Category Archives: Women’s Ministry

Women Keeping Silent?

Posted on by
Reply

Denny Burk interprets the text (original source here:
https://cbmw.org/topics/complementarianism/must-women-really-keep-silent-in-the-churches/ )

The interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 has proven to be more than a little controversial over the years. The reason for that is due in no small part to the clash that this text brings to modern egalitarian sensibilities. Paul writes,

33b As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. 35 And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.

What is going on in these verses? Does Paul really mean to say that women must never say anything in a worship service? That is how some people have read these verses over the years, but I think that is a misreading of the text. Why? For starters, it would create a hopeless contradiction with what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:5, which indicates that women were “praying and prophesying” in the church. Paul doesn’t rebuke their praying and prophesying in church. On the contrary, he gives them instructions on how to do it in the right way! In a way that allows them to speak but that at the same time honors male headship.

Women prophesying in the assembly was in keeping with what the apostle Peter said was characteristic of the New Covenant gift of the Spirit predicted in Joel 2, “‘And it shall be in the last days,’ God says, ‘That I will pour forth of My Spirit upon all mankind; And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy…’” (Acts 2:17). Who’s going to prophesy? Sons and daughters.

So if you take verse 34 to be an absolute prohibition on women speaking at all in a worship service, then you have adopted an interpretation that makes chapter 14 to contradict chapter 11. And that cannot be, because God cannot contradict himself.

This apparent contradiction has led some interpreters to suggest that verses 14:34-35 were not really written by Paul. They argue that some scribe must have come along after Paul and slipped these verses into Paul’s letter. The only problem with this view is that every single Greek manuscript of 1 Corinthians that we have includes these verses. There are a handful of manuscripts in which the verses appear after verse 40. But that is not evidence that verses 34-35 aren’t original to Paul. It’s evidence that some scribes sought to preserve the flow of Paul’s argument about prophecy by moving these two verses to the end. They were wrong to do that, but we would be doing worse than they did to rip them out of the text altogether.

No, these verses are original to Paul. So does that mean we have a contradiction with chapter 11? No, it doesn’t. If we read these verses in context, it’s very clear what is going on here. Paul is commanding the women to keep silent in a certain context—during the judgment of prophecies. Remember what Paul just said in verses 29 and 32:

29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said… 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets.

Prophets are not only supposed to prophesy but also to evaluate other prophesies to see whether they are true. Why? Because the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. A prophet must submit to the evaluation of other prophets.

But this creates a potential problem. What happens if a husband prophesies, and his wife is a prophet as well? Is the husband supposed to be subject to his wife during the judgment of prophecies? Are husbands and wives supposed to suspend male headship during corporate worship? Paul’s answer to that question is a clear no.

Paul does not want anything to happen during corporate worship that would upset the headship principle that he so carefully exhorted them to obey in 1 Cor. 11:2-16. For that reason, he enjoins women in this context to refrain from the judgment of prophecies. He’s not commanding an absolute silence on the part of women. Indeed he expects them to be praying and prophesying. He does, however, command them to be silent whenever prophesies are being judged. And the women are to do so out of deference to male headship.

Notice that the explanation in verse 34 indicates that headship is indeed the issue: “The women… should be in submission…” The Greek word translated as “submission” is the same one from verse 32. A woman cannot be subject to her husband while simultaneously expecting him to submit to her judgments about his prophecy. To avoid this conflict, Paul says that while women may prophesy, they may not participate in the judgment of prophesies (see D. A. Carson, RBMW). In this case, the judgment of prophecies is tantamount to teaching, which Paul absolutely prohibits in 1 Timothy 2:12.

Paul then instructs:

 35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

If a woman has a question about a prophecy, she should reserve all discussions for private conversations with her husband. She shouldn’t raise questions or objections during the worship service. Why? For it is shameful for her to “speak” in any way that might suggest a subversion of male headship. The word translated as “shameful” is only used one other time in 1 Corinthians—in chapter 11:6 where Paul once again is talking about potential violations of male headship.

Again, Paul is not against women speaking altogether. He acknowledges that they are praying out loud and prophesying out loud in the assembly (1 Cor. 11:5). He simply does not want them to evaluate prophecies in the assembly because that would violate the headship norm.

