Scriptorium Daily
A couple of months ago, I wrote this blog comparing complementarianism and egalitarianism from a non-theological perspective (culturally and sociologically). This current blog is Part 2, looking at the issue biblically and theologically.
Let me preface my blog with this: John Piper is one of my favorite pastor-theologians, and I agree with him on just about everything except his complementarianism. Bill Mounce was my former Greek professor at Gordon-Conwell Seminary and I am close to him and his family (in fact I used to babysit his kids) — but he is complementarian though the seminary is mostly egalitarian (yes, you heard that right — one of the top evangelical seminaries in the country is mostly egalitarian). Me disagreeing with Piper and Mounce (amongst others) on the egalitarian-complementarian debate does not imply that I dislike them as people or theologians. In fact Piper is probably my favorite preacher, and Mounce is a good friend of mine. Piper himself agrees with Jonathan Edwards on just about everything except infant baptism. So, clearly one can very much admire someone else, agree with them on 99% of their thoughts, but still cordially disagree with them on a little part of their thinking, causing no rift in that relationship. That’s how I view my complementarian brothers and sisters who are evangelical — yes, we debate on one non-essential point of theology, and let’s put our cards on the table, but I hope it’s not a hill we’re willing to die on.
Also let me lay out what I hope to accomplish from this blog. For those who are unsure on the issue, perhaps this will give you more information for you to consider, to help you make up your mind on this issue. For those who are avowed complementarians, I don’t think I’m going to change your mind. Yet, I also don’t hope that this will be a forum for nasty exchanges back-and-forth. I am not trying to prove egalitarianism without doubt from Scripture. I think it is impossible to prove either egalitarianism or complementarianism without doubt from Scripture, which is why it is considered one of these indeterminate nonessential things, like paedobaptism vs. credobaptism, premill vs. amill vs. postmill, and Calvinism vs. Arminianism. What I hope to do is show that a case can be made from Scripture about egalitarianism. I’m afraid that some complementarians often hold the Scriptural “high ground” as if somehow egalitarianism is a non-Biblical position. All I want to do is show that it is not as clear-cut as all that; that a case can be made for egalitarianism; and hopefully we can be more charitable toward each other recognizing that good evangelicals can hold various interpretations on such disputed nonessential, non-heretical matters.
Some preliminary things to consider:
-Greek nouns, like in Spanish and other Romance languages, have genders. When referring to people in the plural, Greek always defaults toward the masculine (again, like Romance languages). So a masculine plural does not mean it refers exclusively to men, but rather that the collective could include both men and women. Likewise, if a pronoun is in the singular but is applicable to all people, it also defaults toward the masculine (we even do this in English, e.g. James 5:13, “Is any one of you in trouble? He should pray.” Clearly it’s not saying that only males should pray, but the “he” can refer to any singular man or woman!)
-Ephesians 5 calls for mutual submission. It is a case of proof-texting to only point to v. 22 (“wives, submit to your husbands”) but not v. 21 (“submit to one another”). In fact, I would say the husband’s responsibility is much heavier than the wife’s. Any man who thinks his wife needs to be doing whatever the husband wants forgets that the husband is called to die for his wife (lit. “as Christ … gave himself up for [the church]”). Any attempt to soften that makes the cross impotent (like when I hear people interpret, “Take up your cross and follow me,” as just bearing a heavy burden — no, it’s much more than that, the cross was death for Jesus!). You want to be a real man? The Bible calls men to die, not to lord it over their wives. Jesus never sought power for himself, and that’s precisely why he’s worthy to be praised. If we want to be real men, we shouldn’t demand obedience, but obedience will come out of respect for our humility.
