As a result of the original article on the subject entitled "Women In Ministry & Sexism Within The Christian Church" I was able to enter into a discussion/debate with Pastor Saiko Woods on a bolgtalk radio segment called His Word His Way. The entire segment is listed below for your review.
In part of the show, the host implored the use of 1 Tim 3, which many believe is the strongest argument in support of "men only" in church leadership within the corporate and organized Christian church.
Here is the scripture:
1 Timothy 3:1-7 ~ 1-This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2-A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3-Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4-One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5-(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 6-Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7-Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
I have noted (darkened) all the references using male gender specific words. The host basically pointed out that statements such as those in bold above are the key to this argument, and provides, based on grammatical construction, solid evidence that women were excluded from leadership ministry. He also pointed out that the word "Bishop" primarily could mean elder, pastor, or overseer. Therefore, his conclusion was that women certainly could not pastor or lead in any capacity and to do so was not only spiritual deceit, but also ultimately a sin.
Is This True & Does 1 Tim. 3:1-7 Make The Case For Male Only Leadership In Ministry & Within The Christian Church?
Quite naturally, when one reads and if all one relies upon are how we use pronouns such as "he" and statements such as "husband of one wife" the case seems to have a punch solidifying the thought that only MEN or individuals of the male gender are allowed in these type of positions. It sounds good, even appears to be true upon superficial review, but what we actually note from scripture may set the notion that woman are excluded from leadership ministry on it's head.
How Can That Be Possible?
Glad You asked...Well, it all centers around the word or the object of the subject pronoun. The word "Bishop" and the historical interpretation of that word. Let's look at a method of biblical interpretation that may provide a more full spectrum or range of understanding for our purposes and review:
Historical Scriptural Literalism
This is the house of cards that the male only argument is built upon. This is a common interpretive method. Basically, it states that "this is the way it has always been taught and done, therefore it is valid". In other words the logic of this method is self validating.
As stated, this is one of several valid methodologies of biblical interpretation. Those who adhere to it, base their conclusions on what has "traditionally" (historically) been taught and accepted by the Christian church and many Christian teachers and evangelists, especially those of the reformation or enlightenment era.
Normally, those committed to this method assert, somewhat dogmatically, that we must implore a scriptural literalism to interpret the text and that literalism reveals what the scripture is saying or what it means. In other words, believe it because that's what it says. The question is, is that always true?
I agree in part with these conclusions, however, my contentions, which I believe are solid, are #1, many historical persons can teach a thing and be wrong about what they have historically taught or held by tradition. Jesus pointed this fact out to the Pharisees and the teachers of his day even claiming that there traditions had made the word of God on no effect or powerless. (Matthew 15:1-9) The whole reformation was also based on the premise that a certain line of "tradition" and doctrines as had been taught by the Catholic Church were wrong. So what is historically taught may be good, but this does not automatically lend to the thought that what is taught is conclusive or definitively the truth.
# 2, only God is flawless and 100% correct. Men are flawed and fallible, whether that be in numbers or individually. The words, interpretations and thoughts of "men" are no guarantee of the truth of God. Only those words that proceed from the mouth of God are words that we can live by or hang our very existence upon.
Deut. 8:3 ~ And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.
Interpretation is always subject to being flawed or fallibility. So it is (or at least should be) the word of God, not the historical interpretation of that word that is the valid or validating part of doctrine, dogma and what we accept or reject as Christians.
#3, I believe that we should interpret literally until the context demands us to do otherwise, as opposed to invoking a literal interpretation regardless of context. This is vitally important. For example, the word of God says that the "eyes of the Lord are in every place" (Prov. 15:3) and another scripture says that God shall hide you under the "shadow of his wing" (Ps. 17:8). Now, if we interpret this "literally" are we to assume that God is a great bird like creature with a limitless number of eyes?
To say that God has hands, wings, feet and eyes and such like are anthropomorphism by which God is described using human values in effort of to relay a comprehensible understanding. These descriptions are things that cause us to relate to what is being said as it pertains to the characteristics of God in relationship to his creation. (and that would be US)
So the cardinal rule of interpretation is CONTEXT. Not the literal word only as we will look toward now.
#4, Additionally, we should seek to find the context of how a particular word was used under a particular circumstance (situational setting) in order to draw proper and full meaning from what is being communicated. Therefore, back to my first statement, we should only take things literally if the context of scripture calls for a literal interpretation. Then and only then can we hold that up so that the message can be best understood.