If this interpretation is correct, then there are at least two implications that we should heed during worship with our own congregations. First, we go beyond the example of scripture if we foreclose what Paul clearly allows—women praying and sharing God’s revelation during worship services. I happen to be a cessationist, which means that I do not believe that prophecy is an ongoing experience in Christ’s churches (go here for my defense of cessationism). Having said that, God’s revelation still has a place in our worship services through scripture. Today, reading aloud God’s revelation from scripture is the functional equivalent of prophesying God’s revelation in Paul’s day. Biblically speaking, it would be totally in keeping with Paul’s instructions for women to be reading scripture and praying during the gathered assembly of God’s people. Both of those things can be done in a way that honors the headship principle (cf. 1 Cor. 11:2-16).

Second, it would be a violation of headship for women to teach or to exercise authority in corporate worship. Teaching is explaining and applying an already-given revelation. The judgment of prophecies would have included evaluations which are the functional equivalent of teaching. And that is why Paul does not wish for women to judge prophecies in the gathered assembly. It would be like allowing them to teach and to exercise authority—something that he clearly prohibits in 1 Timothy 2:12: “I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.”

Paul has one last item that is worthy of commenting on:

36 Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached?

Remember that Paul begins his command with an appeal to how things are done “in all the churches” (v. 33b). Why was that a relevant consideration? The word of God is not the exclusive domain of any one church. The word of God did not originate in Corinth, nor was it the only place that it came to. The word of God is abroad in the churches. The Corinthians need to pay attention to how the Spirit of God is moving and working in all the churches. If all the churches are hearing from the Spirit one thing, but the Corinthians are practicing another thing, then that’s a good indication that the Corinthians are the outliers, not everyone else. Everyone else is observing male headship. So also should Corinth. As Paul writes about headship in 1 Corinthians 11:16, “We have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.”

Paul wishes to emphasize that his teaching about male headship is not something that is good for some people but not for others. No, it is a part of God’s creation design, and it is the pattern that must prevail in every church. Verse 36 confirms that the word of God is not the exclusive domain of the Corinthian church. God’s word came to them and to all the other churches. If that is true, then the Corinthians ought to be honoring male headship just as all the other churches do.

People attempt to suppress Paul’s teaching about headship in a variety of ways. Some say that “head” doesn’t really mean authority. Others say that these verses aren’t really written by Paul. Others dismiss “headship” as “white” theology or some other cultural construct. All of that is rubbish. Paul says that the headship principle is recognized in all his churches. And so it must be in ours.

The Limits of 1 Timothy 2:11-12

Posted on by
Reply

Article by Richard Holdeman – Called to faith in 1987; to marry Amy in 1989; to coach college hockey in 1992; to have daughters in 1996; to teach at I.U. in 1997; to pastor the Bloomington Reformed Presbyterian Church in 2005. (original source here)

Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. (1 Timothy 2:11-12, NKJ)

Last year at about this time our congregation hosted Rosaria Butterfield to speak to our community about how to love people struggling with their sexual identity in ways that honor the law of God and the gospel of Jesus Christ. Our event was held at a large church in town, and Dr. Butterfield’s talks were well-attended. It was a challenging and edifying couple of days for the evangelical churches in our community. Notably absent from our gatherings were men from some of the more conservative churches in our community. In what I suspect was an effort to honor God’s word through Paul (quoted above), the leaders of these congregations encouraged women to attend but did want their men coming to be taught by a woman.

While I applaud the desire to be biblically faithful, the conclusion that 1 Timothy 2:11-12 teaches that men can never be taught by women is not warranted by this text. Paul’s prohibitions against women teachers have a context. They are not absolute prohibitions. For starters, reading the verses surrounding those quoted above shows us, without question, that the context of the requirement for silence is the church. Paul here is not making any comment about women teaching in schools or universities or in other settings. Paul is also not addressing whether a woman could teach men about the process of childbirth (say, in Lamaze class) or the intricacies of organic chemistry (say, in a graduate chemistry program) or the details of budgeting (say, in a personal finance class).

I have known men, who objected to women teaching adult men in ANY setting, but this is simply not what Paul is talking about. It is a perversion of this text to insist that women are never to teach men.

