Today is the first post of a discussion between Mike Seaver and Cheryl Schatz on the issue of women in ministry. The discussion will take the form of five questions posed by Cheryl Schatz with answers by Mike Seaver and then five questions posed by Mike Seaver with answers by Cheryl Schatz. The format will be as follows:
Post 1 - Question #1 by Cheryl then answer by Mike
Post 2 - Response to Mike's answer by Cheryl and rejoinder by Mike
Post 3 - Question #2 by Cheryl then answer by Mike
Post 4 - Response to Mike's answer by Cheryl and rejoinder by Mike
This format will continue until all five questions have been posed and answered with responses by both parties. After this Mike will pose questions to Cheryl and the order above will be reversed until all five questions have been answered and responded to by both Mike and Cheryl. Mike and Cheryl will both be posting the discussions on each of their blogs. Cheryl's blog is Women in Ministry and Mike's blog is Role Calling.
We hope that the respectful dialog that Mike and Cheryl have will be thought-provoking. Both of our blogs will be open for comments although our ability to respond to the comments may be limited due to our busy schedules. We just ask those who would like to comment feel free to do so making sure to keep on topic and with no personal attacks. God willing the discussion will be Christ-like and respectful even though both of us will be passionately arguing from our own viewpoint. We are hopeful that this will be a step towards building bridges between the two sides so that if nothing else at least complementarians and egalitarians will see the other point of view presented in a respectful manner. After all we are all in the body of Christ and despite our differences we are to love one another because we belong to one another in Christ.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
#1 Question by Cheryl Schatz:
Complementarians tells us that God has established a law that forbids women from teaching the bible to men. They say that 1 Cor. 14:34, 35 identifies the law requiring silence in the congregation while 1 Timothy 2:12 specifically forbids teaching men in the congregation.
Can you tell me when this law was established that forbids women from teaching the bible to men? Was this law established before or after Paul wrote these two passages? If it was written after Paul, then why would God allow the women under the first covenant to be free up until the time of Paul but Christian women after Paul and after the establishment of the church now have a law? If it was a law established in the Old Testament, please show us where this law is located and then please tell us why Priscilla did not adhere to the law when she taught Apollos and why she was never disciplined for breaking God's law nor was she chastised in scripture for breaking such a serious "law"?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
#1 Answer by Mike Seaver
Cheryl, thanks for the question. First off, let me say that I do not speak for all Complementarians in my answers. I speak for the way I interpret and teach the texts, so I may, at times differ in thoughts from what other Complementarians say…I’m not sure. I also want to say that I believe men and women are created equal and we are equally image bearers of God. I do not think women are lesser than men. I just think that the bible spells out differing roles (not better or worse roles) for males and females.
Can you tell me when this law was established that forbids women from teaching the bible to men? Was this law established before or after Paul wrote these two passages? If it was written after Paul, then why would God allow the women under the first covenant to be free up until the time of Paul but Christian women after Paul and after the establishment of the church now have a law? If it was a law established in the Old Testament, please show us where this law is located and then please tell us why Priscilla did not adhere to the law when she taught Apollos and why she was never disciplined for breaking God's law nor was she chastised in scripture for breaking such a serious "law"?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
#1 Answer by Mike Seaver
Cheryl, thanks for the question. First off, let me say that I do not speak for all Complementarians in my answers. I speak for the way I interpret and teach the texts, so I may, at times differ in thoughts from what other Complementarians say…I’m not sure. I also want to say that I believe men and women are created equal and we are equally image bearers of God. I do not think women are lesser than men. I just think that the bible spells out differing roles (not better or worse roles) for males and females.
