Culture, Women, and the Church

             In case you’ve been living under a rock the past couple weeks, you are well aware that former U.S. Olympic decathlon star Bruce Jenner underwent a surgical transformation so he could become Caitlyn Jenner.  He’s made the cover of Vanity Fair, has been interviewed by Diane Sawyer, and his decision has been soundly endorsed by popular culture, the media, and Hollywood, and just as soundly repudiated by conservative Evangelical Christianity.

               I’m not here this morning to jump on the pile.  I’ll let 1 Timothy 1:10 and other clear passages in the Bible speak for themselves on this particular issue, adding that if you take a rose and cut off its stem, it’s still a rose, albeit a confused, broken, and now mutilated one.

               But it got me to thinking this week as I prepared my message.  Back in the first century, would women have had to have undergone a similar artificial metamorphosis in order to serve in the church the way they do today?  Would Beth Moore, who’s written nearly two dozen books and Bible studies, have been allowed the same freedom to do so back then?  Would Dr. Dinelle Frankland, who teaches graduate worship studies and serves as the academic dean of the seminary at Lincoln Christian Seminary, be given that privilege?  How about Deb Hafer, who for years led teams of Bible college students on weekend trips to Jefferson City Correctional Center?  Would our own Alisa Brockelsby be granted the opportunity to serve the local church as youth minister?

                Times, they are a changing.  When I was a student at Ozark Christian College, women were not eligible to enroll in preaching classes.  Twelve years later, now they are, and they are not alone.  And for the first time ever at the North American Christian Convention, the Restoration Movement’s largest annual gathering, a woman will preach at one of the main sessions.  Are we as a movement capitulating and turning to the left and into error with these moves?

               On the other hand, times may not be moving so fast.  Last year, Alisa attended the Illinois Teen Christian Convention with her youth group.  At one point the director of the convention said, “Now it’s time for us to have a little youth minister time, and all you youth minister’s wives can have some ladies’ time together, too.”  Oops.  Alisa was the only female youth minister there.  You didn’t realize we were such trendsetters, did you?  I guess Alisa could have sent Kirt to go off with the ladies to drink tea and eat cucumber sandwiches, or take part in whatever activities they had planned.

               So it was with great interest, as well as with great trepidation, that I began to study our text for this morning.  It’s from 1 Timothy 2, verses 8-15.  It contains some of the most culturally and interpretively challenging topics and statements in Scripture in our day and age.  Hear the Word of God:

I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; likewise also that 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.  Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness.  I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.  For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.  Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

We’re going to examine this text in two movements.  First of all, I want to look at what it meant to its readers’ context back then.  Second, we’re going to ask ourselves what timeless truths about the text need to applied to our context today.

First of all, what did this text mean to the original audience?

               We need to keep in mind that no teaching from the Bible comes out of vacuum, and this is particularly true in the New Testament epistles.  These were documents written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to address specific problems or situations.  And we already know from what we’ve read earlier in this letter that Paul wrote 1 Timothy to help his young protégé deal with serious error and the subsequent unrest and division that was taking place in the home churches of Ephesus.            False teachers were rising up out of the church’s leadership, indulging in speculative theology, manipulating and enforcing the Old Testament code to suit their fancy, and creating a system of salvation based not upon the good news of Jesus Christ, but upon one’s level of knowledge and one’s level of performance according to their personalized religious system.

               And apparently, these false teachers had found fertile ground among the younger widows of the church family.  If we jump ahead to 1 Timothy 5, we learn a little more.  The younger widows were learning to be idlers, going from house church to house church, being gossips and busybodies, saying things they shouldn’t say.  And in Paul’s second letter to Timothy, chapter 3, he describes the licentious false teachers as those who creep into house churches and capture weak-willed women who were burdened with sin and led astray by various passions.  Such women, Paul continued, had an insatiable thirst for knowledge, but could never come to a knowledge of the truth.  This gives us some valuable information on what was going on.  The false teachers had found an eager following among otherwise unoccupied women, were making them disciples of error, and then turning these wanton women, driven by their passions, loose on the rest of the believers in Ephesus.

