by Aaron Meeks, MAR student

Hi–my name is Aaron and I don’t always fit in well within church culture.  You might think this odd coming from someone who has been in the pastoral ministry for over 12 years, but it is true.  You see, I am either too conservative or too liberal depending on who you talk to.  I guess you can label me how you want once you’ve read this blog (or not).

I grew up under the influence of some very conservative Baptist teaching, some results being good and others bad.  The first result of this was that I developed a very high appreciation for the truthfulness, validity and applicability of all Scripture.  I still carry a conservative theology largely based on the formative influence of the spiritual teachers of my youth.  In this way I am proud to be “conservative.”

However, even within this conservative framework, I found myself questioning some long-standing teachings held dear by some of my conservative brethren.  Issues such as alcohol consumption, rock and roll, women in ministry, and others were all handled in the same way.  Rather than engaging in a discussion over the scriptural passages addressing these issues, it was just simpler to latch on to a few isolated scriptures (in or out of context) and leap to the simple black and white answer of “NO”.  Never drink alcohol under any circumstance.  Rock and roll is always evil.  Women should never speak from the platform, let alone be involved in pastoral ministry.

Even as a young man, this reduction of complex issues to a simple “NO” bothered me.  Could it be that simple?  The fact that I even raised these questions got me labeled as a “liberal” within the conservative circles that I grew up in.  Is it possible that it is ok to drink alcohol in moderation?  Can rock and roll be used to glorify God?  Do women have something worth while to add to the faith conversation?  The answer to all of these is of course “YES”.  And yet, I have been labeled liberal by some because I have come to this conclusion.  In this way I am proud to be labeled “liberal.”

It is with this baggage that I entered the Urbana Seminary class on “Women in Ministry” last summer.  It was a bit nerve racking after I realized that I would be the only man in a class on women in ministry.  I knew that I probably represented a more conservative view than most on this topic, but I was more nervous that I would once again be met with a dogmatic “YES” or “NO” answer that would shut down the dialogue.  You see, I was looking for the conversation.  We had many conversations in this class.

The very cool thing was that as this class progressed, we grew in our ability to learn from those who disagreed with us.  We recognized the presence of God within each other and allowed Him to speak through us to teach each other so that we could continue to grow as a result of the conversation.  It wasn’t about who was “conservative” or “liberal”.  It became about followers of Jesus exploring the scripture and personal experience together in community.  We all grew and we all changed.

In the end, none of us completely changed our stand, but all of us left the class with a greater understanding of the others’ view.  We all influenced each other in a way that drew us closer to God and to each other.  I learned a great deal from these women of God.  I have no doubt that He has great plans to use these women in His church.

If you are wondering where I ended up concerning the topic of women in ministry,  you are in good company.  I am still wondering that myself.  I don’t believe that my personal exploration of this topic has ended.  This I know for sure, women should have the opportunity to exercise their spiritual gifting within the local church.  God has gifted women just as he has gifted men to accomplish His purposes.  Women should be allowed to teach, preach and lead within the context of the local church.  Some would label me as liberal for this view.  I still have questions about whether the role of elder should be reserved for men.  The fact that I entertain this question will have me labeled as conservative by others.  I don’t personally put much stock in labels and you can feel free to disagree with my current tendencies.  I just believe that it is important to keep having the conversation and to continue exploring Scriptural issues beyond what our opinion is at any given moment.  Let’s talk it out…

When you encounter a difficult question in life, how do you handle it? Do you quickly attack it, holding it down until you’re sure you’ve figured it out? Do you close your eyes and avoid it? Maybe you’re like me and you ask everyone you know what he or she thinks you should do/think/say/feel/wear?

These approaches may work for a dilemma at the office or deciding which movie to rent, but they are insufficient for important questions. They are insufficient for our questions about challenging Bible passages. My questions on these passages only get clearer over time as I study the text, ask for God’s illumination, research commentaries, and openly discuss my questions with other Christians.

