Dale Pauls is the minister of the Stamford Church of Christ, in Stamford CT. “Faith and Gender” was a work in progress at the Stamford for several years. The following version is labeled “Draft 9” and dates from June of 1996.

Faith and Gender
Faith and Gender ... in Scripture
Faith and Gender ... in History
Faith and Gender ... in the Future
For Further Reading

FAITH AND GENDER

Reflections on Discussions at the Stamford Church of Christ

Updated by Dale Pauls at the Elders’ Request and with their Approval.

Preamble from your elders: We urge each of you to read and consider this update carefully and at length. We asked Dale to write this revision so that we might have a current record of our deliberations on these important matters. This also allows new members and others who are interested to catch up more quickly on some of our thinking to this point.

This paper now represents nine drafts, and nine years of collective thought. For Dale, this represents many hundreds of hours of personal research, study, and reflection. We ask that you continue to respond to it in the same thoughtful spirit, that you take time to digest it, and that you work to address the specific questions it raises. We then welcome your responses and suggestions as we work together to discern what disciples of Christ are called to on these matters of faith and gender.

Traditionally Churches of Christ have held, as most churches have until recently, to an understanding of 1 Cor. 14:33-35 and 1 Tim. 2:11-15 that does not examine historical context and that even denies the relevance of historical context, and, on that basis, they have prohibited women from exercising “leadership roles” in their public worship. This prohibition has amounted to the almost complete silencing of women in our central worship services.

This traditional position has always carried with it certain anomalies (facts that do not quite fit or questions that resist easy answers). In what way are we to understand the Pentecost announcement that God’s Spirit would be poured out on both men and women, and both would prophesy (Acts 2:17-21)? In what sense did women pray and prophesy in the early church (1 Cor. 11:5)? And what did Paul mean by there being neither male nor female in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:26-28)?

These first-century anomalies are paralleled by our own. We sing songs women compose. We profit from articles they write. We benefit from their comments and insights as we study scripture together. For the first time in history, women in our culture are generally as educated as men, and as trained for responsible leadership in society. This marks a monumental cultural divide -- what no culture expected of women before this shift, it is probable that all cultures (at least all developed Western cultures) will come to expect hereafter. Increasingly, traditional churches are viewed as the last bastions of exclusively male leadership.

Naturally there are consequences. Some members are lost; we have lost several here for specifically gender-related reasons over the past decade. And reports from the front lines of evangelism are disturbing. Visitors increasingly comment on the male-only nature of our worship, and some of those most active in sharing our faith report that our public stance on these matters is what it has never been before -- a hindrance to the acceptance of the gospel.

As a result, matters of faith and gender are being widely discussed throughout the Churches of Christ. They have been prominently featured at lectureships at Abilene Christian University and Pepperdine University in recent years, as well as at various workshops and seminars and in various religious publications. Freed-Hardeman University sponsored a forum on this subject in 1990, as did the Harding Graduate School of Religion in 1993. Also in 1993 the first volume of Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity, a landmark collection of studies by some of the finest biblical scholars in the Churches of Christ, was published, and in 1995 a second volume became available. Included in that second volume were Dale’s essay “Women in the European Middle Ages” (pp. 375-400) and an abbreviated version of Draft 7 of Faith and Gender (pp. 579-586).

Today, congregations in many places are studying these issues. In some cases, elders and other church leaders have attempted to restrict all discussion. Others see themselves as change agents in terms that are almost messianic. In both these extremes, positions are being imposed from the top down, and the result is too often division and substantial attrition.

It is in this context that the church family that assembles at 1264 High Ridge Road in Stamford, Connecticut has turned its attention to these matters. At a congregational spiritual retreat at the Channel 3 Country Camp in September 1987, its elders -- Bob Bohannon, J.G. Pinkerton, and Bob Speer -- agreed that it would be important for its ministers to lead them, and possibly later the congregation, in a study of women’s roles in the church. The first such exploratory study was led by Dale Pauls December 5, 1987 at the Bohannon home with the elders and Ken Durham, Eric Hancock, and Curt Marshall present. It was followed up by another study later that winter led by Ken Durham. On March 31, 1991, again at their request, the elders at that time -- Bruce Evans, John Grady, Ken McAdams, and J.G. Pinkerton -- were led in a similar study by Dale.

Meanwhile, on their own initiative, the Tuesday morning Ladies Class, led by Kathryn Koczanski and Elinor Gates, devoted the spring of 1989 to studying these matters. This same material was repeated during the fall and winter of ’92-’93 as part of a Friday evening study group at the residence of Kim Bohannon, so that those unable to attend morning studies would have an opportunity to study the same material.

It is probably important to know that the Stamford Church of Christ has over the years been blessed by a membership made up of widely diverse backgrounds. Furthermore, in the recognition that the church must address issues that are sometimes controversial, we devoted Sunday morning classes in the fall of 1989 to understanding “Freedom and Authority in the Church at First,” and in the same setting during the spring, summer, and fall of 1991 we studied “Conflict in the Church at First,” a topic which Dale was later asked to address at the 1993 ACU Lectureship. In these ways God, we believe, was working to create in our gatherings a capacity for mature Christian discussion of complicated but necessary topics.

