Most of us have heard the old saying, “There are no dumb questions, just dumb answers.” I disagree with this. I think there are lots of dumb questions. For example, a husband saying, “Sweetie, would you like that Ryboi 10 inch Bench-Top Drill Press or the Milwaukee Compact Electromagnetic Drill Press for Christmas this year?” or someone on the sinking Titanic saying, “So do you think the water is cold?” These are dumb questions.
However, I was asked a question by a fellow blogger that I did not feel was dumb. He asked: “It seems that in your general line of thinking that women should not hold political office or hold management positions in a company. Is that a logical conclusion to your line of thought or am I reading something into your view of the man and woman Genesis dynamic?” (to get more on the previous conversation click here)
To answer this question, I would first like to say that I do not wish to ever degrade or minimize the important role of women in marriage, society, ministry, or in the work force. Men and women are equally made in the image of God and God has used females for His glory and for His good purposes (and for the good of men). My wife is a “stay-at-home” mom and I know that she works harder than me every single day. She joyfully manages our home while I am working and she does an excellent job of modeling godly, humble, intelligent submission.
Secondly, I do not think that Genesis 1-3 speaks of the role of a woman in the work force or in political realms, but in the role of a wife. Genesis 1-3 speaks of Eve as Adam’s wife and the name of the role she is given is “helper suitable” or “helpmate.” I don’t think I could improve on Wayne Grudem’s answer to a similar question when he said, “What we find in the Bible is that God as given commands that establish male leadership in the home and in the church, but that other teachings in His Word give considerable freedom in other areas of life. We should not try to require either more or less than Scripture itself requires.”
However, I was asked a question by a fellow blogger that I did not feel was dumb. He asked: “It seems that in your general line of thinking that women should not hold political office or hold management positions in a company. Is that a logical conclusion to your line of thought or am I reading something into your view of the man and woman Genesis dynamic?” (to get more on the previous conversation click here)
To answer this question, I would first like to say that I do not wish to ever degrade or minimize the important role of women in marriage, society, ministry, or in the work force. Men and women are equally made in the image of God and God has used females for His glory and for His good purposes (and for the good of men). My wife is a “stay-at-home” mom and I know that she works harder than me every single day. She joyfully manages our home while I am working and she does an excellent job of modeling godly, humble, intelligent submission.
Secondly, I do not think that Genesis 1-3 speaks of the role of a woman in the work force or in political realms, but in the role of a wife. Genesis 1-3 speaks of Eve as Adam’s wife and the name of the role she is given is “helper suitable” or “helpmate.” I don’t think I could improve on Wayne Grudem’s answer to a similar question when he said, “What we find in the Bible is that God as given commands that establish male leadership in the home and in the church, but that other teachings in His Word give considerable freedom in other areas of life. We should not try to require either more or less than Scripture itself requires.”
13 comments:
"Secondly, I do not think that Genesis 1-3 speaks of the role of a woman in the work force or in political realms, but in the role of a wife."
Unless I am misunderstanding what you are saying, I think that this would exclude the use of this scripture passage in a discussion of the role of women in the church.
But if you do think that it applies to church roles then I would like to understand why you feel that church is different from leadership roles in government and corporations.
Often times I see an artificial seperation between the sacred and the ordinary that has nothing to do with the scriptures ... whatever we do we do it as unto the Lord ... why should this be different?
I'm sorry that I did not clarify this. No, I'm not saying that this verse is speaking of the New Testament church.
Paul speaks of men being the leaders of the church in 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6.
What do you say about these verses? It seems clear that Paul is speaking of men being the elders and not women.
You can check out this article written by our church staff if you are interested in an alternative view on the scriptures that you quote.
My question is basically concerned with the inconsistencies that we sometimes have allowing women to be leaders in the "secular" but not in the "sacred". I think that it homogenizes down to how we see women and has little to do with the scriptures.
Bob, I see where you are coming from, but again, I disagree...
I think that everything revolves around the Scriptures and that we must start with God's Word. If we do not start there then we will start with our: 1. Reasoning; 2. Experience; or 3. Traditions.