-When it comes to biblical interpretation, one must decide whether each passage is prescriptive or descriptive. The latter applies to historical things that are no longer applicable to us today, but merely describes what happened back then. The former applies to things that still hold for us today, what the Bible is prescribing for us to continue doing. Clearly not everything is prescriptive, unless you literally go around giving people holy kisses, cutting off your hand and plucking out your eye whenever you sin, and baptizing the dead. As is the case with the role of women (such as remaining silent), our task is to determine whether it was descriptive of the culture at the time but is no longer applicable to us today, or if it is prescriptive for us even now. It is a sloppy hermeneutic to assume that it is all prescriptive.
On women’s exclusion from the pastorate:
Often the case against women preaching is that they cannot be elders, and pastors are a subset of elders, and pastors preach, therefore women cannot preach since they are not elders (and hence cannot be pastors).
-First of all, there are three different church offices listed in the New Testament, and pastor is not one of them. The three offices are (in Greek): presbuteros, diakonos, and episkopos. The word “pastor” in Greek is poimen which is always used in the Bible exclusively for Jesus himself. The only exception is Ephesians 4:11 where it lists “pastor” as one of several roles alongside apostles, prophets, evangelists and teachers. But if we say that pastor is a church office, then we also have to say that apostles, prophets, evangelists and teachers are as well. I don’t think that’s the case. There are only three clear church offices: presbuteros (often translated “elders”), diakonos (“deacons”), and episkopos (often translated “overseers” or “bishops”).
-Secondly, the words prebuteros and episkopos are synonymous. Look at Titus 1:5-7. In v. 5 Paul calls them “elders” and in v. 7 he calls them “overseers.” It’s clearly the same group he is referring to, and he uses the two words interchangeably. Also in Acts 20:17, Paul addresses the “elders” and in v. 28 he calls them “overseers.” Yet another interchangeable use of the two words. Finally, in 1 Peter 5, v. 1 uses the word “elders” and v. 2 uses “overseers.” These are three separate and, I think, conclusive cases to show these two words are equivalent.
However, it has been argued that in the latter two passages, the word “pastor” is used also synonymously with “elder” and “overseer.” That’s actually not the case, as both times (Acts 20:28 and 1 Peter 5:2) it’s used as a verb (“to pastor”), not a noun (“the pastor”). While it’s true that a verb may imply the noun in role, it’s not absolutely necessary that it implies the noun as a job. Just because I can garden does not make me a gardener (as a temporary role, yes; as an official vocation, no). So saying that a pastor is the same as an elder or overseer is not accurate. I would say that elders and overseers are called to pastor, but since “pastor” is not a church office, I’d say that people other than elders and overseers can pastor (as a verb) as well, just as people other than gardeners (those who have that official job) can garden.
-There are two lists for qualifications of elders: 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9. The Timothy passage says that overseers “must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect … He must not be a recent convert … He must also have a good reputation with outsiders…” And the Titus passage says that an elder “must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient … blameless — not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.” What’s notable about these two lists? To some extent, nothing. These are characteristics that all believers, whether elder or not, whether male or female, should be held accountable to if they call themselves mature Christians. What complementarians often single out is this: that elders/overseers must be “the husband of but one wife” and thus it implies that an elder must be a man.
However, that phrase can mean many different things. Of course implying that an elder must be male is one interpretation. But keep in mind my first injunction above regarding the ambiguity of male pronouns. So technically “husband and wife” could be translated as “spouse and spouse.” Therefore, another interpretation of this passage is that it could be a prohibition of polygamy (e.g. an elder must have only one spouse). Or it could be a prohibition of remarriage (e.g. an elder must never remarry if there is divorce due to spousal infidelity or spousal death). To quickly jump to an “elder must be male” interpretation is reading one’s agenda into it and not allowing for the possibility of other interpretations of “an elder must be the husband of but one wife.”
On women as deacons:
I said above that there are three church offices: elder, overseer, and deacon, though the first two are the same. Deacon is something else entirely, as seen in the separation of roles in Acts 6:2-4. Deacons minister by waiting tables, distributing food, serving as treasurers, and taking care of the poor. Literally, the word diakon means “minister” or “servant.” I want to argue that the qualifications for deacon are no different from that of elder (though they are distinct roles), therefore if women can be deacons they should also be allowed to be elders.
