The Church Is Failing Women - Part 1

 The churches are failing women.  Here’s a prime example. 

One of these days, the people in the SBC are going to wake up about this issue the way that they are waking up about the Doctrines of Grace.    The sad state of soteriology in the Convention resulted in several generations of people who think “Whosoever will!” is a refutation of Calvinism.  The article serves as reminder that there comes a point at which all the people in the wrong can muster is a string of proof texts like 1 Timothy 2:11 - 15 and a quick statement that amounts to “isn’t it obvious” instead of an substantive exposition that interacts with the text itself.

It isn’t as if there isn’t a plethora of theologians in Baptist History who have written on this and other issues.  This is all to say that there is a history to this issue, and when you get right down to it, it seems like there are 2 camps now - the one who actually does grammatical-historical exegesis and avoids the Is-Ought fallacy and consciously or not understands the 3 Spheres & 3 fold use of the Law & Gospel and those who reduce 1 Timothy 2:11 - 15 to a genetics test, which results in epistemic, logical, & exegetical fallacies.  

Let’s take a look at this: 

“Not one of these women served in the office of pastor as it is defined in the New Testament. Regarding Deborah (the usual suspect), the office of pastor in the New Testament is not comparable to a judge in ancient Israel, nor is the time of the judges a model to emulate. The exegetically responsible position on the subject of women pastors is the recognition that the New Testament does not provide an example of women in authority over men in the local church.”

1. The Bible analogizes between Israel as a nation and the local church all the time.  

2.  If she is going to argue that the nation of Israel is disanalogous to Israel in the days of the judges she needs to provide a supporting argument.   The church today, including her own denomination, is, according to its own leadership, composed of people going their own way doing what is right in their own eyes.

3.  Every one of the Judges was a Prophet, and that includes Deborah.  Samuel was Israel’s last major Judge.   Just because he was male & part of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, it does not therefore follow that he was analogous to a pastor while Deborah was not.   

4.  She might want to reconsider the 3fold use of the Law before she writes or speaks about this topic.  Deborah was a prophet who exercised military authority over men.  That is the equivalent to exercising a kingly set of prophetic keys, and since she was allowed to do that, she exercised authority with respect to 2 offices - king/ruler and prophet .  Every one of the writer’s theological forebears among the 19th Century Baptists rolling backwards to the days of John Spilsbury would remind her that the 3 Offices, 3 Keys, 3 Spheres, and 3 Uses of the Law & Gospel all entail harmonious relations so that to deny women authority in one sphere, office, etc.  is to deny them authority in all 3, and to allow them authority in one office, sphere, etc. is to allow them in all 3.   That is why women in 1701 in Britain were denied authority unless they were the Queen.   Even then, all you have to do is read John Gill on this subject to know that if he had his way, there would be no Queen of Great Britain ever again.

In an earlier article, we observed how the Is-Ought Fallacy is used to assert that sexual ethics are properly warranted via human anatomy & physiology.  When it comes to women in ministry, the same phenomenon is at work.  All we have to do is know & understand that the ordinand is female in order to rule against her & over her in order to exclude her from membership. She could be Lottie Moon herself, so her morals don’t matter - what matters is her sex/gender.  

5. Dear writer, you think that 1 Timothy establishes a genetics test for elders to pass before being considered for an elder candidate, & since you ultimately derive this from the created order, please demonstrate that either (1) in 1 Timothy 2:14, God, in whom the principles of both hermeneutics and logic inhere, gave us an exception to the laws of logic grounded in His existence, or (2) that the Is-Ought fallacy is not involved in your own line of reasoning on this subject.

In John Gill’s day, women were barred from rulership over men in the home, church, and society, insofar that theologians believed that the 3 Uses ought to be harmonious (true). On that view, denying women churchly authority also meant they were denied in the home and in Government.  

Given your POV, you have two choices.  You can affirm the 3 Uses of the Law & Gospel agreeing with John Gill, the old world, and the pagan view of women in the Greco-Roman world, or you can assert that the 3 uses are to be disharmonious (false), and women are allowed moral & legal authority over men in Government but not the Church. In order to make that stick, you have to argue *for* not against  Is-Oughtness not *against* it and that the 3fold Use includes some ad hoc exceptions to the rule relative to Moral Government.

Why did Paul cite the created order in 1 Timothy? He is reminding the church that Adam too had gifts of discernment & that Eve came from Adam.  Eve used hers, yet she was deceived into the Fall. He reminds them that they were capable of erring just like Eve, who had herself been the spokesperson who made interactive at the time of the Fall.  

In Ephesus, the women Paul targets were stifling the men. The men, who were representationally in Adam in creation, needed a place to thrive and grow into elders.  The women, who were representationally in Eve in creation, were to set aside the pattern of authority they were importing into the church from the pagan temples, and, following the covenantal terms of creation and fall, learn to be wives and mothers. The women who weren’t guilty are also being asked to paraclete those who were by way of both modeling orderly wifing & mothering & refraining from holding office. 

All of this is written with a particular occasion in mind - the use of ecclesiastical authority and power in Ephesus that made the Christian church look like the Artemis temple instead of the co-equal arrangement in the creation.  Paul is not laying down instructions to ensure that women in all ages are suppressed.  Rather, he is creating a space for men to thrive in that particular church for very specific reasons. 

Look at the profile of women who Paul targets in the New Testament when writing about ecclesiology.  They fall into a particular pattern.  They exercise authority over men after the pattern of the pagan temple.  In the Old Testament, women authority figures who are painted in a negative light are those who are involved in idolatry/divination and/or are prostitutes/sexually immoral.  When Paul says that women should not speak or exercise ecclesiastical authority in the local church, he isn’t targeting all women, he is targeting women who fit the profile targeted in the Old Testament. 