Six years ago, in December 1989 and January 1990, Dale made a five-week presentation on the subject of “Women in the Church at First” to a combined Sunday morning adult Bible class. His approach to this subject was what it has always been to other subjects: textual, with a primary focus on discovering from both the literary and historical context the original intent of the inspired writers (in this case, specifically Paul when he wrote 1 Cor. 11:2-16; 1 Cor. 14:26-40; Gal. 3:26-29; and 1 Tim. 2:9-15). Historical context was emphasized, especially those aspects of contemporary culture in Corinth or Ephesus that may have influenced and even necessitated Paul’s teaching. It was clear that there is a circumstantial aspect to Paul’s specific instructions (see “Faith and Gender ... in Scripture” on page 6 ).

This study, covering exactly the same material, was repeated for the downstairs adult Bible class on five Sunday mornings from March 21 through April 18, 1993. This time it was preceded by a three-week study of “Slavery in the Church at First,” so that this congregation might better understand what the church at first did with another dominant social convention of its time. It was also noted that, one hundred and fifty years ago in America, the debates within Christian circles over slavery parallel almost exactly the discussions now being held over gender matters. The same kinds of arguments were made, based on the same approaches to biblical interpretation. Perhaps no issue illustrates better than slavery how imperative it is to distinguish between what the New Testament says about new life in Christ (e.g. Gal. 3:28) and the actual degree of implementation possible in the first-century church (e.g. 1 Cor. 7:17-24; Eph. 6:5-9; Col. 3:22-4:1; Titus 2:9-10; Philemon).

These studies of “Slavery in the Church at First” and “Women in the Church at First” were followed by four Sunday mornings (April 25 - May 16) of unrestricted and free-ranging discussion of the issues. Those who spoke and wrote (Percy Brooks, Marggie Laurie, and Gloria Davis submitted papers, and J.G. wrote a letter sharing some of his personal and pastoral concerns) distinguished themselves by their honesty, maturity, fair-mindedness, and mental vigor, but above all, by their love and respect for their brothers and sisters. We can all be thankful to God for what became evident in our midst: 1) a deep passion for standing before God justified; 2) a respect for our religious heritage; 3) a refusal to polarize and reduce complex matters to simple either-ors; 4) impressive interpretative skills across the room; 5) a sense of awe in examining sacred matters of gender; 6) patience with differing and maturing viewpoints; 7) modesty, vulnerability, and the kind of discipline it takes to surrender personal rights lovingly to the consciences of others, and 8) the courage it takes to state your convictions, to overcome that lump in your throat when you know others disagree. There were many remarkable moments: disclosures that were astonishingly frank, wounds that began to heal and be healed, and powerful insights into scripture, God, and gender. Perhaps most commendable was the way almost everyone eventually brought the discussion back to scripture. And it was apparent that everyone in the room respected truth, trusted truth, and knew that, in open and free exchanges of ideas, truth triumphs.

Meanwhile, Dale has been able, in the course of his graduate studies in medieval history at NYU, to devote considerable attention to (to read thousands of pages on ) the history of women in the Middle Ages. He shared highlights of his studies with those interested in a two-hour seminar on “Women in the Middle Ages” the evening of January 12th, 1993. This same material became the basis of Dale’s essay in Volume 2 of Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity (published in November 1995), and a short summary of this essay is available on page 9 under “Faith and Gender ... in History.” Dale was also asked to address this same topic in three lectures on “The Changing Roles of Women in the Church: Why Wer’e Where We Are” at the 1995 Pepperdine University Bible Lectures.

Naturally we have drawn some criticism for our study over the years, specifically for Draft 7 of this document (dated March 1994), although in many ways the criticism was less than we had expected. We made it a point to mail this draft out to all area-wide congregations and various Church of Christ leaders nationwide, asking for their response, corrections, or suggestions. Many encouraged us in our studies, and only one wrote back offering any challenge at all (and it was simply criticism of one of the sources cited). Then in early 1996 Draft 7 was criticized in a strongly personalized way in reviews in the January and April issues of a quarterly called The Spiritual Sword. Most of the substantive points raised in these reviews had been considered at great length over the years in our congregational study. And both reviews apparently missed the nature and limited scope of Faith and Gender, that it is a process paper for our own church family, a brief review and synopsis of our own proceedings, and therefore not an exhaustive coverage of the subject. Faith and Gender points in its extensive bibliography to a number of scholarly works that combine comprehensive scriptural exegesis with a responsible acknowledgment of historical context, and that is where one must go to examine these matters in a truly analytical and thorough way. However, we always consider substantive criticism seriously, and it becomes part of our congregational study and discussion when we next take up matters of gender. Moreover, the many favorable and constructive responses and inquiries we received after the criticisms in The Spiritual Sword (from all regions of the country and from all ages) suggest that the questions we are raising and the concerns we are expressing are now mainstream Church of Christ questions and concerns.

Now, as we work together toward answers that are beneficial and constructive (1 Cor. 10:23-24), it is important to remember, and not forget: 1) the sense of loving brotherhood we enjoy with other Churches of Christ and the spiritual safe haven we have traditionally provided for their members transferred into our area; 2) the sanctity of Christian conscience, which is not simply a matter of “comfort zone”; and 3) the recognition that society itself is still struggling to define what is appropriately male and female.

