Alaskazimm,
I read the article and have some reactions, which I will describe by citing specific sections:
Most of you who know me, know that I did my doctoral thesis on women in the NT with C.K. Barrett at the University of Durham in England. My first three published scholarly books were on this very subject.
I have not read any of Witherington’s three books on this topic, but I am granting that they might make better arguments than those presented in this post. I have certainly read more persuasive, book-length, arguments for the abolition of gender qualifications for pastors. Truth is, I once even read a more persuasive article than this one that was seeking to make the scriptural case for same-sex marriage.
One of the reasons I did that thirty some years ago was because of the controversy that raged then over the issue of women in ministry, and more particularly women as pulpit ministers and senior pastors. Never mind that the Bible does not have categories like ‘senior pastor’ or ‘pulpit minister’, the NT has been used over and over again to justify the suppression of women in ministry—and as I was to discover through years of research and study, without Biblical justification.
I agree that "pulpit ministry" and the role of "senior pastor" are not mentioned in the Bible. The first may be counted as a biblical concept, if stripped of certain traditional associations, though it is not scriptural terminology. If we simply mean by “pulpit ministry” the addressing of the congregation by a preacher or teacher, the concept may be scriptural, though the specific word “pulpit” was probably not in general use when the Bible was written. The “senior pastor,” by contrast, is foreign to the New Testament, both in vocabulary and in concept.
Notice the poisoning of the well in this early paragraph. Those who believe that the Bible has always limited eldership to men are now said to be “justify[ing] the suppression of women in ministry.” The words “justifying” and “suppression” are both emotionally charged words, calculated to make those who understand scripture in the historically-accepted manner appear to be “justifying” the what is clearly unjustifiable, and "suppressing" something that should be allowed to arise. It would seem no more or less charitable to say of Brother Witherington that he is seeking to justify the suppression of historic Christian norms. Both statement may be true, in a sense, but the language is accusatory.
Now of course equally sincere Christians may disagree on this matter, but the disagreements should be on the basis of sound exegesis of Biblical texts, not emotions, rhetoric, mere church polity, dubious hermeneutics and the like.
How could anyone disagree with this statement? But notice how it sets us up to expect a demonstration that the exegesis and hermeneutics supporting the historic view are unsound and dubious. I read beyond this point with interest, to see what masterly exegesis really looks like. What I found appeared to be more like opportunistic special pleading in the pursuit of a predetermined verdict.
In this respect, this article is quite like every other defense of evangelical egalitarianism that I have read from other advocates (and there have been many). The authors essentially suggest that Paul’s instructions are culturally conditioned, and that Paul actually hoped the church would someday evolve in a direction contrary to his actual instructions. It is an apparent blind spot with the evangelical feminists, that they do not consider that they themselves may, in fact, be the culturally conditioned ones. Might it be that an
a priori acceptance of certain modern, Western cultural attitudes determines the need to eliminate passages that bear hostile testimony against our cultural view?
One subtext to the thesis of this article seems to be: “Paul could not really have been so terribly out of step with what we moderns understand today! Since we know God's opinion is like ours, we must find ways to read Paul in a more-enlightened manner.”
Witherington plainly admits that Paul’s words uphold patriarchy. How could this be denied, when using straight-forward exegesis? Sure, Paul appears to be supporting patriarchy in the home and in the church (every time the subject is addressed by Paul, or even by Peter!), but, we are assured, this is a mere accommodation to the culture of his time. "Paul meets people where they are."
I’m sure Paul, in his letters, does meet people where they are. However, if he doesn’t like where they are, he tells them plainly and, sometimes, bluntly. Are they becoming infatuated with Judaic legalism? They have embraced another Gospel! Are they tolerant of immorality in the church? They must mourn and take decisive action to eliminate it. Are they refusing to hold jobs and pull their own weight? They must repent or be disfellowshipped! Are they suppressing the spiritual gifts of half the population of the church? Well, that's not all that bad. Even though it is missing the whole point of our gospel, we can tolerate this while the church, following the world's cues, evolves into a 21st century egalitarian community.
What Witherington
admits is that Paul teaches patriarchy. What he
assumes is that Paul really wasn’t saying what he really thought. This raises the question: If Paul really did believe that God had ordained patriarchy as the norm for household and church leadership, by what language might he have communicated this conviction more clearly than what he actually wrote?
Evangelical egalitarians like to cite Paul’s statement in Galatians 3:28, about men, women, slaves, free, Jews and Gentiles being equal, as if to say that distinctive roles and callings have vanished with reference to every demographic. I wonder, had Paul included children and adults in his listing (as he might reasonably have done, given the point he was making), would this be seized upon as the basis for a movement abolishing parent-child role distinctions in Christian families?
