Debating women in ministry - round 2
Sep 23rd, 2007 by Cheryl
On Wednesday September 26, 2007 I will be having round number 2 with Matt Slick on the issue of women in ministry. We will be dealing with 1 Timothy 2 and the issues of whether “a woman” is a specific woman in Ephesus or whether Paul is prohibiting all Christian women from teaching men (or some variation of this). We will be also dealing with Paul’s reference to creation in this passage and what creation has to do with the prohibition. It should be another hot debate and if you can catch it live, it will be on 790 KSPD in Boise, Idaho or catch the debate streamed live on myfamilyradio.com.
To listen to the program live on myfamilyradio.com go to http://www.myfamilyradio.com/player.html and pick the link at the very bottom for “790 KSPD play outside of browser” The time is 5 - 6 pm Pacific time, 6 - 7 pm Mountain time, 7 - 8 pm Central time, and 8 - 9 pm Eastern time.
The day after the debate the audio should be up at Matt’s podcast site here and I will also be linking to the audio file on this blog.
Dusman has a good advertisement up at http://graceinthetriad.blogspot.com/2007/09/can-women-be-pastors.html
You might want to let him know that you appreciate the coverage if you are interested in this debate.
And if anyone is interested in calling in to give Matt feedback on his radio show, his radio call-in number is 208-377-3790. The show is on Monday to Friday from 5 - 6 pm Pacific time, 6 - 7 pm Mountain time, 7 - 8 pm Central time, and 8 - 9 pm Eastern time.
Matt also takes emails during the show times that he often reads on air if there are no callers. The day after the debate is a good time to let Matt know your thoughts on the debate. His email address is carmradio@gmail.com
This is an important debate and if you know of someone who might be interested in listening to two Christian apologists who both love Jesus but have differing views on women teaching the bible in an authoritative way, please send them a link to this blog post so they can tune in and be challenged to test everything by God’s word.
Also Matt wants to pick up the pace a little on the debate so could you please pray that as I go through my points a little faster, that Matt will actually let me finish my sentences this time?
Oh, my, we may need to tie his boxing gloves together a bit to give me a fair shake. At any rate, I trust it will be a respectful continuation of the debate as we seek to challenge each other’s presuppositions. May the Lord Jesus be glorified as we go into round #2!
September 24th, 2007 at 8:19 am
I’m glad the focus will be on 1 Tim. 2, because Dr. Nyland’s notes for this book are available for free at This Link as a PDF.
One point about this passage is that there were in fact female synagogue leaders in the first century. It is these who thought they could then automatically be teachers of the assembly. But Paul counters this notion by saying they have to first sit down and learn quietly with the other new believers before they can teach, regardless of their position in the synagogues.
Then of course Paul focuses on one particular woman who was teaching the Gnostic heresy that Eve was created first. Paul points out in vs. 13 that Adam was created first according to Genesis. This flow of thought makes perfect sense with the Gnostic heresy in view, but the referral to Genesis is illogical if the topic is instead some heirarchy based upon “outward appearances”. Dr. Rebecca Groothuis in her book “Good News for Women” (which I commented on Here) My comments on that part:
===========================
To say that woman must be inferior to man because she was created from him would be to also say that man must be inferior to dust! To say that man is superior to woman because he was created first is to also say that all the animals are superior to man! As Paul points out, other than Eve, all men have come from women, so by traditionalist logic this should mean that all mankind except Adam is inferior to Eve. And we see in the Bible that God frequently chose the younger to rule over the older (Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau, etc.). So neither derivation nor prior existence can be used to argue in favor of male domination or superiority.
…
Traditionalist logic here is circular. They assume that Genesis supports female subordination, then when reading 1 Tim. 2:11-15 they appeal back to it as their justification for their view. In other words, they presume authority being established in Genesis, then use it to support their interpretation of Paul’s words to Timothy as being universally applicable since it refers to creation order.
===========================
And then there’s the whole “authority” issue, as we’ve discussed before. There is no such concept as “authoritative teaching” defined in the epistles. The apostles had authority as having seen the risen Lord, but even then they did not use this authority as hierarchical but laid down their rights and called themselves servants of the assembly. Yet The Institutional Church insists that there is a clergy and laity distinction in the Body of Christ, as if it is divided or has two Heads.
This authority view not only puts men over women but men over men as well. But the epistles know nothing of such division, and Paul spoke out against it. There is to be no “covering”, no “lording it over”, no “Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female” in the Body. The Holy Spirit is our “covering”, the NT is our authority, and no part of the Body can say to another, “I have no need of you!”
