My Struggle in Theological Study, by: Deric Sneller
To say the least, I have been dissatisfied with much that has been published regarding the matter of women in ministry. I think that both sides of the debate disregard matters that drastically affect their understanding of the Gospel. But yesterday I stumbled upon this approach by John Stott while doing sermon preparation for 1 Timothy 2:1-7, which precedes what I find to be the most problematic passage in the debate. This approach does not end further study about sexual roles, but prompts more study while avoiding some potential pitfalls. I post this to prompt such study and ponderings in all of you. The task of biblical interpretation is not an easy task, but it proves to be a necessary task. After you read Stott's excerpts, feel free to comment with your feedback. I'd love to dialogue about this.
Excerpts from John Stott’s commentating on 1 Timothy 2:8-15
“This brings us to the key question: what is the relation between these two antitheses? Are they simply parallel and therefore equally normative? Is a woman both to be silent and not teach, and to be submissive and not wield authority, with no distinction between these instructions? This is what many commentators assume. But must submission always be expressed in silence, and ‘not exercising authority’ in ‘not teaching’? Or could it be legitimate to see the submission-authority antithesis as permanent and universal (because grounded in creation, see verse 13), while seeing the silence-teaching antithesis as a first-century cultural expression of it, which is therefore not necessarily applicable to every culture, but open to transposition into each?
Some readers will doubtless respond that there is no indication of this distinction in the text itself. For verses 11 and 12 contain just two prohibitions (teaching and having authority) and two commands (silence and submission). This is true. But the same could be said about verses 8 and 9. There is nothing in the text of verse 8 which requires us to distinguish between the commands to lift up holy hands and to be rid of anger and argument. Nor is there anything in the text of verse 9 which requires us to distinguish between the commands to women to dress modestly and to avoid hair-plaiting and jewellery. Yet a Christian mind, schooled in the perspectives and presuppositions of the New Testament, knows that its ethical commands and their cultural expressions are not equally normative and must therefore be distinguished. So it recognizes in verse 8 that holiness and love are ethical, but hand-lifting is cultural, and in verse 9 and 10 that decency and modesty are ethical, while hairstyles and jewellery are cultural. Why then should we not anticipate that the same distinction between the ethical and the cultural is to be found in verses 11 and 12? The context (with its three regulations about prayers, adornment and submission) should at least make us open to this possibility.”
“If, however, the authority-submission antithesis is to be retained as creational, may not the teaching-silence antithesis be regarded as cultural? May not the requirements of silence, like the requirement of veils, have been a first-century cultural symbol of masculine headship, which is not necessarily appropriate today? For silence is not an essential ingredient of submission; submission is expressed in different ways in different cultures. Similarly, women teaching men does not necessarily symbolize taking authority over them. Teaching can be given in different styles, with different meanings. Thus public prophesying by women was not regarded as an improper exercise of authority over men, presumably because it took place under the direct inspiration and authority of God. Nor was Priscilla’s teaching of Apollos inappropriate, because she gave him private instruction in the home, and Aquila was present, sharing in the instruction.”
“In the end, our decision whether women may ever teach men, or be ordained to the pastorate, or exercise other leadership roles in the church, will depend on our understanding of the nature of the local presbyter leadership. If we belong to the Reformed tradition and see the local presbyter as essentially an authority figure, responsible both to teach the congregation and to exercise discipline (including excommunication), then we are likely to conclude that it is inappropriate for women to occupy such an authoritative position. Supposing, on the other hand, we begin our thinking about Christian pastoral leadership with the teaching of Jesus in Mark 10:35ff., where he drew a distinction between two human communities whose leaders operate on different principles. In the world, he said, ‘officials exercise authority over them’. But, he added, ‘Not so with you.’ Instead, in his community greatness would be measured by service.
Why should it be thought inappropriate for women to exercise such servant-leadership? They have done so throughout biblical history. Besides, there are now no authority figures in the church, who can teach like the apostles in the name and with the authority of Christ. The New Testament is now complete, and all Christian teachers are called to teach humbly under its authority. If then a woman teaches others, including men, under the authority of Scripture (not claiming to any authority of her own), in a meek and quiet spirit (not throwing her weight about), and as a member of a pastoral team whose leader is a man (as a contemporary cultural symbol of masculine headship), would it not be legitimate for her to exercise such a ministry, and be commissioned (ordained) to do so, because she would not be infringing the biblical principle of masculine headship? Our answer to this question is likely to depend on whether we consider it legitimate to apply the principle of cultural transposition to verses 10 and 11.”
“In developing the concept of cultural transposition, I am not claiming (as my readers might wish me to claim) that it provides a slick solution to all our questions about sexual roles, although I think it will save us from wrong solutions and will put us on the road towards right ones. But further theological reflection is needed, especially in relation to three questions.
The first is a question about complementarity. How should we define the created complementarity of the sexes (including the notions of ‘headship’ and ‘submission’), not just physically and physiologically, certainly not culturally (in terms of popular gender stereotypes), but psychologically and in particular biblically? What does Scripture teach about the essence (permanent and universal) of our created maleness and femaleness? This question must be at the top of our agenda for debate, since whatever creation has established culture can express but not destroy.
The second is a question about ministry. Once the complementarity of the sexes has been biblically defined, what are the roles and responsibilities which belong properly to men and not women, and to women and not men?
The third is a question about culture. What visible symbols in our particular culture would appropriately express the sexual complementarity which Scripture lays down as normative?”
With a group from church at Elk Creek in late June.
Rainy night at Rock Creek the last weekend of June.
With good friends, Glen and Mary Lynn Stillings, near Creede. July 26-27th.
