The following is the fifth post in our Blog Conference on Women and Ministry during which we’ll be hosting posts written by people from a range of viewpoints with the opportunity for you to interact with the material and discuss the implications for the Church and the gospel. You can read more about the conference by clicking here. In the following, Doug Haley discusses some of the tensions between key passages and looks at the concept of reflection of a created order.
I am a bloke. Always have been. I like army pants, camping, fast cars and even guns. I spent time as a soldier and enjoyed the taste of mud. One thing I learned in my time in the army was that men and women are different. There’s no denying that. They’re tough, I’m not disputing that, but they’re also just built smaller. He’s a V8, she’s a flat 4. Different.
I’ve also spent time in the legal profession and been little more than a mind on legs. I’ve drunk too much coffee, read too many words and probably talked too much about things I didn’t understand. One thing I learned in my time in those hallowed halls was that men and women are equal. There’s no denying it, a man’s mind is no more powerful than a women’s. When they meet, you have no idea who’ll win. Equal.
Equal, but sometimes different.
The question that is sharpest in this context is the actual location of the difference, where are men and women different, and in what ways are those differences to affect the roles they have, particularly in the church.
Let me say from the outset that if the debate is held outside the bounds of official positions with titles, or outside functional leadership offices, I see little biblical warrant for enforcing any difference. Men are always complaining that they don’t understand women, what miracle occurs so that they suddenly do when they begin to debate how to reach them with the gospel? The issue comes sharper when we begin to talk, not about ability, but about authority, and then biblical structures and texts come into play.
Firstly I think we need to recognise the complexity surrounding the various texts that are oft quoted in this debate. For every text that one side may raise, there are other texts, which answer it, at least in part. For example:
In 1tim2:12, a woman must be silent in church. At first glance that looks simple. The complexity comes when we see the women in 1Cor11. They’re in church, and they’re prophesying and people are hearing them. Paul stands behind both situations and exhorts silence in one and overlooks noise in the other, is he inconsistent or are we reading one too rigidly.
A second one: in 1tim2:12 Paul doesn’t permit a women to teach a man, yet in Acts 18:23-26 we have a husband and wife team working together to teach a man. She may be tandem teaching, but she’s still teaching. Should Paul be angry?
A third issue of complexity and I’ll make a point: In 1tim3 both elders and deacons must be the ‘husband of one wife,’ which seems fairly absolute. Yet the debate regarding female deacons is not nearly so hotly contested as that regarding eldership, and for various reasons even strongly complimentary churches allow female deacons, which would seem to be in contravention of the ‘husband of one wife’ clause. Now whether that flexibility is allowed because Paul does when he supports Phoebe as a deacon, or because the diaconate qualifications are different from those of the eldership in 1tim, is largely irrelevant to my point. People find room for women to be involved in the case of deacons, why not elders, upon whom the same ‘husband of one wife’ restriction is placed? My point is simply, that what should be acknowledged by all sides in the debate, is that the issues are not as simple as first readings might initially suggest.
What may be certain? It seems to me that two things are clear from Scripture. The first is that men and women were created with equal dignity and value, and whether you drive that from Genesis or from Galatians 3, there is something about men and women, which is profoundly equal. The second thing that seems certain to me is that in some contexts men and women are different. Now whether you drive that from God’s holding Adam responsible for Eve’s sin in Genesis, or from the reference to the created order in 1Tim2 or to the relationship between husbands and wives in Peter3.7 is once again not entirely material, except that we must recognise that there is difference in the midst of the equality.
Am I Egalitarian or Complementarian? If pushed I would have to land just slightly on the Complementarian side I suppose. Several times there seems to be some connection between structures of authority in the church and the creational order, and then further between the structures of authority in the home and the relationship of authority between Christ and the church. To me, the weight is just sufficiently with some sort of order in creation that we must give expression to in our churches and homes that I am going to want to see that mirrored in the way men and women divide authority and responsibility, and consequently I am going to aim for predominantly male sessions in the churches I pastor.
Having said that, there seems to be a sufficient degree of flexibility in Paul and his application of the principles enumerated in creation to allow the most capable to lead without it being an issue of disobedience or being ‘unbiblical’. I will always want men to stand up and lead, but if a Deborah is ever necessary, I won’t be standing in her way.
