On Keeping the Women in their Proper Places in our Churches

Says one reader:

"I guess I got here a little late, but it seems to me that you have no insight into the implications of the slavery passage, or fail to recognize that most people are simply indentured servants with enough liberty to secure their performance. However, the passages address the attitudes we should have in our vocation.

This is a response to my earlier sarcastic post about how fellow conservative Evangelicals want to maintain the Greco-Roman "household codes" in effect towards women, but basically disregard the passages towards slavery. In this piece I quipped that we are mature enough now to know that slavery is not God's best for people and that we've actually risen above the culture in Paul's day that saw slavery as a norm, but many Christians aren't yet willing to see women differently than the culture saw them in the first century. Paul did not come right out and say "abolish slavery" but he, Christ and other NT teachers did raise the ethical bar on the treatment and status of slaves. Basically they met the culture where they were at and it gave us implications for how we should treat people in the future. Well, it took us many years but we've finally admitted that slavery should go. Apparently, women should still be as they were in the first century, however. So it is not I who am playing fast and loose with the texts, it is these supposed "conservatives" who have an inconsistent application of the household codes. And contrary to my critic above, no, the original meaning of the slavery passages was not pointing towards "employer-employee relationships." That may be a good application for today, but back then they were directed at real slaves. Yes, the type of slavery that existed then was not necessarily like the most brutal forms of African slavery from our recent history, but it was slavery nonetheless and something all sensible people would reject for our culture today.

Also watch out for those who want to use the homosexual issue as scare tactics in this debate. The logic goes, "Well, if we interpret the women passages the same way we do the slavery ones, before we know it we'll have homosexuality running rampant in our churches!" And to be sure, some pro-gay rights types have tried to use these passages this way. But these passages have nothing to do with the homosexual issue. Gays aren't an issue or in view in these "household code" texts in question. So let's just stick to the issue at hand, especially considering we have transcultural texts in the NT that deal with the sinfulness of homosexuality that speak for themselves. Bringing up gays is just smoke and mirrors in this debate by people who oppose applying these texts consistently towards women.

Regarding women in leadership positions. I find you utterly clueless. If you consider the "pattern" showed to Moses in the mount (Heb 8), the Levitical priesthood was entirely male. There were sacrifices that had to be eaten only by the priests. If you look at the Scriptures, every book or epistle was written by a male vessel. If you consider the 12 apostles, there was not a woman among them - maybe Jesus was culturally biased; how absurd.

If my friend above is a Catholic or Orthodox Christian, his views might carry more weight, though still be wrong. The fact is that Protestants believe in a Biblical concept known as "The Priesthood of All Believers." This is not just limited to men. Therefore, using Old Testament concepts about the all male Levitical priesthood don't work. In the NT, yes, Jesus started with 12 male apostles. But perhaps this individual has missed out on the various females in the NT who were in fact "fellow-workers" (aka ministers) even during Paul's day. And speaking of apostles, Junia is listed as a female apostle in Romans 16 (The gender-neutral name "Junias" of the NIV and other translations is not found in any historical data from that era. We most certainly are dealing with a female in Romans 16). And no, Jesus was not "biased" but He did meet people where they are at. The fact that Jesus knew of slavery and spoke of slaves does not mean that the application for us and all times is to keep the institution of slavery going.

If you examine the other New Testament Scriptures about women and about Church leadership, it should be obvious there is no passage that states, "a deaconess" must be", despite the fact that Paul included instructions to both Timothy and Titus! (In the mouth of two or three witnesses...) The woman's movement is nothing but the leaven of Jezebel, and the rebellion of those who lack the meekness and sincerity to live out 1 Peter 2:4 (no one wants to pay that price - they'd rather please themselves than God.)

Well, Phoebe was a deaconess (The translation "servant" doesn't suffice here, plus the same word was used for "deacon." Theological biases should not interfere with our understanding and translation of the original Greek. Is it therefore inappropriate to apply the instructions regarding male elders to female leaders as well? The poster above would flip out at such an assertion, yet he has a somewhat more flexible application of the slavery passages. There's less applicational leap taking the elder passages and substituting a "she" instead of "he" than their is making the passages about slaves and masters to mean employees and employers. Besides, we have precedent in Scripture of women teachers and ministers. And they taught over men occasionally as well. If we want to say that never happened then Priscilla rebelled against God when she taught Apollos.

I will certainly follow Solomon's counsel from Proverbs 12:7 -"Go from the presence of a foolish man when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge."A virtuous woman is indeed a rare, and I don't know who can find her, not simply as a person, but also as it pertains to the "Church".Solomon also said:"Behold, this have I found, saith the preacher, counting one by one, to find out the account: (28) Which yet my soul seeketh, but I find not: one man among a thousand have I found; but a woman among all those have I not found. (29) Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions."And in conclusion one that explains the tone of my response:"Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."

Yes, I'm a fool, thank you so much for the Biblical rebuke. Apparently it's foolish to look at all the Biblical evidence in context and to have a logical and consistent hermeneutic for applying the Biblical text for today. I wonder who exactly is being conceited here.

Pro 26:5 Well, at least in light of the falling away, the time of the Lord's return grow ever closer...

Nope, sorry, this isn't "godless liberalism" at work here, and we are by no means certain to be in the "last generation" before Christ's return. As NT Prof Ken Schenck just observed on his blog, it's only "liberal" if by liberal we mean, "It's different from what I think." And as I just posted on Ken's Blog (check out his blog at http://kenschenck.blogspot.com/):

For those who argue against women in ministry based upon their two or three key prooftexts about women being "silent", I want to know if: (1) They allow congregational singing with women in their churches, (2) If they let women in their choirs, (3) If women are allowed to give announcements up front, (4) If their women are wearing headcoverings, (5) If their women have ever given a "testimony" during a worship service, etc, etc.If they answer yes to ANY of these questions, then I suppose their churches also are full of lukewarm heretics who ignore the plain counsel of God. After all, Paul says there are NO other practices in ALL the churches. They better get with the program and be faithful to their KJV's lest they miss the imminent pretribulational rapture.