-The list of qualifications for deacons is found in 1 Timothy 3:8-13. It says, “Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons. In the same way, their wives are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything. A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well.” It seems like the qualifications for deacon seems practically the same as that of elder/overseer, namely being a mature Christian.
However, even complementarians acknowledge that women can be deacons, e.g. Phoebe and Priscilla in Romans 16:1-3.
-Yet, the language here used for deacons is “men” and “the husband of but one wife.” Clearly this language cannot prove that deacons must be male, otherwise Romans 16:1-3 doesn’t make any sense. And if this language is inapplicable to mean “male” in 1 Timothy 3:9-13, then why must it mean “male” in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9 when it is referring to elders?
-Though deacons do not rule like elders, they are still people in authority. It is a church office, after all, and people in authority have other people subordinate to them. I find it hard to believe that female deacons would only have females and children under their authority. No, most likely they would have men under their authority too.
On the importance of women teaching men:
-I understand that complementarians don’t have a problem with women teaching, but “merely” with women teaching men. However, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen male pastors who listen to the sound advice of elderly ladies in their church. With age often comes wisdom, and middle-aged male pastors would do well not to disregard the wisdom of elderly people in the church, whether they be male or female.
-This also holds for older women in the family. Whether males are boys or men, to disregard the teaching (wisdom and advice) of a mother or aunt or grandmother would also be foolish. In the Bible, Timothy clearly derived his faith from the women in his family — his mother Lois and his grandmother Eunice (2 Timothy 1:5). Notice he mentions nothing about his father. The same goes for St. Augustine’s mother, Monica, who was a great influence on his life, and the Emperor Constantine’s mother, Helena. Don’t underestimate the power of women to influence men for the good.
On women being silent:
1 Timothy 2:11-12 is one of the “classic” texts that complementarians use to prove their point, so it’s worth looking at to see if the “plain reading” of the text holds. It says that women must “learn in quietness and full submission” and that they are not permitted to “teach or to have authority over a man: she must be silent.”
-As I said above regarding Ephesians 5, it’s easy to just take v. 22 but disregard v. 21. Likewise, it’s easy to take vv. 11-12 but disregard vv. 9-10 which says, “I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.” I have encountered far too many complementarians who do not permit women to teach but have no problems with them wearing jewelry or braiding their hair. Be consistent! Either demand both (women not teaching and women not getting dolled up) or write off both as being merely descriptive of the culture of Paul’s time. But more often than not, women in complementarian churches look good (nice dresses, great hairstyles, makeup, jewelry and the like) and the men don’t seem to mind; but oh, let them teach, and it’s a completely different story!
-Also, what does it mean to be “silent”? 1 Corinthians 14:35 says something similar (“If they want to enquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church”). Really? How many people take this literally, even in complementarian churches? You mean a woman can’t even ask a question in church? Before using 14:35 as a trump card, don’t ignore the fact that, just a few chapters earlier, Paul describes women praying and prophesying in church (1 Corinthians11:4-6), which further casts doubt about the injunction for women to remain “silent.” In fact, prophecy could even be a form of teaching, depending on the content.
-1 Corinthians 14:35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12 both use the Greek words aner and gune. The former can mean “man” or “husband”; the latter can mean “woman” or “wife.” In the NIV, 1 Corinthians translates the two words as “husbands” and “women” whereas 1 Timothy translates them as “woman” and “man.” Why does aner mean “husband” in the former case and “man” in the latter case? It is a matter of translation. The 1 Timothy passage could also be translated “wife” and “husband,” in which case these verses only apply within the nuclear family, not within the church, which totally changes the application of this.
-I think the best defense of the complementarian view is actually 1 Timothy 2:13-14 which is the creation argument: “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.”
However, the “plain meaning of the text” is somewhat untenable if you think about it, because the creation order does not imply superiority (otherwise animals would have superiority over humans); and Adam was just as guilty in being deceived as Eve was (cf. Genesis 3:17-19).
