The Spirit Creates Mutuality
“Now for the troubling irony: seeking to control or limit the applicability of the WDWD [what did women do?] passages by appealing to the silencing passages illustrates the fall, not the new creation. When men seek to control women by silencing them permanently in the church, we stand face-to-face with a contradiction of the very thing the new creation is designed to accomplish: to undo the fall. What we see in this desire to silence women is the desire to rule over women, a desire that pertains to the fall, not to the new creation. What the Spirit does when the Spirit is present is to release and liberate humans from their fallen condition so that God’s will can be completely done. The Spirit creates mutuality. Always.
“So, when we come upon the two silencing passages, we need to learn to read them out of the story of the Bible. We need to remind ourselves of this:
- women in the Old Testament exercised leadership;
- women in the Old Testament spoke for God as prophets;
- women in the New Testament era were gifted by God’s Spirit for such things as teaching and leading; and
- new creation begins to undo the fall, which means that men and women are drawn back into being ‘one’ in Christ.”
- Scot McKnight
It is funny how two contextualized passages on the silencing of woman have been made a canon themselves that overrule all the other passages regarding women and the way God uses them as leaders and servants in his mission. How did that happen?
Grace and peace,
Rex
Why can’t we come to terms with the way culture helped shape passages like 1 Corinthians 14? The Bible was not written in a vacuum.
Rex – In my opinion, it happened because of a flat view of scripture: studying the Bible without regard for large theological concerns (God’s overarching story) or for cultural influence.
Just reading back through this book today. Thanks for telling me about it. sgb
Mike, you are right about the flat view of scripture…and it is a very unhealthy and unhelpful view of scripture.
Thanks, Mike.
Another promise of kingdom come..
I ask this in all sincerity. I am a seeker; I do not know the answer. How do I disregard Paul’s writings when he speaks about women in the church and then embrace his words in I Corinthians 13? Is cultural influence to always be our guide?
Sandra,
You’re question is a good one. I am sure others will chime in here, but I will say just a few words.
I don’t think the idea is to “disregard Paul’s writings when he speaks about women in the church” as much as it is about giving a fair reading to scripture which requires us to read everything in context.
It is always dangerous when texts are read and understand outside of their original context.
As an example, 1 Corinthians 13 is a favorite at weddings, but Paul was not writing about love in the context of a marital relationship. He was talking about those in the church at Corinth learning to treat one another with love. Now this doesn’t mean we can’t understand his words in the context of marriage. That’s just not what he was addressing when he wrote them.
Paul writes his words about women in specific contexts, to certain groups, experiencing unique cultural issues of their day. Ignoring this fact is simply not a fair reading of scripture. Particularly when the multitude of passages affirming the place and giftedness of women is ignored as well.
This is just a starting place, I hope others will also add in here. Blessings on the journey.
I have shared my copy of the Blue Parakeet with ladies in my Bible Study group and it has been such a blessing for them. There is no way to reconcile the way women have been relegated to second class citizens in the church with how Jesus empowered women in his ministry. We HAVE to read Paul in context to make sense of what and how Jesus taught and ministered.
Sandra – Thanks so much for that insightful question. It’s the frightening one, isn’t it? If we say that the instructions in 1 Tim 2, for example, are culturally shaped, how do we know that there is anything that is transcultural?
Of course, the problem is there whether or not we apply it to 1 Tim 2. E.g., I doubt that many of us would require that a widow be 60 before we help her financially (1 Tim 5). Nor would we insist that everyone must have a little wine for their stomach’s sake.
Chris’s answer is excellent — pointing us down the right track. Since you’re interested in this question, I’d encourage you to read Scot McKnight’s book (The Blue Parakeet).
We are left with these important tasks:
1. Reading the documents carefully. E.g., if we’re reading 1 Tim 2, let’s read the book of 1 Tim over and over and “hear” as much of what’s going on as possible.
2. Reading the passages in the larger context of scripture. How does it fit into God’s overarching story? How does it fit with large theological themes? In the case of the ministry of women, what other passages offer help in our reading?
3. Observing and testifying to the work of God. This is what was going on in Acts 15. What Paul had been doing among the Gentiles appeared to fly in the face of OT commands about circumcision. But they witnessed that it was a new day — that God had indeed accepted Gentiles through faith.
Thanks so much for participating in this discussion!