Witherington safely assumes he will meet with no contemporary opposition to the suggestion that Paul really wanted to abolish slavery altogether. Only modern cultural conditioning, it would seem, would make this assertion seem self-evident. Paul never hinted at his desire to abolish slavery, and, if one argues that he had not the power to change such an ingrained cultural institution, it might be answered that he wouldn’t have to. He clearly had the authority to command Christian slave owners to cease and desist in the ownership of slaves, if he had had any moral misgivings about it. This he did not ever seek to do, even though he had the opportunity, while addressing slavery, in at least five places in his letters. Paul’s instructions to Philemon are no exception. Paul did hint that he would have liked Philemon to release Onesimus so that he could continue to work with and serve Paul (strongly hinted in vv.13 and 21). However, Paul did not, in any sense, suggest that slavery should be renounced by Christians, nor that Philemon should release any of his other slaves.
I do not respect anything calling itself “exegesis” which is required to assume that Paul did not believe the things he wrote, and that Paul secretly had agendas that he could not allow himself to mention or hint at.
There is a reason that none of the early church fathers (even those who spoke Koine Greek as their mother tongue) saw in the New Testament what the evangelical feminists think they see. The egalitarian position depends upon agenda-driven eisegesis—even if those engaged in it are not fully aware of it.
Witherington is obviously emotionally driven, though he accuses those with whom he disagrees of being emotional and insecure. His opinion of traditionalists is evident when he drags out that old yarn about "weak men" being "threatened by strong women." How does he know such things about those people (including some strong women, like Elizabeth Elliott) who read the scriptures differently from his own agenda-driven manner? Though his exegesis would never have emerged without an agenda, the traditional hierarchical view arises from the plainest meaning of the written text. Granted, some statements to be exegeted present some challenges, which would no doubt be alleviated by a fuller knowledge of the back-story. However, this problem is not solved by creating one of several imaginable back-stories, and insisting that this particular speculation must drive our exegesis so as to make passages say the opposite of what they appear to say. This device frequently goes under the guise of exegesis, in scholarly circles, but a perceptive critic can easily spot it.
Of course, many of Witheringtons observations are valid—though inapplicable to the question of women as elders. To point out that there were prophetesses, female evangelists, female deacons, female missionaries, or female ministry associates in Paul’s circle, does not negate his discussion of eldership qualifications. Why not stick to the subject? The women mentioned were not elders, nor, as far as we know, did they (or any other first-century women) covet that designation.
Witherington writes:
…though the language of headship and submission is certainly used in these texts the trajectory of the argument is intended to: 1) place more and more strictures on the head of the household to limit his power and the way he relates to his wife, his children and his slaves; 2) make the head of the household aware that women, children and slaves are in fact persons created in God’s image, not chattel or property.
This is quite a leap. Where, in his writings, does Paul reveal this trajectory? Paul does not, in any passage, place restrictions or strictures on the husband’s role. He gives husbands a hefty assignment—to love their wives as Christ loves—but there is no reason to believe that Paul thought that love and the exercise of authority are in conflict with each other. In fact, we could as easily say that Paul, in telling fathers not to exasperate their children, was trying to reduce parental authority in Christian homes.
Using the same data that Witherington uses (i.e., the household codes of the Prison Epistles) one would be as justified in saying the trajectory of Paul's argument was to place strictures on the rebelliousness of wives! The only instructions given to the wives seem to reinforce the husband's authority. Actually, Paul’s instructions to the husbands and the wives does not indicate a specific desire to rein-in or modify any problematic misbehavior currently occurring among couples.
Witherington believes that Paul’s instructions were also an attempt to teach men that women and children are not chattel? How would the actual content of his instructions serve this purpose? In fact, those who think of women and children as chattel are more likely to be encouraged by the (misapplied) wording of these household codes than to be corrected. Aren't these the very verses that are abused by authoritarian husbands to harshly dominate their wives?
Do Christians, who have the Spirit of Christ, actually have to be told that slaves, women and children are human beings and not mere chattel? If such miscreants actually were in the church, why would not Paul address this error somewhat directly, rather than to write in such a way as to seem to reinforce the authority of the husband, the father, and the slave’s owner?
Many scholars will fabricate an alleged "purpose" behind Paul's writing that does not at all fit the evidence, in order to neutralize Paul's hostile testimony against their position. Then they chastise those who disagree with them, as the purveyors of invalid "exegesis"! The need to conduct such hermeneutical gymnastics only makes their position look flimsier.
