Sunday, February 23, 2014

Open Letter to Wall Street

In 2012, after having crashed the economy, while the rest of the world was still trying to recover, Wall Street sang songs about the bailouts they received. "Bailout kings" was the catchy phrase that replaced ABBA's more famous "dancing queen." Life was good.

(Read the whole article at, http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/02/20/279737277/what-it-was-like-to-be-a-wall-street-recruit-after-the-bailouts)

But do you remember the old adage about the one who laughs last, laughs best? It may seem such an easy task to rob defenseless widows and orphans; the poor have few friends and even fewer resources. But hear what God has to say about the ones who rob the poor:

If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor,
he too will cry out and not be answered (Prov 21:13, NIV)

Jesus told a parable about a rich man and a poor man, and the lesson we were meant to learn was not one of faith, but of mercy. 

The rich man, who lived in opulent luxury, ignored Lazarus who lived by his gate and whose poverty was so severe that he hoped to get some of the crumbs that fell from the rich man's table. When the time came for both to depart from this life, Lazarus found himself face-to-face with Abraham, while the rich man found himself in great torment. Not understanding why, the rich man asked for Abraham to have pity on him, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool his tongue. Abraham replied it was impossible for there was a great chasm between them that prevented them from crossing over (Luke 16:19-26).


It may seem strange that the rich man ended up in torment, for isn't wealth a blessing? James explains why:

Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment! What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that-and shudder. You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone (Jas 2:12-24, NIV).

Some of the Jewish people thought that they would automatically find themselves with Abraham after their death, for they were part of the covenant people of Israel. Jesus corrected their misconception in his parable of the rich man and Lazarus: the rich man had everything the Jewish people thought they ought to pursue, but he didn't share his wealth with the poor.

Jesus wasn't impressed.


In another place we find Jesus asking what good it does to us if we gain all the wealth in this world but become unjust in the process, and lose that which is the most important thing, ourselves (Matt 16:26). Why have wealth if we can't enjoy it? 

And he told them this parable: "The ground of a certain rich man produced a good crop. He thought to himself, 'What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.' "Then he said, 'This is what I'll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I'll say to myself, "You have plenty of good things laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry." ' "But God said to him, 'You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?' "This is how it will be with anyone who stores up things for himself but is not rich toward God" (Luke 12:16-21, NIV).

So, Wall Street, you have a choice: you can enjoy your ill gotten gain and live a life of luxury, or you can give up your evil ways and receive mercy from God when it is time to leave this world.

One thing is certain, you won't take your wealth with you, nor will you escape death. So why live as if those were the options?



Tuesday, November 26, 2013

Why the Catholic Church Does Not Ordain Women and Why They Really Should

The Catholic Church does not ordain women, and there are many reasons for it. Let's look at some of the arguments in favor of the exclusion of women from the priesthood. 

The Catholic News Service writes:

“The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that only men can receive holy orders because Jesus chose men as his apostles and the "apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry." Blessed John Paul II wrote in 1994 that this teaching is definitive and not open to debate among Catholics.”[i]

But the men Jesus chose were not only men, they were Jewish men; when was the “Jewish” dropped from the equation and Gentiles included in the priesthood?

For example, why did Jesus choose Paul (a Jewish man) to become an apostle to the Gentiles and have him appoint overseers in their churches if Gentiles were not eligible for the priesthood?

In Acts 9 Saul meets Jesus on the road to Damascus, and becomes Paul; in Acts 10 Peter is sent to a Gentile called Cornelius.

"Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right. You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, telling the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all. You know what has happened throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached- how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him. "We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen.   He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen-by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name." While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message" (Acts 10:34-44 NIV).

God does not show favoritism.

The Jewish apostles sometimes struggled with the idea of including the Gentiles in the church.
"When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?" (Gal 2:14, NIV).
The inclusion of Gentiles was done by a special revelation, after the formation of the church, after Jesus had sent the first apostles. What was the rationale behind the decision to include the Gentiles? The one concept that Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, never ceased from declaring: Jesus had ended the enmity between Jews and Gentiles caused by the law and made the two one body through his death.
"For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit" (Eph 2:14-18, NIV).
  
