known women’s ministries is concerning. But if you consider this more broadly, a number of popular women speakers and teachers today are barely associated with a particular local church, or the accountability structure is lacking, compared to other men-led ministries.

Think about Jen Hatmaker, the HGTV home renovation star, a popular women’s author, speaker, and blogger, who in 2016 advocated for the acceptance of same-sex marriage, in an evangelical church. She has 156,000 Twitter followers.  Progressive Christian blogger, Rachel Held Evans, has 154,000 Twitter followers.

Compare that to John Piper, who has 979,000 Twitter followers. Tim Keller has 384,000 Twitter followers. John MacArthur has 175,000 Twitter followers.

Hatmaker and Evans have a ways to go to beat Piper and Keller, but they are soon to overtake John MacArthur.

But Beth Moore eclipses Keller, and is just trailing Piper, as she has 885,000 Twitter followers. Lysa TerKeurst is not too far behind Keller with 293,000 Twitter followers.

By December of last year, 2018, the two top selling Christian books , not simply for women, were It’s Not Supposed To Be This Way, by Lysa Terkeurst, and Girl, Wash Your Face, by Rachel Hollis, who has quite a different message than what Terkeurst is teaching. Those two books beat out other Christian-branded best sellers, including those written by men.

Rachel Hollis has a new book out now, and she has over 1 million Instagram followers.

A MILLION INSTAGRAM FOLLOWERS???

Though it is not Twitter, she still beats out John Piper.

So, who are the most influential women teachers influencing the women in your local church? What kind of accountability and support do they have in a local church body? How much theological background and biblical training do those women teachers actually have? How many of them are being given the theological meat of justification and sanctification, versus how many are simply learning how to improve their self-esteem, picking up tips on how to juggle career and family, or learning how to make a better casserole?

Who are the women actually teaching women in your local church?

Lest you think that I have forgotten something…. like who are the men actually teaching men in your local church…. well, we do have folks like Joel Osteen to deal with…. that whole topic of men teaching men will come up in a later blog post in this series….

The trend appears to be that local churches are themselves not investing in supporting the ministry of women teaching women, as much as they could be. Therefore, many of the ministries that seek to be about “women teaching women” are being outsourced to the marketplace instead. And that means that the quality of message being handed down to younger women is determined more by the market place, and not necessarily by adherence to doctrinal norms.

If any of this concerns you, read Hannah Anderson’s interview, by Christianity Today, from 2016. Hannah Anderson is a Virginia writer, the author of Made for More: An Invitation to Live in God’s Image, a book about what it means for men and women to look past the tired language of male and female “roles,” and instead live together in God’s image. Read Wendy Alsup’s review of Anderson’s book.

If you want to dig deeper, and connect with women bloggers and writers, who believe that the discipleship of women should be more than just tips and exhortations on how to be a good mother and a good wife, then check out the Pelican Project.

Until next time….

 

6th post in a series.

This is going to be fun  🙂

If it was up for me to decide, I would favor “women in leadership” in the local church. Sounds good to me. I mean, why not?

Well…. I have a problem….

This is the kind of blog post that will send young children at school screaming home to their parents, cause federal governments to shutdown their services in an attempt to reach a settlement, or mystify people with shouts of, “What is with this guy?”

The problem is that as a Christian, I am obligated to follow Scripture, wherever it leads… and that is a good problem to have.

Scripture is the standard for the Christian. Not personal opinion. If Scripture supports “women in leadership” (whatever that means, and that is part of the problem), then I must submit to that. On the other hand, if Scripture does not support “women in leadership,” then I must submit to that.

In looking at the Bible, both sides have their arguments. I have heard some very thoughtful arguments supporting both positions, from the complementarian side, that typically argues that women should not serve as elders in a church, and from the egalitarian side, that typically argues that women should be eligible to serve as elders in a church.

At the same time, I have heard some rather lame arguments, from BOTH SIDES of the debate. So, in this blog post I want to highlight some of the most lame arguments I typically hear, from BOTH SIDES. Some arguments are more lame than others. The worst ones I will call “TOTALLY LAME.” Some arguments actually have some substance behind them, and so I could be wrong on this or that detail of the arguments. Nevertheless, I am not persuaded by them. I will call the arguments I am less sure of as “SEMI-LAME.”