I have yet to hear any male supremacist be able to explain how it is not prideful to put onesself over another in the assembly. No matter how kindly, benevolently, or minimally they rule, they still RULE. They want final say in all spiritual matters, not based upon gifting or experience, but upon genetics– the flesh! They invent a “boys’ club” and thereby disqualify the people they’ve excluded from having the right to question them. Very convenient– and very cult-like.
Elders in the assembly were to be respected as teachers, as examples of spiritual maturity and good citizens. They were not to think of this as a position of power, but a service to their students. And the students are supposed to graduate someday, not remain in school forever. So knowing the qualifications of eldership are all about spiritual and behavioral issues, how can anyone be excluded from eldership on the basis of their physical appearance?
And where is the modern-day “Pastor” (spoken reverently) in the NT? Where is this spiritual CEO or sublevel management team called either “associate pastors” or “deacons”? (The word “deacon” is not a translation but a transliteration, and means “minister”, of which Phoebe was clearly called one!) Where is The Pulpit (spoken loftily)? Where is any kind of chain of command?
Typically they hold up 1 Cor. 11:3 for this. But, as is his habit, Paul is making a play on words with “kephale” or “head”. He’s about to discuss the Corinthians’ question concerning the social custom of head coverings, but he prefaces it with the statement here. Hierarchy is not the subject at all, but head coverings, and Paul only uses a common word for “authority” (exousia) when telling them that the woman has authority over her own head. So the use of “kephale” does not indicate “headship” in the modern sense at all. Rather, as Dr. Nyland shows from her notes concerning the semantic range of this word, God is the source of Christ who is the source of man who is the source of women.
Notice that God (theos) is the source of Christ, not the Father (patris). How could Christ have God, not just the Father, as his source unless he were also God, as Christians have always believed? Conversely, how could Theos be the “boss” of Christ when Christ contains all the fullness of Theos?
So Paul is giving a chronological order, not an order of hierarchy. First came Adam, then Eve, then Christ. It’s very simple and straightforward. We could even say it’s “the plain meaning of scripture”. But the supremacist view must impose a modern meaning for “head” onto the text and change the whole topic at hand in order to claim this verse as supporting hierarchy.
Sorry for the long ramble but it just had to be said. Hope it helps!
September 24th, 2007 at 10:20 am
Great rant teknomom. Excellent points.
Regarding the traditional inventing of an hierarchy in 1 Cor. 11:3, the first clue that one should have that the listing is NOT an hierarchy is the thought of Christ being under God. That leads into arianian heresy which is huge.
The problem is a slippery slope one that digs one deeper. Bruce Ware (isn’t he the current pres. of CBMW) has now proclaimed his view of hierarchy in the Trinity in which God the Father is the One who holds all power and authority, to which The Anointed Son Christ and the Holy Spirit must both submit. This effectively places three wills in the Trinity instead of one. It also places one preeminent and two below. All things that Athenasius fought to correct in his era. One need only read the full Athenasian Creed to see the glaring error. In the Trinity there is never disagreement because there is only ONE WILL, not one will which is submitted to by the others who give up their will for that one.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/ecumenical-creeds.html
But they proclaim this error in order to hold tightly to the privileged position of only male patristic will being allowed in marriage and in church. True unity in marriage is to have both “wills” somehow enmeshed, intertwined, interdependently working harmoniously as one.
p.s….. do we have html capabilities yet?
September 24th, 2007 at 10:32 am
Thanks JB! And good point also about the “eternal sonship” heresy. Somehow this is now considered orthodoxy!
As with many other heresies, it was born out of the realization that they painted themselves into a corner with their “head = boss” teaching. But instead of giving up the first error they adopted a second one to cover it.
And, just like what they do with egalitarians, they claim that to disagree with them is to deny the eternal divinity of Jesus. (It’s also a Calvinist tactic: Anyone who isn’t a Calvinist MUST be an Arminian, and all Arminians are heretics.)
(tried a little html, we’ll see how it goes)
September 24th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Looks like we have html
Teknomom, do you have references for information on female synogogue leaders.
The thing about what some consider orthodoxy … by teaching the congregations that only leaders can interpret Scripture (I thought the Pope was in Rome?