-In addition, let’s compare this to a similar passage, 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. First of all, notice that, similar to 1 Timothy 2, there are what I see as cultural injunctions here: women must pray with their heads covered, men must pray with their heads uncovered, women must have long hair, men must not have long hair. So already the creation argument here of being prescriptive is “suspect,” because it’s interwoven with lots of descriptive cultural things (unless, of course, you actually think that, for example, men should not have long hair and women should. But last time I checked, almost no Christians have problems with hair length in either gender.)
-Why do I bring up 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Timothy 2 in parallel? Because in the former passage, it similarly links the seeming “superiority” of males over females to creation: “For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.” So at face value, it seems that 1 Corinthians 11 is right in line with 1 Timothy 2.
Yet look what 1 Corinthians 11 says next (vv. 11-12): “In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.” Interdependence! This reminds me more of Ephesians 5. Though it is easy to point out that woman must submit to man (Ephesians 5:22), it is easy to forget that man and woman must submit to each other (Ephesians 5:21). Likewise, it is easy to point out that women should have a sign of authority on their heads (1 Corinthians 11:10) but it is easy to forget that interdependence is the key (1 Corinthians 11:11-12) because ultimately everything comes from God.
Descriptive and prescriptive seem to be inextricably woven in 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Timothy 2. Paul seems to go back and forth between head coverings and woman being created from man; and between jewelry and woman’s primacy of sin. Either we have to take it all as prescriptive, or all as descriptive; picking and choosing seems arbitrary. As an egalitarian, I’d take it all as descriptive; however, if you take it all as prescriptive, you better be ready to have your women cover their heads when praying, not to have short hair, not to braid their hair, not to wear jewelry, and not to wear any nice clothes. Only then can you have any right to say that women should be silent and not have authority over men.
-Here’s an argument for why 1 Timothy 2 might be descriptive. Timothy, if you will remember, ministered at the church in Ephesus (cf. 1 Timothy 1:3 and Acts 19:22). Ephesus was the center of feminist goddess-worship, as in Acts 19:34 (“Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!”). The reason for Paul’s suppression of women teaching in Ephesus was to quell this female cult. The reference to Eve’s deception in 1 Timothy 2:13 was for this reason: Paul forbade women in Ephesus to speak because they were deceived by the feminist cult of Artemis and by the local Gnostics. After all, the Pastoral Epistles deal, in large part, with false teachers. The same reason can hold for the Corinthian church: It was a stronghold of Aphrodite worship (which is why Paul counters with his famous “love” passage of 1 Corinthians 13 re. what true love really is, as opposed to perverse Greek love), so he was countering the goddess cult in that city. This is how some biblical exegetes see it; and though it is not definitive, neither can we prove that this was not the reason.
-Why do evangelicals often hold a complementarian view of women’s roles, but “conveniently” ignore the issue of slavery? I would say if you take the plain meaning of the text, you ought to support slavery as well, e.g. 1 Timothy 6:1. Is it fair to say that the references to slavery were descriptive, but the references to women are prescriptive? I think that’s being inconsistent.
Conclusion:
I know that this blog is not exhaustive, that there are other passages we can point to, other issues that we can tackle. However, I think this gets at the heart of some of the main issues and Scriptures that address the complementarian-egalitarian issue.
Let me say a final word to complementarians who may read this blog: you may disagree with me, but I don’t think you can say I didn’t make a good attempt here! There are Scriptural arguments which may support egalitarianism, and I hope nobody writes this off as fluff. You may say that I am wrong (and, by all means, feel free), but you can’t say that I have no biblical case for my position. That’s all I am trying to do: to show that one can be egalitarian, and in no way does it make one unbiblical or unevangelical. If complementarians can recognize that (and I certainly recognize that in complementarians), then I think that’s the beginning of a good relationship between people who cordially disagree but who are still brothers and sisters in Christ.