I am going to get into trouble with both sides, as some will take me to task on what I call “LAME.”  But that is okay. I mainly want to get the lame stuff out of the way, before addressing more substantial arguments, in future posts. I am willing to defend, but I am also willing to learn, as I surely do not get everything right. So, if you think I need a mental “adjustment,” just leave your comments below, so that a conversation can be started. I am ready to listen.

Are you ready??

Are you sure??

Are you sitting down?

Good. Let’s do it.

Here we go….

TOTALLY LAME Complementarian Arguments.

(1) When we look at 1 Timothy 2:12-14, we read Paul saying that women should not teach or have authority over a man, because of the situation with Adam and Eve in the Garden. In verse 14, we read “Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor” (ESV). This means that the fall of humanity was not Adam’s fault. Since Eve was deceived, that means that women are weaker emotionally,  and therefore, women are more easily deceived than men.

My response: This explanation is TOTALLY, TOTALLY, TOTALLY LAME. Yes, Eve was deceived in the garden. But what does that mean?

Where do we get the idea, that women in general, are somehow more susceptible to being deceived, than men? There could be a possibility of reading the text this way, but you have to front load such an interpretation with an assumption that is extremely difficult to prove.

Read the passage again. Paul is making an observation: “the woman was deceived.”  As far as we have it, Paul is simply describing the story of the Fall in summary, so the implications that the reader can draw from this about Eve’s character are not necessarily self-evident.

To insist that women, across the board, are somehow emotionally or morally weaker than men is rather lame, as it threatens to denigrate women as being made in the image of God. Nevertheless, this belief persists, since the more and more you hear it, over and over again, the more you are prone to believe it.

Here is some counter evidence, if you not believe me: When Paul was saying:  “But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ,” (2 Corinthians 11:3 ESV), he was not targeting women alone. “Your thoughts.” Who was the “your?” Paul was including women AND men together, as being vulnerable to being led astray.

Men and women are different, so it might be fair to say that both men and women could be deceived in different ways. Fair enough. But we should be careful not to read in too quickly certain moral or emotional qualities, or dysfunctionalities, to one another, with respect to Eve’s deception, if the text does not adequately support it.

Technically, Eve’s deception was not her sin, though she used that as an excuse, by blaming the serpent (Genesis 3:13). Rather, her sin was in not doing a “fact check” on the serpent’s claims, when she could have consulted Adam and/or God for verification.

Why do I say this? Because this lame argument completely neglects the fact that Adam “was with her” (Genesis 3:6 ESV), namely Eve, in the garden, but he did nothing to intervene when the serpent came along. He just remained silent and let it all happen, as far as we know. Sure, we are told that Adam was not deceived. But that did not make him completely blameless, either.

Here we go, the demonic forces were attacking Eve, and she tried to handle the situation herself, without consulting Adam. But what was Adam doing, while forces of evil were raging?  Reading the newspaper? Fully absorbed in watching a basketball game on TV?

Afterwards, Adam sought to play the “blame game” by putting the responsibility on Eve (Genesis 3:11-12). But notice that God confronted Adam first, and not Eve, upon investigating the “FruitGate” incident (Genesis 3:8-13). In fact, in Romans 5:12-21, Paul puts the blame of sin on Adam, and does not even mention Eve at all!!

In other words, Eve sinned in her ignorance. Adam, on the other hand, sinned with full knowledge of what was going on.

Therefore, it is more reasonable to think that both Adam and Eve sinned. They just sinned in different ways. Why? Because men and women, though equal with one another, and made of the same “stuff,” are in fact, very different. What a profound mystery!

 

(2) Another interpretation of the same 1 Timothy 2:12-14 passage, suggests that because “the woman was deceived,” women lack the intellectual or spiritual capabilities to discern truth from error. This is the reason why women are not permitted to teach men.

