A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet… Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 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 Tim 2.11-12; 1 Cor 14.34-35 TNIV)
These are the ‘silencing’ passages in the New Testament. These texts prevent women from preaching and holding leadership positions today in conservative Protestant churches. There are large evangelical churches in my community that do not allow women to preach or hold leadership positions because of these texts and a belief in the inerrancy and absolute authority of the Bible.
Scot McKnight wants to change this. He wants conservative Protestant churches — and all churches — to embrace the gifts God gives to women as well as men. He wants women to preach and exercise leadership alongside men. He devotes the last section (chapters 10-15) of his book The Blue Parakeet to this theme. He surveys the story of the Bible and finds women exercising leadership in many ways: Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Mary, Junia and Phoebe. He lifts up a text that Peter quotes on the Day of Pentecost:
In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy. (Acts 2.17-18 TNIV)
God empowers men and women to lead the church and accomplish His purposes.
McKnight interprets the silencing passages in their cultural context. Paul was not banning women from leadership or preaching for all time; his words were addressed to disruptive, uneducated women spreading false teaching and creating disorder in the church. Paul wanted them to be silent so that they could learn the orthodox faith, which they could then teach to others. In this way, Paul was not contradicting what he says elsewhere in his writings, notably his belief that in Christ there is no male and female (Gal 3.28). Cultural studies of the ancient Mediterranean world identify a movement scholars call the “New Roman Woman,” a kind of hyper-feminism of the time. Paul, McKnight says, was worried that women affiliated with this movement would undermine the church and hinder its mission. The silencing passages grow out of this concern; they were never meant to be normative for all time.
This is a good example of how McKnight uses his own method of reading the Bible and rethinking what it teaches, an approach that intertwines story, listening and discernment. He pays attention to the larger narrative of the Bible to put in context two difficult passages and chart a way forward on a particular issue.
This is my last post on The Blue Parakeet. This book has given me much food to chew on. The topic he highlights at the end, women in leadership, is less of an issue in the churches I serve, but the principles he lays out are helpful in dealing with other questions.
_____
I have read that John Calvin also believed that such verses did not apply beyond their immediate cultural context, although he did not say when he thought it was time for the church to change its ways in this regard. I have read this in a history by Alister McGrath, but I don’t have a way to verify it.
Even if Calvin and McKnight are right in their interpretation of Paul in these verses, the Bible remains patriarchal almost cover to cover and that makes it irrelevant if not cruel to modern sensibilities, except where it insists that men and women are the same or equal in God’s eyes.
In my view, McKnight’s argument sounds strained, even while I agree with his aim of full participation of women. In addition, I think it is better to call the patriarchy in the Bible what it is, an ugly thing, rather than to pretend it is something else.
McKnight’s argument won’t satisfy some because he is too kind to the Bible and fails to condemn certain aspects of it. His argument won’t satisfy others who believe the Bible is an inerrant word to be obeyed in all times. For me, though, he strikes the right balance of reverence and flexibility toward the Bible.
Speaking as devil’s advocate, how do you know patriarchy (or monarchy, which the Bible also reflects) is so inherently wrong? Is it our democratic sensibilities? And if so, are these egalitarian beliefs now the absolute standard by which all other things are judged? Wondering…
I would hate for my wife to live in patriarchy. I would fight it to death. Even just the thought of it fills me with fury. It is utterly incompatible with love.
My wife and I have an egalitarian relationship ourselves. It suits us.
In his book A Fundamental Practical Theology, Don Browning talks about the teaching of male-headship in black churches and how this has changed and transformed many black men, giving them a sense of responsibility and self-esteem that they otherwise lacked (and was denied them by white culture). As a white liberal, Browning found the concept of male-headship in the home abhorrent, but he found in terms of the social science that it made for healthy black families.
I’ll use John Wesley’s quadrilateral:
Scripture: I’ll be charitable and call it a draw.
Tradition: I guess it depends on whose tradition. I’m a Methodist. So we’re cool with it. But the overall tradition…not so cool with it.
Reason: If a woman displays obvious gifts for ministry, and says that she feels God’s call on her life, I find it impossible to call her a liar.
Experience: The conclusion I’ve reached through reason has been backed up in my experiences.
Final tally: 2-1-1 in favor of women. I am more than comfortable with that.
I thought experience was of a specific kind: one’s experience of the grace of Christ.
For tradition, you all have that radical Susannah Wesley, the mother of Methodism, who led unauthorized meetings in her home, scandalizing the establishment.
Do you not think we experience the grace of Christ within the body of Christ? I think we’re called to reflect the love and mercy to one another (Love one another as I have loved you…be merciful just as your Father is merciful…) Admittedly, the church doesn’t always do the best job of modeling grace.
Your dead on with Susanna Wesley. Also, while John Wesley never went so far as to suggest ordaining women, he did allow women to preach in “preaching houses.” One of these women, Mary Bosanquet, wrote Wesley a letter that said that some women, like some men, have an “extraordinary call” placed on them from God, and “woe be to them if they obey it not.” Wesley agreed. Pretty impressive for an 18th Century Anglican minister. Of course, some might call it heretical. Which is why I leave tradition as a draw.
Yes, I do believe “we experience the grace of Christ within the body of Christ.” Your earlier reference to “my experiences” I read to mean life experiences in general, which is how I think many people interpret that fourth part of the Quad. I wondered if a more specific kind of experience is actually in view there… which you have explained.
I once suggested in a newsletter article that we (my church) rename ourselves the Susanna Wesley United Methodist Church. Calling ourselves “First” UMC doesn’t seem like much of a name, really. There were no takers, though.