I spend five or six hours every day exploring Christianity with non-Christians. Doing that—being someone whom non-Christians trust enough to do that with—necessarily means being consistently honest about those aspects or practice of my faith that I have every reason to understand will be difficult for non-Christians to accept.
One thing I never do when talking to non-Christians about Christianity is employ as final proof that something is true the fact that it’s in the Bible. Christian theology desrves better than that; Christianity is, if nothing else, absolutely rationally supportable. Believing in the reality of Christ does not mean checking one’s brain at the sanctuary door. Newton, Erasmus, Descartes, Bacon, Kierkegaard, Pascal, Faraday … it’s just not reasonable to claim that the endless number of such people were Christian in spite of their intellectual prowess.
As Galileo said, “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”
Bottom line being: We’re not idiots.
And not being idiots means we can’t shy away from manifest, obvious incongruities about our faith or the way it’s practiced. Doing that would be dishonorable to God; it would mean acquiescing to the idea that Jesus has bequeathed us something of which we need to hide or be ashamed. And of course that’s unacceptable to us Christians; surely each of us holds as our own Paul’s proclamation (at Romans 1:16), “I am not ashamed of the gospel.”
It is in this spirit of honest, forthright engagement with God and his word that I’d like to ask a question that couldn’t help but come to me as I was reading the Bible this morning. I was in 1 Timothy 2, when I read this: “I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes …. A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.”
Now how in this world could I read that and not think of Sarah Palin? I didn’t want to think of Sarah Palin. I didn’t want to think of anything besides the glory of God’s word. I hardly waded into my Bible this morning looking for trouble. But (alas) there it was.
So I’m honestly and truly asking, simply because I don’t understand and want to: How do Christians who embraced and supported Sarah Palin in particular for her adherence to “traditional” Biblical values reconcile how utterly she violated Paul’s injunctions to women to not wear expensive clothes, to stay quiet, to remain submissive, and to have no authority over men? If vigorously campaigning for Vice President of the United States (while, as we all know, wearing expensive clothes) isn’t in direct, overt, purposeful, and sustained opposition to all four of those things, then … then King Kong was a leprechaun. I would think evangelicals and Biblical fundamentalists would reject Ms. Palin for … well, for one, so ambitiously seeking authority over men.
What do I say to non-Christians when they assert that Christians are being blatantly hypocritical and even opportunistically bigoted when they use Paul’s words as justification for the condemnation of homosexuality, and at the same time ignore Paul’s very explicit words when doing so suits their own personal desires and ambitions? How do we use Paul to argue for California’s Proposition 8, but not use Paul to argue against Sarah Palin?
As a believer in the gospel who is constantly engaging with non-Christians about Christ, I’m sincerely asking my fellow believers: What should my answer to that fair question be? I’m pretty good at logic, and at a single thought can be filled with the liberating, redemptive power of the Holy Spirit. But for the answer to this one question I’m afraid I have to rely upon the wisdom of others. Please help out a brother if you can.
(Oh, and please don’t say that 1 Timothy 2 was meant by Paul only as instructions on worship. I know that many of our Bibles say “Instructions on Worship” right before 1 Timothy 2. But that’s an utterly people-inserted title. There is virtually nothing in the text itself to indicate that Paul isn’t prescribing proper behavior for all Christen women at all times.)
Extremely pertinent post o’ mine: Ecclesia Reformatat Semper Reformanda.
**********************************************************************************************************
Follow: http://twitter.com/johnshore
Befriend: http://www.facebook.com/john.shore1
Be Fan: http://www.facebook.com/pages/John-Shore/89494795412?ref=s
![John Shore on The Huffington Post](http://johnshore.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/huffpost.jpg?w=120 "John Shore on The Huffington Post\")
{ 102 comments… read them below or add one }
« 1 2 3 4
Perhaps this is Paul's opinion. When talking about marriage, Paul mentions it is his opinion that is better to not be married. Perhaps the preface did not make it into the text about woman and speaking.
I will give another example:
Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." (NIV)
Is this Moses's opinion or God's commandment? I don't see God agreeing to make someone a lifelong slave even a non Jew.
Of course, to accept that there is opinion in the bible is not a popular opinion.
I do, I really do! 100 is the magic number, right!
Congrats Free!! John i think he deserves a book
#100!!!!
So John, are you any closer to the answer to your question?
John, perhaps the issue at hand in regard to the two edicts of Paul you mention is that in our modern culture we equate homosexuality as a gender or identity and not what it is addressed as in scripture…which is a sinful behavior, like any other sexual sin such as adultery, polygamy, etc. My father is gay, he has a committed partner. They are both wonderful men and I love them deeply. As a committed christian I dont agree with their lifestyle but I love THEM as PEOPLE, and I personally object to anyone who tells gays they are going to hell for being gay. It's not about that, it's about accepting or rejecting Christ…but that's another topic which I believe you've addressed in another blog.