Again, this is TOTALLY LAME. For if women lack the intellectual or spiritual capabilities to be able to teach, why does Paul encourage the older women to “train the young women” to grow in maturity in their faith (Titus 2:3-5 ESV)? If women are not doctrinally trustworthy, then they have no business training or teaching young women either! This interpretation is therefore completely absurd, because it forces the Bible to contradict itself.

Plus, I know of some women who are so clued into the Scriptures, that they can run circles around most of the other people, men and women, they encounter in their churches, who do not know how to find the various books of the Bible!

The point here, given this limited context, seems to be that women are not to teach men, NOT that they are not to teach in general. We will come back to this idea in a later blog post.

 

TOTALLY LAME Egalitarian Arguments.

(3) Egalitarians do not get off the hook for offering lame arguments. Some have suggested that, for example, if a church has 12 elders, 6 of them should be men, and 6 of them should be women. It is only fair. In other words, gender distribution in church leadership requires a quota system.

Lame. Lame. Lame.

As in, “EL LAME-O!”

Really? Where is that in the Bible? A quota system may work great in corporate America, but it is pretty lame to think that the Bible is trying to teach some type of quota system. We as humans do not get to decide what is “fair.” Plus, history shows that humans do not do a very good job when it comes to infallibly figuring out what is “fair.” True fairness is determined by God and God alone.

“What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means!” (Romans 9:14 ESV). To assume we humans are able to competently judge “fairly,” the Bible counters with a different perspective, “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding” (Proverbs 3:5 ESV).

 

(4) The church is lagging behind secular society in giving equal opportunities for women leadership advancement. The church needs to get with the times.

I hear this reasoning a lot. But like the previous lame argument, this reasoning suffers from the same fault. There is no Scriptural precedent to support the argument. In fact, Scripture argues against this type of argument.

There are a lot of things the church does that are out of the step with the world around the church, but perhaps, that is the point. An illustration is valuable here: When I visit the Atlantic ocean beach near my Virginia home, the northerly moving current is so strong, that it can carry you away from where you started on the beach, without you realizing it. When I jump out into the waves, to try to surf them, I can be out there for 20 minutes before realizing that I have drifted hundreds of feet upstream away from where I first started.

The surrounding culture is like that underlying ocean current that keeps pulling at us, when we are largely unaware of it. Instead, we need to keep our sight fixed on Christ. Granted, the pull of patriarchy patterns of culture have pulled the church in the exact opposite direction, throughout the history of the church. Jesus’ message to women was quite liberating in first century Palestine, but you would be hard pressed to see this message in certain patriarchal, Christian subcultures, where the men routinely deny women the opportunities to obtain a level of higher education, or even in some cases, the opportunity to learn how to drive a car!!

In contrast, Romans 12:2 gives us the Scriptural perspective refuting this lame argument: “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.”

Following the drum beat of culture is not a good reason for doing anything. That is just lame.

 

SEMI-LAME Complementarian Arguments:

(5) Junia was not a woman, or if she was, she was not an apostle.

This argument comes under the category of semi-lame, because there is a lot of ambiguity here. The ESV renders the disputed verse in Romans 16:7, coming from the Apostle Paul, as follows: “Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.”

Nearly all modern translations (NIV 2011, ESV, NLT, CSB), and even the venerable KJV, translate the word “Junia,” which is a feminine name. There are older translations, like the NASB, that translate the name as “Junias,” which is masculine. The problem is that the best manuscripts we have available today show that Junia was, in fact, feminine. In other words, what the NASB translators did was in error (However, in defense of the NASB, more recent printings include the feminine, Junia, as a footnote).

Therefore, to continue to insist that “Junia” was really a man, is not only lame, it is most probably, just plain wrong.

The ESV confusingly cheats a bit by referring to Andronicus (male) and Junia (female) as both “kinsmen,” which some would imply to mean that both were male! But the Greek word behind “kinsmen” can refer to both male AND female relatives.

A more ambiguous part is found in the ESV rendering of Andronicus and Junia being “well known to the apostles.”

Compare that to the NASB which has the two persons being “outstanding among the apostles.” This would indicate that Junia was an apostle herself, as opposed to being well known to the apostles, as the ESV has it.

