Saying What It Says

I have to say I've never actually seen this argument before. Frankly, when I first saw it I was baffled that anyone was actually trying to make this argument. Still, the hits keep coming, so, being the person I am, I had to examine the line of reasoning to see if it made sense. I mean, where would I be if I only allowed that which I agreed with and never considered the arguments with which I disagree? Oh, yeah ... I'd be a non-believer.

So, here's the argument. When Paul argues in 1 Timothy 2 that women should not teach or exercise authority over men, he is not speaking merely about church authority; he is speaking of all authority, including the church. The argument holds that women must not teach men. The argument holds that women must not exercise authority over men. The argument holds that this is the case whether you are discussing senior pastor roles or the President of the United States (which, by the way, is the reason this argument first popped up -- Hillary running for President). Women cannot have authority over men in government, at work, or anywhere else you might care to imagine. They cannot be university professors because they would be teaching men. They cannot be safety coordinators because they would be teaching men. "The passage is clearly speaking of all women in all cases because it is based on the creation order. This passage is speaking to God's perspective of women in authority for all cases, not merely for the Church. Why would you think otherwise?"

Now, I believe the Bible is the sole authority in matters of faith and practice. I believe that we need to submit to the Bible regardless of how it might feel. If we are commanded to love our enemies, we must love our enemies. If we are commanded to forgive, we must forgive. On the other hand, I think it is a serious mistake to take Scripture out of context and use it to make "matters of faith and practice" where the Bible never intended them to be. This, I believe, is one of those instances.

Consider the context of the epistle. First Timothy is a letter written by Paul to a young pastor. Timothy isn't a young politician or farmer or teacher or any other profession you might come up with. He's a pastor. And Paul is writing to Timothy about pastoring, not about farming, teaching, or politics. Is there any reason that I might consider this to be true? Sure. In 1 Tim. 3, Paul writes, "I write so that you may know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God" (1 Tim. 3:15). Paul is pretty clear in that passage. "I'm on my way to see you personally, Timothy, but I'm writing to tell you what to do in the meantime." Would it be reasonable that "Make sure that women aren't in government" would be on that list? Indeed, if you look at the variety of instructions in the letter, it seems unavoidable that they are to believers, not to "the world". He starts with warnings about "strange doctrines", which are irrelevant outside the Church. He instructs that people pray (1 Tim. 2), something done by believers, not unbelievers. He says that women should dress modestly, "as befits women making a claim to godliness" (1 Tim 2:9-10). Now, what woman outside the Church would be interested in making a claim to godliness? He gives instructions on qualifications of overseers and deacons (1 Tim. 3), specifically Church roles, not world roles. I could go on, but it seems abundantly clear that Paul is writing to Timothy about how church is done, not how everything is supposed to be.

In the passage itself there is a problem of specificity. "I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man ..." Does that mean any man? Does that mean that all women are required to be under submission to all men? Is Paul's call back to the Created Order an indication that all men rule over all women? Or are there specific men in view? For instance, the Bible says, "Wives, submit to your husbands." There is a special relationship there that requires submission just as there is a special relationship with husbands to wives that requires a special kind of love. What about familial relationships? The Bible commands that we are to obey their parents. Does a son no longer need to obey his mother when he is "a man"? Is she, then, under his dominion? And what defines that change from "child" to "man"? It's all too vague.

Then there's the problem of Created Order. Paul uses the order of creation as his reason for saying that women can't teach or exercise authority over men. But if we use the Created Order as our standard, then it would also require that, since animals were created first, they would be over people. Now, of course we know that's not the case. Paul uses a specific reference to Adam over Eve for a reason, and he uses it in a specific application. I believe it would be wrong to try to drag "Created Order" out beyond its indicated usage just as it would be wrong to use "Created Order" to prove that animals are people, too.

Indeed, we don't find much in Scripture about how the world's government ought to operate. We don't find an endorsement by God of democracy or any other form of government. He doesn't warn against Communism or Socialism. He doesn't seem to bother with the dangers of fascism or totalitarianism. God appears singularly disinterested in how the world does government. He is concerned about how His chosen people operate. In the Old Testament, that was Israel. God never comments on the governmental operations of other countries. In the New Testament, it is all believers. You don't see Jesus or Paul suggesting how governments should operate. Apart from blanket commands to individuals like "Thou shalt not murder" and "Thou shalt not steal," precious little is written about how government should be. It's as if God assumes that they're sinners (as demonstrated by their failure to obey those blanket commands) and doesn't expect them to do education or government or economics His way, so He doesn't bother with commands along those lines for the world.

There are some who are arguing for Christians to take control of the government. They have a variety of names. Some are called Theonomists. Some are called Christian Reconstructionists. Some are called Dominionists. And they've been around for a long time. They're not new. The truth is, however, that the Bible doesn't seem to support this idea. Instead we read, "Render to Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's." Jesus never takes on Rome. Paul never complains about slavery. Christian morality, while certainly preferable to alternative moral perspectives, are never put forth in Scripture as something we ought to enforce by civil means. This is just inconsistent with Scripture. God isn't in the business of making good people out of bad people. He's not concerned about making a moral country run by moral leaders. He's in the business of changing hearts that produce "fruit", good works suitable to repentance. The Bible doesn't seem to speak to the question of whether or not women should be in secular roles as CEO's or working in Congress. I fear that making that argument belies a works-based view that doesn't take into account the need for changed hearts rather than "being good". Nor does it take into account the certainty that the world will hate us.