One of my chief ambitions in life is teaching people how to study the Bible. That may seem strange, or like something for those new to the faith but I believe the need is common. To some, it seems like a strange notion. After all, what is so complex about it? You read the Bible and accept what it says. Right?
In truth, we learn without realizing it and never ask whether the method is right or not. We learn by seeing it done. Further complicating the issue is that most Adventists (I can’t speak for those from other backgrounds who might be reading this) learn their Bible study methods through evangelists, who have to summarize and simplify and resort to quoting the texts that seem to speak most clearly (whether they mean what they’re said to mean or not).
One result is that people can string a few texts together to make a compelling point but they don’t know why another person’s similar but opposing string is wrong (besides their preference for their own string). Another result is a lack of confidence or success in studying the Bible without a prepackaged study guide.
I write from the inside. All I have written here once described me. I don’t mean to project my own experience on everyone else but I do know many people who have had the same experience. When I finally learned to study for myself, the exciting world of God’s truth opened up to me. I don’t have all the answers but, in the next few posts, I will share some of those I do have.
I just picked up a new translation called the English Standard Version. It is new enough that I have not yet seen literature to oppose it. But it will come. And I know what it will say. Regardless of the translation, it always says the same things. And it always makes exhaustive efforts to show how this new version changes the “true text” of the King James Version (starting with the assumption that the KJV is always correct). It always incites fear that this new translation is part of the New Age or similarly sinister conspiracy.
At first I was compelled by these arguments, then I learned Greek and Hebrew and began to compare translations more intelligently. I found that the King James Version doesn’t always reflect the original text most accurately. I found that the chief examples given for how the new translations undermine important doctrines (like the Sabbath or the divinity of Christ) are usually cases where the new translation is truer to the Greek or Hebrew.
Should these differences challenge us? Yes. If we are really after the truth of God, and not just trying to defend the way we always thought about it, we should be grateful for the new windows into God’s truth that these translations open.
When a new translation of Scripture hits the bookstore shelves, the Christian world should get excited about this fresh look at God’s truth. We should read with eager anticipation of new insights that escaped us before. Instead, most Christians hold fearfully to a translation made 400 years ago when English words had different meanings and a consistent translation method had not been developed.
I don’t have to wonder whose plan this was.
It is quite likely that you have been annoyed by my last post, because it seems to ignore certain texts that many consider “slam dunks” against women in ministry leadership. I have debated the merits of examining each of those texts here and decided against it for the time being. There are some good, logical arguments made from these texts and some ridiculous ones (and some of the most popular are the most ridiculous).
But the real divide between the two schools of thought is philosophical. How one interprets the words of Paul (to restrict or allow women in ministry leadership) is directly linked to how one relates to the historical contexts of these texts. Those who allow for the known cultural setting of Paul’s instructions tend to conclude that women are not timelessly excluded from ministry leadership. Those who disallow the cultural element from their equation tend to conclude that women are timelessly excluded from ministry leadership.
Keeping in mind that none of these texts commands us to regulate whether women lead (and so keeping God’s sovereignty in tact) there is still value in settling this philosophical question. It has implications for how we interpret other parts of Scripture as well.
I believe the cultural element must be taken into account. And, once again, we must be consistent in this. If we universalize Paul’s reminders to the assertive women of his day to tone it down (1 Corinthian 14:34-40), we must also universalize his similar advice to others. For instance, he told slaves to submit to their masters (see Ephesians 6:5). If we ignore the first century cultural setting that told women to be silent (unless they were prostitutes) or the chaos at the church of Corinth that Paul is addressing so we can universalize the prohibition against women leading, we must also ignore the cultural setting that allowed for human trafficking and universalize Paul’s endorsement of slavery. The same interpretive scheme produces both conclusions. We must either accept both conclusions or neither conclusion. Many other examples could be given (like excluding women from the promises of salvation because Paul uses masculine terms to express them).
Allowing for the cultural setting doesn’t excuse you from finding the guiding principles and applying God’s message to your time and place. It allows you to be confronted by the real biblical truth more fully.
As I see it, the big issue in the debate over women in church leadership (whether as pastors or local elders) is God’s Sovereignty.
A fundamental question that nobody seems to ask is whether God has asked us to regulate who leads his church. I believe the answer is “no”. God never ordained a prophet choosing committee in ancient Israel. Nor did he ordain a nominating committee in the New Testament church. Instead, Paul makes quite a point of the Holy Spirit’s sovereignty over the selection of church leaders (see 1 Corinthians 12). I suggest that our job is simply to recognize the individuals God has gifted with leadership. The biblical qualifications for leadership office are simply keys to recognize the character and qualities of godliness.
Arguments are made from Paul’s words that women should never lead God’s people in the capacity of elder or pastor. And arguments are made from both Old Testament and New Testament examples that God has used women in every role contained in the office of elder or pastor.
Here is the key issue for me: If the exclusion of women from these leadership roles had been made a matter of policy in ancient Israel, God’s people would have never accepted his chosen female leaders. In the same way, in Adventist history, if such restrictions had been in place, God’s people would have been forced to reject God’s leadership through Ellen White.
The problem is that we are trying to regulate something God never intended us to rule. The Spirit is sovereign over who he chooses. It is our part to follow where we see evidence of his leading.
Perhaps the fact that he retains sovereignty over this is why the Bible does not make it clear (why a case can be made for either side of the issue from the same Bible).
Am I arguing for permission? Yes, but only as we see the Spirit lead. If God never chooses another woman as primary leader of his church, our prayerful perception will tell us so. If God does choose women to lead, prayerful recognition of the Spirit’s work in their lives will reveal that as well.