The 1 Corinthians 14 passage has to do with the corporate worship setting and specifically the judgment of prophetic words, so I would never use that passage to say that a women cannot teach men in a church. I don’t think that is the context or desire Paul is making in the passage. I do think that this passage shows is an ecclesiastical authority that is by men and that the men are to publically correct an errant prophetic word primarily because the women are not the elders/pastors. If a woman feels that a prophetic word is errant, she should not publically correct it, but speak to her husband about it. If he agrees, I think the husband (or husband and wife) could go to the elders to discuss it. Paul’s desire in this passage is to establish order in the Corinthian church. Chapters 12-14, and specifically chapter 14 are seeking to discuss the errors that the Corinthians were making in the area of spiritual gifts and orderly corporate meetings.
Apparently, Paul is referring to the way this should have been going on…thus bringing correction, so it appears that the “Law” that he is talking about was previously laid down prior to Paul writing this letter.
In 1 Timothy 2:12, Paul says, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.” I link this passage to 1 Timothy 3:2 (which is actually only a few sentences later) when Paul says that one of the requirements for an overseer is to be “the husband of one wife/woman.” I think these two passages show that the position of overseer is to be a man and that the man is to be the teacher. He is to be “able to teach” and the woman is to “learn quietly” (1 Tim. 2:11). I don’t think that means a woman can’t talk in church, make an announcement, give a prophetic word, read the bible publically, or pray, but I do think that Paul is saying the exercising authority is not what God desires of a woman in a church.
I think a woman can bring questions and even correction to her husband and I think a woman could bring questions to a male pastor/elder/overseer. I think if a woman in the congregation heard me speak heresy, it is her right and obligation to come to me privately and ask questions about my teaching. I think this is what Pricilla was doing. She was helping a brother out who did not know doctrine the way she did. She wasn’t publically teaching or preaching. She was coming to him privately, being a helpful sister in Christ. This is why she was not disciplined. She did not break any law.
As far as the term “law” goes, I think Paul is simply referring to the Old Testament law; possibly the Pentateuch.
I think the ESV Study Bible has a helpful note on this passage that I agree with: “14:34-35 Since Paul seems to permit wives to pray and prophesy (11:5, 13) as long as they do not dishonor their husbands by the way they dress (11:5), it is difficult to see this as an absolute prohibition (cf. Acts 2:17, 21:8-9). Paul is likely forbidding women to speak up and judge prophecies (this is in line in the immediate context; cf. 1 Cor 14:29) since such an activity would subvert male headship. ‘ Law also says’. Paul is probably thinking of the woman’s creation “from” or “for” the man. (see 11:8-9; Gen. 2:20-24) as well as a general pattern of male leadership among the people of Israel in the OT.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Cheryl's response and Mike’s rejoinder will be in the next post.
8 comments:
Very interesting! Thank you both for being willing to do this. May the Lord bless you both with fresh insights as you strive to be true to his will.
Mike, you said,” The 1 Corinthians 14 passage has to do with the corporate worship setting and specifically the judgment of prophetic words.”
I beg to differ. When reading the whole text of Corinthians 14 the passage has to do with the corporate worship setting and specifically prophecy for the edification, exhortation, and comfort of the church in contrast with speaking in tongues without an interpretation(reference 1 Cor. 14:3-6). Only briefly is the judgment of prophetic words mentioned in vs 29. The vs says," Let the prophets speak two or three , and then let the other judge" KJV.
You said,"I do think that this passage shows is an ecclesiastical authority that is by men and that the men are to publically correct an errant prophetic word primarily because the women are not the elders/pastors."
In vs 29 the words "other judge" are not being directed to a specific gender but rather they are gender neutral and and function specific. No where does it imply that the "others" judging prophecy must be elders or leaders. One has to assume such a thing because it simply isn't in the text. It is wise to also look at what else scripture says about judging prophesy. Here are some of those passages.
1 John 1:4
"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world."
