Needless to say after returning home, my blogging has been greatly diminished. This is mostly due to being back in community and much of the thoughts that roll around have been able to be discussed. Then again, while basking in perhaps one of the most enjoyable Sundays I've had in many years, this thought hit me and I wanted to see if I can grapple with it.
1 Timothy 2:9-14 probably ranks up there at the top of many people's minds when it comes to difficult passages to understand and even more apply. I think Peter said it well in 2 Peter 3:14-16, with "there are some things hard to understand" being ever so clear. The response to this passage usually varies somewhere between justified chauvinism and ignoring the passage altogether. Perhaps the unique factor about this difficult passage isn't so much its clarity but just the opposite. Plainly read it has some serious guidelines that are difficult to apply and to justify; both to the non-Christians who view God's Word as a sexist book which seeks to subjugate women; and to those earnestly seeking to follow God's Word but are at a bit of a loss on this passage's application.
This commentary tends to focus on the cultural aspect and focus on the physical adornment and exclusion occurring in the church than this as an impendent issue. The problem with this is it doesn't address if the practice of flaunting wealth and style are still applicable things to avoid in orderly worship, worse still it often tends to resign this passage to being cultural and thus outdated and we can justifiably ignore it. The primary problem with this as with other difficult passages is the inevitable slippery slope we establish within Scripture while fully ignoring clear teachings to satisfy our own wills or misunderstanding. Or as Peter through the Holy Spirit says, "ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." If we believe the Bible is God's Word and that God is perfect without error, then we must deduce the Bible is God's inerrant Word. This also happens to be a primary doctrine for you two other doctrine nerds who might read this.
On to the meat, within the context the most biting part I would think is verse 12, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." While there is plenty of meat to deal with verse 11, for the sake of brevity (like I am good at that anyways...) I would rather refer to Ephesians 5:22-33 which it explicitly describes the relationship a husband and wife ought to have. A piece I have heard and fully agree with about the Ephesians passage, if a husband loves his wife as Christ loved the Church, why wouldn't she want to submit to him? Enough said.
I suppose the difficulty I have by attempting to tackle this passage is much in the practice (or lack of practice) of church discipline. The best way I could describe church discipline is the maintenance and accountability of our own. Paul speaks of this most clearly throughout 1 Corinthians (5:9-13, 6:1-8, 11:27-32). Peter also explains the concept in 1 Peter 2:13 - 3:22. In Church we ought to submit ourselves to one another, everyone ought to be submissive to someone; many of us are submissive to the pastor/elders, deacons, older men and women, and so on. There are checks in balances in the Church as well. We call him Jesus. Once we grasp the idea of submission to one another, the judgment we are to cast upon one another as a Shepherd protects his flock; in love, and the purity of Christ's Church the passage in Timothy doesn't irk as much.
It is important to remember one of the primary duties of pastors/elders in scripture is to practice authority (Shepherd in fluffier terms) over the members of the church. I might be isogeting my youth ministry experience on this, but when Paul restricts women from practicing authority over men is it really that outlandish? Consider this; within the family are mothers not the most appropriate to deal with certain issues of their daughters and likewise fathers with their sons? Likewise I directly consider this in light of my work with the high schoolers. If there is an issue with a girl, I would not attempt to address the issue at large. Women handle women's issues and men handle men's issues. I think many of us would find it odd if women sought to offer guidance on being a man when men are present to give such guidance. This is in no way saying mothers cannot teach their sons as some naysayers would attempt to imply. Children are to submit to their parents, and likewise parents are to practice authority over their children.
Whether you want to get into the issue if women can teach men, I think that is a less clear issue. The most profound example I would point to in scripture is the instruction Priscilla and Aquila gave to Apollos in Acts 18 Priscilla and Aquila are addressed 6 times in scripture. Of those 5 of those times Priscilla is addressed first, considering the writing style it is believed she had the stronger relationship with Paul in faith. In the personal setting, such as home church/bible study in which the couple instructed Apollos, it is reasonable to say Priscilla did more teaching, yet she did so without practicing authority over Apollos. I think it is also important to specify that Paul says a woman is not to have authority over a man, not boy, man. Leading up to a man, I would say it is more than permissible to practice authority on non-adult males. Then the can of beans opened "What is a man?" That is a separate blog unto itself. The short answer, a man is a male who takes responsibility for himself and those around him.
Does this expand to women in the pulpit? Yes, I think it does. I will make it clear though, based on what I have seen and read showing that women are more numerous in ministry, I believe this to be the result of males not being men. If males would be men, much of this controversy and frustration would disappear. The confusion and misunderstanding of what Paul wrote through the Holy Spirit will clear up and we can practice Church as it was meant to be done.