Sandra, I think you are so right. Culture does not always guide our thinking in interpreting scripture. I thought it was interesting that the Mc Knight quote did not specifically mention the I Cor. 14 or ITim2 passages. I wonder if those are to be read in a cultural context then do we do the same with a woman submitting to her husband and if so then should husbands read loving teir wives as Christ loved the church in a cultural context? Yes, I Cor. 13 is written to a church with problems but if it was for only the church in Corinth and in that historical context then does that mean the teaching on love does not apply to any contemporary church unless we have the same problems and do we have the same with charismatic gifts ?
As to the overarching story , it seems like God has always designed it for there to be male leadership. And that does not mean the suppression of women. Sure , some men have been abusive but some women have tried to usurp as well , but neither is to say we should abandon the divine design. There can still be male leadership and within the new creation because if it is obeyed correctly then it means men showing the highest of respect for women .
The restriction I Cor. 14 is not limited to just Corinth ; it was to be in all the churches.
Good thoughts from Scot, but I think a simpler explanation could be found by looking closely at how 1 Timothy 2:12 could be translated.
A friend of mine wrote a well-researched paper on this subject … check it out if you’re interested: http://womeninministrycc.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/i-permit-no-woman-a-look-at-i-tim-2-in-context.pdf
Rhonda is finishing up her M.Div. at Fuller Theological Seminary in California, and is part of my church.
Sandra, you asked, “I ask this in all sincerity. I am a seeker; I do not know the answer. How do I disregard Paul’s writings when he speaks about women in the church and then embrace his words in I Corinthians 13? Is cultural influence to always be our guide?”
I assume you meant 1 Corinthians 14 that reads in the NIV, “As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches.”
There are three groups Paul addresses in that passage of Scripture: 1) Prophets, 2) Tongue speakers, and 3) women.
The funny things is (and what most modern translations don’t bring out), is that he tells ALL THREE groups to be quiet and uses the same word to do so … but the NIV and others don’t translate it that way.
Check it out:
1 Corinthians 14:27-35
27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, two– or at the most three– should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret.
28 If there is no interpreter, the speaker should KEEP QUIET in the church and speak to himself and God.
29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said.
30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker SHOULD STOP.
31 For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged.
32 The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets.
33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints,
34 women should REMAIN SILENT in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.
35 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.
(NIV)
The capitalized portions are all the exact same word in the Greek text – sigao.
The context of this verse suggests Paul is concerned about order in assemblies of the church. Chaos was indicative of pagan worship in the larger Corinthian culture, and Paul does not want the early Christian worship services to be associated with paganism.
Indeed, many of the early converts were coming fresh out of paganism, and bringing quite a few of their practices with them.
Paul tells all three groups to “keep silent,” but obviously he doesn’t mean for them to stay completely silent. He’s telling them to do things in an orderly way.
For someone to suggest he was telling them to be completely silent is just silly, as that would contradict the rest of what he’s saying (i.e. not to be completely silent, but to do things in an orderly way remember the point of the assemblies is to build up the body). He uses the word sigao to make a point.
Furthermore, Paul speaks in 1 Corinthians 11 about women praying and prophesying, and does he in other parts of the New Testament.
You don’t have to “disregard” Paul’s words – that would be irresponsible – but we all must properly understand them taking context into account.
But Mike, I’ve been relying on that wine comment since I was 16!
Thanks so much for the great insight to a matter that has plagued me for as long as I can remember.
Ray B.: Do you mean for us to understand that tha Creator’s overarching narrative is about leadership in human affairs? Wow. Apparently qb has missed it all along.
Thanks you for the helpful responses to my question. Wes, I did mean I Corinthians 13; I chose it simply as a passage that is loved and familiar.
QB,
That is not what I wrote , those are your words. However, to clarify , in the “overarching narrative ” male leadership is included. Yes, Jesus is the theme throughout scripture but even He chose 12 men to help in the doctrinal foundation of the church. My overall point is that to speak about strong male leadership is not to exclude women at all, it is just that God has a design and it is perfect.
I may be wrong, but it seems to me that God’s intent for His creation is shown in the Garden: An intimate relationship between God and mankind (male and female) , male and female will become one, ruling (dominion) and working were joyful for mankind (male and female). And the Lord said it was good.