Historians would tell us that there is a certain inexorable flow to history, easily seen in hindsight if not foresight; likely they are right. It is, in fact, very probable that in time, perhaps sooner than we might imagine, churches everywhere will have come to understandings and solutions on matters of faith and gender with which we all can live. The spiritual challenge is to arrive at that point with a minimum of bloodletting, to conduct ourselves in ways that are worthy of Jesus, that is, with kindness, mercy, respect, truthfulness, and love. It is wise to remember the slogan with which we ended our presentation in the spring of 1993 -- that in matters this deep and complex we be “cautious in application and generous in thought.” It would be spiritually unwise, however, to continue so long in discussions on this subject that we fail to take whatever action we should as disciples of Jesus in our time.

There are few patterns or precedents for what we have done and are doing as a church family. In most religious organizations, councils or conferences meet. Often a power struggle is fought for the soul of the convention. Then, in one way or another, the word, a policy, comes down from the top. Hearts may or may not be changed. No one at the local level has to take a stand or assume responsibility of any kind. You can agree or disagree, accept or reject, stay or leave. For instance, hundreds of millions of Catholics worldwide wait on a decision from the Vatican. Within our own fellowship in larger cities that have a number of congregations, church leaders make their decision and dissatisfied members migrate to the next congregation over. You vote with your feet, but your mind is largely spared. Churches of Christ, however, are really meant to be different. The Bible belongs to each of us. We are each meant to take responsibility, read it, eventually master its interpretation, and lovingly create a consensus built on honesty, courage, the surrendering of rights, and commitment to the centrality of the gospel.

Our last discussions ended May 16, 1993, and the elders then encouraged the congregation -- and all of its various members -- to take responsibility for further reflections on these matters. We urge you to keep these discussions alive at Care Groups, at other gatherings, and in other conversations.

As we look to the future, we are trying to stay current with the finest biblical and historical scholarship on faith and gender available to us, especially as it relates to the interpretation of those passages that address this subject. We also seek to keep up with the most responsible contemporary social thought on gender and the societal consequences of such thought. And we are particularly interested in Churches of Christ that are considering these matters and their thinking and experiences. We continue to welcome your assistance in all of these efforts to stay current and be actively informed.

We will, as time and insights become available to us, be continuing our efforts to keep this church family fully educated on these matters by a variety of formats: classes so that those who have not previously studied this subject can catch up, evening or Saturday morning workshops on related subjects, open forums for reflection and discussion, and sermons.

Meanwhile, we ask that you please read and reread this paper, that you give prayerful attention to the questions it asks, and that you follow the direction it offers for further reflection on faith and gender. We ask for each believer’s assistance as we work together toward the creation of a loving Christian consensus here and elsewhere.

We have made a beginning. Other issues more problematic will arise. We cannot even imagine what the issues will be a generation from now. They may arise out of a technology about which we are today totally unaware. It is important on any of these issues that we speak truth and arrive at truth. But it is just as important that we master the process. In fact, the process is the truth: conquering fear, fixing our eyes on Jesus, loving one another, trusting that one day the facts will be clear, turning the other cheek, not being angry with our fellow disciples, extending mercy, and practicing forgiveness. Mastering the process is a central part of the truth we as disciples of Christ offer the world.

Faith and Gender ... in Scripture

Evangelical biblical scholarship, that is, scholarship that holds to a high view of scripture and approaches all scripture contextually, after a decade of flux and muddle is coming to a consensus on what the texts in question actually mean. That emerging consensus is generally the following. Paul when he writes the texts that are critical to our understanding of gender roles in church and family -- 1 Cor. 11:1-16, 1 Cor. 14:33-35, Eph 5:18-6:9, and 1 Tim. 2:9-15 -- is giving leadership to a small persecuted minority with no realistic loving way to affect those social structures presided over by an all-powerful Roman aristocracy. What he writes directly to Ephesian Christians, he writes while awaiting trial in Rome. What he writes later concerning Ephesian Christians to Timothy, he writes in perilous times -- years when James the Lord’s brother was killed, Peter was killed, and Paul knows his own life to be in danger.

The Roman elite already suspected the religions that came from the east of subverting Roman family values. The satirist Juvenal in the early second century complained that the Syrian Orontes, Antioch’s river, had poured [sewage] into the Tiber, Rome’s river. So when Paul in Eph. 5:18-6:9 offers his three-part household code (concerning wives-husbands / children-parents / slaves-masters), he is adopting a time-honored formula of Aristotle familiar to all moralists, and he is urging Christians to live in such a way as to silence some of the needless objections against the faith. He is calling his readers to live as disciples of Christ within the leadership structures of the day. He is guiding Christians in the setting in which they live; he is not making their setting valid and mandatory for all time. What he adds to the traditional social ethics of his day is a call for mutual submission (Eph. 5:21), reminding us that authoritarian leadership of any kind conflicts with the teachings and example of Jesus in the Gospels.

Meanwhile, classical Greek thought, following in the footsteps of Aristotle, pictured woman as the imperfect version of man and argued that 1) authority and subordination are inevitable and necessary, and 2) the physically stronger party is always superior. And the culturally dominant Greco-Roman society (not indebted in any way to biblical roots) was intensely patriarchal; the paterfamilias had life-and-death authority over his wife, children, extended family, and household slaves.

