Christians who pride themselves on being “biblical literalists,” taking the bible for what it says at face value, seem to ignore or give little credence to the very literal translation errors that have crept into English/Western versions of the bible that differ from the earliest Greek manuscripts. Many of these mistranslations conveniently pertain to gender language, in effect building the case for women to be restricted in ministry.
At least with hardcore-complementarians, the reasoning remains the same throughout their biblical interpretation process: the bible, as we know it in English, had divine direction and therefore, can be read at face value without worry.
run into a bit of a problem. By moderate-complementarians
, I mean Christians who believe only
men should lead the church, teach the assembly, and lead in their homes, BUT believe women may participate in the services, as long as they are not perceived has “having authority.” So, a woman may get up and read a scripture, but she may not teach on it. A woman may get up and sing a song, possibly even lead a song. Women may pray aloud in the presence of men and even share testimonies. While I appreciate this more “liberal” approach, the issue of consistent biblical interpretation becomes problematic. For instance, a purely “literal reading” of 1 Corinthians 14:34:35
does not allow any of the aforementioned lenience
Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.”–Paul, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
There are really only two verses in the bible that would appear
to outright bar women from public ministry and holding positions of “authority,” such as church leaders, church planters, pastors, preachers, evangelists, elders, and deacons: 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
(if read literally in English
, this verse would silence women altogether: no speaking, no vocal praying, no singing…. ) and 1 Timothy 2:11-12
. Sometimes Ephesians 5
is thrown in for good measure. But even if one takes the view that the husband has all the authority over the wife in the marriage relationship, this hardly places all
women under the authority of all
men in the church! Nonetheless, it is these verses upon which the complementarian
position hangs and the verses through which they interpret the rest of the bible: the creation account, Jesus’ ministry, Deborah not being God’s best, etc. etc. ( I am speaking here of complementarian
scholars, I do not presume to know how each individual complementarian
approaches the bible…)
Now, across-the-board complementarians have no problem with reading the above mentioned verses literally, at face value, with no qualification, or contextualization, for that matter. They certainly have no qualms about prohibiting women from teaching/preaching/evangelizing/leading, and women’s overall public silence is just an added bonus.
But for the moderate-complementarian
, this just doesn’t seem right. So, most moderate complementarians
have opted for a little more “in-depth” interpretation when it comes to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
. They argue that this verse does not completely silence women in public church meetings or other mixed gatherings, was never really
meant to be applied universally, or was never really
meant to silence all women at all times.
Since the text ITSELF does not provide any of these convenient “qualifiers” or hints at a “temporary” instruction, moderate-complementarians refer back to the original language, appeal to the larger context of the verse, and what was happening culturally and historically at the time. Once it becomes clear, based on THOSE factors (not the text itself mind you), that Paul never intended to completely silence women, they feel justified in allowing women to vocally participate in public church meetings, as long as women are not leading or teaching men. Phew! right?
But the methods they use to come to this very logical conclusion about 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
are THE EXACT same methods they criticize and denounce egalitarians for using when applied to 1 Timothy 2:11-12
or Ephesians 5
! They say things like: “You’re reading things into the bible,” “You’re over thinking it,” ” You’re using outside sources to determine meaning,” “You’re not just taking the text for WHAT IT PLAINLY SAYS,” “History and culture are irrelevant and unreliable,” “If the Bible is inspired, then that inspiration should have carried over with each translation”.
I can accept all of these arguments from hardcore, across-the-board complementarians
, because at least they are consistent in their reading of the scriptures: all “command” passages are all literal, all-time binding, and can be taken at face value without qualification. But moderates who adhere to a “deeper” reading of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35,
while fancying themselves “biblical literalists
,” is a bit of a head scratcher
. What’s the old saying? Oh yes: Moderate-complementarians
who live by glass hermeneutics should not throw stones. OK, now I’m just being snarky
Now, on to business. :)
I personally find the third interpretation to be the most plausible. But we’ll see what you guys think. I’m breaking this up into three posts so I can thoroughly explain each position and avoid overlapping confusion between them. Letters of Paul, here we go!