Therefore I do not see this difficulty between women in church (read in context as suggested by many above) and what Paul says about homosexuality. So unless you can divorce yourself from using "gay" as a gender/identity, you may never find a satisfactory answer to your question. I dont know if that will take this discussion in a different direction but there you go. Blast away.
Christine, according to the bible man is spiritually dead until he born again (Eph. 2;1-11)and a spiritually dead man cannot understand the things of God (I Cor. 2:1-16). It is the spiritually dead who seek after false gods and not the one true God (Rom. 3:11). Those who are separated from God may know the scriptures and have the looks and actions of a child of God. Many times they even seem to be more Christian than the truly redeemed. However, much like the Pharisees, they merely white washed tombs (Matt. 23:27).
I engage in discussions with people who need the Lord virtually every day, and when they want to use some scripture they have learned against me, I try to answer their questions or comments. But what I am saying is this, when we get into debates or arguments with those who are not saved how can we expect them to understand the things of God? Sure, they may have some morals and even my agree with us on some issues but what they really need is not a lecture on some hot bible topic but rather the plan of salvation. I had rather see someone accept Jesus as Savior than to know I "showed them" how much of the bible I know.
I have read every post since I found this site and have enjoyed all of them especially the ones by annaldavis and Nancy is digging deep and working hard and many others are quite impressive also. So as the Scriptures say "Iron sharpens iron" (Prov. 27:17) so keep that blade razor sharp!
"Why even debate or enter into deep discussions on this or other topics with spiritually dead people?"
Ok, this was posted a little while back from Dawyne but am finding here that unless you read 24/7 you fall behind by at least 1000 replies.
@Dawyne, I think it is unfair to say that anyone who is not a christian is spiritually dead, and even more unfair to say it on a blog that non-christians read. I am a believer and understand what you were saying but I think saying that is too harsh, there are many non-believers out there who are very spiritually intune just not with what you (or I) believe.
@Leviticus – one of the many things Jesus did when dying for us on the cross was to free us from the enslavement to the old laws. Looking at how many sacrifices people have or have not performed (really you done any lately?? Does Animal Welfare know) is beside the point and really not the issue.
@Faith (yes people I read all the posts) – "I’m tougher on female candidates because they don’t deserve to get a free pass.". Why is this?? I would love to know the reasoning. As far as I can tell from history it looks like that men are getting the passes and women haven't so how is being MORE critical of them than men not being sexist?? And yes, you can be sexist against your own sex.
Okay John…here’s what I have found in response/retort to your blog on Sarah Palin vs Paul’s Directive for Women to be Silent and Submissive…fail proof it is not. However, in looking at hermeneutics and intent, it is applicable with recourse from Hebrew translation. This is in congruence with Calvin’s views from an evangelical approach. Gnostic teachings at the time were refuted by Paul in accordance to worship in daily living for those in the church. Gnosticism was very prevalent.
Gnosticism is a pre-Christian and early Christian religious movement teaching that salvation comes by learning esoteric spiritual truths that free humanity from the material world, believed in this movement to be evil.
Paul’s instruction were to men and women leading in the church. With instruction for public worship in and out of the church. When the verb ‘to permit’ (epitrepsein) is used in the New Testament, it refers to a specific permission in a specific context (Matthew 8,21; Mark 5,13; John 19,38; Acts 21,39-40; 26,1; 27,3; 28,16; 1 Corinthians 16,7; etc.) Moreover, the use of the indicative tense indicates an immediate context. The correct translation, therefore, is: “I am not presently allowing” (Spencer; Hugenberger); “I have decided that for the moment women are not to teach or have authority over men” The main concern of I Timothy is to counteract the influence of Gnostic teachers. The Gnostic teachings were of a mixed hellenistic and Jewish origin. Gnostic heresies included dualism, contempt for material things, dependence on knowledge (=spiritual experience), not faith, as a way to salvation, secret doctrine reserved for the elite few and restrictive teachings about
sexual practice.