This becomes especially clear in Philemon when Paul urges Philemon to manumit Onesimus on the basis of the fact that he is “no longer a slave, but rather a brother in Christ”. Paul is working to place the leaven of the Gospel into pre-existing relationships and change them. Similarly with the roles of husbands and wives, in Ephes. 5.21ff.
In telling a slave owner to treat a Christian slave as a brother, I find no evidence of an attempt to abolish slavery. Similarly, Paul tells Christian slaves to loyally serve their Christian masters because they are brothers (1 Timothy 6:2). If Paul were to tell modern Christian employers to treat Christian employees as brothers, would we imagine that Paul is hoping, eventually, to abolish employer/employee relationships altogether? I agree that Paul was “working to place the leaven of the Gospel into pre-existing relationships and change them.” The Gospel changes all relationships, to be sure. But abolishing them is a very different matter.
Paul calls all Christians to mutual submission to each other, one form of which is wives to husbands, and then the exhortation ‘husbands love your wives as Christ did the church, giving himself….’ can be seen for what it is— a form of self-sacrificial submission and service.
The Greek word for “submission” speaks of subordination, as in military rank. A naval officer may be very fond of those of lower rank under him, and might humbly serve them, in proper circumstances. However, he is not required, nor permitted, to rank himself below them in the hierarchy. This would be abdication and dereliction of duty. Since no two people can simultaneously "rank themselves below" each other in a hierarchy, when Paul says, “submitting to one another in the fear of God” (Eph.5:21), he is either abolishing all leadership roles—whether ecclesiastical or domestic—or his statement is introducing the specific cases he has in mind (which follow on immediately): wives to husbands, children to parents, slaves to masters. Since the husband’s headship is likened to that of Christ (Eph.5:23-24), it is clear that the leader’s servant attitude does not abolish his hierarchical role. Though Christ serves the church, He remains her Lord, and she must not consider submission to Him to be optional. It was God who made Christ “Head over all things to the Church,” and Paul seemed to believe it was also God who assigned the husband to be head of his wife.
Submission is no longer gender specific or unilateral as Paul offers third order moral discourse here, working for change (see my commentary on Colossians, Ephesians, and Philemon– Eerdmans).
Haven’t seen them. And if this is what they teach, I am not likely to buy them soon. How is “wives, submit to your husbands” not gender-specific?
Furthermore, we need to keep steadily in mind that what determines or should determine the leadership structures in the church is not gender but rather gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit.
True, so long as by “leadership” we do not mean “eldership.” Any spiritual person (male or female) may lead me—in the sense of giving me spiritual direction—whether recognized as an elder or not. However, Paul’s list of elder-qualifications is not limited to a catalogue of gifts and graces. There are several more-specific qualifications listed.
The family of faith is not identical with the physical family, and gender is no determinant of roles in it.
Unless, of course, we apply exegesis to the relevant passages.
Paul is not one who is interested in baptizing the existing fallen patriarchal order and calling it good.
Really? How is this divined from his writings?
One of the tell tale signs of Paul’s views on such matters can be seen in what he says about baptism— it is not a gender specific sign that we have for the new covenant unlike the one for the old covenant, and Paul adds that in Christ there is no ‘male and female’ just as there is no Jew or Gentile, slave or free. The implications of this are enormous. The change in the covenant sign signals the change in the nature of the covenant when it comes to men and women.
Absolutely correct. All are equal children of God on the same basis. Contrary to Witherington’s claim, however, this is not a telltale sign of Paul’s views on hierarchy. Paul clearly argued that Christians should observe hierarchy with reference to political government, in socio-economic roles, and in marriage. If Christians, in those days, had participated on sports teams, or in the military, Paul probably would have advised the proper recognition of positions and rank in those vocations as well. Why would a difference in official roles in the church be somehow different?
Witherington is citing an argument of those patriarchal dictators when he writes:
Women can’t be Christian ministers because specific passages in the NT prohibit it.
I am in agreement, by and large, with Witherington’s exegesis of 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36. He at least does not pull the typical feminist chicanery of attributing verses 34-35 to a critic, rather than to Paul. Witherington does appeal to a back-story that I have always regarded as somewhat speculative, but also largely justified by hints in the passage and by the absence, to my knowledge, of any alternative scenarios.