In the First Century AD, the problem in the churches involved the suppression of men.  In the modern era, the problem in the churches is men suppressing women.  If the women in the modern era do not fit the OT / NT pattern, then there is no reason to suppress them.  Rather, they should be encouraged to exercise their gifts and receive theological education so that they may do so in co-equal fashion with men. 

Pay attention to the way some Evangelicals talk about women.  On the one hand, they pay lip service to their co-equality.  On the other, they argue that the morals test for ecclesiastical office runs through a genetics test. If a homosexual appeals to his genetics to epistemically underwrite his sexual ethics, that’s the Is - Ought Fallacy writ large.  If a woman in the PCA or OPC or SBC desires the office of elder or deacon that’s forbidden.  All we need to do is examine her sex / gender.  Suddenly, the Is-Ought Fallacy has been baptized. 

Women have long been conscripted into enduring men.  In Greco-Roman society, men were depicted as strong, brave, magnanimous, and rational. They could control themselves. Women, on the other hand, were depicted as weak, vindictive, irrational, and self-indulgent. Women lacked courage. They were credulous and superstitious. Arrogance, deception, ambition, and lust for power were also especially feminine vices. All of these vices resulted from women’s lack of masculine reason and self-control. The women’s lack of control was based on biology. According to the Hippocratic theory, women had a moister constitution. As emotions were considered to be moist, women were more susceptible to those.In addition, women were believed to desire and enjoy sexual intercourse more than men.Women also lacked self-control in relation to food and wine. They were gluttonous and inebriate.

Paternal control in the Greco-Roman world was part of the warp and woof of their society.   Autocratic control was in the hands of the oldest male in the home. Women had authority in the goddess temples.

When the Bible speaks negatively of women exercising authority over men, the only women ever depicted negatively are those who are idolaters, practitioners of witchcraft, and/or prostitutes. That’s true in both testaments. 

The entire argument against women exercising authority over men turns on God establishing a genetics test so that people reason from what Is to what Ought To Be.  There’s a flow chart that says, “If male move to the morals test.  If female, stop here, and if you don’t you are in sin no matter what your motives. “

There are 2 major problems with that:  (1) Reasoning from what Is to What Ought is called the Is-Ought Fallacy, which in the realms of biblical hermeneutics, logic, and epistemology is a fallacy to be avoided.   Since God is the living exemplar of sound reasoning, if your POV leads to “Because of your genetics” then “Ethics!” you are wrong. 

(2) The Bible establishes that God evaluates moral blameworthiness  by way of His evaluation of our motives not by way of evaluating thoughts, words, and deeds apart from or regardless of our motives. According to James 1, we form and follow our own desires.  Following evil desires leads to condemnation and death.  

Matthew 5:28 is clear that what makes gazing at another person a sin is lustful intent, not the act of looking considered apart from any motive whatsoever.  Absent an evil motive or motives, no sin is committed.   As we’ve discussed in other articles, this is true of every thought, word, & deed.  Therefore, until a person is rendered incapable of forming and following evil desires, apart from God temporarily restraining them, every thought, word, or deed a person thinks, speaks, or does is sinful to one degree or another.  All motives are mixed motives until the day you are unable to form evil motives, yet when Christians open their mouths in opposition to many an outrage du jour, they should as if they are comparing their sins to other people and ensuring they themselves compare favorably. 

Therefore, if your perspective cashes out at “X” is a sin regardless of the motives of the moral agent or agents involved, you are wrong.  Why? Became is true then that results in God judging us without regard to our motives, which leads directly to legalism, Situational Ethics, and spiritual abuse.

1 Timothy 2:8–15 (ESV): 8 I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; 9 likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, 10 but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. 11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control. 

Have you ever noticed how men read this text as if Paul is stating that women are gullible, because as you can clearly see, Eve was deceived and Adam was not.  Eve represents all women in that regard.   

Paul is not commending Adam and all men.  The serpent remonstrated with Eve, and it was a clever maneuver. It studied Adam and Eve, and it deduced that if it could use Eve to get to Adam, the deception would work.  It seduced Eve, but it wasn’t an easy task.  It took time.  After she fell, Adam committed the greater sin.  He did not argue with the serpent, nor did he argue with Eve.  He took one look at the situation and he did the deed in high handed fashion.  Men in the churches have been reading this text as if Eve did the greater sin, and as a consequence men get to be elders to the exclusion of women either forever or until Christ returns.    

  

In doing so, they have Paul agreeing with the pagan temple and the Jewish synagogue, insofar as women in both, while retaining authority over their own and, in the pagan temple, having ecclesiastical authority over men, were -  more time -  viewed as weak, vindictive, irrational, and self-indulgent. Women lacked courage.  They were credulous and superstitious. Arrogance, deception, ambition, and lust for power were also especially feminine vices, leading to a lack of self-control.  

That is exactly how fundamentalist men read this text in 1 Timothy.  Eve’s fall is, in their view, proof of the above description.  

 

That’s not at all the case.  Adam is the one who committed the greater sin.  He failed to intervene.  He was the one created first; he was the one who was supposed to intervene, and he is the one who did what he did without being deceived.  Eve used her prophetic gifts,  but she nevertheless formed an evil desire and sinned.

One more time, when Paul says that women should not speak or exercise ecclesiastical authority in the local church, he isn’t targeting all women, he is targeting women who fit the profile targeted in the Old Testament.  Today, the problem revolves around men suppressing women.