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 would like to see this passage somehow reconciled to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 where it says:
As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
Sure, this passage could be written off with a cultural explanation but what about the first? It is much more difficult, seeing as verse 13 goes all the way back to Genesis. It appears to be not so much of a cultural reasoning but a human nature argument. And reading it, I can't help but feel a little insulted. It makes me wonder why a woman should learn in quietness and full submission, never being able to teach or have authority over a man. I guess I should be grateful that we can learn period, right? I mean, c'mon, look at the state of our world as it is. And who is running it? Men. Don't you think they could use some insight and authoritative counsel from women? Just a thought. The rationale is that Adam came first and Eve was the one deceived, therefore becoming a sinner. So apparently women are more gullible and as a result should be subject to the decisions and ruling of men. Great. And isn't the last verse just the icing on the cake - women can look forward to restoration through childbearing! Hooray! I can tell why so many people neglect this book of Scripture. It messes up how we'd like to think about the place and role of women. And if you do have the unfortunate luck of being a woman, it honestly makes you a little pissed at God for being so unfair. But the truth is there has to be something valuable and instructive in this seemingly chauvinistic text. After all, Jesus did show the greatest amount of dignity and care toward women, more than anyone else in the history of the world. So, there must be a way to view this passage in light of the rest of God's story. There was something that Mark Driscoll pointed out that made me ponder a bit. As much as Jesus gave value and worth to women, more than their culture ever would, he still did not choose any to be included in his Twelve disciples. Just as priests were the highest position of leadership in the OT, apostles were the highest in the NT. The question becomes "Why didn't Jesus choose any women to occupy this role? Why all twelve males?" Surely it isn't because Jesus was limited to operate his ministry in the confines of his cultural context (one in which women were more lowly), for he was always going against the current and getting in trouble for it. He could easily have pissed people off again by having women hold such a high place in ministry. So it begs the quesetion, "Why did he construct his leadership team the way he did?" Could it be that there is some truth there that we just don't want to see? One that is connected to gender roles (cover your ears, all you sociologists and femmies!) and the specific intentions that God has for men and women in his Church. I don't know, but it has me wondering.
No comments:
Post a Comment