1 Timothy 3 is clear that a man is to be the elder/overseer/pastor of the church.
As I quoted Grudem recently in a post, we must be content with what Scripture says and not try to go beyond it or short of it.
If you have viewed the scriptural points in the article that I linked to and do not find merit in them then I guess we will agree to disagree.
One point about ""we must start with God's Word":
We must take the whole of scripture and not just selected passages - especially when we are addressing the role of over half of adult humanity.
Peace, Bob
Bob,
I greatly appreciate your correspondence. I have viewed your brochure and I do think that we are going to have to “agree to disagree on this one.” I do not think that 1Timothy or Titus were written only to the culture of that day, but that the passages which speak of the Pastor being a “husband of one wife” are binding for today. Thus, it is my conviction that a Pastor has to be a man to be biblically qualified…just as much as he is to be “respectable” or “able to teach” which the passage (1 Timothy 3:1-7) also includes.
I think that we are coming from two different angles. I want to keep and preserve the “sacred” and be radically biblical no matter what the “secular” says. I do not want to go beyond what the bible spells out, but I also want to guard against falling short of it. You desire to keep the “secular” from being influenced by the roles of the “sacred” and desire to allow the roles of the “secular” to be permitted in the “sacred.” Would this be accurate?
As for the idea of taking the whole Bible as our source for our doctrinal beliefs, please show me where it is you think I err. My desire is to be completely biblical in my beliefs. In our correspondence, I started with the foundation of Genesis 1-3 and you disagreed there, I then went to Paul’s letters and you disagreed there. Jesus, when speaking of marriage, refers back to Genesis (pre-fall) account in Mark 10:2-12, which shows that this must also be our starting point. The whole idea of gender roles flows from Genesis 1-3 (and this still applies today).
As for the ideas of “female pastors” I must sight the verses that speak to it. I don’t know why I would not go to the clearest verses. If I wanted to see what the Bible said about murder, I would go directly to Exodus 20:13, “You should not murder.” It is absurd to not speak of passages which directly speak to the issue. Also, the church did not begin until after Christ’s death and resurrection, thus to speak of a “pastor/elder” would not have existed until the book of Acts, which speaks of male leadership throughout its account.
A very interesting dialog Mike. I appreciate your perspective and, you may be surprised to learn that, I held that view myself for most of my 30 years in Christ ... mostly when I had a very fundamentalist view of scripture.
Well, I guess I do just disagree with you about not including historical and cultural dynamics when we interpret the scripture. I think that a good hermaneutical approach to interpretation should factor in the culture of the times.
Since you brought up the topic of eldership I was wondering how you view elders ... do they have to be elder/older men or can young men be elders?
Thought you might enjoy some of Scot McNight's thoughts. I liked the way that he ended the post:
"Before I sign off today, I want to emphasize something. I do not define my relationship to Kris or to women in church (or anywhere for that matter) as either complementarian or egalitarian. I believe defining my relationship in such terms messes things up and focuses on the wrong thing. Instead, I focus on love: my relationship to Kris is one of love, not one of either complementarianism or egalitarianism. My responsibility is to love her. To focus on the other terms reduces love to a role. Bad idea."
Bob,
I read your blog and I am sorry to hear about the death of your first wife and the many difficulties you have had in life. Is your second wife still sick...your blog indicated sickness, but I did not understand if she has recovered or is still sick?
Though I have much compassion on you and your family, my friend, I still strongly disagree with you when it comes to the doctrine of God's Word. I do not think the circumstances of life are a reason to reject what God says in His Word.
To clarify for you, I hold to a high view of Scripture. I believe that every word of it is true, without error (inerrant), and infallible. I do not think you hold this position. Please correct me if I am wrong.
You seem to think that I don't believe that the historical culture of the Bible is important, but that is not true. The way I am seeking to interpret a passage is by seeing what the original author intended the original audience to understand. This is a proper biblical hermeneutic.