Ok, back to Dr. Butterfield. She was speaking in a church about spiritual issues. Does that mean her speech is prohibited if men are in the audience? Once again, we must look more closely at the context of 1 Timothy 2:11-12. It is helpful to note that Paul later writes in 1 Timothy: “Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine” (1 Timothy 5:17, NKJ). He describes the office of elder as having a two-fold function. There is a ruling function in which elders act with the judicial and governing authority given to them by Christ as His under-shepherds (1 Peter 5:1-4) and there is an authoritative teaching function, which is especially the work of the teaching elder/pastor (2 Timothy 4:2).

In light of this description of the work of the eldership, it seems that what Paul is doing in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 is excluding women from serving in the office of elder, in which they would need to have judicial authority over men and women. Paul is also excluding women from the authoritative teaching office of the church – the pulpit ministry, which is the responsibility of the eldership (Acts 20:28-31). If we allow Paul to define what he means by teaching and authority within the book of 1 Timothy, we have a clear context in which to evaluate his prohibitions against women teaching or having authority over men. What Paul is actually teaching here is that women may not serve as ruling or teaching elders in the church. What Paul is NOT doing is saying that there is an absolute prohibition against women having any responsibility within the church or being able to do any teaching within the church setting.

What do I mean? It is not a requirement for all Sunday school classes to be taught by elders. Sunday school is not the same as the authoritative teaching ministry of the pulpit. The elders are responsible for everything that is taught publicly in the church but they may delegate some teaching in non-pulpit settings to other qualified individuals in the congregation. In our church we often allow younger men, whom we think have potential to become ruling elders, to get experience teaching a Bible study or Sunday school class. This always happens under the oversight of the elders, who are ultimately responsible. In the same way, there may be circumstances when a woman has a special expertise that would make her the most qualified person to teach a class or Bible study (also under the oversight of the elders). One recent example comes to mind when we had a husband and wife team teach a class on parenting. Perhaps a woman might have expertise in financial planning or stewardship that would make her the best person to teach a class on that subject. I believe she can teach in the church (even classes with men in them) without violating what Paul is forbidding in 1 Timothy.

A number of years ago I preached a sermon series through a book of the Bible, in which I consulted a dozen commentaries. The most helpful commentary was written by a female professor of theology. We are to welcome the truth wherever we find it. I did so, and my congregation benefited from it.

I also think that women can have real responsibility (i.e., authority) in the church that does not violate 1 Timothy 2:11-12. In the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America we affirm that the office of deacon is open to women. In talking about the qualifications for the office of deacon, Paul says in 1 Timothy 3:11, “Likewise, women must be…” (literal translation). Deacons are ordained officers of the church. They serve under the authority of the elders. They have real responsibility that includes benevolence, mercy ministry, budgeting, finance, and facility maintenance (among other things). This is an authority of sorts but it is not the type of judicial/ruling authority that Paul is addressing in 1 Timothy 2:11-12.

Understanding that Paul is addressing particularly the functions of the eldership in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 will help us resist the tendency in conservative, Reformed congregations to go beyond scripture in imposing limitations on the service of women in the church and the culture. We can uphold biblical standards and resist the feminizing forces in our world without reflexively restricting Christian women in the exercise of the myriad gifts they’ve been given by our Lord. The church faces enough challenges without unnecessarily imposing limitations on her members.

Can Women Teach Under the Authority of Elders?

Posted on by
Reply

Article by Jonathan Leeman, Editorial Director of 9Marks, and an elder at Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D. C. (original source here – which includes links to the articles cited)

In case you’re just tuning in, a good in-house conversation among complementarians is going on between John Piper, Thomas Schreiner, and Andrew Wilson over whether or not women can teach in a church gathering under the authority of the elders. In order, see Piper here, Wilson here, Schreiner here, Wilson here, and Piper again here. Previously, Tim Keller has also presented Wilson’s side of things here, while John Frame has offered that same side here. (I’ve been told this conversation at Mere O is good, but I haven’t listened to it.)

Everyone agrees that there are times when women will open their Bibles and instruct men, as Pricilla does with her husband Aquilla when instructing Apollos (Acts 18:26). And everyone agrees that there is a certain kind of teaching that women must not do, based on 1 Timothy 2:12: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man.”

The question is, what are the criteria for saying when we are in the first domain versus the second domain? What’s the fence between one side and the other?