I took this approach last summer to study 1 Timothy 2, a passage I’ve found perplexing for some time. I offer you my thoughts thus far, hoping they encourage you to think about God, his church, and the application of his Word.

I am assuming the following about 1 Timothy:

• 1 Timothy 2 was written by Paul to Timothy
• It should agree with the rest of Paul’s writings
• It was Pauls’s advice on organizing and guiding the Ephesian church in opposition and false teaching
• Paul and Timothy know each other well
• Paul is frank, straightforward, and clear with Timothy

That being said, most of us are comfortable interpreting the first ten verses of the chapter. We should pray for everyone. There is only one God. Men should worship without anger or dispute. Women should dress modestly and be rewarded more for their character and behavior than for their appearance.

And then come verses 11-15, along with difficult questions.

Let’s take verses 11-12 first. Verse 11 is not as confusing as it first appears. “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.” This fits nicely with the preceding verses concerning behavior at worship services. It is good for a woman (or a man!) to learn humbly and in a way that does not disturb others who are also trying to learn. Paul actually goes against many Jewish and cultural norms here in asserting that women should learn!

Verse 12 is trickier. The word usage and sentence structure are confusing. There are two verbs in the sentence: didaskein and authentein.   Didaskein is accepted as a typical Pauline word choice for “to teach” or “to instruct within the church”.  It has a positive connotation.  Authentein, on the other hand, is used only once in the New Testament.  Its range of meaning varies from “to murder” to “to exercise appropriate authority”.  The earliest uses carry the former, negative connotation. Over time the meaning shifts toward the latter, positive connotation (Blomberg 168).

This complicates the grammatical structure of the verse.  In English, it is translated “neither…nor”. In Greek it indicates one “coherent idea” (Belleveille 82).  The key question becomes how do didaskein and authentein fit together?  According to a widely cited study by Kostenberger, the two words should support the same connotation.  Does it mean “I do not allow a woman to teach false doctrine or inappropriately take authority over men”?  The problem is didaskein only means “to teach false doctrine” when specifically stated (Blomberg 168).  Does the verse mean “I do not allow a woman to teach ever or have appropriate authority over a man”?  This contradicts Paul’s other letters where he assumes women to be participating in the worship services (1 Corinthians 11:5, NRSV), and even teaching men (Acts 18:26, NRSV).

I found no wholly satisfying translation for this sentence. It has raised more questions than answers:

• Why does Paul restrict women from teaching here, but not elsewhere?
• If Paul really never allows a woman to teach or have authority, why did he have to tell Timothy? Wouldn’t Timothy already know?
• Why would God and/or Paul care whether good teaching was coming from a man or a woman if it furthered the gospel?
• What is actually going on in these worship services?

I often hear the phrase “Paul is quite clear that women should not teach men in church”. If this is the passage referenced, I disagree.  It does not clearly say that women should not teach or that women should teach. It says something clearly to Timothy that is not yet clear to me. Yet I believe God is good and wise. I believe he wants us to understand and apply his Word. Perhaps we all need to be a little more patient, honest, and open to discern just what exactly that is. At least in this passage.

by Kelly Oyer, Visiting Student

Spiderman has been wary about entering into a romantic relationship.  If Peter Parker declares his love for Mary Jane, will she be in danger from Spiderman’s enemies?  Would being in a relationship distract him from protecting New York City from bad guys?  Some scholars propose similarly for why Jesus didn’t marry.  He knew the life he was to lead receiving ridicule from those around him and the death he was to have, so it was best not to put his bride in harm’s way.  He knew he was sent to earth to usher in the kingdom of God, so it was best to be focused on his mission.  I wonder, though, if there was something deeper and more profound to Jesus’ decision not to marry besides the romantic martyrdom of a superhero.  Could Jesus’ decision not to marry have more to do with the application of the kingdom rather than with protection of the kingdom?