) is that once the people no longer search the Scriptures for themselves, they can be instructed to believe anything the leaders wish. And then such leaders can claim anything is orthodox as long as it comes from them, much like the Catholic Pope. Once people understand how to search the Scriptures for themselves, “popish” leaders will lose their hold over them.
This is more important than we realize because a new trend is starting among patriarchalists. So much authority privileges are being piled onto church leaders and elders that now they are teaching that not to heed the counsel of an elder, whatever that may include, is grounds for public excommuncation from the church. This excommunication would come down from the elders without any legal requirements of proof or witnesses of sin or wrong doing other than the elders acknowledgement that the person did not do as they recommended, required, advised, etc as proof in itself of the larger sin of not bending to the authority of the elders. And the actual issue need never be made public. Further, the excommunicated could never disclose the particulars and the congregation was prohibited from speaking or discussing it.
See what can be built upon wrong doctrines!
September 24th, 2007 at 11:14 am
I don’t have references, but Dr. Nyland does.
Copyright laws forbid me to copy/paste them here, but you can see them in the PDF at This Link and click on the link for 1 Timothy With Notes.
Now I have to try a blockquote!
Ironically, Calvin earned the epithet “Pope of Geneva” due to his extreme intolerance for dissent.
Yes, we live in a time when good is called evil and evil good, when patriotism is turned into blind subservience to the state, and where there is a great push to return to the Dark Side Ages both politically and spiritually. It’s also been noted that with the rise in body piercing and cutting, global society is returning to the spirit of Baal worship.
This issue of male supremacism may seem trivial to some, but people never do see an individual step as part of a journey. This is just one of many indicators of the abandonment of plain Biblical truth and the simple faith in Jesus for experiences, rituals, and oppression. It is not egalitarianism that is the “slippery slope”!
September 24th, 2007 at 11:17 am
Hmmm… my attempt to use for a strikethrough on “Side” in “dark
sideages” didn’t work. Trying “strike” this time.September 24th, 2007 at 11:43 am
Blind subservience is the footstool of strict patriarchy. It is what abusers and controllers live for. Those who realize this are the ones who see the link to abuse formed by patriarchy. It can be an enabler for abusers.
now I need to find a link to remind me of the html tricks…… like the strikethru and blockquote. do you have one…..
September 24th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Here’s One. Any search engine will typically provide a large number of tutorials if you just type “html codes” in the search box.
Sorry for the rabbit trail, Cheryl! Maybe I should start a “WIM Only” section on my message board so we don’t clutter up the place.
September 24th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
If I were doing this debate, here is how I would attempt to do it, take my ideas as suggestions.
1. Establish that in Greek grammatical gender does not imply physical gender. If he does not accept this, then 1 Tim 3:1 proves your case (at least to him) as overseer is feminine grammatical gender.
2. Establish that in Greek is is often possible for a term that refers to males or a male to also refer to a female, this is especially true for plural male forms.
More later.
September 24th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
teknomom,
Thanks for your html help! I don’t mind a certain level of rabbit trails including this one. I have a real love for all of you folks who have been faithful and been a support to me. As long as we keep the tone respectful and somewhat in order
I don’t really mind.
There has been a lot written that I haven’t had a chance to read through because my folks are here and aren’t leaving until the day of the next debate. That leaves me scrambling a little for time. I will read through all the comments in time and I am sure they are helpful to others who are here and interested in what y’all have to say!
September 24th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Don,
Your points were good! The first point is especially helpful to me and along the same line as one given to me by Dusman. This is the way that I see it - we need to have a level of consistency or scripture can be made to say anything we want it to say. If grammatical gender is important to force one to say that only men are in mind, then we need to follow through with the logical outcome of that view. That is where the inconsistencies come out of the rabbit hole. My problem is that it is easier for me to think these things through on line or on paper then on live radio! I must trust that the Holy Spirit will enlighten my mind to remember what is important and leave aside what is dross.
Keep the comments coming! They are excellent thoughts and worthy of paying attention to.
September 24th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Here are some links on aner being more than male.
This is a crucial point to establish, IMO.
http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/list/files/list.htm
September 24th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Acts 17:34 on Damaris shows the NT itself uses andres to include a woman. This is because it was normal for this in Greek.
The point is that Greek was like 1950’s English, a group of “men” (andres) might include women (and often did), but a group of “women” would not include any men, it would be all female.
By extension, an aner (an example from a set of andres) might be a womnn. In 1950’s English, if you were asked to select a man from a group of men (that included women) you might select a woman as well as a man, no one would think you only meant to select a male. This was just the way 1950’s English worked and is also the way Greek worked.