If Gentiles were included in the priesthood because of the death of Jesus, and not because Jesus had sent them, why isn’t this true also of women?

A common misconception is that only the first twelve disciples were considered apostles. Barnabas, for example, wasn’t one of the Twelve Apostles, but he was nevertheless called an apostle.

“Although Barnabas was not among the original Twelve, he is traditionally thought to have been among the 72 commissioned by Jesus to preach; thus, he is given the honorary title of Apostle.”[ii]
  
All of the 72 sent by Jesus were Jewish, but were they all men?
“After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go” (Luke 10:1-2, NIV).

We know of one woman apostle who had “been in Christ” before Paul, which would place her before Acts 9 and 10, before the conversion of Paul and the inclusion of the Gentiles. Junia is mentioned together with Andronicus (Rom 13:7), wherefore they could have traveled together as apostles.

Since women were apostles before the inclusion of Gentiles, why are women excluded from the priesthood if the priesthood was given to the apostles and those they appointed after them?

In addition, if Barnabas is recognized as an apostle by tradition, why do we not accept the apostleship of Junia by tradition?

“Salute Andronicus and Junia my kinsmen.” …Then another praise besides. “Who are of note among the Apostles.” And indeed to be apostles at all is a great thing. But to be even amongst these of note, just consider what a great encomium this is! But they were of note owing to their works, to their achievements. Oh! how great is the devotion (φιλοσοφια) of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle!  But even here he does not stop, but adds another encomium besides, and says, “Who were also in Christ before me.”[iii]

And if those who were sent by Jesus were eligible for the priesthood, certainly the Samaritan woman and Mary Magdalene should be included in those sent by Jesus to preach the Gospel (John 4, 20:18).

At this point, Dominican Fr. Wojciech Giertych, the theologian of the papal household, claims we can’t know why chose only men as his apostles.
“According to Giertych, theologians cannot say why Jesus chose only men as his Apostles any more than they can explain the purposes of the incarnation or the Eucharist.” 

But then Giertych somewhat surprisingly states that only men are eligible for the priesthood because Jesus was a man.
"The son of God became flesh, but became flesh not as sexless humanity but as a male," [Fr. Wojciech] Giertych said; and since a priest is supposed to serve as an image of Christ, his maleness is essential to that role.”[iv]
Image of Christ.

Aren’t we all in Christ and reflect therefore the image of God, Christ being God?

“Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all” (Col 3:9-11, NIV).
After the “we cannot know” and the “Jesus was a man” arguments, we finally arrive to the core of the question:
“Men are more likely to think of God in terms of philosophical definitions and logical syllogisms, he said, a quality valuable for fulfilling a priest's duty to transmit church teaching.”

But should not women who think of God in terms of philosophical definitions be included in the priesthood?
No, because male priests love the church in a “male way” and show concern "about structures, about the buildings of the church, about the roof of the church which is leaking, about the bishops' conference, about the concordat between the church and the state."”

In other words, we really don't want to know why God chose men for the priesthood, because there is no why.

In the end, Giertych, makes an astonishing comment:

 "The mission of the woman in the church is to convince the male that power is not most important in the church, not even sacramental power," he said. "What is most important is the encounter with the living God through faith and charity." "So women don't need the priesthood," he said, "because their mission is so beautiful in the church anyway."


That's nice.

Let’s take one more look at the arguments presented above. Men should be priests because Jesus chose men to be his apostles, because Jesus was a man, because men think philosophically, because men are concerned about buildings. But what about the Bible? Why does Giertych not take his own advice?

"In theology, we base ourselves not on human expectations, but we base ourselves on the revealed word of God," the theologian told Catholic News Service. "We are not free to invent the priesthood according to our own customs, according to our own expectations."



