N.T. Wright on Women in Ministry

How to take a stand on difficult issues (part 4)

Have I clearly identified and defined the issue?

Before taking a stand on any difficult issue, it is essential that we take some time to clearly understand and define the issue. It might be good to answer these questions:

a.       Is this issue an essential? In the Restoration Movement, we have always operated under the slogan: “In essentials unity, in opinions liberty, and in all things love.” This slogan isn’t of course unique to the Restoration Movement. There is wisdom in this principle. There are such things as essentials and opinions in theology, and it is important to know the difference between the two. We don’t have the same disposition towards essentials and opinions. There is a flexibility and freedom in opinions that doesn’t necessarily exist in the essentials of the faith. This principle also highlights the superiority of love in all things. But like all principles, this one has within it a major flaw. What exactly counts as an essential or an opinion? And who gets to decide? Some groups see adult immersion as an essential. Some groups see glossolalia as essential. Some groups see dispensational eschatology as an essential. Others see specific church governance structures as essential. The only point that I wish to make here is that when we are taking a stand on any issue we should pause to ask ourselves, “How essential is this issue to me?” and “How essential is this issue to others?” Maybe I could phrase it another way: How willing are you to damn another over this issue? And if an issue is an essential to you, can you justify that position? There are certainly issues that are this important, but I would humbly suggest that these issues are relatively few. Most issues that we will have to take a stand on fall into the category of opinion. Don’t get me wrong though. Just because it is an opinion does not mean that we shouldn’t have an opinion – even a strong, passionate one. But it does mean that we should have more charity with opposing views.

b.      Does this issue involve a principle or a practice? Some passages teach principles. They are broad in their scope and application. Some passages, on the other hand teach specific practices in specific contexts. Maybe the best example of this involves the role of women in the Church. Galatians 3 teaches a broad principle. When Paul says that within the Church there is neither male nor female he is saying nothing about day-to-day ministry within particular congregations. This is one phrase among several in this text which is stating a broad principle of unity and equality within the family of faith. In 1 Corinthians 14 however he restricts the role of women within that particular congregation. This text is focused on practice and application. It is narrower in its intent than Galatians 3. Many debates are the consequence of one side arguing a principle (“Women and men are equal.”) and the other side arguing a practice (“Women and men, while equal, do different things within the church.”).

c.       Is this a good/better issue? May Christians watch R rated movies? May Christians drink alcohol or smoke cigars? May Christians go to casinos? These types of ethical questions cause no end of debates between Christians. Some would argue on the side of freedom. Some others would argue on the side of righteousness. One side would accuse the other of legalism. The other side would respond with accusations of cheap grace and self-indulgence.  I would argue that usually these debates are framed up in the wrong way. We talk about these things as good or bad, right or wrong. It may be more constructive to talk about them as wise or foolish. This seems to be the approach that Paul uses with the Corinthian church. Certain things may be permissible, but are they beneficial?

d.      Is this issue implicit or explicit? There is not a verse in the Bible that explicitly forbids abortion. There is not a verse in the Bible that explicitly forbids the institution of slavery. In fact, some passages seem to support the institution. There are some issues that are only implicit in scripture. Implicit issues require that we understand how the Bible creates a sort of “hermeneutical trajectory” for many issues. For instance, the Bible doesn’t forbid abortion. But the Bible does establish that all people have been created in God’s image and are precious to Him. The Bible does establish principles of justice especially for the vulnerable and the weak. The Bible also forbids murder. Based on these clear teachings of scripture, we can discern a trajectory that when read in our day would forbid the practice of abortion.

e.      How are key terms being defined? I have a good friend who begins virtually every theological discussion with the question “What do you mean by that?” We occasionally give him a hard time about it, but it is actually a very good question to ask. There are so many times where two people will be discussing an issue being totally oblivious to the fact that they are defining the terms completely differently. For instance, when I say “pacifism” what comes to your mind? How would you define it? Chances are good that your definition may be completely different than the definition of someone else. Definitions matter. If we are going to take a stand on difficult issues, we have to take care to understand the way that we are using key terms. Pause to ask the question, “What do you mean by that?” You may also want to pause and ask yourself the question, “What do I mean by that?”


Part 3
Part 2
Part 1
 

How to take a stand on difficult issues (part 2)

A couple of weeks ago I began this series of posts about how to take a stand on difficult issues related to scripture and interpretation. You can see my first post here. This is my second guiding principle.