Question #3: Is it God’s purpose that we try to live under the curse or that we try to rise above it?
Whatever answer we choose we must apply to all the stipulations of the curse. It’s not consistent to argue that God wants us to live under some and rise above others. So, we must be willing to accept the broad implications of whatever answer we give.
The stipulations of the curse as they relate to humans are as follows (see Genesis 3):
Pain in childbirth
Husband ruling the wife
Painful work to eat
Death
To be consistent in how we apply the curse, we must either accept all stipulations as binding or view all of them as pains to rise above. This means that, if we argue it’s God’s will for men to rule over their women, we must also argue against pain medication for childbirth, methods that make food gathering easier (like tractors and supermarkets), and efforts to save sick patients from death.
Question #2: Does the statement of the curse that Adam would rule over Eve apply outside the marriage relationship?
Answers to this question often lack consistency and biblical evidence. They tend to be selective and speculative. Whatever answer we choose must be both biblical and consistently applied.
First, consistency: If all women are to be ruled by all men, we must be willing to accept the implications of this in every situation. We should not interpret this rulership to mean that all men have authority over all women in a church setting while still claiming all men do not have authority over all women in other areas. The implications of accepting the broad male headship required to apply the Genesis 3 order to the church are dizzying. If we are to broaden it far enough beyond the marriage context to reach the church setting, we must do the same in other aspects of society. If a person can’t serve two masters, then what about…?
Second, biblical evidence: God tells the woman, “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you” (Genesis 3:16 NIV). The word translated “husband” always means “husband” (not the generic “man”) when a wife is present in the text. Furthermore, God states it in the possessive (”your husband”), leaving no textual reason to extend the rulership outside marriage. Adding force to the inappropriateness of applying this male rulership outside marriage are the sexual overtones of the passage. The word used for “desire,” as in “your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you,” suggests sexual longing. See Song of Solomon 7:11 for another example of this word.
In summary, if the Bible does present justification for universal male rulership, it does not appear at the time of the curse.
Question #1: Was Eve subordinate to Adam before sin?
Some suggest that Adam being created first made him more important. This does not hold up to scrutiny because the progression of created things (throughout the six days of Creation) goes from simple to complex and from good to best (with humanity at the apex; Genesis 1-2). So, to argue on the basis of Creation order, you would have to conclude that woman was more important than man. (This might hint at a different than normal understanding of 1 Timothy 2:12-15.)
Others point to the fact that Adam was taken from the ground and Eve from Adam to suggest that Eve was a lesser or subordinate copy of Adam. But the comparison of Adam going from dirt to human vs. Eve going from human to human does not render her inferiority or subordination obvious (unless, of course, one wants to argue that dirt was superior to Adam).
The one explicit description of their relationship, on the other hand, is to call Eve a “helper”. Careful examination of the original Hebrew term shows that this term carried no idea of subordination. Instead, it is used to describe God in his relationship to humanity (see Genesis 49:25; Exodus 18:4).
The issue of sexuality is larger than sex. I have been listening to a series of lectures on the question of women in ministry. This particular presenter is against the ordination of women to pastoral ministry but I have studied both sides of the debate. Both sides agree that a starting point for understanding the issue is the relationship between man and woman at Creation and the Fall.
I have already noted that it took both male and female to complete God’s image (see Genesis 1:27; 5:1-2), which would imply that God’s representatives are both male and female. But, the debate centers on how that representation should or should not be carried out–especially by women. The questions that swirl around Creation and the Fall are three: Was Eve subordinate to Adam before sin? Does the statement of the curse that Adam would rule over Eve apply outside the marriage relationship? Is it God’s purpose that we try to live under the curse (making it an issue of obedience) or that we try to rise above it (making it an issue of redemption)?
I prefer to give perspective on the questions rather than answer them definitively. I think it is more helpful to clarify the issues and encourage each person to sort it out honestly than it is to draw lines in the sand.
I’ll address these questions in subsequent posts.
Karl raised an interesting question in his comment on my last posting. He asked, “Does Satan claim a spiritual part in the procreation process since the inception of sin?” There is more than one way to answer that, but I am not sure I can give an answer that is both definitive and defensible. From one angle, the answer is self-evident. Satan has taken charge of sexual practices in our world, thus claiming a default control over the procreation mechanism. In this line of thought, it is he who directs the cavalier behaviors that produce unplanned children. From another angle, it is still a miracle of God that creates life in each embryo and they are still humans (made in God’s image) who choose to participate in the God-given process that produces life. Whatever Satan’s claims, my initial thoughts leave Satan as an outsider who wants in but can do nothing more than influence humans to choose poorly.
I am intrigued by the question but can’t currently think of direct biblical data that bears on it.
Since I am not writing a dissertation on the subject, I’ll move on from biblical sexuality soon but not without exploring the biblical magna carta on the subject. Song of Solomon is the most explicit sexual material in Scripture. For this reason, church leaders through the centuries have forbidden the youthful to read it.
The most popular approach to the book is to make it symbolic. In this scenario, the love relationship between the man and his bride parallels the relationship between God and his church. But the only justification for making it symbolic instead of literal is the popular aversion to sex. And, really, these symbolic interpretations should make it more disturbing to those who fear sex because it puts God into sexually explicit terms.
Instead, this book should be taken literally, and the simple fact that it is part of Scripture suggests that sex is (or should be) a godly act. In it, we find references to almost every aspect of healthy sex-play. Perhaps the suppressive influences of the past are still too strong in me but I am hesitant to include a list of these things here. Just read the biblical book and take care to note what the metaphors are suggesting.