***

The Catholic website, Catholic.com finds the prohibition for women to become priests in the Bible.

 “While women could publicly pray and prophesy in church (1 Cor. 11:1–16), they could not teach or have authority over a man (1 Tim. 2:11–14), since these were two essential functions of the clergy. Nor could women publicly question or challenge the teaching of the clergy” (1 Cor. 14:34–38). [v]
But this begs the question, if men are eligible for the priesthood because Adam was created first, why were Gentile men excluded from the priesthood in the Mosaic Law, and why was Jesus a priest according to the order of Melchizedek?

All
humans descend from Adam, in him we all die (1 Cor 15:22). How can the first man be the foundation of priesthood considering he is the beginning of humanity itself? All that is true of humans in general is found in Adam: he was created in the image of God, created to care for the earth and its inhabitants, created to be walk with God and to be with other humans. If we say the man’s prior creation is the foundation for the man’s authority, we are essentially saying that being an incomplete human is required for authority; the man was a lonely creature before the woman was created. Perhaps this explains why the Catholic Church insists on celibacy for priests.
 

But this begs the question: why did priests in the Old Testament marry if spiritual authority requires celibacy? And why did God choose first Melchizedek and Aaron to be his priests, if being a man is the only requirement for the priesthood? And why is there a long line of qualifications for priests in 1 Tim 3, if being a man is the most important qualification for the priesthood?

Because the Catholic Church relies on both the Bible and tradition, the same website cites various church fathers to support the idea that women should not be ordained. Most of the examples describe heretical women, but their examples do not prove that Catholic women espoused heresy, nor that the Catholic Church didn’t ordain women. The examples are equally troublesome. For example, when we look at the writings of Tertullian, we find him attempting remove women from the priesthood, for he talks about ordained women.

"How many men, therefore, and how many women, in Ecclesiastical Orders, owe their position to continence, who have preferred to be wedded to God; who have restored the honour of their flesh, and who have already dedicated themselves as sons of that (future) age, by slaying in themselves the concupiscence of lust, and that whole (propensity) which could not be admitted within Paradise! Whence it is presumable that such as shall wish to be received within Paradise, ought at last to begin to cease from that thing from which Paradise is intact."[vi]

The original Latin text supports the above reading:


"Quanti (how many men) igitur (therefore) et quantae (how many women) in ecclesiasticis ordinibus (in ecclesiastical order) de (concerning) continentia (continence) censentur (judge/recommend), qui (who) deo (to God) nubere (married) maluerunt (prefer), qui (who) carnis (flesh) suae (theirs) honorem (honor) restituere (restore). (revive)."[vii]

The same is true of Chrysostom, who approved of Junia as an apostle. By the fourth century the leadership model of the Church had changed from the domestic overseer in the private home to the monarchial bishop who presided in God’s stead over a public assembly. The bishop was seated on a raised dais from which he governed the Church and it was from this seat that Chrysostom wanted to exclude women.

"In what sense then does he say, “I suffer not a woman to teach?”  He means to hinder her from publicly coming forward, and from the seat on the bema, not from the word of teaching. Since if this were the case, how would he have said to the woman that had an unbelieving husband, “How knowest thou, O woman, if thou shalt save thy husband?” Or how came he to suffer her to admonish children, when he says, but “she shall be saved by child-bearing if they continue in faith, and charity, and holiness, with sobriety?” How came Priscilla to instruct even Apollos? It was not then to cut in sunder private conversing for advantage that he said this, but that before all, and which it was the teacher’s duty to give in the public assembly; or again, in case the husband be believing and thoroughly furnished, able also to instruct her. When she is the wiser, then he does not forbid her teaching and improving him."[viii]

Chrysostom based his prohibition on Genesis 3:16 instead of Geneiss 2:

