A Case for Biblical Egalitarianism: Part Four (The Rebuttal)
This is Part Four of my series of articles on the Complementarian/Egalitarian conversation. You can check out the previous parts on my blog.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Luke continues in his article with the well-known passage regarding women being silent in the churches.
Women should remain silent in the churches.
They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.
-1 Corinthians 14:34
This is a challenging passage, and there is much nuanced discussion to be had regarding what exactly “silent in the churches” entails. But that discussion is unnecessary for this article. The core of this passage is quite clear. Women are not to publicly challenge the men teaching in the churches. Paul bases this principle, again, not in ever-shifting culture, but in God’s unchanging law.
1 Corinthians 14. This is another popular passage used by complementarians, and I can see why. However, one issue I have with complementarians using this as a proof-text in their court, is that it directly contradicts with what Paul says earlier in this letter to the church in Corinth, in 1 Cor. 11: 5, 13. Yes, those passages are within a context that is arguably set more within the home/marriage sphere, but Paul clearly states that “every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head…” Yes, I’m aware that this is an interesting passage to use as a counter-argument. But my point is that Paul, in my opinion writing with cultural normatives and situations in mind, is essentially saying that there is indeed a right and proper way for men and women to pray and prophesy in public spaces, specifically in Corinth where paganism is rampant. Women are still praying and prophesying, but there is a specific way that they are instructed to do so that will not be disruptive or distracting.
The larger question in fact is to what “law” Paul is referring to. Typically, Paul referencing “the law” is Paul referencing the Torah, or the Old Testament law. This could be the Torah as a whole, the Pentateuch, or even the ten commandments alone. Usually, context helps us answer this question. I believe the same interpretive technique can be used here.
A few thoughts:
The words translated “woman” and “man” can also be translated as “wife” or “husband.” Here, because verse 35 refers to wives asking their husbands at home, I think it is likely that Paul is speaking specifically about married couples, and wives who are getting a little too disruptive in the worship service.
There is no Jewish law that equates to what Paul is talking about. The closest thing found is actually a Roman law. Here is what one Roman historian references: “Women are precluded from all public offices; therefore they cannot be judges, nor execute the function of magistrates; they cannot sue, plead, nor act in any case, as proxies.” Essentially, women were not allowed to speak in public meetings. Men were allowed to ask questions and speak up, but women were not.
Remember that the church in Corinth is largely composed of Gentile converts. They would have been aghast if women started speaking up in the service, as if they had the right to ask questions.
The word translated as “keep silent” appears three times in 1 Corinthians 14 (v. 28, 30, and 34). I think it would be wise to take the instance in v.34 with the same vein of understanding and general context as the occurrences in v. 28 and v. 30. Both previous instances are referring to members of the assembly “keeping quiet,” or “holding their peace” when the gifts are being used. Specifically, the gift of tongues and the gift of prophecy. Essentially, these are instructions meant to encourage an atmosphere of reverence and respect.
The broader context of 1 Corinthians is church order. As much as we speculate and consider and mimic the ways in which we believe early churches were organized and orchestrated - the fact of the matter remains that we do not actually have all that much information on how early church gatherings at the time of the New Testament were actually organized. Our only evidence is found in these guidelines laid out in the letters of the New Testament.
1 Corinthians 14, specifically, centers around the orderliness of worship. There are lots of things happening in the church at Corinth - there are spiritual gifts being used, there are questions being asked, there are people speaking out in the service. Essentially, there is disorder in the church worship service, and Paul is not having it. His instructions to Timothy all line up to the same core idea: Get it together. God’s house of worship is not the place for all of this disorderliness. We are not here to be disruptive. There is a proper time and place and order for how to exercise the gifts of the Spirit.
It all comes back to this: there is a purpose for which the people are gathering, and the believers are worshiping. Do not lose sight of that in your excitement to learn more.
An even more significant point that I’d like to point out, Luke left out the next verse: “If 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.” (1 Cor. 14:35, NIV)
I have similar questions that arose in my first passing read of this verse as well. Is Paul referring to a particular woman, or type of woman, who is likely to speak out and interrupt the assembly? I’m not sure. I think the argument could be there. Women are to be silent in the churches. That seems specific to me…
But what I want to focus on is this - Paul is laying out instructions for women in the church at Corinth, first and foremost. But, he is also setting an expectation. As an apostle, he has the right to do so, and the credibility. I don’t think this passage is the most appropriate to use in the complementarian argument, because it seems to be heavily linked with the Corinthian church’s situation. Paul is giving instructions to these specific people, but is also setting expectations to follow for all people to come.