               So this is the situation in which Paul writes these words.  How will he address the problem?  He first deals with the way the women should present themselves to others.  They are to adorn themselves with respectable apparel, with modesty, and with self-control.  In contrast, he says they should not dress with braided hair, gold, pearls, or costly attire. 

Now on the surface, this flies in the face of our church culture thinking.  We don’t have the expression “wear your Sunday best” for nothing, right?               Some suggest that the reason Paul did not want the ladies to dress up was because it created a distinction between the wealthy and the poor in church, making it quite clear who were the have’s and who were the have-not’s.  However, closer examination of the cultural context reveals that the kind of dress Paul is condemning was sexually provocative in his day and age.  In fact, historical evidence shows us that it could be considered even marital unfaithfulness if a married woman went out adorned like that in public.  Imagine, if you will, the choice between two Christmas presents.  One is wrapped in a paper sack and tied off with duct tape.  The other is wrapped in gilt paper, tied off with bright ribbon, has an engraved nametag, and is topped with a bow.  Which would you rather open?  The fancy one, of course.  That’s the idea here. 

So Paul was not forbidding women to wear quality clothing; he was putting an end to these young widows and possibly others parading about in what was then considered provocative, alluring, and seductive attire.  Instead they were to adorn themselves with good works, as women who profess to worship God are prone to do.

               Next Paul says that the women should learn quietly and with all submissiveness.  That word “quietly” does not mean in silence.  Rather, it has the meaning of being restful, peaceful, tranquil.  It is used up in verse 2 to describe the quality of public life that all of God’s people should pursue.  “In all submissiveness” refers to placing oneself under all appropriate sources of authority, the first being Christ, the second being to one another.  And the word “learn” is the same word translated as “be a disciple.”  So in a church situation where there was not order but discord, not peace but unrest, and not true discipleship but speculative and harmful teaching, Paul is calling for reform.

               Next Paul tells his readers “I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man,” and again he reiterates the need for women to learn in tranquility.  Given the nuances of the Greek verb here, a better translation may be “I am not permitting a woman to teach or exercise authority,” which would indicate that Paul is giving this command in light of the current state of affairs rather than setting down a once-for-all command.  The verb “exercise authority” is a hapax legomenon, that is, it is only used once in the entire New Testament.  Extrabiblical sources of a similar age that use the term give it a very negative connotation.  It has the meaning of “domineer,” “give orders to,” “exert control over.”

               The prohibition on teaching goes hand in hand with the concept of domineering a man.  In Paul’s culture, the didaskolos, or teacher, was a revered figure who commanded authority.  He called students to follow him.  He would impart his knowledge of certain topics or skills to his disciples, and they, while under his teaching, would call him “master.”  The Hebrew word for an exalted figure was “rabbi,” and while not every rabbi was a teacher, every teacher was a rabbi.  If a Jewish teacher entered the house of his father, and his father was not a teacher himself, his father was expected to stand in his presence.  One teacher’s mother demanded to wash her son’s feet; another’s feet were kissed by his father-in-law.  That was the level of respect afforded to the authority of a teacher in Paul’s day.

               Paul then explains in part why he’s placing this prohibition over the church at Ephesus.  First, there is a natural, God given order to the genders; man was made first, then women.  Second, Eve was the first to be deceived by Satan, and thus became a transgressor.

               This argument seems a little foreign and perhaps a little offensive to us on the surface.  But I think two things are going on here.  First, Paul is using the Fall as a picture of what is happening to the church in Ephesus.  Satan targeted Eve, got her to buy into his lie, and she then passed it on to Adam.  In the same way, false teachers have risen up in Ephesus, and the first victims of their deception were the young widows who were looking for something more in life.  In turn, those women had begun taking the poisoned fruit to others in the church, forming their own little groups of followers and spreading the false teaching, tearing the church apart as they bounced from house church to house church. 

