Like Button

Saturday, November 23, 2013

Gender Confusion

No, this is not about the problem of "gender identity". No, that fact does not make this topic more ... palatable.

I'm reading in 1 Timothy. There we read the famous (infamous?) 1 Timothy 2 where Paul tells Timothy (among other things):
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 (1 Tim 2:12-14).
The "gender confusion", then, of which I speak here is not "What gender am I?", but what is intended here regarding women teaching or exercising authority over men?

There are a few approaches to this text. I will offer them as a spectrum. On one end is the "It's in the Bible; it doesn't really mean anything" approach. You know, the ultra-liberal idea that the Bible is a nice, man-made book that may or may not be of any value. We'll discard that approach at the outset.

Next is the "It is no longer applicable" idea. This is, perhaps, the most common. The argument is that in Paul's day women weren't viewed highly and, worse, weren't very educated. They weren't allowed "to teach or to exercise authority over a man" because they weren't ready to do it. It is no longer the case today. Women have higher status, better education, and the full capability of doing just that. End of story. Why are you still standing in the way of female church leadership?

Farther along this spectrum is the suggestion that the text is poorly translated. When it says, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man", it should have said, "I do not permit a wife to teach or to exercise authority over her husband." The reason cited is that the words for "woman" and "man" in these texts is the same as the words for "wife" and "husband". Of course, in all texts the Greek words are the same. They didn't have distinct words for "wife" versus "woman" or "husband" versus "man". The meaning, then, has to be determined contextually. So the prohibition is not about women submitting to men in general (so that a woman should be allowed to teach or have authority in church), but just in the home.

More steps along this spectrum put us at the traditional view. It says, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man." That means that women ought not teach or take authority over men. Specifically in this traditional view the idea is not "all women ought to submit to all men", but that women have certain male leadership figures -- home, church, government, etc. -- and must submit to these as required. It is not suggested that women are not allowed to teach (Titus 2:3; Prov 1:8), but not allowed to teach men or, specifically, to have the authority over them. The traditional view is in church and at home, there are specific men to be in charge and women must submit to them. This would preclude the possibility of female leadership in church (or home).

At the far end of this spectrum would be the other extreme. This one would say, "All women must submit to all men." They would argue that there is nothing in the text that limits it, so that must be the case -- no limitation. To be completely fair, the only place I've heard this argument made is by those who oppose any limitation to female leadership in the church. It is typically a parody argument. I have never known, heard, read, or seen anyone who actually holds this position. We'll discard this approach at the outset as well.

So we're left with three basic positions. We're left with three "gender confusions". They don't agree, so they can't all be right. Which is correct?

The "It is no longer applicable because culture has changed" argument is problematic for me. Paul doesn't say or even suggest it is due to education or culture. Paul gives his rationale. He indicates two reasons for this position. First, God made Adam first -- the order of creation. Second, Adam was not deceived; Eve was -- the order of the Fall. Now, unless a radical change in culture means a radical change in the order of creation and the order of the Fall, I cannot fathom how a change in culture translates to a change in this concept. The text doesn't allow for it and no rational argument has been offered yet that will biblically or historically support it.

So now we have two possibilities. Is it a reference to wives submitting to husbands or to women submitting to male authority where appropriate? (Remember, it is not women submitting to all males. We've discarded that one.) Here's where I end up ... waffling. Real, genuine, sincere Christians take the "wives submitting to husbands" view on this. People I trust and respect. They argue that since it cannot mean "all women submit to all men", there must be limitations. And since the text is contrasting women and men -- Greek gunē and aner -- then it must be referencing not all women, but wives. This could be further supported by the fact that Eve was Adam's wife. I can see all that. Makes sense. But here's where I run into a couple of problems. First, the words gunē and aner are used elsewhere in the chapter. While verses 4 and 5 mention "men", the word in these places is anthropos -- mankind. But then Paul calls on aner everywhere to pray (1 Tim 2:8). Next, he tells gunē to adorn themselves with respectable apparel (1 Tim 2:9) and to learn quietly with all submissiveness (1 Tim 2:11). So my question is this. Do these also refer to husbands, not men, and wives, not women? Is Paul calling on husbands everywhere to pray and the unmarried men have no need to do so? Is he saying that married women are required to properly dress and submissively learn and the unmarried can do what they want? If not, when does it change from "men" and "women" to "husbands" and "wives"? That's one problem. Second, how is it that the Church in history never figured this out? The longstanding traditional view on this topic has always been that women are not allowed to lead in the home or in the church. That didn't change until the late 19th century, 1900 years after Christ. How is it that they got this wrong all along?