This can be called the critical, contextual, method biblical interpretation. But there is one thing in any method that we should do our best to avoid:
Using the contextual methodology, one seeks not only the literal word that was used, but seeks to understand and define the word and the teaching in the sense in which it was intended. The problem with any method and methodology is what could be called literary syncretism. For the purpose of our study, I would pose that Literary Syncretism could be said to have occurred when two or more historical contexts are molded together to create a completely new historical context.
Since, in this case, we are looking at eras, or generally accepted practices religiously or otherwise, it is vitally important that syncretism doesn't occur in order to find the actual historical setting or the "sitz em laban" in which the scripture was delivered. If this is done, interpreting scripture according to its proper context becomes virtually impossible. In other words, one could impose a certain context upon scripture that was developed at a later time or that didn't exist in the time in which scripture was penned. Doing this sort of thing only leads to confusion.
Some Words Have Multiple Meanings And Can Only Be Discerned Based Upon Context.
This is important and something that happens all the time. In English we call them homonyms. Words that are spelled the same, look the same but mean different things. Even though Greek has words styled for specific usage, there are yet singular words that have multiple meanings. From a scriptural standpoint, one such example is the word "faith" (Gk: Pistis). In certain scriptures, the word "faith" refers to the belief that one has.(Heb. 11:1) In other instances the same word "faith" refers to the lifestyle that one embarks upon.(1 Timothy 4:7) So within scripture one can believe and be saved by exercising "faith" (Rom. 10:8-9) and one can live a lifestyle for Christ and abide in the "faith"(Acts 14:22, Col. 1:23) In addition one can even fight and contend for the "faith" which was once delivered, (Jude 3) indicating that "faith" is also a set or a system of beliefs. Even though the same word is used under each circumstance, the clear distinction between what the word is referring to is only discovered when the method of contextual discovery is invoked or used.
So what does any of this have to do with the subject of the proverbial "price of tea in China"?
Back To The Issue
Glad you asked....Specifically, the problem is how does any of what I have said affect or interpretation of 1 Timothy 3?
Well quite simply put, the historical interpretation has made the assumption that only men are leaders, pastors and bishops based on the historical patriarchal male dominated ANE (Ancient Near East) setting in which the scriptures were created. Historical interpretations have flowed based on those assumptions which are no longer normative or absolute within our modern cultural setting.
Secondly, there are a few things that can be said about the 1 Timothy 3 passage. Here are a few observations when word literalism is applied.
I- In verse 1, the word "Bishop" ἐπισκοπή, ῆς, ἡ in the Greek is a FEMININE Noun? However in verse 2 it is a MALE noun.
Here's the definition of the the word Bishop in the 1st verse:
Original Word: ἐπισκοπή, ῆς, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Phonetic Spelling: (ep-is-kop-ay')
Here's the second:
Original Word: ἐπίσκοπος, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Phonetic Spelling: (ep-is'-kop-os)
Here's some additional information: "1984 episkopḗ (a feminine noun, derived from 1909 /epí, "on, appropriately fitting," which intensifies 4648 /skopéō, "look intently") – properly, oversight that naturally goes on to provide the care and attention appropriate to the "personal visitation."
So, in essence, the "office" of Bishop is specified with a feminine noun whereas the person of the Bishop is a male noun. So some would say, that settles it, the "person" should be a male! However, that misses the point of the text. I will explain over the next two points:
II- First Timothy 3 is NOT seeking to distinguish gender roles, rather it is focusing on the character as the guiding principle for the one occupying the office.
The key to understanding the whole dialogue IS NOT in the gender of the words used such as "He" and "husband of one wife", it is in the FUNCTION that the scripture communicates. The overseer or Bishop should have a stable and desirable lifestyle and comes in union with the church and people to serve them. Therefore, the noun used to describe the "office" is a feminine noun. Culturally, all of them that served in this capacity were men, but that is not a restriction found within the text as gender is not the guiding principle of any of the functions.
The principle: "husband of one wife" ~ Is a woman a threat to the office by means of multiple marriage?
The principle: "ruleth his own house", "have his children in subjection": ~ Is the assumption that a woman cannot maintain an orderly house?
Other questions arise such as are women less subject to pride? Can a woman not manage business affairs? I mean we could go on. Quite naturally these things we know that woman can do, but still may question whether women are permitted to do these things within the context of the church simply because of their gender from birth. However, there is a problem if we outline things as tightly as is seen here. It is called "Selective Literalism" Here it is:
III ~ Literal Acceptance Means That All Bishops Must Not Only Be Married, But Must Also Have Children, But The Question Is How Many?