Notice how prophecy is judged by the testing of the SPIRITS. Biblicaly we know that when a true prophet is speaking, they are not speaking of their own words but it is the Spirit of God speaking His message through the prophet. The prophet is only the vessel who has the gift see and hear what the Spirit of the Lord is saying, but the words themselves are from the Lord. Also, throughout the scriptures, three sources for spirits are often mentioned. The Spirit of God, evil spirits, and the human spirit. That may be a new concept to you but are you able to find another source outside of those three for spirits? It makes sense then that the "Beloved" are to test the spirits to see if it is the Lord speaking, the flesh, or a deceiving/evil spirit. Notice how 1 John 1:4 is directed to the "beloved"! Are only men the "Beloved"? Are only men to test the spirits? If not, then once again we we see in addition to 1 Cor. 14:29 a second witness to the gender inclusive judging/testing of prophecy. The last vs I found was in 1 Cor 12:10
"To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues"
"To ANOTHER the discerning of spirits." Again, no gender specific rule for this gift. Anyone whom the Holy Spirit chooses can have this gift, including women! Notice also how prophecy is immediately followed by the gift of discernment , and tongues is immediately followed by the gift of interpreting. I think the coupling pattern of the two speaks volumes. From all the scriptures we find relating to the judging of prophecy, they are connected with discerning the spirits behind the prophecy. They require the discernment of spirits which the Holy Spirit gives as a gift, and not the authority of elders or leaders. If we were to pick between the two choices, the man or woman with the gift of discerning between spirits would be more qualified to judge and correct prophecy then an elder/leader whom the scriptures don't even mention. Why should we ignore what is mentioned and opt for and option that has to be implied?
Also in 1 Cor. 14:19 Paul, while referring to prophesying verses speaking in unknown tongues said that he would rather speak five words that are understandable so as to TEACH others rather then ten thousand words in an unknown language. So then considering the context and parallel he makes, it is fair to say that prophecy TEACHES people. So if women teaching men is a sin then women should not be allowed to prophecy because prophecy teaches people, and some of those people might be men. Not to mention the fact that a prophet and prophesying is authoritative and women have been prophets and/or prophesied in the Old and New Testaments. Debora was not only a prophet but also a judge in Israel(Judges 4:4). Both were authoritative as well as spiritual since it was in a time where there was no separation of church and state. Men did learn, take directions, and receive correction from her. Unless of course one assumes that as judge, Deborah never had to pass pass a negative judgment against the men. That the men were always well behaved and never needed correction:-) But then you still deal with the fact that she gave Barak in and a whole army instructions! And what shall we do with Hilkiah in 2 Chronicles 34:22-33? These were powerful women in a time when patriarchy ruled, yet that did not stop God from raising them up!
"Let them ask their husbands at home"
What do you do with the unmarried? Who do they ask? Since the author seems to assume that the women will have a husband to ask at home, is it fair to assume he was only addressing married women? Does that mean that the non married women may speak, judge, and and correct prophecy? If women are allowed to teach other women than what about women judging another woman's prophesy in the church? Whats wrong with that? That would not be in violation of upsetting a mans authority.
Mike said,"I think a woman can bring questions and even correction to her husband."
Why are women even allowed to prophecy to men in the first place? Why not just tell their prophecy to their husbands at home and then let the husband repeat it in the church? That would then not violate 1 Cor 14:34,35 nor 1 Timothy 2:12 because she would not be teaching, exercising authority over a man, or speaking since her voice is filth("shameful").
In 1 Timothy 2:12, Paul says, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.”
I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man means just what it says it does period, no exceptions! The verse does not say it's OK as long as she only does so in private. Or as long as it is only one man at a time. Teaching is teaching and correcting heresy is scriptural authority because the Word of God is authoritative. At least that's what comps say they believe about scripture. When a person allows someone to correct them in that area, they are submitting themselves to the one correcting them. When taken at face value Pricilla violated 1 Timothy 2:12 and a woman prophesying violates 1 Timothy 2:12 as well as 1Cor 14:34-35. One cannot have it both ways! That's why we cannot just simply take them at face value but need to compare the whole of scripture on the matter. We cannot distort and disregard the context of the other twenty or so verses that allow women to serve in church leadership in order to make them fit and comply with two verses that we esteem above the rest. This often results in the adding and subtracting of scripture. Something we are warned not to do.