In the light of the known historical background it becomes clear that Paul by asking Christian women in Corinth to remain silent and in submission in the church (1 Cor. 14:33-35) is asking them to accommodate to contemporary standards of decency. Although pagan worship at Corinth centered around the frenzied and disreputable cults of Aphrodite and Dionysius (cults that were marked by an exchange of sex roles and by authoritarian attitudes on the part of women), Paul is writing what the moralist Plutarch (AD 46-120) also wrote in his Moralia, that a respectable woman’s speech was not for the public; Plutarch added, “She ought to be modest and guarded about saying anything in the hearing of outsiders, since it is an exposure of herself.” Likewise, the Roman historian Livy (59BC - 17 AD) cites Cato (c. 200 BC) as being angered by Roman matrons running out into the streets and blocking roads, and harassing other women’s husbands. He wonders why they could not have made the same requests, each of their own husbands, at home (Livy 34.2.1-14).

Paul is writing exactly what he had to to keep the church respectable in Corinth at that time. He is asking Christian women of Corinth to accommodate to contemporary standards of respectability, and to quit disrupting worship by asking misguided and stupid questions out loud, the kinds of questions only the uneducated would ask, questions that waste everyone’s time. The larger context is abuses of speaking in tongues and ecstatic prophecy; the immediate context is questions. In the Greco-Roman world it was highly offensive to challenge speakers without first understanding their point! Paul makes it clear in context that he is concerned with the impressions their gatherings leave on outsiders (1 Cor. 14:23). His overriding concern is that it is disgraceful, given the social mores of the day, for a woman to disrupt their public assemblies in this way. The concern is -- as in 1 Cor. 11:2-16 -- what brings shame or honor. The question was and still is today: What is disgraceful?

Paul’s instructions to Timothy at Ephesus (1 Tim. 2:9-15) arise out of the same concerns and address the same Greco-Roman society, but they also take into account a specific heresy plaguing the Ephesian church, one involving myths and endless genealogies (1 Tim. 1 3-7), and one in which women are heavily involved and deceived (1 Tim. 4:7; 5:13-15; 2 Tim. 3:6-7). This heresy appears to be an early variant of Jewish gnosticism (gnosis was the Greek word for knowledge, and gnostics were those elitists who claimed to have special knowledge). The religious climate in Ephesus focused on Artemis as the Mother Goddess and glorified female primacy. This was the region that gave birth to the legends of male-hating Amazons. In an age given to fusing religious traditions, those who Judaized this world view could reason that Eve (the feminine principle) came first, that she created Adam, and it was Eve who had the gnosis.

In response, Paul insists that women are not to teach or have authority over (in Greek, authentein) a man. The word authentein (translated in the KJV as “to usurp authority”) is interesting and captures scholars’ attention. It is what is called a hapax legomena, a Greek word that occurs only once in the New Testament. In all other passages -- and there are many -- dealing with authority, the Greek word is either the noun or verb form of exousia. So why is authentein used this one time? Unless it is different from and probably stronger than the term Paul usually uses? Does Paul mean “to domineer or seize authority in an overbearing way”? Add to this that in the Greek it is possible that authentein may not introduce a second prohibition; instead it qualifies the first (there is surely some connection), as in “I do not permit a women to teach so as to authentein, that is, to teach in a domineering way.” In this case, nothing is being said about informed, reasonable, gentle women with accurate information teaching that information to whomever in whatever situation they may be.

There is, however, another possible interpretation of authentein. In classical usage it has as an alternative meaning “to claim authorship of, to claim to be the origin or source of.” On this understanding, Paul is denying that the feminine created the masculine (a common notion in that time and place); he reiterates that Adam was formed first and that, far from the woman possessing special gnosis, it was she who was deceived. Paul then is not anchoring female subordination in creation; he is instead insisting that the creation story offers no room for feminine primacy. In either case -- authentein as “to domineer” or authentein as “to claim authorship of” -- Paul is urging women, as novices, to learn in a spirit of quiet submission.

There are many things we do not know. We do not know if “the women” of 1 Tim.3:11 are wives of deacons or deaconesses, although if they are wives of deacons it is surprising that there is no equivalent concern with elder’s wives. We do know there were many deaconesses in the third and fourth centuries.

We do not know quite what to make of 1 Cor. 11:8-9 or whether kephale (v. 3), translated as “head,” best refers to superiority / authority or to source. But we do know women did pray and prophecy (v. 5) apparently in worship gatherings. The common meal is the topic both before (10:14-22) and after (11:17-34). And we know v. 11 represents a transition; it reads, “In the Lord, however ....” it is mutuality and interdependence, suggesting hierarchy in the fall (Gen. 3:16: “Your desire will be for your husband; and he will reign over you”) and mutuality in redemption (Gal. 3:28: “neither ... male nor female”). Hierarchy then is natural to the first creation, and mutuality is natural to the second creation in Christ; so in this passage, as well as in 1 Tim. 2, creation order does not carry the same significance traditionally supposed.

We do not know what the “sign of authority” is that a women ought to have on her head (1 Cor. 11:10), but we do know that we consider that circumstantial or cultural and currently disregard it.

And we do not know what 1 Tim. 2:15 means -- that women will be saved (kept safe? safely delivered?) through childbearing. But again it makes a lot more sense if the context here is gnosticism and if it’s a response to some gnostic denigration of the physical, natural, and ordinary bodily functions.