The Greek grammatical construction is difficult to tell with any high degree of certainty. So, technically, both translations are possible.

However, then we get to the difficulty of this term “apostles.” Would that mean that Junia was an apostle, like Paul was?

Once again, the problem here is that the evidence is ambiguous. It could indicate that Junia was “outstanding among the apostles,” within Paul’s circle. But the Greek word behind “apostle” could simply mean “among those who were sent,” kind of like a traveling missionary, a messenger, or even a church planter.

2 Corinthians 8:23 (ESV) is a good example of this more general usage of the term “apostles“: “As for Titus, he is my partner and fellow worker for your benefit. And as for our brothers, they are messengers of the churches, the glory of Christ.” In this verse, the “apostles” are “messengers,” and do not imply they held the apostolic authority that Paul had.

In other words, the idea that Junia was not a woman, and certainly not an “apostle” is not a slam-dunk for the complementarian side of the debate. But I list this as only “semi-lame” because it is not a slam-dunk for the egalitarian side of the debate, either. Romans 16:7 is too ambiguous by itself to decide the matter.¹

 

(6) According to Genesis 3:16, the curse against Eve in the garden is that her “desire would be for her husband;” that is, she would wish to have dominance over him.

As I have written about before, Genesis 3:16 has been a very difficult verse to translate. It relates to the curse with respect to Eve, following Adam and Eve’s fall in the garden.

One long standing argument is the idea, that her “desire would be for her husband,” needs to be understood as that the woman will continue to look to the man for something that ultimately the man can never give to her. In God’s design, the woman should desire God more than anything else. But instead, as a result of the fall, the woman desires the man, wanting the man to meet her needs, and not God, which is a form of idolatry. Her “desire” is a misplaced longing for the man, instead of longing for God. Giving into this idolatry therefore allows the man to rule over her, “he will rule over you,” in a manner contrary to God’s intended purposes.

However, in the 1970s, a new interpretation was proposed, that teaches that the woman would desire to dominate, or rule over, the man. In other words, the problem posed by Eve’s fall is not idolatry, but rather, the battle between the sexes, and the woman’s desire to be in charge. Among many complementarians today, this interpretation has become standard. It is so popular, that many view it today as patently obvious, despite the fact that no one even considered this interpretation prior to the 1970s.

If I had a dime for every time a fellow Christian simply assumed this 1970s reading to be the most obvious interpretation, I would not be writing this blog post, while I am waiting for my other computer to reboot…. I’d be sailing the Bahamas in my nice new sailing yacht.

Now, this might be the correct interpretation (though I am not persuaded, as it adds words to the Bible that are not in the original text). But here is my point:

Complementarians have been very vocal to say that egalitarians keep introducing new interpretations, that no one ever thought of before, to advance their biblical arguments. They keep inventing new ways to “distort” the “clear teaching of Scripture,” even “adding words to Scripture,” in order to try to put women into the pulpit, so the logic goes. If that is case, why then do we have this novel way of reading Genesis 3:16, according to complementarians? So, it just seems disingenuous for complementarians themselves to then turn around and introduce a new interpretation, that was unknown to the church, prior to the 1970s.

That just seems pretty lame.²

 

SEMI-LAME Egalitarian Arguments:

(7) Lydia held church meetings in her house; therefore, she was the leader in that church.

Here is a case of semi-lame-ness, because the argument is based on an assumption, that while possible, is difficult to prove. In Acts 16:40, we read that Lydia did meet with Paul and Silas, and they most probably met her in her home. It is reasonable then to conclude that the church in Philippi began by meeting in her home.

But just because the church met in her home, it does not necessarily mean that Lydia was the leader of that church, serving as an “elder.” She could have been, but then, maybe not. When egalitarians cite the story of Lydia as proof that women were leading New Testament churches, they are making an assumption that may or may not hold water.

Similar arguments by egalitarians are often produced about other prominent women in the New Testament, like Priscilla (Acts 18). To insist on this type of argument as definitive “proof” is… well… rather lame.

