Last week the focus of my weekly thought was the United Methodist Church’s struggle with homosexuality during its recent General Conference, something I noted had originated in the denomination’s relationship to the authority of Scripture. When it comes to churches abandoning the inerrancy of Scripture, as well as the authority that comes with it, we must recognize that such a position does not just spring up wholesale. Rather, it is usually begins with something that is seemingly small, at least from the perspective of the world and those who are more concerned with pleasing it than the ultimate Author of those Scriptures. In fact, one of the clearest indicators of whether a church or denomination is on this downward slope regarding the authority of Scripture is its position on women serving in positions of spiritual authority over the church as a whole. Consider the trajectories of once-solid denominations: the Presbyterian Church USA, the Lutheran Church, the Anglican Church, the United Church of Christ (Congregationalists), and the list goes on and on.
One of the central Scriptural bases for the restriction of spiritual leadership in the church (e.g., the position of pastor or elder, teaching positions over men or mixed adults, etc.) is 1 Tim. 2:12, where Paul writes, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.” Usually, the argument against accepting the authority of Paul’s inspired words here fall into one of two categories. First, there is the argument that the word translated “exercise” by the ESV really means “usurp” or “assume,” and therefore while a women cannot take on the authority herself she may be given it by the church (or by a male to whom she is to be submissive, such as her husband; this is often the reason given by some females who are in such spiritual teaching roles). However, this line of argument seems to fall short when one considers the seeming logical inconsistency here: Paul’s singling out of women as usurpers implies that men cannot be guilty of this sin – something we certainly know to be false. Second, there is the argument that Paul’s prohibition here was limited to either time (that is, a cultural restriction because of the lack of learning among women) or geography (that is, a problem in Ephesus, where Timothy was serving, that needed to be corrected by Paul). Yet again, this line of argument fails to satisfy. Paul’s prohibition was an absolute, not tied to the conditions or culture in Ephesus but instead rooted in the creation order (cf. 1 Tim. 2:13-14). None of this denies the giftings and importance women play in the life of the church. Scripture speaks of the older women teaching younger women (Titus 2:3-4), as well as women serving in the church (Romans 16:1-2, where the word translated “servant” could also be translated “deaconess”). Instead, Paul’s command in his first epistle to Timothy highlights the different roles created and ordained by God for men and women, each with critical importance for the overall health and well-being of the local church.
To begin to deny the authority of Scripture where it is very clear (and the position of Scripture on women serving in such positions fits this description) undermines any attempt to remain faithful to it in other areas where a similar argument can be made (homosexuality is a perfect example of using the same arguments used to allow women in spiritual leadership). Of course, there are some things that are culture-bound (e.g., the requirement for women to wear head coverings – 1 Cor. 11:4-6), but these tend to be very obvious. Let us resolve to hold fast to the authority of Scripture in every aspect of our lives, regardless of the world’s wisdom on the matter, and avoid descending the slippery slope of biblical skepticism. Just something to think about…
0 Comments