Women

          A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (I Timothy 2:11-15)

          Let me state clearly right from the start of today’s thoughts that the research I’ve done on this passage has not provided me with any definitive answer. What I have read especially in no way soothes the hyperactive ego of a modern feminist. I have read at least one exploration that claims that the original Greek can be translated so that Paul is saying that he does not stop a woman from teaching, but that view is inconsistent with everything else I’ve read and with the rest of what the passage appears to say.

           From what the passage says, I have a problem with the Church. If we are going to obey God’s Word, this is part of it. It’s a part that there is no Scriptural reason to say it’s been superseded by a new covenant. If we are going to obey God’s Word, women are not to teach in church, period. Ever. Under any circumstances. But, Priscilla and Aquilla (wife and husband team) taught Apollos and Paul didn’t have a problem with that. Women are allowed to teach children in Sunday School. Single women have been permitted to be missionaries and to lead churches at least until a sufficiently trained man came along. Women have written beloved hymns that teach. Women ran double abbeys, which housed both men and women and required women to exercise authority over men. Historically, there are women who have counseled – and reprimanded – kings and popes. Some denominations allow women to be pastors. I have taught mixed classes (I was not comfortable in the role) and been a member of a wonderful mixed class led by a woman.

            So, is a woman teaching and exercising authority a cultural issue associated with then that has nothing to do with now, as some claim? Not according to this passage. Is this passage Paul’s opinion only, and not to be considered part of the real Bible? If we start carving out sections a la Thomas Jefferson, where do we draw the line? That’s the whole problem with the Jesus Project. They reduce what Jesus said in the “Lord’s Prayer” to “Father.” Everything else is suspect.

           When it comes to the part about women being saved through childbirth if they continue in faith, I’m sure that means that childbirth is not their means of salvation. It would seem, then, to have to do with women of faith coming through childbirth safely if they continue in faith. Rather than condemning Paul for this statement, women should be cheering the promise of safety during a difficult time.

             One other idea in Scripture deals with how slaves are to behave and to be treated. Does this mean that we are required to have slaves today? No. Instead, we’re told that we should consider the teachings given about slaves and masters as applying to employees and employers. That makes sense, but if changes in our culture have made it permissible to change slaves/masters to employee/employer, then would not changes in our culture make it permissible to change woman/church in a way that doesn’t violate the principles of Scripture, including submission to authority and not lording it over one another?

            Sorry, no answers today. I can only say that if I'm going to err, I'd rather err trying to obey than err by throwing any part of God's Word into the fire.