In a culture where a woman’s worth was in the home – married and producing children, Jesus was radical to honor women for engagement outside the home.  Jesus received financial support from women (Luke 8:2-3), affirmed the learning posture of Mary even though she was in a typically male disciple position of sitting at the rabbi’s feet (Luke 10:42), and appointed Mary Magdalene to be the first witness of his resurrection (John 20:18).  I wonder if Jesus did not marry in order to show that a woman’s worth was not dependent on having a husband, that quite possibly there was more to a woman than providing pleasure and producing heirs for a man.

In Luke 11:27-28, as Jesus was teaching, a woman exclaimed, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.”  To which Jesus replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”  Instead of affirming the culture’s role of women, Jesus changed the recipient of the blessing – to all who hear and obey the word of God.  Women and men would be blessed through the same standard: being involved in the mission of the kingdom.  Single, widowed, childless: these role-less women in culture would not be left out of a role in His kingdom.  If Jesus had married, he would have followed cultural tradition, possibly displaying that a woman only had worth through a man – a twisting of God’s value for mutual submission in marriage.  Jesus had to be single for the full effect of the kingdom’s values to be experienced by women and men.  In defying tradition, Jesus showed a new way of interacting with women – as partners in the kingdom.  Men and women could work alongside each other in mutual partnership.  This is a new paradigm for community and family that honors the unique contributions of men and women to the kingdom.

By not marrying, Jesus actually flipped the superhero image on its head.  He declared his love for his bride and invited her into the dangerous mission of the kingdom with him.

by Jenny Klouse, Visiting Student

By Dr. Kenneth Cuffey, President and Professor of Biblical Studies

The blogs this month will be dedicated to the issue of women in the Biblical world and today.  What does the Bible teach about women’s identity and roles, and what would this imply for the debates that have gone on in the church?

For the first blog let’s post an overview of the terrain.  The issues are varied, and derived on all sides from differing readings of the texts of Scripture.  Topics for discussion are too vast in scope to hope in a month of weekly blogs to be able to cover the whole waterfront.  Topics might include issues such as the identity and nature of each gender according to God’s creation of humans as male and female; roles of male and female in marriage; the possibilities for women in ministry; the ordination of women.  And more!

It is well known that participants in this discussion have tended to cluster into two groups: complementarians (women and men are of equal worth before God, but are assigned different roles within the church, including a call to submit to a husband’s headship) and egalitarians (women and men are of equal worth before God, which implies that there must be an equality in all relationships, as well as equal opportunity and rights all across the board).[1]

The blogs in the next few weeks will focus on specific Scriptural texts that are pertinent to the topic and resolving the questions.  To start I would like to simply lay out several interpretive keys for understanding the discussion.  In the discussion on women in the church, there are at least three key issues that reach to the core of how we interpret Scripture (or our hermeneutic).  It seems that in reading the literature, there are three decisions that interpreters make which will effect how they draw conclusions.

1.  Which is of paramount importance: the actual words of the text or the historical/cultural/societal background to the text?

Which is primary in understanding the text?  Often complementarians will choose to go with the words of the actual text to the detriment of understanding the real life background.  And egalitarians will tend to prefer the background in ancient life as a key to reading the words with understanding, sometimes to the detriment of what the words seem to say.  Of course it is not that simple, since we need to take account of both: the words in their context within a passage and in their cultural and historical context.

2.  Which era will be determinative of our conclusions about the text: then or now?

The issue is that the two eras, the 21^st century and the 1^st century in the Greco-Roman world, are vastly different in their concerns and values.

3.  To whom does the truth of this text apply?

Is the teaching of this text “culturally bound,” something that is just for them?  Or is it universal and trans-cultural, and would thus apply to us as well?

The resolution of these three questions is at the heart of much of the debate concerning women in ministry, the church, and marriage.

[1]Possibly the most helpful discussion of the distinctions is to be found in Sarah Sumner, Men and Women in the Church (InterVarsity, 2003), chapters 21-23, pp 265-296.