Not to be outdone, I have to ask the other side -- to be fair, my side -- its own questions. Logically and experientially and even historically the position has been that the command here is speaking of homes and churches. Women are to submit to their husbands and to their church leadership. Easy. Plain. Historically orthodox. Fine. But ... on what basis? On what basis do we argue (as we all certainly do) that this is not a command for all women to submit to all men? I mean from the text. What in the text suggests, "I'm talking about home and church only"? We all agree that it is, but why? On what basis?

So, you see, I'm rejecting a few views without a problem. Any view that says that the Bible simply isn't applicable today when it claims to be is not a view I can live with. Nor can I go along with an opposite perspective on this topic that women as a gender must submit to men as a gender. I can't even buy the cultural argument that Paul was only talking about his day because it makes no sense with the text. Having discarded these, however, I'm still torn with the other two. Is it about wives and husbands? If so, that leaves new questions. What about the unmarried? What about female church leadership? (Can a woman be a pastor and not have authority over her husband? Is "pastor" different than "elder"? If not, in what sense can a female pastor/elder be "the husband of one wife"?) New questions. Or is it about wives submitting to husbands and women submitting to church leadership? Then on what basis is that defended? If someone could just clear up these gender questions for me, I'd appreciate it. I'll wait ...

8 comments:

Danny Wright said...

Does experience play a role in discerning this passage. Isn't it interesting that, after 2000 years, the Church finally figured out what God was trying to get across in this passage at about the same time that feminism was coming of age? And isn't it strange that where you find female pastors, you will also find the creep of liberalism, if not full blown liberalism?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I tend to go with those who are saying this specific passage is about the church assembled, because it starts at vs. 11 when Paul is talking about how women should learn. It could also be possibly related to the home, because we are already told in other passages that the wife submits to the husband.

The problem I see is where people apply this to the world in general, and then say women should not be in management positions where they will be in charge of men, or they can't be school teachers over teenage males, or even college professors teaching college students. I don't think the passage addresses these types of situations.

Stan said...

Dan, isn't it odd that feminism finally figured out God? I cannot fathom how so many believers fall for that!

Glenn, I have a problem with that whole "women should not be in management positions in the world" position myself. (In fact, some time ago I wrote a post on it when Hillary was running for president.) On the other hand, since high school kids are not "men", what possible reason would be cited by anyone (obviously neither you nor I) to say that women can't teach high school? We're on the same page there.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

High school kids are "young men."

(I actually agree with the terms "young men" and "young women" over the term "teenagers". We treat teenagers like children when they should be treated like young adults. But that's another whole topic)

Stan said...

Interesting bit if trivia. The classification, "teenager", has a beginning. Teenagers have only existed less than a hundred years. They didn't actually occur until the 1940's. Prior to that, you were either a child or an adult. If you were under the care of your parents, you were a child. If you were responsible for yourself, you were an adult. "Young men" may be your preference, but it puts an entirely new category here that is neither "child" nor "adult" and cannot be factored in terms of authority (either parental or educational).

(Begs a side question: When the Bible commands "Children, obey your parents", is there a definition of "children" such that at some point you are no longer your parents' children and no longer need to obey? Interesting question, isn't it?)

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I read about the history of the word "teenager" a long time ago. It used to be that once a person reached puberty they were an adult. Puberty was the delineation. Which sure makes sense.

Our bodies were designed to be sexually active once we hit puberty, which is why in the old days people married young; very often guys were 16-18 when they married while girls were getting married at 14, 15. But back in those days we, as society, raised children to be adults, which is why you had kings taking over the throne at 16. We don't train kids any more to be mature, which is why kids in their early 20s are still acting like children all through college!

Stan said...

Based on that definition (puberty), would you suggest that "child" is defined as "prepuberty" and those "postpuberty" are no longer children, ought to be treated as adults, and no longer owe obedience to parents?

(As for no longer training kids to be adults, couldn't agree more.)

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I would say that as long as "children" are living at home, then they should be obeying their parents.

I told my kids (who were raised to be adults and were more mature than 90% of their peers), that if they wanted to live in my house, then they had to follow the rules of the house. If a "child" moves out on his own, I think he is responsible for his own actions, but should be listening at least to advice.

I think, biblically-speaking, that those children who are on their own are no longer obligated to "obey" their parents (O.T. says to "honor," which is a whole different connotation.). Otherwise, you have children being required to obey parents long after they are married and with kids of their own.

I think part of the problem is how we look at the word "children" or "child". I am still my mother's child, but I would consider myself under a requirement to obey her.