"If it be asked, what has this to do with women of the present day? it shows that the male sex enjoyed the higher honor. Man was first formed; and elsewhere he shows their superiority. “Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man.” (1 Cor. xi. 9) Why then does he say this? He wishes the man to have the preeminence in every way; both for the reason given above, he means, let him have precedence, and on account of what occurred afterwards. For the woman taught the man once, and made him guilty of disobedience, and wrought our ruin. Therefore because she made a bad use of her power over the man, or rather her equality with him, God made her subject to her husband. “Thy desire shall be to thy husband?” (Gen. iii. 16) This had not been said to her before… The woman taught once, and ruined all. On this account therefore he saith, let her not teach. But what is it to other women, that she suffered this? It certainly concerns them; for the sex is weak and fickle, and he is speaking of the sex collectively. For he says not Eve, but “the woman,” which is the common name of the whole sex, not her proper name. Was then the whole sex included in the transgression for her fault? As he said of Adam, “After the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of Him that was to come” (Rom. v. 14); so here the female sex transgressed, and not the male.”"[ix]

The reason for the prohibition seems to be the concept of honor. The priesthood is seen as honorable, and therefore bestowed only on those who are worthy of such an honor. Chrysostom wished to reserve the priesthood to men because he believed only Eve was guilty. Tertullian agreed with a perpetual punishment for women because of Eve’s sin.

"If there dwelt upon earth a faith as great as is the reward of faith which is expected in the heavens, no one of you at all, best beloved sisters, from the time that she had first “known the Lord,” and learned (the truth) concerning her own (that is, woman’s) condition, would have desired too gladsome (not to say too ostentatious) a style of dress; so as not rather to go about in humble garb, and rather to affect meanness of appearance, walking about as Eve mourning and repentant, in order that by every garb of penitence she might the more fully expiate that which she derives from Eve,—the ignominy, I mean, of the first sin, and the odium (attaching to her as the cause) of human perdition. “In pains and in anxieties dost thou bear (children), woman; and toward thine husband (is) thy inclination (conuersion), and he lords It over thee.” And do you not know that you are (each) an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil’s gateway: you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man. On account of your desert—that is, death—even the Son of God had to die."[x]

We no longer believe the woman is an inferior creature punished with subjection, nor do we believe Genesis 3:16 is a commandment from God.

Since the ancient exclusion of women from the priesthood was based on error and faulty theology, should the Catholic Church not move on and include women in the priesthood?


[i] http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1300417.htm
[ii] http://www.stbarnabasny.org/who-was-st-barnabas.html
[iii] Homilies on Romans, Homily XXXI
[iv] http://ncronline.org/news/theology/why-not-women-priests-papal-theologian-explains
[v] http://www.catholic.com/tracts/women-and-the-priesthood
[vi] On Exhortation to Chastity, XIII
[viii] Homilies on Romans, Homily XXXI.
[ix] Chrysostom, Homilies on First Timothy, Homily IX.  “The weakness and light-mindedness of the female sex (infirmitas sexus and levitas animi) were the underlying principles of Roman legal theory that mandated all women to be under the custody of males” (Pomeroy, 150).
[x] Tertullian, On the Apparel of Women, Book I, Ch. I.

Saturday, November 9, 2013

Intelligent Submission


Theologians tell us women ought to submit to men. They tell us also that submission ought to be intelligent, instead of servile. But why should submission be intelligent? Or rather, why should submission not be servile? The answer is found in Genesis 1: if men and women are both equally created in the image of God, both must share in the dignity and freedom that is part of the image. A life that is lived beneath such dignity is not suitable for humans, wherefore servility—that of being another’s slave—cannot be part of submission.

But here things become a bit tricky, for if submission is equivalent to obedience, and obedience requires the renunciation of our free will, how can submission not be servile? Slavery is, after all, all about becoming a possession instead of remaining a person. If, however, instead of being imposed on us, submission is something we choose, thinking is an integral part of it. If we must choose whether to submit or resist, we must think before we choose one or the other; no one can make that decision for us. Obedience is always initiated by the person who commands; no choice is available for the one who obeys without dire consequences. Submission, however, if initiated by the one who submits, cannot be coerced or demanded; there cannot be a negative consequence when submission is withheld. If the refusal to submit is followed by a negative consequence, the person in question would be coerced to obey, which would transform submission into obedience, and we would be back where we started. 