It seems that your view of Scripture decides that some Scripture is true and binding for your life and other Scripture can be dismissed because it does not fit with the culture you live in or the experiences you have had. I feel that this is a slippery slope. If you deny one part of Scripture, you can slowly deny all of it. If God’s Word is denied as the authority for your life, what is the authority...something has to be?
As far as the roles of men and women, we start at different places and not surprisingly, end at different places. I believe that the bible is the guide for all of life (1 Peter 1:3). Yes, love does function in the “roles,” but this is not something that Scot McKnight came up with… “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Ephesians 5:25).
It is easy to like this verse because it is not controversial, it does not go against the grain of culture. Every wife wants to be loved and we all know that every husband should love his wife (and be willing to die for her). However, what about the verses that immediately precede this passage? “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands” (Ephesians 5:22-24). Either we are doing something with this entire passage (vv. 22-25) or we are doing nothing with it…we can’t have it both ways.
Thanks Mike for the note. To answer your question, my wife has MS.
From your strong response to my question it appears that you are a literalist ... which I was for many years ... I used to say "I believe it from cover to cover ... 'genuine leather' included :) I am no longer a literalist because I have found that approach to be a very narrow one. One that led me to some dark places ... places where I was not wise about matters like the authority of elders ... it caused me to listen to elders instead of my wife ... bible rules instead of the bible’s wisdom. That view may work for you but it did not work for me.
My view of scripture today is a very high one. I still hold it to be THE BOOK that governs everything I do and have done for the last 30 years. Where I have changed over the years is that I no longer read it to know it but I read and study it to know God. There is a subtle difference because I think that you can know the words of the bible and really not understand the God of the bible.
I know so many many people that can quote it verse by verse but are unloving, uncompassionate and ungraceful ... they know the Word but the Word doesn't seem to live in them. They seem to be more interested in being right than they are in being righteous. My view is that we should always stand on the bible and not hide behind it.
Our discussion began with my question around your view that the role of women in society is different from the role of women in church. Having dialoged with you a bit I have to say that I still have a concern with that view because it presents the church and the kingdom as a sub-culture of society. I think that society is a sub-culture of the kingdom and principles of the kingdom apply to society as a whole. Separating the sacred from the secular is the way that men in past (and present) ages have gained religious power and setup rules to their advantage.
I think that it is a bit more consistent to say that women should not hold leadership positions in society for the same reasons that they should not hold them in church. I think that many church leaders actually believe this to be true but don’t say it because it would expose what they really think about women. For me, I am comfortable knowing that kingdom principles are applicable in society. Whatever God calls a man or woman to is a sacred calling in the kingdom and I don’t think that we need rules about roles to determine if His calling is genuine or not.
Not sure where to go from here Mike. You and I are at very different places in our walk with Jesus and I am concerned that even now I have been a bit too transparent with you. You do not know me and I do not want our conversation about the role of women to be a place where you are tempted to judge me or I you. I offer you apologies if I have offended you or tempted you to judge. I do not judge you and release you from any need to defend your positions or yourself.
In Him, Bob
Bob,
I greatly appreciate your heart.
I don't feel that you are tempting me, but that this conversation has been helpful for my thinking and processing.
I did want to apologize to you however. I felt the Lord convict me this morning in my devotion time on the statement I made in my last comment to you. I said:
"Yes, love does function in the “roles,” but this is not something that Scot McKnight came up with…"
I was convicted that this statement was made in harshness not a desire to serve you as a brother in Christ. I felt like I was trying to "prove my case" and not care for you. Please forgive me for this sinful attitude.
I am the worst sinner I know and this is yet another area of the Lord showing me where I was caring about myself more than caring for others.
Please feel free to bring me any questions if you feel that I am ever sinning against you in my posts, comments, or general attitude. I desire to serve those who read this blog and not dialogue in a sinful way.
I found this post to be an interesting discussion about "Junia, the First Woman Apostle" by Jay Eldon Epp. The discussion involves an opinion about the opinion of Wayne Grudem.
This has some thoughts on that passage on pages 9 thru 11 of the link.
Post a Comment