My contention is that this scripture is not giving an object lesson on gender, family size or anything of the sort. It is giving a lesson on character. The "Bishop" elder leader or what have you, MUST be a person of trustworthy integrity and seasoned ability. The gender distinction is commensurate not only with language but also with culture as men were generally in leadership from Judaism's historical standpoint and from a ANE context.
The lesson of scripture however, wasn't in affirmation of gender, it was in affirmation of character and integrity. To use this scripture to teach or affirm gender is a misuse and abuse of the scripture.
Broadening Our Understanding
It is my contention that male pronouns are incidental to the train of thought. Rather than continually saying "male and female" or "he and she" and outlining every instance or circumstance under both scenarios, the singular gender identity is used, just as we see in other passages where women are referred to but only the male gender is identified.
Similar to someone coming into a room and saying "what's up guys" when women are present. That saying "what's up guys" doesn't mean that everyone in the room are male by gender or that only the males are being spoken to. Therefore, the "guys" in the saying "what's up guys?" is generic and incidental to language.
Do We Find More Examples Of This In Scripture?
Yes We Do.
We find that same methodology in the Old Testament from the very beginning of man's creation. In ancient Hebrew, the word "Adam" does not only indicate a person or a single individual, Adam is also representative of all men and women or mankind in general. In other words, when God said he made man, he not only made a specific male named Adam, he also would later and subsequently make a woman called Eve, creating both males and females with all of THEM being covered under the umbrella of "mankind" (ADAM). There was never a gender crossing. She (Eve) DID NOT become a man, however she was included under the scope of man and mankind. The same is with Adam. he did not become a woman, but all men are included along with women as Adam or mankind as well.
Summary, Push back & Conclusion
I believe that I have shown that what the scriptural literalism does is deliver a first century Jewish expectation of patriarchal leadership into a modern western context in effort to make a point that women are excluded from church leadership simply because they are born women. I believe that notion is unbiblical and cannot be supported based on the information and concepts discovered and uncovered by this posting.
I feel that I have demonstrated the following points:
- The language of 1 Timothy 3 is standard language of the day and is commensurate with ideas of patriarchal leadership.
- 1 Timothy 3 made no effort to deliver a gender based discourse on church leadership. The context of the scripture was dealing with a leaders moral values ethic, not gender role distinctions.
- Historical literal method of biblical interpretation is problematic in many instance and is ineffective in discerning and distinguishing the nuance of scripture regarding this issue.
- A better method of interpretation in this case is critical contextual approach to scriptural interpretation with special attention to any possible syncretism.
Statement: Well, it is in the bible, it is God's word, and it should be observed and followed.
Response: I agree 100%! Only apply and seek to know how it should be followed and obeyed. For example, in 1 Cor. 11, Paul takes nearly the whole chapter to talk about how one should pray and wear their hair. Both male and female. Toward the end of the discourse, he says this:
1 Cor. 11:16 ~ But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
In other words, Paul delivers what we recognize as the word of God and states if there is a disagreement with what he is saying regarding this issue that his instructions should not be used as a hammer or a wedge to drive people away.
Is a man wearing short hair and a woman wearing long hair, scriptural or non scriptural?
Fact is that it is both! It is contained within scripture, therefore it is scriptural. However it is also a culturally commensurate and culturally relative teaching that even Paul recognized did not and does not apply to everyone everywhere. In other words the command, though contained and found within scripture was NOT a universal command to and upon all.
There is no command that a Bishop aka: pastor, minister or other church leader MUST be a man or of the male gender. The descriptive centers around a male of a certainty. However there is no pre or proscription that church leadership was a "men's only" venture or occupation.
In this instance, the historical, literal method of biblical interpretation is more similar to what we observe Islam doing when it demands the imposition of Sharia according to ANE traditions and customs upon modern society. It (Islam) summarily binds modern humanity to obscure and many times offensive ANE customs and practices. Is this wrong on it's face? NO! Christians should know that the bible contains many good ANE practices and customs, but such customs should be reconciled as that...only customs and not biblically binding or God ordered practices.
Prohibiting women from leadership because they are "the weaker vessel" is not a solid basis for prohibition especially since "all are one in Christ Jesus" (Galations 3:28). That is just not equal in salvation, but equal in Christ, to do HIS bidding as HE sees fit. After all the church belongs to HIM, not to any man or man made system.