 
Ephesians 5:22 uses the middle voice of hupotasso (Greek for “submit”), wherefore submission must be voluntary, initiated by the person who submits. Intelligent submission assumes that the one who submits considers carefully the ramifications of her submission; the outcome is as important as the act of submission. We find this in the candid admission of theologians that a wife must never follow her husband into sin. This admission leaves only the husband’s preferences as the “everything” a wife must submit to. But why did God give the husband a right to demand that his wife submit to his every preference?

Husbands are instructed to love their wives the way they love themselves.[i] 1 Corinthians 13:5 tells us that love is not self-seeking, for self-seeking is a work of the “flesh”; where self-seeking is found, so is every evil work.[ii] Does God really command husbands to follow the “flesh”? Paul makes it abundantly clear in his letter to the Romans that a Christian owes no obligation to the “flesh” to live according to it. In fact, we must put to death the works of the “flesh” by the Spirit.[iii]

The “flesh” causes us to hate others; the Spirit produces love in us, for the Spirit has placed God’s love in our hearts.[iv] 1 Corinthians 13:4-5 tells us that love is patient and kind; it does not envy, nor is it proud. Our partnership with the Spirit, coupled with humility and compassion, causes us to consider also the interests of others, instead of vainly considering ourselves more important through self-seeking.[v]

If a husband must love his wife the way he loves himself, and do to her as he would like her do to him in return, self-seeking is something that a husband must guard himself against.[vi] Instead of vainly seeking to please only themselves, husbands are called to imitate Jesus who didn’t seek to please only himself.[vii] This begs the question: what authority does a husband then have in a marriage? The authority every human has; the authority over himself to live before God and his fellow humans with a good conscience.[viii] Since all men, whether married or single, must live according to God’s will, it is impossible for a husband to claim greater rights than God has given him. God has commanded us to love our neighbors the way we love ourselves and lay down our lives for others.[ix] Servanthood is a manifestation of love (“serve one another in love”),[x] and love leads to submission.[xi]

Only the pure can submit.[xii] Those whose hearts have been purified by the Holy Spirit can love their brothers and sisters deeply.[xiii] Self-seeking comes from a hard heart; a heart that cannot love. Yet, it is possible for a Christian, who has been washed clean and given a new and living heart, to forget that he has been cleansed from his past sins.[xiv] It is very possible to begin well, and forget everything about godliness, brotherly kindness, and love, because of the deceitfulness of sin.[xv]

Because the pure submit, we find that love leads Christian couples to mutual submission—which is only fitting, for mutual submission is a very biblical concept indeed.[xvi] When husbands and wives seek to serve each other and humbly consider each other better than themselves, they begin to manifest the attitude of Christ, who emptied himself of the glory he had before his incarnation in order to become the greatest servant of all.[xvii]


[i] Ephesians 5:28
[ii] Galatians 5:20, James 3:16
[iii] Romans 8:12-13
[iv] Romans 5:5
[v] Philippians 2:1-4
[vi] Luke 6:31
[vii]  Romans 15:3
[viii] Acts 24:16
[ix] John 5:12-13, note that Jesus mentions both love and servanthood
[x][x] Galatians 5:13
[xi] 1 Peter 5:5
[xii] James 3:17-18
[xiii] Acts 15:9; 1 Peter 1:22
[xiv] 2 Peter 1:9
[xv] Hebrews 12:1
[xvi] Ephesians 5:21
[xvii] Philippians 2:3-5 

Complementarism and the Divided Bible

Because the Bible never says God gave the man authority over the woman, but sinful humans choose to live according to patriarchy, the instructions given in the Bible were divided into those who rule (men) and those who obey (women). Although it may seem simple, patriarchy cannot be imposed on the Bible without destroying the central message of redemption and salvation, and the shared humanity of men and women. 