Firm conclusions await further research (background truths require patient exploration). But it is evident that there is a circumstantial aspect to Paul’s specific instructions concerning the churches in Corinth and Ephesus. In both situations, the constant is the inferior training and education of women, and in each case, Paul offers practical advice -- long-range solutions -- on how they might spiritually and intellectually mature. Meanwhile Paul characteristically held as one of his central concerns the reputation of the church (Rom. 12:17; 1 Tim. 3:7; 5:14; 6:1), so that in every way the teaching about God our Savior might be made attractive (Titus 2:5,8,10), and so that as many as possible might accept the gospel (1 Cor. 9:19-23). Sometimes we are told that we need be concerned only about how God sees us and not how the world (the lost people) see us. Otherwise we are selling out to the world. But our Father God does not dismiss people so easily and off-handedly, and this viewpoint directly contradicts and undermines both the spirit and teaching of Jesus (Matt. 9:9-13). He tells us that we must be concerned about how people see us. We are the light of the world (Matt. 5:14-16). Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.

Faith and Gender ... in History

Historical evidence suggests that there has always everywhere been a dynamic interaction between societal forces and gender roles and expectations. In its time, the NT teaching on gender was revolutionary. The second-century church experienced remarkable diversity in its understanding of gender and church structures. Then the most influential church leaders in the fourth and fifth centuries became misogynistic for a variety of complex reasons. But as long as the church remained private, organized around household gatherings, and meeting behind closed doors, women often exercised considerable influence, leadership, and patronage -- as they did in the household itself. The household or oikos then was the fundamental socio-economic unit in society, and women often played the central managerial role in its operations, as men turned their attention to the more public affairs of the polis or city or state. This was especially true of women whose houses were large enough to host churches, and all the more so, if they were wealthy widows. However, as the growing church went public in the third century and began to meet in basilicas, it conformed to the strict gender roles of Greco-Roman society -- and this meant in the public sphere exclusively male leadership.

Historical evidence also suggests that women suffered a further decline in relative status in the eleventh and twelfth centuries in connection with the papal consolidation of power in the hands of celibate men; that the crusading movement led the church to understand itself in both more militarized and masculinized ways; and that whenever church leaders became centrally preoccupied with matters of power and jurisdiction, women were further marginalized. In short, our understanding of matters of faith and gender is the result of layer after layer of historical filters of which we often are no longer even aware. Long-forgotten societal forces and cultural premises that operated centuries ago have colored the ways we see God and scripture, and faith and gender.

Until quite recently, in fact, traditional gender restrictions were based upon and reinforced by archaic philosophical premises of inequality that almost no one today would responsibly admit to holding. It was, for instance, assumed -- strongly assumed -- that differences of any kind (e.g. age, gender, race, class) must necessarily imply inequality, so that everyone and everything has his, her, or its exact place in one vast rigid hierarchical system and is either inferior or superior to everyone or everything else. And it was on the basis of such a view of things -- dynamically different from our own -- that gender roles were traditionally understood. Consequently, we might say today, reasoning “after the fact”, that gender-restrictive roles do not imply gender inequality, but this was certainly not the traditional understanding that gave shape to such roles. Gender-restrictive roles emphatically did imply gender inequality. It was not “separate but equal.” Meanwhile, we have rejected these premises of inequality, but we sometimes, consciously or otherwise, still attempt to sustain a system built upon these same premises.

Faith and Gender ... in the Future

Questions and Responsibilities

Future decisions on matters of faith and gender depend upon resolution of certain basic questions.

1. Which approach to biblical interpretation is more valid: to accept at face value without or with little regard for literary and historical context texts such as 1 Cor. 14:33-35 and 1 Tim. 2:11-15, or to ascertain to the best of our ability the original intent of the writer, in this case, Paul, by reconstructing as accurately as we can the context using all the linguistic, literary, and historical insights available to us?

It seems evident that with regard to many practices -- to cite only a few examples, footwashing, speaking in tongues, the holy kiss, and female adornment -- we have relied upon establishing original intent. In fact, it is possible to argue that sound biblical interpretation has always relied upon the best knowledge of historical context available. Perhaps the real question occurs when we break from our usual pattern and on a particular issue downplay context and original intent: when we do this, what is really motivating us? Consider, for instance, how on an issue like tongue-speaking -- “I would like everyone of you to speak in tongues” (1 Cor. 14:5) -- we point quickly to historical context and original intent, noting that Paul was addressing the specific circumstances of his day.

In any case, what principle of selectivity have we used to justify not washing one another’s feet, not greeting with a holy kiss, not laying on hands, women not wearing veils, women disregarding injunctions against braided hair or expensive clothes, and women speaking up in our Bible studies? And why?

NOTE: When we pick and choose sometimes from within the same passage (e.g. 1 Tim. 2:9-15) those matters to which we will apply the letter of the law (while disregarding historical context) and those to which we will not, it is not simply dispassionate reason that is operating. We here in Stamford and in many other places are trying to find a consistent principle of interpretation so that we will not simply be picking and choosing on the basis of personal whim, masculine bias, or cultural tradition so as to preserve our privilege, our dominance, our sense of correctness, or our complacency.

On what basis can we justify appealing to original intent on so many other matters and dismissing original intent for 1 Cor. 14:33-35 and 1 Tim. 2:11-15?