In like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works.
a. In like manner also: The word also refers back to the statement that the men pray everywhere in 1 Timothy 2:8. Paul thought the principle of 1 Timothy 2:8 should apply in various congregations, and so should the principle in 1 Timothy 2:9.
b. That the women adorn themselves in modest apparel: This is how Christian women are supposed to dress, especially at their Christian meetings. The words propriety and moderation help explain what modest apparel is.
i. Propriety asks, “Is it appropriate for the occasion? Is it over-dressed or under-dressed? Is it going to call inappropriate attention to myself?” Moderation asks, “Is it moderate? Is it just too much – or far too little?” Moderation looks for a middle ground.
ii. The braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing Paul mentions were adornments that went against the principles of propriety and moderation in that culture.
iii. How you dress reflects your heart. If a man dresses in a casual manner, it says something about his attitude. Likewise, if a woman dresses in an immodest manner, it says something about her heart.
iv. “Woman has been invidiously defined: An animal fond of dress. How long will they permit themselves to be thus degraded?” (Clarke)
c. But . . . with good works: The most important adornment is good works. If a woman is dressed in propriety and moderation, with good works, she is perfectly dressed. Good works make a woman more beautiful than good jewelry.
3. (11-12) Women are to show submission, and yield to the authority of the men God has appointed to lead in the church.
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.
a. Let a woman learn in silence: This unfortunate translation has led some to believe that it is forbidden for women to even speak in church meetings. Paul uses the same word translated silence in 1 Timothy 2:2, and it is translated peaceable there. The idea is without contention instead of total silence.
i. In other places in the New Testament, even in the writings of Paul, women are specifically mentioned as praying and speaking in the church (1 Corinthians 11:5). To learn in silence has the idea of women receiving the teaching of the men God has chosen to lead in the church, with submission instead of contention.
ii. Submission is the principle; to learn in silence describes the application of the principle.
iii. Some have said the reason for this is because in these ancient cultures (as well as some present-day cultures), men and women sat in separate sections. The thought is that women interrupted the church service by shouting questions and comments to their husbands during the service. Clarke expresses this idea: “It was lawful for men in public assemblies to ask questions, or even interrupt the speaker when there was any matter in his speech which they did not understand; but this liberty was not granted to women.”
b. With all submission: The word for submission here literally means, “To be under in rank.” It has to do with respecting an acknowledged order of authority. It certainly does not mean that men are more spiritual than women or that women are inferior to men.
i. “Anyone who has served in the armed forces knows that ‘rank’ has to do with order and authority, not with value or ability. . . . Just as an army would be in confusion if there were no levels of authority, so society would be in chaos without submission.” (Wiersbe)
c. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man: Paul’s meaning seems clear. Women are not to have the role of teaching authority in the church. To be under authority is the principle; not teaching is the application.
i. Paul is saying that the church should not recognize women as those having authority in the church regarding matters of doctrine and Scriptural interpretation.
ii. Not all speaking or teaching by a woman is necessarily a violation of God’s order of authority in the church. Whatever speaking or teaching is done by a woman must be done in submission to the men God has appointed to lead the church.
iii. 1 Corinthians 11:1-12 emphasizes the same principle. Women are to always act under authority in the congregation, demonstrated in Corinthian culture by the wearing of a head covering. Therefore a woman in the Corinthian church could only pray or prophesy if she demonstrated that she was under the leadership of the church, and she demonstrated this by wearing a head covering and by acting consistently with that principle.
Fee, Gordon D. “Issues in Evangelical Hermeneutics, Part 3: The Great Watershed
Intentionality and Particularity / Eternality: 1 Timothy 2:8-15 as a Test Case.” Crux
26:4 (December 1990), pp. 31-37.
Awesome info Nancy–thanks. Any insight on the passages on homosexuality?
The Bible is not exclusive in that way. The Bible also says in Genesis 2:18: “The LORD God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.’ ” That doesn’t mean that men can’t be single and still used by God. The passage you reference also doesn’t mean that a woman such as Palin can’t be used by God. It would then be difficult to explain Queen Esther, a beautiful woman who wore queen’s clothes and was a leader to her people. For further “women’s study,” read Proverbs 31. Now THAT’s a woman.
25 She is clothed with strength and dignity;
she can laugh at the days to come.
26 She speaks with wisdom,
and faithful instruction is on her tongue.
30 Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting;
but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised.
31 Give her the reward she has earned,
and let her works bring her praise at the city gate.
Free: “I just had a mental picture of all females in the church with no jewelry, no make-up, covered heads, being “silent”…..men wouldn’t know what to do, LOL!)” You would be surprised to know that its not very far from that in alot of Jamaican churches. My church doesnt allow jewelry nor pants (for women) and I have to wear a hat to church. Only that we have freedom of speech. Also, makeup should not be too much (most times none is worn). Some of our churches have become less stringent on these rules tho.
John, I really feel a copy and paste coming on very soon following that last comment from Dwayne. LOL
« 1 2 3 4
{ 1 trackback }