1. Image of God: Ruling / Child bearing

Because the dividing difference between men and women is believed to be ruling and childbearing, the only role available for women in patriarchy is that of a wife and mother. Complementarism continues Luther’s tradition of assigning motherhood as the only vocation available for women, as seen in Knight’s essay The Family and the Church [in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood].


God relates the effect of the curse respectively to that portion of His creation mandate (as already established in Genesis 1 and 2) that most particularly applies to the woman on the one hand and to the man on the other hand. God has said to them: ”Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over… every living thing that moves on the earth. (Genesis 1.28) Now he relates the curse to that aspect of the creation mandate that is the particular responsibility of the woman and of the man and in so doing indicates the particular role that He has determined each is to fulfill. … In short, God speaks about what is unique to her as a woman, namely, being a mother and a wife… Then he delineates what is the main calling for man, namely, the responsibility of breadwinner and provider for his wife and family.[1]

Knight finds the roles by dividing Genesis 1:28 into two categories and assigning “being fruitful” to the woman and “ruling” to the man, which puts the woman on par with the animals for they were told to be fruitful, but not to rule due to their lack of reason (Gen. 1:21-22).[2] 

Patriarchy denies women are human, wherefore when it's ideology is imposed on the Bible, women cease being humans in our theology.


2. Leadership: Leader / Servant

"Servant leadership" claims to make all men servants, but because the servant leader serves by leading, the concept makes the man the leader and the woman the servant. In Matthew 20 Jesus refuted the concept of servant leadership when he told the disciples that they ought to seek to become servants instead of rulers who exercise authority over others.
Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave- just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Matt 20:24-28, NIV).
A slave does not exercise authority over those whom he serves. The only role of a slave is to serve. If a man exercises authority over his wife, he is no longer a servant, he is a ruler.

Instead of serving by leading, we should seek to lead by serving, for we should all serve another through love.
You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."  If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other (Gal 5:13-15 NIV).

3. Submission: Command / Submit

Just as with leadership, submission is divided into those who command and those who submit.

Complementarians acknowledge that Ephesians 5:21 must mean mutual submission because of the word allelon (“one another”), but because they give hypotasso the meaning “yield to authority,” Piper and Grudem [in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood] must create a mutual submission which is experienced in different ways.

But even if Paul means complete reciprocity (wives submit to husbands and husbands submit to wives), this does not mean that husbands and wives should submit to each other in the same way. The key is to remember that the relationship between Christ and the church is the pattern for the relationship between husband and wife. Are Christ mutually submitted? They aren’t if submission means that Christ yields to the authority of the church. But they are if submission means that Christ submitted himself to suffering and death for the good of the church. That, however, is not how the church submits to Christ. The church submits to Christ by affirming His authority and following his lead. So mutual submission does not mean submitting to each other in the same way. Therefore, mutual submission does not compromise Christ’s headship over the church and it should not compromise the headship of a godly husband. [1]

Since hypotasso does not mean “yield to authority,” Piper and Grudem’s argument is invalid, but there is also another fallacy in their argument: the church shows her devotion to Christ by willingly sacrificing themselves, whether through life or death, due to their love for Christ (Phil 1:20), which is the devotion and love Christ showed to the church when He willingly died to make the church holy and blameless (Eph. 1:4; 5:27). When we give hypotasso the meaning “co-operation,” we get a one flesh unity of a head and body in which mutual submission is leads love and respect (Eph. 5:21, 33).[2]
 
Yet, complementarians point to the fact that the Bible tells wives to submit and husbands to love as evidence that Ephesians 5:21 cannot teach mutual submission (hypotassomenoi allelois).[3] Although it is true that the Bible doesn’t explicitly tell wives to love (agape) their husbands,[4] the New Testament tells believers to love each other (agapate alleleous).[5]Since the husband is also a brother, a wife should love her husband just as he loves her, for the instructions given to the married cannot conflict with the rest of the Bible. Hence, if a wife must love her husband, a husband must submit to his wife, especially since it it is explicitly mentioned in Ephesians 5:21.