2. The New Testament teaching on slavery gives us a window into what early Christians did with another dominant social convention of those times. If the church then had pressed the teaching of Gal. 3:28 and Philemon, as well as its more general theme of liberation, to its full conclusions, it would have been challenging the very economic foundation of the Roman world. Slavery was a constant -- a given -- in the ancient world. Life was almost unimaginable without it. If the church then had energetically pressed this matter, it would have been quickly perceived as being enormously disruptive and threatening to the basic fabric of society, and it would have inevitably distracted almost everyone from its primary message of gospel. The gospel would have been buried beneath economics. Today, on those passages urging slaves to obey their masters (1 Cor. 7:17-24; Eph. 6:5-9; Col. 3:22-4:1; Titus 9-10; Philemon), as we attempt to make application, we again appeal to context and original intent in counterpoint to those who in the early nineteenth century used these passages to defend slavery as a permanent God-ordained institution. And today we see in the biblical teaching on slavery an example of the distinction between what the New Testament says about new life in Christ (Gal. 3:28) and the actual degree of loving implementation possible in the first century. Might not this also be true for gender issues?

3. To what extent would a woman’s public participation in Sunday morning worship be a leadership role? In what sense would it be “usurping authority” over men? Do men -- any men at all -- feel, for instance, that another man “leading” prayer or reading scripture is really exercising authority over them? Is it, in fact, a leadership role for women to pass collection or communion trays (with or without praying beforehand), or “lead” a prayer, or make a Sunday morning announcement, or read scripture?

NOTE: There was a time, several centuries ago, when women were not allowed to sing in church, which of course complies with the strict construction of “remaining silent in the churches” (1 Cor. 14:34) but seems a bizarre misapplication today.

4. Is it really possible in matters of faith and gender to hold a guaranteed “safe position”? It is sometimes felt that if we hold to positions traditionally held, we are at least doing the “safe” thing in the eyes of God. But if we are unnecessarily (just for the sake of our tradition) holding to a position that now hinders the gospel of Christ (1 Cor. 9:12, 19-23), if by unnecessarily insisting on exclusively male leadership in the church we are keeping people from seeing God’s good news and thereby shutting the kingdom of heaven in their faces (Matt. 23:13), would we not then be answerable to God for doing what we consider to be the safe thing?

Furthermore, if by holding to traditional positions, we prevent women from exercising their God-given talents, might we not also be held accountable for that? One cannot overemphasize the enormous consequences of women today -- for the very first time in history -- being generally as educated as men and as trained for responsible leadership in society. If the implications of this are still not clear to us, they will be to our daughters and our sons. But there are already in many congregations women who are more educated, more knowledgeable in Scripture, and more gifted as adult teachers than most of the men. Sometimes a woman may be more educated, knowledgeable and gifted than all the men. If men refuse to learn from such women purely on the basis of gender, are we not collectively burying their talents at considerable loss to us all? Moreover, what realistically do we expect women to do with such talents? And realistically how do we expect our daughters (and the men who will marry and love them) to respond to such a situation? If we hold to traditional positions, we will be asking of this generation of women what has never been asked of any generation before: that they accept restrictive and subordinate roles although they now have education and training for leadership equivalent to men’s. Have we fully considered what we are asking of them? Have we anticipated the probable consequences? If we are unnecessarily holding to such a position, would we not be shutting the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces? Is this really a “safe position” sociologically, spiritually, or biblically?

NOTE: This concern is scriptural as well as sociological. It is solidly anchored in both the teaching and model of Paul (1 Cor. 9:19-23; Rom. 12:17; 1 Tim. 3:7; 5:14; 6:1; Titus 2:5,8,10). It is of course true that cardinal Christian doctrines should not be determined by negative secular responses. However, with regard to our teaching on immersion, for instance, no one -- however strongly they may disagree with us -- suggests that our position on immersion is in any way immoral. Nor could they really. Immersion illuminates the gospel. On the other hand, it is exactly this charge that traditional churches today must endure rightly or wrongly on the issue of female subordination, as it did on slavery in the nineteenth century (when many traditionalists fell back on “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters” drawn from passages such as 1 Peter 2:18; Eph. 6:5-8; Col. 3:22-4:1; and Titus 2:9-10 to argue for the eternal legitimacy of human slavery).

5. Why is it that women still suffer from wrongs like rape, domestic violence, verbal abuse, and various forms of gender condescension and disrespect? What is the responsibility of the church on these matters when men who are not avowed Christians draw on the church’s authority to claim a God-given right to dominate and thereby abuse women? And how might churches best contribute to solutions -- and make sure that they are not contributing to the problem?

6. What does it mean -- in the sight of God -- to be a man or to be a woman? Is it reasonable to assume that the sexual distinctiveness evident in our bodies is restricted to our bodies and does not extend at all into our souls? Given that gender distinctiveness exists, can the case be made for at least certain gender-distinctive roles that either males or females more naturally fill? If this case could be made, would it not follow that society suffers when it ignores this distinctiveness? Before we dismantle all the gender expectations of the past, have we responsibly considered what constructive social functions they once performed and how those functions will be managed in the future? Still, if gender distinctiveness argues for certain gender-distinctive roles, aren’t those roles best understood as norms still subject to individual aptitude and immediate context rather than rigid restrictions that allow no exceptions? And is it not the very gender distinctiveness of women -- that usually they are more gently nurturing -- that makes it so spiritually important that their voices be heard by men and women in our gatherings of believers?

7. Concerning the matter of spiritual leadership, what is it in any of these considerations that detracts from teaching and training men to lead, to take initiative, and to define agendas and courageously struggle for their fulfillment? Does it really require women to assume or play subordinate roles (roles that are often artificial to them and to our culture) in order for men to succeed at leadership?