Have I done my exegetical homework?

The belief in the perspicuity of scripture has long been treasured in Protestantism. You could make a case that this doctrine is one of the key convictions that eventually gave birth to the Protestant Reformation. It is the belief in the fundamental clarity of scripture. The Bible is able to be clearly understood by all people (although Luther and especially Calvin would hasten to add that the Holy Spirit must be involved in the process of reading in order to overcome the reader’s sinful nature). The belief in perspicuity moved the locus of authority in interpretation away from sacred tradition and the Church to the individual interpreter. Now Protestants, and especially evangelical Protestants, simply assume that the individual reading scripture on her own is perfectly capable and even expected to understand, meditate upon, and apply that scripture to her life usually within the parameters of a “daily quiet time.”

This isn’t the place to debate the nuances of perspicuity. I accept a certain level of perspicuity as being in line with the original intent of scripture. I believe that scripture is not just for the elites but is for all people in all times and places. However, even champions of the doctrine like Luther clearly believed that not every individual reading of the text was equally correct. There was an essential role for an informed teaching ministry within the community of believers to correct and to train in the proper meaning of scripture.

The reason that I am mentioning this point now is because I have noticed that when it comes to dealing with difficult issues in the text the doctrine of perspicuity is sometimes abused. For instance, take the issue of women’s roles in ministry. This is clearly a difficult issue that the church has been struggling with for years. Exegetically there are a small number of texts in the New Testament that seem to prohibit certain roles for women within the assembly of believers (specifically 1 Cor. 14 and 1 Timothy 2). If we are to ever arrive at a principled position on the role of women in ministry today, these texts have to be studied and “figured out.” There are all sorts of exegetical questions that we have to answer:

1. There are historical-cultural questions to be answered. Was there anything in the specific cultures of ancient Corinth and Ephesus that necessitated Paul’s restrictions on women in those churches? Further, was Paul articulating a general principle to be applied in every one of his churches (and therefore should also be applied in the same way in all of our churches) or was this simply a specific contextualization of a general principle (even the two major texts in question don’t agree on every detail)?
2. There are important contextual questions to be answered. How do these restrictions fit within the context of the letters of 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy? What was going on in these churches that would cause Paul to talk in this way? How do these restrictions fit within the broader context of the New Testament? For instance, what are we to make of Paul “tolerating” the teaching ministry of Priscilla and other prophetesses in Acts? What was Jesus’ own understanding of women disciples? How do these texts relate to the general principle of equality outlined by Paul in Galatians 3?
3. There are important grammatical and semantic questions to be answered. What did Paul mean by “authority” or “head” or even “submissiveness?”
4. There are important questions of application as well. Why apply 1 Cor. 14 literally in all churches today but not 1 Cor. 11 which talks about head covering for women? Why permit women to lead worship through song or prayer if they are “not permitted to speak?” At what point are women allowed to teach in the church? Where did we get the idea that it was ok for them to teach boys until the sixth grade but not after that point (as some churches practice)? Is it ok for women to “teach” but not “preach” (even though the word for “preach” is nowhere used by Paul but “teach” is in 1 Tim. 2)? We have to own up to the fact that our application of these texts is laughably inconsistent.  

I bring up these questions not because I’m arguing for a certain position on the issue. I bring them up to illustrate a point. Difficult issues are difficult for a reason. There are a lot of exegetical knots to untie. But when these difficulties are brought up some will respond with arguments about the perspicuity of scripture. “I don’t need a class on studying the Bible to teach me how to read what scripture has clearly said.” In other words, the perspicuity of scripture means that I don’t really have to study it or listen to the perspective of someone who has been trained in how to properly study it. It’s a pre-critical literalism (which somewhat ironically is tied more to the interpreter’s tradition than his actual reading of the text). “The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it.” But that doesn’t really settle it. There is something missing in that cliché. It should rightly be “The Bible says it. I understand it. I believe it. That settles it…for now.” You aren’t reading scripture well if you aren’t taking the time to actually struggle with it, study it, and understand it. And you aren’t reading scripture well if, after reading the text once or twice, you assume that you have it mastered well enough that you never have to really study it again. Faithful Bible reading requires diligent study.

If we are to take a stand on a difficult issue like women’s roles in ministry (or dozens of other similar issues), we must commit ourselves to understanding the word by doing the difficult work of exegesis.