Doug Haley is the minister at St Andrews Presbyterian Church in Newcastle. Read more about our contributors here.
>> Next post on September 12th – Mystery topic by a mystery guest contributor!
Related posts:
Hi Doug,
I am so glad that you are willing to dialog. So many are not willing to take questions or have their view questioned. My thought is that we should all be willing to have our view prodded and poked because only truth will stand up to that kind of examination. I have been wrong before and having my view challenged has not ultimately hurt me because truth is precious. I value those who also see truth as precious.
You said:
I can agree with you that a husband should not stumble his wife in her faith and he should encourage her and support her in her walk with Jesus. This is very biblical. These are also the things that we can all can do with everyone in the family of God. We can encourage one another and support each other in our walk with Jesus.
But is there something that a husband does that we don’t all do for the rest of the body of Christ?
Would you also agree that a husband should sacrifice in order for his wife to have the privilege to use her gifts for the common good of the body? Can a husband become one who paves the way for her for service? Can a husband make her pathway smooth and less troubled as she works for the Lord?
You said:
Adam is the first Adam who was a failure in sacrificing himself for his wife. Then there was the second Adam and the third and the fourth, etc. All were in one way or another as incomplete in their sacrifice. Even Abraham failed Sarah in that he encouraged her to tell a partial lie and his wife was taken into the king’s harem.
The last Adam is Jesus and he shows us the way that it was meant to be all along.
Is any husband ever going to get it all right? I don’t think so because we are all flawed and still fighting our sin nature, but that doesn’t mean that the husband doesn’t have a high goal and one to look up to. I believe that Jesus is the last Adam for a number of reasons and one is to show the way that God intends husbands to treat their wives. Since Jesus is called the “last Adam” and since he is given as the example of how every husband is to treat his wife, and since Adam was the one who was the first failure as a godly, sacrificial husband, it seems clear to me that Jesus is our example of sacrifice. Adam is the ultimate failure at the beginning, the one who was responsible for the position that we are now in, and all others are in between looking to Jesus as the example of what the first Adam was created to be and should have been.
You said:
Adam’s responsibility to lovingly care for the garden was also Eve’s responsibility. But the term that the Hebrew uses goes further than just a care for the plants. It is a place of protection. What did the garden need a watchman or protector for? Adam was to keep the garden safe from anything that would harm what was in the garden. The evidence for this is how God held Adam responsible for his silence and God’s identification of treachery in Adam. In Hosea 6 the treachery is related to murder and this is exactly how God saw the unfaithful watchman who failed to protect. When the watchman was silent, he was guilty of murder.
How could God judge Adam with treachery without first requiring Adam to protect the garden and all that is in the garden from the enemy?
Yes, of course. Adam had an additional responsibility because he saw the Creator in action. To the one who has been given much, much is required. This applies to Adam and to each one of us. It is a principle that transcends gender. If I know the truth and fail to protect those who do not know the truth when I see them being deceived and lied to, then I will be held responsible for the knowledge that I have been given.
Does this make sense?
The issue is not whether Eve knew the prohibition or not. We know that she did because she quoted God. The issue is what she knew about God’s character and his unique position as Creator outside of all creation. She didn’t see the garden created or the animals created. The deception was about becoming like God.
The bible says that Adam was not deceived. Paul tells us this in 1 Timothy 2:14. Also after being confronted by God, Adam did not claim that he ate the fruit because he had been deceived.
Eve on the other hand had been deceived into thinking that she could be like God and that God was withholding the means for her not because He is the sole Creator and law giver but she was deceived to believe that He withheld the fruit because He didn’t want her to become like Him. Once she was convinced that she too could be like God she no longer saw the prohibition as a sin but as the means to a better future as a fully functioning God herself.
So Eve originally knew the truth about sin but because of her deception the lie was now the truth and the truth had become the lie that she was to reject. Her deception caused her to eat without a breach of her conscience and to share her newfound knowledge by offering the means to godhood to Adam.
Adam was not deceived. He knew that he could not become like God as he had seen the works of God and knew that he was a mere part of God’s creation. He wasn’t deceived to see the fruit as a means to godhood. He knew all along that eating the fruit was disobeying the one and only God and their Creator. He took of the fruit knowing that the promise of the serpent was a lie. He knew that Eve was deceived and instead of correcting her error, he defied the Creator and ate.