* * * * *

As you each reflect on these matters of faith and gender, we ask that you:

1. READ THE BIBLE. We have some very fine Bible students in our church family who study Scripture extensively and exhibit a genuine willingness to discern God’s will whatever it may be and be led by it! But we need more. This issue does not just turn on 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2; it turns on our understanding of the rest of scripture. It will be decided as much by what we know of 1 and 2 Chronicles as by what we know of 1 and 2 Corinthians; in other words, the interpretation of isolated NT texts depends upon an acquaintance with and mastery of the rest of scripture in all its colorful variegated richness. It is certainly important that those interested in matters of faith and gender be really equipping themselves (with in-depth Bible study) to understand scripture. Our congregational Bible studies are specifically directed toward this objective.

2. TELL THE GOSPEL. Sometimes our comments betray us; sometimes they reveal that it’s been a long time since we’ve really studied scripture or that it’s been a long time since we’ve shared our faith with anyone. Things are sometimes said and written that would convince almost no one, and we would know this if the gospel were a vital part of our day-to-day conversations and relationships. When we tell the gospel to save the lost, we receive, in return, a sharpened, clearer, and more compelling understanding of the gospel ourselves.

The truth is that this issue of gender is now affecting how folks respond to the gospel. It’s not simply a matter of proclaiming the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ or summoning people to faith, repentance, confession, baptism, and lifelong discipleship. Increasing numbers must first be persuaded that on matters of faith and gender what we are saying and practicing is, in fact, just, honest, and truly in the spirit of Jesus.

We ask you, in the critical months and years ahead, to help us recover the centrality of the gospel and keep it central. We encourage you to get out on the front lines where truth on these matters becomes apparent, where poor and inconsistent thinking is exposed, and where thoughtful reflection is rewarded. Truth is always strong enough to triumph in the open marketplace of ideas.

3. PAY ATTENTION TO HOW WOMEN ARE STILL TREATED (AND THOUGHT ABOUT) IN OUR WORLD (the other 167 hours of the week when we are not in public worship). Even men who are not avowed Christians draw on the church’s authority to claim a God-given right to dominate and abuse. Some of us have opportunities to work with Domestic Violence Services or Rape Crisis Centers or other similar agencies, and we see the dark side of gender issues in our society. Many others do not, and cannot, have these opportunities; but please stay alert, sensitize yourself to, and inform yourself about these matters. When you see a good article, read it. When you hear of a good show on television, watch it. Sometimes it may only be a matter of keeping your eyes open in a grocery-store parking lot. There you’ll see them: the lord of his castle and his browbeaten serf, his wife, publicly enduring his contempt, criticism, and condescension. In a recent nationwide survey by the Los Angeles Times, when respondents were asked whether they would remarry their spouse if they had it to do all over again, twice as many wives as husbands said no. Other studies have found that nearly one half of married women would have no desire to marry again if something happened to their husband; almost all the husbands would remarry. Even marriage is working better for men than women. Something is seriously wrong. Please get involved in the healing.

If we do these three things, we can be confident that our eventual answers will be biblical, just, and thoroughly Christian.

For Further Reading

There is now a growing body of material written on subjects of faith and gender, but you will not spend long reading in it before the arguments become fairly standard and predictable. You will read many old traditional arguments jazzed up for the nineties, but they are still old and increasingly outdated. The following books contribute genuinely fresh insights to the subject. Those marked by an asterisk are available in the church library.

Osburn, Carroll D. (ed.). Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity. Vol. 1. Joplin, Missouri: College Press Publishing Company, 1993.*
 
Containing essays by twenty-two of the finest biblical scholars in the Churches of Christ, including professors from Harding, Abilene Christian, Pepperdine, and David Lipscomb Universities, this book represents an enormous and necessary step forward in our understanding of matters of faith and gender. A second volume came out in November 1995. See also Carroll D. Osburn’s helpful little let’s-get-our-bearings book Women in the Church: Refocusing the Discussion (available from Restoration Perspectives, Box 3002, Abilene, Texas 79604; published 1994).

Mickelsen, Alvera (ed.). Women, Authority & the Bible. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1986.*
 
This book is a collection of essays and responses by various highly-regarded evangelical Bible scholars and represents well the emerging evangelical consensus. If you can read only one article on this entire subject, I would recommend from this book Richard N. Longenecker’s “Authority, Hierarchy & Leadership Patterns in the Bible” (pp. 66-85).

Keener, Craig S. Paul, Women & Wives: Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the Letters of Paul. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1992.
 
This is perhaps the most responsible and comprehensive single-author coverage of the various applicable biblical texts and their social contexts currently available. This is a “must read,” and those who insist on ongoing female subordination must grasp Keener’s arguments and respond persuasively. The discussion of Eph. 5:18-33 is especially thorough. Keener reminds us that Paul is addressing the power structures of his day, not mandating the same power structures for all time. Paul is directing his readers in the setting in which they lived; he is not making their setting valid for eternity. Consequently, we must understand the difference between what God has put up with in less than ideal circumstances and the loving ideal for which we should strive as we have opportunity. Particularly insightful is the chapter “A Model for Interpreting Wives’ Submission -- Slaves in Ephesians 6:5-9” (pp. 184-224).

Crabb, Larry. Men & Women: Enjoying the Difference. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991.
 