The second thing I noticed is that Paul is pointing to the creation order as a natural place to determine where the buck stops.  For a woman to domineer a man violates God’s desired order for his creation.  God did not create the genders in order to provide mankind with a power struggle, but rather to complement one another in their respective roles within the context of mutual submission.

                 And now we come to verse 15, which is one of the most difficult verses in all of Scripture to explain.  “Yet she will be saved through childbearing-if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self control.”  What exactly does this mean?  Well, here are the options.  One:  Christian women will suffer no harm during childbirth.  I think it’s safe to assume that one is wrong.  Two:  Only women who bear children will be saved.  Nope, but thanks for playing.  Three:  Women are saved who pursue their God-mandated gender role.  I think we’re getting warmer here.  After all, what is the one thing a woman can do that a man can’t?  Okay, ladies, I know the list is long, but I’m thinking reproductively here—that’s right, they can bear children.  And that lines up with 1 Timothy 5, verses 10 and 14, which highlight the bearing and nurturing of children of being as being a woman’s responsibility.  But I think an even better explanation is Four:  It is referring back to Eve, the transgressor, who will be saved through the bearing of children, which eventually leads to the promised Deliverer, Jesus Christ.  This statement from Paul comes right on the heels of his reference to the Fall, he never uses the “salvation” word for anything other than redemption through Jesus Christ, and to suggest that women are justified by doing womanly things smacks too much of works salvation to me.  In Genesis 3:15 we have the first promise of deliverance—the offspring of Eve.

               So my interpretation of this passage is this:  Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is speaking into a situation where false teachers have caused a disturbance within the church at Ephesus.  Their false teaching found fertile ground among the younger widows.  These younger widows in turn began to bounce from house church to house church, seeking to gain their own followings through their own false teaching.  Quite possibly one of their tactics was to exert control over men by dressing in a sexually provocative way.  To correct the problem, Paul enforces a dress code, insists on tranquil discipleship, and puts a ban on women teaching or domineering men.

               And now perhaps for the more important question.  How do we apply this text to our context today?  Are these prohibitions local and limited or timeless and universal?

               In order to answer that question we must first determine whether or not these commands were local and limited or timeless and universal.  There is no doubt that Paul was addressing an androcentric culture in his day.  Women were often considered second class citizens in the Ancient Near East.  They were generally not afforded the same educational, vocational, social, or political opportunities.

               Christianity began to change all that.  Jesus, for example, was peculiar for having women among his followers, the most famous of whom was Mary Magdalene, but she was far from the only one.  Paul himself worked together with certain believing women.  One of those women was Priscilla, who, along with her husband Aquila, made tents alongside Paul.  It’s also interesting to note that Priscilla and Aquila took the young preacher Apollos aside and explained to him more accurately the way of God in Acts 18.  In the six times that Priscilla and Aquila are mentioned in the New Testament, she gets the preeminence two thirds of the time.  So here is a clear reference to a woman teaching a man in Acts 18, though it is in the context of team-teaching.

               Elsewhere, of course, Paul can be found giving commands about the behavior of women in public worship.  The church at Corinth also had problems in that area.  In 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 he says women need to wear head coverings, and in 1 Corinthians 14 comes what seems his harshest words toward women:  As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.  If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

               Obviously we consider both the command for women to wear head coverings and for them to shut up when they walk through the church doors to be limited and local in their scope.  If we see them as timeless and universal, we sure aren’t enforcing them, are we?  While it was considered a social taboo for women to be vocal in public settings in Paul’s day, could you imagine the reaction if we handed out muzzles to the women today?