On the outside their action appears to be the same, but God judges the heart. God saw that Eve’s motive was not in direct rebellion as she at that point no longer believing it to be a sin. Adam’s knowledge of God as Creator kept him from believing the lie, but he ate anyway in direct rebellion to God. Their intent and heart motives were not the same at all.
I am not saying that Adam’s knowledge about the prohibition was superior to hers. It was not. I am saying that Adam’s knowledge of the Creator was superior. Adam’s experience with God before Eve was created convinced him that God was the unique Creator and the animals and Eve (along with himself) were the works of God’s hands. He knew that he was in the category of creation and only God was the Creator. Adam’s knowledge that he could not be God was superior to Eve’s and this knowledge kept him from believing the lie.
Why would God go to the one who was created last and the one who had less knowledge of Him as Creator to question her first? It only makes sense that the one who had the most knowledge and therefore had the most responsibility was to be questioned first.
You are partly right. If a man has the knowledge of God and his wife doesn’t, he does have the responsibility to be a watchman for her. However Adam’s situation was unique. He was the only man who ever lived to have witnessed God as Creator. Now we are all in the position of possibly having more knowledge than another person including the wife having knowledge that her husband does not. We are now all in a position to be our brother’s “keeper”.
We are all responsible for making use of the knowledge that we have. We cannot bury our knowledge, and be free of responsibility. To him who has been given much, much will be required. This statement is universally true of men and women alike. A wife can be a protector of her husband by sharing her knowledge with him too.
I will also restate that Adam was not deceived. Paul states it very clearly in 1 Timothy 2:14 and Adam never used deception as an excuse of why he ate. If he had been deceived why would he not have given this as a reason? The fact that Paul by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit states that Adam was not deceived and the fact that Adam never claimed to be deceived and God didn’t claim it for Adam either, proves that Adam was in a state of awareness that Eve was not at the time of eating. Eve was the only one deceived in the garden.
The husband is not the Savior of the wife. If his position was different than the wife’s then the scripture would have to tell us this and establish it as truth. Nowhere does the scripture indicate that the man has any kind of redeeming ability towards another human being.
The sacrificial nature of a man’s laying down his life for his wife cannot touch her sin or her standing with God. Therefore the analogy to Jesus as Savior of the body can only go as far as the act of sacrifice, not the result (salvation) which belongs to God alone.
The man bears responsibility only in giving out the truth that he knows. There is nothing in the Scriptures that say that the “head” of the wife will be punished for her sin. In fact it is just the opposite in that God punishes each in accordance to their own sin.
If the husband bears the responsibility for the sin of the wife, where does the Scripture say this? And how can you explain any apparent contradiction since the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself and no one will bear the punishment of another? Only God Himself in the person of Christ bore the punishment of us all.
Doug,
I forgot to comment on this one thing. You said:
That is so kind of you. Thank you! I also look forward to us spending eternity together. Each one of us is needed and each one of us has something to give to the other. Each brother and sister in Christ is precious and I am so glad that God has set it up so that we can love and appreciate one another!
I have to say here regarding the two quotes below that how you’ve explained that biblicaly Adam was not deceived and the service the husband is to provvide for his wife and what he is not to assume position of for his wife is very clear! Can it get any clearer? Not for me!
Thanks!
Hi Doug,
This does not explain to me from where your sitting, exactly in what way a man is responsible for his wife.
I’m focusing in on this part of your quote:
They WOULD still have, but YET they did not?? The husband would still have shared WHAT kind of responsibilty as the head of the relationship therefore been punished accordingly? All I hear you saying is that the husband is to bear responsibility but I cannot hear what that responsibility IS. I guess I’m saying this because you’ve not shown at all how Adam or Ananias shared ANY responsibility for their wives as their “head.” It is not clear to me what you are saying or claiming.
Hi again Doug,
Now here’s what gets me as in I DO NOT at all understand this:
How can you have a reading of a passage that you cannot even prove? I understand you say that you hold the issue loosley, but how loose truly since it’s your “reading” of the passage? Maybe there’s a better way to say what your saying?
Do you or don’t you READ in the bible that a husband as “head” is punished or held responsible for his wifes sin? Where can such a thing be read at all in the bible?
Hope I made sense here! ;P