This book by an experienced biblical counselor focuses on strengthening marriages and begins with the fundamental premise that there is something uniquely feminine and uniquely masculine that is part of God’s design for his creation. Still the author resists legalistically cramming people into rigidly defined gender roles; it should not, for instance, be necessarily unfeminine for a woman to be fully competent and highly regarded as a physician, corporate executive, or biblical scholar. Furthermore, he recognizes that technical arguments often prove compelling only to those who already grant their premises.
 
Dr. Crabb proposes instead that we cultivate in marriage and in life a committed other-centeredness, in contrast to self-centeredness. If, for example, a man relates in other-centered ways to his wife (and/or women) -- that is, with a commitment to learn what they need and with an intent to supply that need -- what will mature in his life will be that which, by God’s design for him, will be most genuinely masculine. Likewise, if a woman relates to her husband (and/or men) in other-directed ways (that is, with her focus on them) so as to supply their real needs, there will naturally mature within her that which is most genuinely feminine. This relational approach recommends itself as being marvelously true to the spirit of Christ. It appropriately addresses, and does not ignore, the issue of God’s design for his creation. And it cuts through these matters of faith and gender at a spiritual angle that may just enlighten us all and contribute to a biblical consensus.

Pauls, Dale. “The Changing Roles of Women in the Church: Why Wer’e Where We Are.” 3-tape set of presentations at the 1995 Pepperdine University Bible Lectures. Available through Gaylor MultiMedia, Inc., 904 Flintlock Place, Nashville, TN 37217. Phone: (615) 361-3611. Fax : (615) 361-3617.*

Noble, David F. A World Without Women: The Christian Clerical Culture of Western Science. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992.

 
An excellent survey of the dynamic interplay between church, gender, and society in the history of the West -- and the premises that shaped it.

Allen, C. Leonard. Distant Voices: Discovering a Forgotten Past for a Changing Church. Abilene, Texas: ACU Press, 1993.

 
Reveals that our heritage in the Churches of Christ is broader, richer, and more diverse than previously imagined, and that this diversity extends to how we have approached gender roles and expectations.

Hughes, Richard T. Reviving the Ancient Faith: The Story of Churches of Christ in America. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1996.*

 
This remarkably insightful history of our religious heritage is valuable for several reasons connected to a consideration of gender matters. It reveals how indebted our traditional approach to Biblical interpretation has been to the eighteenth-century Enlightenment thought of John Locke and Scottish Common Sense Realism (so that the old hermeneutic once was New(!) not so very long ago). It also explores the sociological origins of the militant adversarial hard style certain churchmen consistently fall back on to enforce conformity and silence disagreement. And it ends by noting that many congregations of the Churches of Christ are currently considering the issue of gender equality.

Wood, Forrest G. The Arrogance of Faith: Christianity and Race in America from the Colonial Era to the Twentieth Century. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1990.

 
Has nothing to do with gender at all, which makes it even more remarkable that the reader will recognize that the same arguments -- pro and con -- were made 150 years ago in America on matters of faith and race. Much the same insight could be gained by reading Quest for a Christian America, written in 1966 by David Edwin Harrell, a restoration scholar specifically analyzing the Disciples of Christ movement in antebellum and Civil War America. See also Larry E. Tise, Proslavery: A History of the Defense of Slavery in America, 1701-1840 (Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 1987), especially pp. 116-120, and Richard J. Carwardine, Evangelicals and Politics in Antebellum America (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993). To begin to understand how gender hierarchy became a particularly explosive issue in the American South during and after the Civil War with lasting consequences, see Lee Ann Whites, “The Civil War as a Crisis in Gender” in Catherine Clinton & Nina Silber, eds. Divided Houses: Gender and the Civil War (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992).

To understand gender and faith better in its first-century context, see relevant sections in: Clark, Gillian. Women in Late Antiquity: Pagan and Christian Lifestyles. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993; Grant, Michael. A Social History of Greece and Rome. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1992; Kraemer, Ross Shepard. Her Share of the Blessings: Women’s Religions among Pagans, Jews, and Christians in the Greco-Roman World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992; Pantel, Pauline Schmitt, ed. A History of Women in the West. Vol. 1: From Ancient Goddesses to Christian Saints. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1992; Veyne, Paul, ed. A History of Private Life. Vol. 1: From Pagan Rome to Byzantium. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1987.

On the edge: These last two books, flawed though they are, raise very important questions and suggest the direction that future research will take. Richard and Catherine Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1992), offers a sometimes fanciful reconstruction of events in first-century Ephesus that may have necessitated Paul writing what he did in 1 Tim. 2:9-15. The Kroegers have been heavily criticized for selectively proof-texting pagan authors and for uncritical methodology in general. They stretch, they reach, they speculate. Tempting as it is to sacrifice them on the altar of our own orthodoxy, nothing in the healthy debate they have generated suggests that, as more evidence comes in, the pillars of their historical contextualization will not still be standing -- some early variant of Jewish Gnosticism engaging the feminine primacy that had long been central in the religions of Western Asia Minor. Karen Jo Torjesen, When Women Were Priests: Women’s Leadership in the Early Church and the Scandal of their Subordination in the Rise of Christianity (Harper San Francisco, 1993), despite an anachronistic title and the occasional historical slips, persuasively argues that with regard to gender, the church in the third and fourth centuries, as it came out from behind closed doors and began to meet in basilicas, sold out to its culture by conforming to the strict hierarchical gender roles of Greco-Roman society so that it might be more socially acceptable.

-- Dale Pauls, Stamford Church of Christ

 

article index | home | top