               With the Industrial Revolution, women’s suffrage, the Equal Rights Movement, and other such socio-economic changes between us and the biblical audience, we are forced to be very careful with the commands made to and about women in Scripture.  Women are afforded opportunities in today’s world that they never would have dreamed of back in Paul’s day.  We are drawing ever closer to the ideal Paul expressed in Galatians 3:28, There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.  I for one do not think it is a bad thing that women have greater freedoms and greater opportunities today than they did in Paul’s day.  And if those greater freedoms and opportunities available outside the church are good things, than ought the church afford them greater freedoms and opportunities within it?

               However, I do believe there are some timeless and universal principles in play here.  Obviously, modest dress is something that all followers of Jesus, regardless of their gender, ought to be devoted to.  We are not here to draw attention to ourselves, particularly in a sexual manner, but to draw attention to the One who loves us and saves us, Jesus Christ.  Dressing provocatively not only produces temptation for others, it also makes less of you.  Put on your Sunday best, ladies, but please don’t attend church in a bikini.  Put on your Sunday best, men, but please don’t show up with your shirt unbuttoned to your navel.  I’m not sure that’s an attractive look, anyway.

               Second, there is a God-given order to the genders, and for a woman to exert control over or domineer a man violates that order.  And just to be clear, fellas, for a man to exert control over or domineer a woman is also a violation of God’s heart for the genders.  God calls for a covenantal relationship between the genders, a context of mutual submission in which men have the responsibility to take a pastoral and loving lead.  What that means for the church is that final authority in the form of church doctrine, discipline, and policy ought to ultimately rest with a godly male leadership.  But if there is no male leadership willing or able to serve in such a way, a woman has to do what a woman has to do.  Just ask Deborah in the book of Judges. 

Part of the problem in our churches and in our culture, which I believe indirectly and directly have led to instances like the Bruce to Caitlyn Jenner thing, is that men aren’t being men, and women aren’t being women.  We were made different for a reason, and to embrace one’s gender role does not make one a lesser or greater person.  The Christian call for particular gender roles under mutual submission would end a lot of the gender dysfunction and confusion out there.

               But I believe there is great leeway when it comes to every other ministry of the church under such a leadership.  Take teaching, for example.  The authority of a teacher is not the same today as it was back then.  My father-in-law does not kiss my feet when he greets me.  My stepdad doesn’t stand up in respect when I walk into his house.  I don’t know that I’ve ever been called “master” by someone.  Teachers are often afforded respect today, but among adults, at least, they have very little authority, far less the kind of authority that demanded such overt acts of reverence and respect back in Paul’s time..

               That’s why I don’t have an issue with Ozark training women to prepare exegetically sound, Biblical messages.  And I’m not disturbed by the North American Christian Convention having a woman preach at one of its main sessions.  Nor am I troubled by Alisa leading our youth group and its sponsors.  And I was greatly blessed by my time learning and serving under Dr. Frankland, Deb Hafer, and others.  In all these instances, women are providing the church with their valuable gifts and insights under the context of godly male oversight. 

It may sound to some of you that I am compromising the gospel to accommodate the surrounding culture.  I don’t see it that way.  I feel I am contextualizing the gospel so that it is readily accessible to the surrounding culture.  Paul did the same.  In 1 Corinthians 9 he writes, For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them.  To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law.  To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law.  To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.  I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.  In endorsing greater freedoms and opportunities for women in the church, I am becoming as a 21^st century American in order that I might save some 21^st century Americans.

There are many things about our culture I cannot affirm, such as its approval and celebration of same sex attraction, its fixation on material wealth, its wanton narcissism, empty pursuits, and mindless distractions.  But I can affirm its desire for all people, regardless of gender, to be treated with respect and afforded an opportunity to use their gifts to advance their community.  The world around us has changed, and while much of it has been for the worse, the opportunity for women to contribute more to the ministry of the church is not one of them.  And I think if Paul were here today, he’d agree.  So let’s be a church family that welcomes and takes advantage of the giftedness of our ladies, in whatever form that takes, under the guidance of godly male leadership, and let’s see God do something marvelous through it.