4. Teaching: Teacher / Student

Because of 1 Timothy 2, teaching is divided into male teachers and female students.

 The medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas wrote in the 13th century:
 
The apostle says: “Let women keep silence in the churches,” and “I suffer not a woman to teach.” Now this pertains especially to the grace of the word. Therefore the grace of the word is not becoming to women. … First and chiefly, on account of the condition attaching to the female sex, whereby women should be subject to man, as appears from Genesis 3:16. Now teaching and persuading publicly in the church belong not to subjects but to prelates (although men who are subjects may do these things if they be so commissioned, because their subjection is not a result of their natural sex, as it is with women, but of some thing supervening by accident). Secondly, lest men’s minds be enticed to lust, for it is written (Sirach 9.11): “Her conversation burneth as fire.” Thirdly, because as a rule women are not perfected in wisdom, so as to be fit to be intrusted with public teaching.”[1]
 
We find the same idea repeated in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.
 
Also George W. Knight III recognizes that 1 Cor 11:3-16 allows women to pray and to prophesy in his essay The Family and the Church, but he views 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 as a prohibition for women to teach in a church setting.

This is seen in Paul's treatment of the gifts in 1 Corinthians 11-14, where women are excluded only from speaking in church (1 Corinthians 14:34-5) where congregational "teaching" is involved (1 Corinthians 14:26; notice that the items listed in verse 26 correspond with the subjects dealt with in verses 27 and 35 [with only the first item, "a psalm," not dealt with in these verses] and in particular notice that "teaching" [NASB] in verse 26 is the one-word description for the "speaking" Paul will deal with when it comes to women in verses 34-35). These women are recognized as properly participating in praying and prophesying, for example, but are only asked not to throw off the cultural sign of their submission when they do so (1 Corinthians 11:1-6).[1]

Knight does not explain how the "one-word description" of "teaching" can be "speaking" (laleo) in 1 Corinthians 14:34, considering the word is connected to both tongues and prophecy three times in verses 27-29. Neither does he have a reason why women should learn (manthano) at home when the purpose of prophecy is that all may learn (manthano) at church (v. 31).

The context of 1 Corinthians 14 is speech. (Laleo is used twenty-four times in chapter 14.) In verses 1-25 Paul explains why the Corinthians should desire to prophesy rather than to speak in tongues; in verses 26-40 he explains the proper way of prophesying and speaking in tongues. Moreover, Paul considered prophesying, which both men and women participated in, equivalent to teaching, for he wrote, “But one who prophesies speaks [laleo] to men for edification [oikodome] and exhortation [paraklesis] and consolation… For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted [parakaleo]” (Cor 14:3, 31, NAS). The purpose of their gathering together, the psalms, teachings, tongues, revelations and interpretations, was edification (oikodome, v. 26). Therefore prophesy was not distinguished from teaching as to its purpose. In addition, exhortation (paraklesis) is equivalent to declaring divine truths - such as the gospel, as seen in Acts 13:15-52, Hebrews 13:22, and 1 Thessalonians 2:2-3 - and people are expected to learn as a result. Since prophesying is a form of teaching, it is impossible that Paul excluded women from teaching, and consequently, the evaluation of prophesy.



5. Church: Pastor / Laity

Leading in the church is reserved for men, but as a result, just as with the image of God, women are removed from the church because the ministries that are reserved for men can be done by all. 
 