Then, after mankind (male and female) sinned, pain, subjugation, toil, and death became a reality that God did not pronounce as good.
Jesus’ coming in the flesh saved us, announced the coming of the kingdom–the reversal of the “curse”, making all things new. And so, as a song by Jason Gray (based on the words of J.R.RTolkein) says: “everything sad is coming untrue.”. And in the words of Jesus: “Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as in heaven.”
Interesting concept, Mike. I have to write to say, though, that in growing up in the Church, ( I’m 55) I have NEVER felt restricted in my abilities to serve. It was taught to me that those “restrictions” (I never felt restricted) were the example of the first century church, and that was that. When did we lose – or choose to ignore – those examples? I have plenty to do in the worship without feeling sorry for myself that I can’t do what the men are doing – in fact, I rather enjoy the male leadership that it affords me. It’s all about acceptance and peace.
Amy, how wonderful for you to have discovered your gifts in the Kingdom. That said, there are other women God has given different and diverse gifts, just as he does in men. Much like the 3 men to whom the owner gave different talents – the owner expected one thing from all of them, multiply what I’ve given you so you may give back to me twice or three times the amount I’ve decided to give you. Each had different amounts, types, if you wish, of talents. The only one the owner was not pleased with was the one that did not exercise the talent given him, instead decided to bury it, returning only that one, now grubby, talent to the owner.
IMHO, we all have been given gifts by the Holy God. It is not for man or men to decide what talents will be used publicly and which ones will not, no matter the gender of the recipient. We are each responsible to work our talents, polish them, multiply them all to HIS glory, not ours.
Just as I know there are men that have no wish to do anything publicly in the services or in ministry, there are women in the same situation. In the New Testament I see so many times Jesus and the apostles helped both men and women with the development of their capabilities, all to God’s glory. We do well to mirror them, imho.
btw-one caveat. I realize that ‘talents’ are referring to money in Jesus’ story, but still believe the above thoughts are applicable, even though our ‘talents’ may not be monetary, but for some [not all,] some it is.
Great dialogue here. Mike I told you this story earlier this year during class but I will share it here. The leadership of our church chose last to allow couples to serve communion together. The husband and wife team each took one of the bread/wine trays and stood together at the end of an aisle. The people of the church then would stand up and fellowship with those around them and make their way to the couple holding the communion to partake. I knew this was going to happen, but didn’t know that I would be participating with my husband to help serve until right before services started. Someone had asked my husband if we would help serve and he told them we would. He mentioned it to me in the pew and I didn’t really have time to take it all in and think about what would happen or how I felt about serving personally. When the time came we were given our trays and we took our places and the moment the first person partook tears just started streaming down my face. Tears fell during the entire communion service, mine and others. Those feelings took me a bit off guard, as I had not expected serving communion to be such an emotional experience. As I have thought about that day since then I am saddened that we have allowed a “flat reading” as you put it shape the way women have been allowed to participate in worship. It truly is a blessing to share the Lords Supper, to look into the eyes of those who are about to partake of the body of Christ, it was an amazing spiritual experience.
Ray – I think there are far reaching reasons for Jesus choosing 12 men as apostles, however, it’s clear women had major leadership roles in the early church.
Amy – praise God for your testimony. I think you would agree there are many women that do feel they had other talents that could not be fully used for the Kingdom. While it’s in a little different area – I know women that agree with you, but they simply wanted to wear slacks 25 years before they were (in essence) “permitted” to do so.
The silence of I Cor. 14 when added to I Tim 2 , it makes it very clear that it is not cultural but goes all the way back to creation and the fall. If it is not then, do we assume that Paul was only being cultural at Ephesus and Crete in writing ( by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit ) about men serving as elders ? If all this is open to cultural hermeneutics then should we open the leadership of each local church to women? Perhaps if we did would that fit into what some of you call the ” overarching story / narrative “?
