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Next is the "It is no longer applicable" idea.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 ...