Weinrich [in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood] observes correctly that it was during the patristic and medieval periods that “patterns of conduct and ecclesial behavior were developed and solidified,” and that the fathers of the Reformation adopted the medieval practice of excluding women from the clergy “without question.”[1]

Martin Luther (d.1547) consistently maintained a priesthood of all believers (especially on the basis of 1 Peter 2:9). This common priesthood possesses the right and power to exercise all “priestly offices” (teach, preach, baptize, administer the Eucharist, bind and loose sin, pray for others, sacrifice, judge doctrine and spirits). Yet, Luther habitually combines 1 Corinthians 14:34 with Genesis 3:16 to assert that women are excluded from the public exercise of the common priesthood. In view of the “ordinance and creation of God” that women are subject to their husbands, Paul forbade women “to preach in the congregation where men are present who are skilled in speaking, so that respect and discipline may be maintained.” However, if no man is present to preach, then “it would be necessary for the woman to preach.” For Luther, the apostolic prohibition of 1 Corinthians 14:34 was determinative.[2]

But if Genesis 3:16 does not describe what should be, why did Luther connect the verse with 1 Corinthians 14:34 to affirm that women were excluded from the common priesthood?  Because he followed tradition and not all traditions follow the Bible.
Luther’s exclusion of women has it’s origin in a tradition begun by Tertullian (145-220). Karen Jo Torjesen describes Tertullian’s vision of the church as an essentially Roman institution.

Tertullian’s description of the Christian community dramatically marks the transition of the model of the church from the household or private association to the body politic. With him the church became a legal body (corpus or societas, the term the Romans used for the body politic) unified by a common law (lex fidei, “the law of faith”) and a common discipline (disciplina, Christian morality). For Tertullian the church, like Roman society, united a diversity of ethic groups into one body under the rule of one law… Tertullian conceived the society of the church as analogous to Roman society, divided into distinct classes or ranks, which were distinguished from one another in terms of honor and authority.[3]

Only those who were full members of the political body could possess ius docendi (the legal right to teach) and ius baptizandi (legal right to baptize). Women could not be full members and therefore they were excluded from the clergy. But Tertullian excluded women also from the laity, for although the laity could perform the legal functions in the absence of the clergy, women could not.

“It is not permitted to a woman to speak in the church; but neither (is it permitted her) to teach, nor to baptize, nor to offer, nor to claim to herself a lot in any manly function, not to say (in any) sacerdotal office.”[4]

Weinrich considers Tertullian “a representative voice” of the universal church of the second century,[5] but he cannot do so without excluding women from the church altogether.


In conclusion, when we try to give men authority the Bible doesn't give or recognize, we end up making the woman an inferior creature who is relegated to a life resembling the animals. Such is the goal of patriarchy, but it cannot be the goal of the church.

It's time to bring back biblical equality.


[1] Piper and Grudem, 347.
[2] Ortlund disagrees with Knight, ”Further, Moses doubtless intends to imply the equality of the sexes, for both the male and female display the glory of God’s image with equal brilliance: “… in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” This is consistent with God’s intention, stated in verse 26, that both sexes should rule. “…and let them rule…” (Piper and Grudem, 97).



[1] Piper and Grudem, 62-63.
[2] “Marriage ought to allow for the growth of authentic love between man and woman. This love should evolve as a mixture of greater humanness between the partners (you could also call this friendship), sexual intercourse, and the procreation of the other human beings. This deep and meaningful love is devoted to the welfare of the other.” (L. Richard Lessor, Love and Marriage and Trading Stamps [Argus Communications, 1971],  10).
[3] Piper and Grudem, 199.
[4] In Titus 2:4 Paul uses philoandros and philoteknos. Not agape.
[5] See John 13; Romans 12; 1 Thessalonians 4.9; 1 Peter 1.22; 1 and 2 John.


[1] Summa Theologica, Second Part of Second Part, Question 177, Article 2.  

[1] Piper and Grudem, 351. 

[1] Piper and Grudem, 279.
[2] Ibid., 278.
[3] Torjesen, 162-3.
[4]  Tertullian, On the Veiling of Virgins, Ch. IX.
[5] Piper and Grudem, 273.