There are two things I hope to contribute here. First, I’d like to offer the simple observation that what seems to be driving the different approaches to 1 Timothy 2:12 are Presbyterian versus congregationalist conceptions of teaching and authority. And any congregationalist who agrees with Wilson or Tim Keller or John Frame is relying upon a Presbyterian understanding of teaching and authority (which is not to say a Presbyterian must adopt Wilson’s position). Second, I’d like to offer a more congregationalist distinction between authoritative teaching that occurs in the context of the gathered church, and teaching that occurs outside it.

WHAT THE PLAYERS HAVE SAID

Andrew Wilson distinguishes the two domains described above by distinguishing two different kinds of teaching—what Wilson calls big-T versus little-t teaching. Big-T teaching involves “the definition, defense, and preservation of Christian doctrine, by the church’s accredited leaders.” Little-t teaching is “a catch-all term for talking about the Bible in a church meeting.” Or: “explaining the Scriptures to each other in a peer-to-peer way, according to gifts.”

Wilson’s theological distinction between two different kinds of teaching is hardly unique. He’s backed up by no less than luminaries Tim Keller and John Frame.

Keller writes,

Elders are leaders who admit or dismiss people from the church, and they do “quality control” of members’ doctrine. These are the only things that elders exclusively can do. Others can teach, disciple, serve, witness…We do not believe that 1 Timothy 2:11 or 1 Corinthians 14:35-36 precludes women teaching the Bible to men or speaking publicly. To ‘teach with authority’ (1 Timothy 2:11) refers to disciplinary authority over the doctrine of someone. For example, when an elder says to a member: ‘You are telling everyone that they must be circumcised in order to be saved—that is a destructive, non-Biblical teaching which is hurting people spiritually. You must desist from it or you will have to leave the church.’ That is ‘teaching authority’—it belongs only to the elders.

And Frame writes,

Reformed theology has often distinguished between the special teaching office, which consists of the ordained elders, and the general teaching office, which includes all believers…Your committee unanimously holds that scripture excludes women from the special teaching office. Scripture plainly teaches this limitation in I Cor. 14:33-35 and in I Tim. 2:11-15. But scripture says with equal plainness that women are not excluded from the general teaching office…Paul in [1 Cor. 14:33-35] essentially forbids to women the exercise of the special office….I Tim. 2:11-12 also limits the teaching of women, but…here too Paul has in mind the special office rather than the general.

Schreiner, on the other hand, says teaching is teaching is teaching. He writes,

Teaching explicates the authoritative and public transmission of tradition about Christ and the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 12:28–29; Ephesians 4:11; 1 Timothy 2:7; 2 Timothy 3:16; James 3:1)… it is the heart and soul of the church’s ministry until the second coming of Christ.”

Piper’s distinction between the two domains is, honestly, a bit vague for me. He writes,

It seems to me that, as men and women relate to each other in the church, men are to lead, on the analogy of the way a husband leads at home (Ephesians 5:22–33)…Thus when I think about how this leadership by men is expressed in the church, I see the regular preaching of the word of God in the weekly worship gathering as the heart of that leadership.

To risk reading into Piper (and in a direction favorable to my own view!), he is saying that teaching is exercising authority, and that in the church’s gathering only men should teach because teaching is an exercise of authority.

TWO KINDS OF TEACHING VS. TWO KINDS OF SETTINGS

To summarize the two sides, Wilson, Keller, and Frame distinguish two kinds of teaching. Wilson calls it big-T versus little-T teaching; Keller calls it authoritative versus non-authoritative teaching; and Frame calls special versus general teaching. The point is, the teaching of an elder is somehow more authoritative than the teaching of any other church member. So you have more authoritative teaching and less authoritative teaching. (In once sentence in his essay, Frame says that what’s at stake is the “occasion” of teaching. But nothing else in his article fills out this idea. Everything else he says distinguishes not between occasions but between kinds of teaching.)

When this side turns to 1 Tim. 2:12, they might either argue that “to teach and to exercise authority” is a hendiadys (reading two words as saying one thing, like “nice and cozy”)—in spite of Kostenberger’s fairly thorough refutation of this position. Or they might say that the context of chapter 3 suggests Paul has a special category of authoritative teaching in mind here. Continue reading →