Recently, I've been asked in several different arenas what my view of the role of women is. So, I've decided to blog it in response to an article that was sent to me.
The article is located here. This response started as part of a one-on-one conversation, so I hope it makes sense in a blog setting. Well, here goes.
The author of this article comes out with his guns a-blazin’ against the claims that these issues are cultural instead of hermeneutical. I appreciate his (I’m assuming it is a he, as I am a he who was “instructed” and the author being a she would be rather ironic) desire to understand the Word of God and deal with it correctly. But to deny the issue at the outset as not cultural demonstrates a poor understanding of reading any historical text. The truth of the matter is this: all of the Bible is cultural, and therefore must be read with these cultural realities in mind. This doesn’t mean that there are not certain realities that we can and should learn and apply in our own setting. Instead, it just means that we need to be fully aware of that culture.
I’ve noticed that historical readings from both ends of any spectrum often suffer from the same difficulty. These historical texts are read backwards and in hindsight from where we currently stand. “Conservatives” hope to “conserve” the literal interpretation, making sure to apply what they read to be truths without considering the cultural differences and changes of the past two millennia. “Liberals” try to “liberate” archaic theology into more modern terms, basing their faith first and foremost on a scientific, Enlightenment-based rational. Either reading focuses its energy on where we are now, how we ought to live or what we know is or is not possible. We should, instead, struggle to put ourselves into the very midst of the author’s mindset so that we can fully understand what they were communicating and what was considered to be true in their society primarily. The difficult task before us then is to “translate” those principles into a world that is drastically different.
In the ancient Mediterranean world, women were necessarily considered as secondary, or to use a much more modern and theological term, “complimentary.” This is the world that Paul lived in. For us to read his words and to consider that his advice concerning the role of women was cross-cultural is to ignore the context of his writings. I don’t mean to imply that his letters don’t have implications for us now, but simply to say that we cannot deny the culture of advice or teachings that we consider “cross-cultural.”
So how were women treated in Paul’s world? As is obvious from Paul’s letters, they weren’t allowed to enter worship without their heads covered. They weren’t allowed to teach or have authority over men. They weren’t allowed to speak at all in public, unless another spoke to them. In fact, a man could insult his peers by speaking to that man’s wife, implying or leading to some form of inappropriate behavior. In marriage, women were “purchased” at a price and treated basically as property. They had virtually no rights of their own. All of their worth was included in the worth of their husbands or fathers. This is most clearly demonstrated in the Old Testament laws that operate from a male perspective. For example, Deuteronomy 24.1 makes it clear that a man can divorce his wife for any “indecency” he finds in her. Historically, it has been shown that men would divorce a woman based on her cooking, or her age or any other number of reasons that the man deemed “indecent.” Women, however, were given no such opportunities.
Their intrinsic connection to the men in their lives is based on a system of honor and shame. The social world of Paul’s day boiled down to a competitive system that reflected a man’s worth. In this system, women were essentially pawns used to affect a man, the ultimate shame being to rape another man’s wife and thus violate his most “prized possession.”
In the article you sent me, the author references 1 Corinthians 11. Obviously, for someone arguing towards a view of equality, verse three is going to be the most difficult. However, I find it interesting that the author of this article simply ignores the rest of the passage, taking the social order out of its context and hoping it will stand. As a hermeneutical principle, that is simply never appropriate, as it opens the door to any interpretation possible.
In the context, Paul is arguing for a church body that lives along the “path of least resistance.” He encourages the church to “not seek [its] own” (10.24). Even pointing out that “all things are lawful” (10.23) After the discussion on gender roles, Paul points out that the church ought to strive to be without division (11.16-19). In the context, it seems that the gender issues that Paul is dealing with are a problem by their very nature towards disruption. There are questions in the Corinthian church, and the question the people are asking is: Who has the authority to answer these questions? Paul encourages the church that “Christ is the head.” In Paul’s worldview, it has been the case that women were under men in terms of social order. But it seems that the social order is given here to convince the women at Corinth to live in accordance with the norms so that divisions will be avoided. Suffice it to say, it seems that the argument is less about social order and more about “praying and prophecy in Christian worship.”
In fact, even after he sets up this social order, he seems to almost take it back in verses 11-12. Or, one could easily see Paul’s earlier statements (vs. 2-10) as the nature of things in creation and his later statements as a new order in Christ (vs. 11-12).
Overall, I think 1 Corinthians 11 shows that there are blatant differences between men and women. Not only that, but Paul believes that no such distinction should be neglected or denied; it is only natural. This much is obvious. What is not so obvious is that Paul necessarily believes that women are socially inferior, since he seems to have a view of patriarchy that puts men primarily in verse three, and a view of interdependence in verse 11. How can this contradiction be reconciled? If Paul is using every argument available in his repertoire to prove the point of the greater context: all Christians should humbly submit to one another and avoid division in the church. Paul’s context and his overarching work must both be considered. Here he hopes to maintain unity; in other passages, Paul talks “about women as his coworkers, as fellow servants of God, and possibly even as [apostles] (Rom. 16.7).” Moreover, we must consider Paul’s understanding of what it means to lead: to lead is to first and foremost serve without the hopes of exercising power or personal rights.
Works Cited:
Malina, Bruce.
The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology (Westminster John Knox Press, 2001)
Witherington, Ben.
Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995)