Hi Mike,
I posted my comments at Cheryl's place but I am also going to post them here. I have some thoughts and questions on what you've said in your first answer.
“I do think that this passage shows is an ecclesiastical authority that is by men and that the men are to publicly correct an errant prophetic word primarily because the women are not the elders/pastors.”
What you said above can be re-worded saying:
I do think that this passage shows is an ecclesiastical authority that is by men and that the men are to publicly correct an errant prophetic word primarily because the men are the elders/pastors (an interpretation of 1 Tim 3).
And women then are not to publically correct for the same primary reason - the women are not the elders/pastors the men are (your interpretation of 1 Tim 3). You see 1 Co 14 then through the lens of your interpretation of 1 Tim 3.
I'm gathering that since some men are the elders/pastors, any man is to publically correct errant prophetic word. But since no women are the elders/pastors, all women are not to publically correct.
In your view of 1 Co 14, are women to publically correct an errant prophetic word of women? Can women teach other women in church?
Here then, the foundation of your argument rests on ecclesiastical authority (public church setting I safely assume) that is by men which begins with 1 Tim 3. Therefore the passage of 1 Co 14 itself cannot/does not show an ecclesiastical authority that is by men but your interpretation of the passage through your interpretation of 1 Tim 3 does.
Where does the idea of “public correction of errant prophetic word” show itself within 1 Co 14? Sure errant prophecy happens all the time by those in the church, but does Paul even once talk about error of prophecy and if he does, where is this seen/read/written within the passage?
34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to INQUIRE about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
And noting some things Paul said about prophecy within the chp:
“3But everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort.“
“4…but he who prophesies edifies the church.”
“5…He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may be edified.
A conclusion: The one who interprets is greater than the one who does not.
Where is errant prophecy spoken of in anyway, in 1 Co 14? How does one go from “inquire” to “correction of errant prophecy”? How is the switch made from “wives” to women? How does one go from “interpreting prophecy” to “correction of errant prophecy”?
Mike,
If women cannot “correct an errant prophetic word” than they cannot interpret a prophetic word.
If I’m understanding correctly (I donno) then women can correct errant prophecy (done by men or women) but only outside of the church which would make it non-authoritative? So what’s done in church (assembly) is authoritative but what’s done outside is not?
So when a man (elder/pastor or not) corrects errant prophecy outside of church he is not acting with authority, his correction then would not be authoritative?
Two thoughts come to mind:
1. Where does this "interpretation of prophecy" idea come from? My understanding was that tongues require interpretation because they are unintelligible, and that after a message in tongues is interpreted, it's to be considered roughly equivalent to prophecy. Prophecy (and equivalents) are then to be judged, i.e. according to the scriptures, and by means of authority. 'Interpretation' is explaining what something means; 'judging' is determining whether something is acceptable.
2. The argument for egalitarianism based on a fuller understanding of authentein is really weak because of the context of the passage. It's clear that Paul is giving Timothy directions for the kind of orderly practices he expects to be established "in every place" (vs. 8), and that he is not attempting to correct some unusual situation in Ephesus. Since Paul is describing norms, it doesn't help at all to point out that authentein has strong connotations of ursurpation and plotting. That would imply that Paul thought it was common for a woman to attempt to subvert authority, particularly authority that had to do with a man.
Kyle said: "Since Paul is describing norms, it doesn't help at all to point out that authentein has strong connotations of ursurpation and plotting."
While Paul may have included some normative practices, it doesn't mean that everything Paul wrote was normative. The prohibition of 1 Timothy 2:12 ends with verse 15 and unless you think that either women are saved through the bearing of children or all Christian women will be saved through the process of child bearing (which is untrue)- the common interpretations for this passage, then this set of verses is certainly not the norm as there are no other verses that confirm either interpretation. There is no doubt at all that this passage is one of Paul's "hard passages" that Peter talked about. The fact is that we cannot understand verse 12 until we understand verse 15 which is the end result of the prohibition.
Post a Comment