 

(8) Martha’s sister, Mary, sat at the feet of Jesus to learn from him, just as a rabbi’s student would do in the first century; therefore, Mary was being trained to be a rabbi, or church leader, by Jesus.

Here is another case of making an argument based on an assumption, or set of assumptions, that are difficult to prove. According to Luke 10:38-42, Mary did seat at Jesus’ feet, to learn from him, while Martha was busy “with much serving.” Yes, we do know that rabbis in Jesus’ day did sit at the feet of their teachers, so that they themselves might become rabbis themselves, and then teach others.

Was she learning in a manner that had been traditionally excluded from women?  Why, yes. This was a radical move by Jesus, and profoundly liberating. She was being equipped to help others, to grow in faith, as would be expected of any disciple, male or female, whether they be “rabbi material” or not.

But does this necessarily mean that Mary was a rabbi-teacher in training? Possibly. Maybe. But it is quite a stretch to insist on this particular idea as definitive proof that women were teacher/leaders, with the spiritual authority of elders, in the New Testament church.

Once again, making an assumption, or set of assumptions, that are difficult to prove is not a sound basis for establishing any obligatory form of Christian doctrine. In fact, it is … rather lame.³

 

Why Consider LAME Biblical Interpretation Arguments Like These?

You may now go to the bus to pick up your crying children, stock up at the store since the government just went into shutdown mode, and call the insane asylum.

I have given you a lot to chew on. I know.

So, what is the point of enumerating these lame Scriptural interpretation arguments? I could be very wrong about any number of the above arguments (I would love to be corrected, if I am). But the point I am trying to make is that neither the complementarian nor the egalitarian side of the debate, at this level, is able to fully knock out the other side. Both sides can come up with some pretty lame arguments, that fail to convince.

Maybe we need to read Scripture a little deeper, and learn to be a little more gracious with one another, even if we end up favoring one side more than the other (as I actually do).

I suggest that both sides have a lot of things important for us to consider.

Stick around for the next few blog posts to find out….

 

Notes:

^{1. The discussions about Junia/Junias in Romans 16:7 are quite interesting. From an egalitarian perspective, here is Marg Mowczko. For a complementarian perspective, here is an article from Southwestern Baptist Seminary. ↩}

^{2. Here is a link to the original paper, written by Susan Foh, in 1974, where she makes the now popular argument, that suggests that the woman will desire to rule over man, leading the man to rule over her, the “battle of the sexes” interpretation. The interpretation of Genesis 3:16 has become a dividing marker, not just between complementarians and egalitarians, but also between moderate complementarians and more traditional complementarians. Who knew???!!! My 2005 ESV Study Bible renders part of Genesis 3:16 as, “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” However, in the 2016, supposedly “permanent” version of the ESV, that particular phrase was changed to read, “Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.” So, what is the difference between desire “for your husband,” versus desire “contrary to your husband?” Actually, quite a lot. The more traditional “for your husband,” as championed by moderate complementarians, is explained here by Wendy Alsup. To summarize, Alsup believes that God never intended Adam to rule over Eve, from Creation’s beginning. Instead, Adam’s rule over Eve is a product of the Fall, due to Eve’s misdirected devotion away from God towards Adam. It is NOT the woman’s desire to rule over the man; i.e. Susan Foh’s “battle of the sexes” interpretation. Wendy Alsup explains here why the “new and improved” ESV translation is not as improved as the more traditional complementarians would teach it to be (DISCLAIMER: I personally find Wendy Alsup’s view to be the most convincing). Claire Smith defends the “new and improved” “traditional” view (now, is that an oxymoron???). Marg Mowczko offers an egalitarian view. Is your head spinning yet?????? ↩}

^{3. New Testament theologian N. T. Wright, whom I highly respect, makes this observation about the incident involving Martha and Mary, with Mary learning at the feet of Jesus. While this is truly remarkable, and special thanks to Professor Wright for bringing this out, to use this as an argument against the received practice of the church, that of restricting eldership to men only, is quite a leap. Tentative or possible? Yes. But conclusive? No. ↩}