How does this apply today?
Don’t interrupt. Be quiet and listen. If you have questions, wait until the proper time to ask them.
It is a strong reminder to me about the power of speaking the Word of God aloud. When the Word is being read aloud, or preached about, I always try and listen with rapt attention.
That is the Word of God being spoken aloud to you. Be quiet, and listen.
The third passage to which I appeal is actually a collection of passages. Titus 1:5-9, 1 Tim. 3:1-7, and 1 Peter 5:1-4 list the qualifications for elders. In all three, Paul and Peter assume that the elders who meet these qualifications will be men. Furthermore, we do not have a single Biblical example of a female elder in the New Testament (Catherine will protest this claim, I am sure. But I am not Catherine. So I agree with it wholeheartedly!).
First of all, I think we need to exercise caution in saying things like “Paul and Peter assume that…” I don’t think we can know that. We can speculate, which is what scholars do quite often, but I don’t think we can know or state something like that as a fact, unless the text itself states such a thing.
What Paul and Peter do is provide a list of character, lifestyle, and spiritual qualifications for leaders, or “overseers” of the local church. These churches are in early stages of sorting themselves out. The Christian community is still very new at this point, and is figuring out how to do life as a community of common belief and practice. They meet in synagogues, in homes, and eventually in small buildings that are built for their specific purposes. Here, Paul and Peter are writing to fairly young Christian communities.
This list is not exhaustive, because this community is made up of people and is ever-changing and evolving throughout time.
But, what all scholars can agree on is that this list of qualifications should certainly be the starting point. Because that’s what it was for the churches to whom Paul and Peter were writing. This was part of their early church “policies & procedures” so to speak.
Luke says in his article that “Paul and Peter assume that the elders who meet these qualifications will be men.” As stated, I don’t think we can confidently say that. That’s not in the text. What is in the text?
The elder, or overseer, will be a “man of one wife.” Some argue that it should be translated as a “one-woman man.” I don’t see a difference, necessarily.
I think what annoys me about many complementarian arguments is that they get hung up on the “man” part - the gender. Is that the focus here? No, it’s not. They’re missing the point. The focus of this qualification is not the gender of the person in leadership necessarily, but the character quality being stated.
Fidelity. You’re to have just one spouse. Not multiple concubines, lovers, mistresses, etc. You’re to be faithful to that one spouse, and not have affairs with other people.
Polygamy, to my understanding, was illegal at this time. But, men having multiple lovers or concubines was quite common. It was often expected, especially in the cities where some of these churches were located. What was not expected was for women to do the same. It makes sense to me that the male gender is listed as a way to describe the desired characteristic - fidelity - because the male gender at the time was arguably more likely to falter and end up in the public eye.
If we take a step back and look at the list of qualities given, and ignore the genderization that we typically see first, what is left?
A list of godly characteristics that is to be desired not only in all believers, but especially in church leaders. Church leaders are, after all, to be held to a higher standard. The leaders of the church are to: be faithful spouses, be blameless, have children who are respectful and obedient, be honest, be sober, be slow-tempered, be hospitable, love what is good, be self-controlled, be upright, be disciplined.
Yes, the qualifications are typically gendered with a “he must…” but I don’t find that odd or inconsistent with Scripture and the patterns contained within. I don’t think it would be wrong to say that Paul and Peter had male leaders at the forefront of their minds as they began to set up the leadership structure of the church.
They know the times they live in. But, is that being restrictive?
In my opinion, no. It’s being cautious, and smart in building out the leadership structure of a church assembly within a male-dominant and patriarchal society.
At the end of the day, these lists of qualifications are at their core a list of characteristics and behaviors that are desirable in our leaders.
I would also desire the same characteristics in a female leader, whether it be in the church or in the public arena.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
In conclusion, this is the last of my “A Case for Biblical Egalitarianism” series. It was not my goal to convince you. It was my goal to make you think.
There will be a follow-up article of sorts where I’d like to discuss something a little more practical - how Advent Christian churches can support the women in their pews. More than that, how they can support women in ministry, even when they are complementarian.
I would like to close with a challenge: If I didn’t convince you, did I at least make you think? Did you have questions? Did you mull over what I was suggesting? Did you wonder about how the women in your churches can be nurtured and supported with their gifting?
If I made you think, then I accomplished what I set out to do.
Thank you for reading.
-C