Since Paul was an ambassador of Jesus Christ and spoke only by the authority of Jesus Christ was he not writing within the will of God being done on earth as it is in heaven . Was he not speaking the language of the kingdom , the rule of God now in the age of the church ? If we open the interpretation by some to be that women should have the same equality with men in leadership , then would some be ready to allow lesbians to become leaders in the church? In one denomination , they now have a lesbian serving as a single bishop. If that is allowed , then would some say that the elders, bishops, shepherds should not be in a local church but over several congregations ? The monarchial bishop . Those who have moved in this direction have already denied some of the historical truth and also some of the doctrinal truth, now they have abandoned the moral. I know , some will say this is a stretch , but it is the direction some have taken and it has come about slowly as sound doctrine , one doctrine at a time is abandoned or expanded beyond the meaning of holy scripture
The silence of I Cor. 14 and I Tim. 2 does no harm or interrupt the overall theme of Jesus. It is how he wants His church . Not our will but His be done on earth.
Not sure where lesbianism came into this, but it’s a provocative way to engage, that’s for sure. qb
I ran across an interesting article about how to more accurately interpret I Cor 14: 34-35 the other day that I think may totally redeem Paul for me. I’ve been having a serious struggle with his seeming contradictory statements in 1 Cor. I don’t know Dennis Preato who wrote the article, do you? We’re really trying to figure this out here where I live (a certain central AR town you’re familiar with).
http://www.godswordtowomen.org/Preato2.htm
That interpretation is the first peace with Paul, ironically someone with whom I’ve always felt akin, that I’ve had in 15-20 years.
That led me to find this 3 part post that ends with the new “reading.”
http://christianfeminism.wordpress.com/2008/05/21/silent-church-women-part-3/ This author seems to be very knowledgeable in the original languages. But I’d be glad to hear if you think they are way off.
Thank you for continually calling us to read the Word with fresh eyes. And thank you to everyone who posted a personal story about how our history with these verses has been so wounding. It has for me. And I don’t want to leave the fellowship I’ve grown up in just to truly access the freedom I think God has given me through the blood of Jesus.
I appreciate the opportunity to post on this blog, even when I disagree. I also appreciate the loving spirit of dialogue. I’ve read some of Scot’s work and listened to a few of his lessons online. There is much about what he has said that I appreciate, yet I do have some trouble with this statement.
I have trouble with the idea that male spiritual leadership is only a result of the fall. The idea seems to be that when we truly become one, then we go back to life before the fall. Yet, when Paul points to the roles of men and women in 1 Corinthians 11, he points back to creation. That seems to indicate that male spiritual leadership has more to do with creation than the fall.
I also don’t know that we can totally disregard the role of spiritual leadership in the Old Testament (priests for example, were male) or New Testament (apostles). Without a doubt, there were women who prophesied and who taught in a variety of contexts. But, does that indicate spiritual leadership? Is anyone who advocates male spiritual leadership automatically seeking to “control women” or “silence them permanently”? That seems to me like too broad a brush stroke.
I also hear the argument about a “flat reading of scripture” a lot, yet I think when we try to discern God’s will for the church today, it makes sense to regard Paul’s writings to the New Testament church as more normative for us today than Deborah’s leading as a judge. Rather than hearing the traditional viewpoint branded as inaccurate and then disregarded, I would rather hear a response to why Paul appeals to creation instead of the fall.
I guess I would also push back against the point that the Spirit creates mutuality (while he probably provides a fuller explanation in the book, this quick glance doesn’t provide scripture for that assertion). If he does provide a scriptural perspective backing up that statement, I would love to hear it. It seems to me that the Spirit creates submission to God above all else, including any desires I might have.
Again, thanks for the dialogue.
I ran across an interesting article about how to more accurately interpret I Cor 14: 34-35 the other day that I think may totally redeem Paul for me. I’ve been having a serious struggle with his seeming contradictory statements in 1 Cor. I don’t know Dennis Preato who wrote the article, do you? We’re really trying to figure this out here where I live (a certain central AR town you’re familiar with).
http://www.godswordtowomen.org/Preato2.htm
That interpretation is the first peace with Paul, ironically someone with whom I’ve always felt akin, that I’ve had in 15-20 years.
I tried posting this earlier today, but it didn’t go through or something:
This post led me to find this 3 part post that ends with the new “reading.”
http://christianfeminism.wordpress.com/2008/05/21/silent-church-women-part-3/ This author seems to be very knowledgeable in the original languages. But I’d be glad to hear if you think they are way off.
Thank you for continually calling us to read the Word with fresh eyes. And thank you to everyone who posted a personal story about how our history with these verses has been so wounding. It has for me. And I don’t want to leave the fellowship I’ve grown up in just to truly access the freedom I think God has given me through the blood of Jesus.