His work on 1 Timothy 2, however, is weaker. In order to discover an interpretive context for Paul’s statement about women, he looks to the previous verse, whereas I would look to the verses that follow. It seems to me that the context of seeking appropriate elders is a more significant concern than the way women were wearing their hair. Of course, Witherington takes the exhortation concerning hairstyles as an indicator that a) there were certain high-class women, who b) were thinking themselves to have the right to take charge in the church. This is a possible scenario, to be sure, but far from an obvious one, and not the only back-story that one could bring to the passage (I have heard more than one back-story, alternative to Witherington’s, and equally speculative, even presented by other egalitarians). Even if such scenarios can be credited with plausibility, it does not mean a) that they are true, nor b) that, even if true, they change Paul’s mind about female elders, which can be seen in 1 Timothy 3.
After admitting, again, that Paul clearly teaches patriarchy, Withering explains:
[We must not forget] that Paul is speaking as a missionary into a strongly patriarchal cultural setting whether in Ephesus or on Crete, and his principle is to start where the people already are, not where he would like them to be.
And where might Paul have found a non-patriarchal culture, in his day? According to Witherington, Paul dreamed of a day when the Church would become a non-patriarchal counter-culture—just as, we may be sure, he wanted the church to be a counter-culture that eschewed idolatry and immorality. The problem (for Witherington) is, Paul spoke directly, repeated and strongly against idolatry and immorality, whereas he only spoke positively of patriarchy—seemingly reinforcing it with the example of Christ and the church. Has someone been channeling Paul lately, and discovering exactly what his hidden and unspoken agenda really was? And why did Paul not channel us this information prior to the time when the rebellious, worldly feminist movement began pressuring the church to conform to its agendas? Will Paul next reveal (perhaps, through a medium?) that he really never opposed homosexual sex and that the modern world is again right, in their embracing same-sex marriages? It is no exaggeration to say that the abolition of sexual distinctions that began with feminism is flowering in the gay agenda. How far will we be forced to read new meanings into Paul before we have utterly abandoned him?
This means starting with the existing male leadership structure in the culture until the leaven of the Gospel can fully do its work and change things from the inside out. So quite naturally, it is men that Timothy and Titus are going to appoint first as leaders to these brand new church plants. This does not mean it needs always and forever to be that way, but the new converts would have to be convinced by loving persuasion that it was o.k. for women to fill such roles.
Again, how do we know that Paul wished for this to happen? Through “exegesis”? Of which text?
You can see however how Paul is already beginning to push in that direction because in Rom. 16 he mentions a woman leader named Phoebe who is a deacon in the Corinthian churches, and probably there is a reference to women deacons in the Pastoral Epistles discussions about elders and deacons as well.
These examples provide no evidence of such a “push.” The presence of female deacons (that is what Phoebe was called) provides no information about the qualifications of elders. Elders shepherd the flock. Deacons (and deaconesses) are simply servants. Any Christian is welcome to serve. Again, might we request that we stay on topic when discussing such a controvery?
As I have learned over many years…the problem in the church is not strong and gifted women…Thank God for strong, gifted women in the church. No, the problem in the church is not strong women, but rather weak men who feel threatened by strong women, and have tried various means, even by dubious exegesis to prohibit them from exercising their gifts and graces in the church.
How condescending this seems. He is not a “weak” man, “threatened” by strong women. He has “learned” what conservative Bible scholars would learn if they were not such pansies.
In truth, I think we do have a problem with weak men in the church, but I have never observed them expressing or exhibiting fear of strong women (unless it was a sheepish, weaselly, little man with a domineering behemoth for a wife, such as I have only seen caricatured in movies).
I know myself to be a weak "leader"—both at home and in church—but not necessarily a
weak Christian, nor have I ever been “threatened” by strong women. Women who are
spiritually strong, like spiritually-strong men, are humble, secure, unambitious, servant-minded. How could anyone find such a person “threatening”? If by “strong women” is meant “
strong-willed women,” then I will admit that I do personally find them somewhat obnoxious, along with their male counterparts, but not
threatening in the least. Whenever a male seeks to indict his entire gender with some defect, I have to wonder whether he is telling us more about himself than about anyone else. Let a man refrain from describing me until he knows me. I have not known any of my acquaintances to have described me as seeming “threatened.”
When exegesis fails to make a strong case for his position, a weak man, or one with a weak point, will resort to
ad hominem arguments, attacking the character of his opponents. This causes his essay to end in a thoroughly weak position. First, because the
ad hominem has not been demonstrated to be in any sense
true, and second, because, even if true, the accusation leaves the exegesis unaddressed.
I don't mean to put down Ben Witherington—one of the most esteemed evangelical scholars in the world today. I know that one of my heroes, Matt Rose, sat under him in school, and I myself have heard the man speak in California on a topic which he treated more responsibly that this one. Every man is prone to have his weak points—and hobbyhorses. If he had not begun his piece with assertions of his special scholarly expertise on this specific subject, I would probably have had lower expectations.