September 24th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
One needs to see a puzzle as Phoebe is called a diakonos in Rom 16:1 yet 1 Tim 3:12 says a diakonos should be a one of the “mias guniakos andres”.
Once it is agreed that aner can refer to a woman in some cases, it is NOT that large a jump to find out that “mias gunaikos andra’ (literally one-woman man) in 1 Tim 3:2 and “mias gunaikos andres” (literally one-woman men) in 1 Tim 3:12 has been found on tombstones in Ephesus referring to both men and women, as in faithful spouse, as Nyland translates it in The Source NT.
September 24th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Just heard M.S. say something to the effect that the Greek “tis” can be masculine and feminine. IOW I believe he is implying that anyone (tis) is not really “anyone”, but any man or any woman accordingly.
“Tis” in 1 Tim. 3:1 is indef., pron., nom., sing. I’m not a Greek expert at all, but that looks like just “anyone” to me.
September 24th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
justa berean,
Yes, I heard the same thing. The problem with taking this stance is that it is going to be difficult for him then to prove that the salvation passages are not meant just for men. Take Matthew 16:24, 25.
Mat 16:24 Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.
Mat 16:25 “For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.
In verse 24 “anyone” is nominative singular masculine. The pronouns that follow are also singular masculine. Deny “himself” is accusative singular masculine. Take up “his” cross is accusative singular masculine. Whoever will save “his” life is genitive singular masculine. “Whosoever” will lose his life is nominative singular masculine.
The entire passage is singular masculine and every pronoun is singular masculine. If we take Matt’s word that “anyone” as a singular masculine with masculine pronouns that follow to only mean males, then we must also insist that only males can be saved and only males can take up their cross and follow Christ.
The one thing that I praise God for is a complementarian by the name of Dr. Scott Heine who agreed to be the first one to review the exegesis in my DVD series. His email and words of wisdom to me were invaluable. It was Scott who pointed out to me that 1 Timothy 3:1 was singular masculine. I asked him if this grammar eliminated women in this verse and he was gracious enough to admit that the grammar could not be used to eliminate women since all of the salvation passages had the exact same grammar - singular masculine.
We need to genuinely care about truth and exegete scripture without prejudice. 1 Timothy 3:1 does not eliminate women and Matt himself has admitted that the remaining qualifications are “normative” not a hard and fast “rule”. So we can know beyond a shadow of a doubt that this passage does not prohibit women from being a servant who protects the flock.
September 24th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Think I read some posts on the Better Bibles Blog where masc. and fem. usage in Greek was being discussed. Greek does not handle these things the same that English does.
Me, I’m more basic. Cannot get past the “anyone”.
I figure if a man were meant than different words would be used in Greek, then one whose basic primary meaning is “anyone”. It’s the “any” that changes it all.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:05 am
justa berean,
I agree with you too! Basically our two ways of looking at the “problem” end up with the same solution. Women are not excluded and if God wanted to exclude them, he would have used language in such a way that it was clear and consistent. After all if it isn’t clear than we are not kept from sinning against him. God’s prohibitions are clear, they are understandable and they are enforceable.
Those who do not accept this are forced into a position of preferential treatment of one person over another. God hates that and we should too.
September 25th, 2007 at 5:42 am
In 1 Tim it is important to see that the false teachers did NOT have a specified gender. However, we KNOW that Hy and Al were disfellowshiped and they were both male.
In other words, there is a possibility that there were also one or more female false teachers.
In other words, if it was just Hy and Al that was the concern, the letter could have been structured much simpler. So one needs to discern what makes Hy and Al special to be named? As I understand it, it is because they deliberately taught false things.
So the contrast is that the other false teachers, perhaps including a woman or women, were not doing it deliberately, but rather were deceived. These are unnamed, as Cheryl has pointed out, as there is a good chance of redemption and restoration to ministry, but being named explicitly in a letter by Paul as a bad example would be “ministry limiting” in a big way.
September 25th, 2007 at 9:34 am
yes, I take it the same way Don. Paul did not often name names. When he did we can well assume the persons were deliberately set in doing what they did.
If we read the epistle as a whole with one thought leading into another, it is not unreasonable that 1 Tim. 3 is effectively telling those who were in error but not named (both men and women) that if they had a desire to lead in the church, it was a noble desire. However, they needed to learn, mature, be tried and proven in character.