***WARNING***: Writing on both 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Timothy 2 would be way too long of a post. For the sake of my own sanity, I’ve condensed my thoughts. I did not realize how ambitious this series would be.

Preface

The difficulty of writing about women within the context of Christianity is the inevitability of addressing the more controversial, yet baffling passages that Christians continue to fight over. 50% of Christians love these passages and the other 50% resent them. As a result, there’s a few things I need to bring up before I jump into the crux of the post. 1) Paul’s epistles are almost always in response to particular circumstances or controversy (Ephesians being the exception). For example, in 1 Corinthians Paul covered a number of different issues: divisions and quarrels, sexual immorality, lawsuits among believers, marriage and singleness, freedom in Christ, order in worship, the significance of the Lord’s Supper, the right use of spiritual gifts, and the resurrection. 2) What is challenging about reading Paul’s epistles are the many voices that are influencing Paul’s words. That is to say, because Paul is responding to particular congregations’ understanding of Christianity, Paul will often reference those communities’ thoughts and words in his own writing. Parsing out what Paul is saying among the many voices is hard; even among scholars, there isn’t an agreement on a “correct” interpretation. 3) Therefore, as Christians, we should avoid running the risk of “explaining” Paul in terms that might make sense to us while ignoring what he himself is saying. It’s tempting to do that precisely because in our western culture we don’t like the implications of:

“A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man.” (1 Corinthians 11:7-8 NIV)

1 Corinthians 11

1 Corinthians 11:7-8 seems to place man in a position of superiority, to which women must submit to being second-class. More importantly, it gives a sense of structure or arrangement to Creation. God>man>woman. This make sense when reading Genesis 2 story; God made Adam, then God made Eve. Man came first, then woman after. Therefore, man is senior to woman. Okay, that’s the end of my post. That’s it. The End. Just kidding!

The Greek word for “glory” is often translates to “splendor, majesty, honor, or excellence”. And the Greek word for “image” often denotes “representation” or “manifestation”. Therefore, 1 Corinthians 11:7-8 logic seems to state that men are the physical representation or manifestation of God’s grandeur, but women come close to it; only because women come from men. Basically, the verses are stating men are similar to Jesus.

“The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14 NIV)

The question we, as Christians, need to ask ourselves is, “is this good theology?”. The short answer is a resounding “no”. Why? One way to understand Paul’s words in this chapter (and specifically these two verses) is to look at the Creation story against the Genesis 2’s story.

“Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

So God created mankind in his own image,

in the image of God he created them;

male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1: 26-27 NIV)

Genesis 1 states that both men and women are made in God’s image. This is significant because it’s declaring that the individuals of a community, made up of men and women who live out God’s story together, are equally representing of God’s glory. Therefore, it is both men and women who are the physical representation of God; not just the men or the women, but both. In other words, as the german theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer writes:

“The Church is the physical manifestation of Christ (and/or God) on Earth.”

1 Timothy 2

I don’t think I’m exaggerating when I say that this passage is the foundation for those who want to deny women a place in the ordained ministry of the church, with full responsibilities for preaching, presiding at the Eucharist, and exercising leadership within congregations. When people say that the Bible embodies patriarchal ideas and attitudes, this passage (particularly verse 12) is often held up as the prime example.

“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.” (1 Timothy 2:11-12 NIV)

As you read 1 Timothy 2 in its entirety, you pick up a very standard view of how everyone imagines men and women ought to behave. Men are macho, loud-mouthed, arrogant thugs, always fighting and wanting their own way. Women are empty-headed creatures, with nothing to think about except clothes and jewelry. There are “Christian” versions of this too: the men must make the decisions, run the show, always be in the lead, telling everyone what to do; women must stay at home and bring up the children.

I fully acknowledge that the very different reading I’m going to suggest may sound as though I’m simply trying to make things easier for myself; trying to fit Paul into our culture. There is good, solid biblical work behind what I’m going to say and I genuinely believe that it may be the right interpretation.

It is important to recognize that the passage is commanding that women, too, should be allowed to study and learn, and should not be restrained from doing so in verse 11. They are to be “in full submission”; this is often taken to mean ‘to the men”, or “to their husbands“, but it is more likely that it refers to their attitude, as learners, of submitting to God or to the gospel – which of course would be true for men as well. Then verse 12 should not be read as “I do not allow a woman to teach or hold authority over a man”. It means (and in context this makes much more sense to me) “I don’t mean to imply that I’m now setting up women as the new authority over men in the same way that men previously held authority over women”. In other words, what Paul is saying, like Jesus in Luke 10, that women must have the space and leisure to study and learn in their own way, so that men and women alike can develop and share whatever gifts of learning, teaching and leadership among each other.

A great example of this is the story of Phoebe. For those of you who don’t know her story, Phoebe was a first-century Christian woman that Paul has designated as a deacon. The word “deacon” in Paul’s writings sometimes refers to a Christian designated to serve with the overseers of the church or “servants” in a general sense. However, Paul’s use of the term “deacon”, in regards to Phoebe specifically, suggest that Phoebe’s ministry may have extended beyond charitable works to include preaching and evangelization. In other words, she would’ve read Paul’s letters and answer all questions in Paul’s place among a congregation of men and women. Teaching and leading God’s people.

Preface

A few introductory remarks before I dive into the topic at hand. First, this subject matter is not an area of primary research for me and many of you will probably know the literature much better than I do, but there are one or two things I may be able to add to the subject. Even then, it will be a fraction of what has been said on this subject. Secondly, I don’t know if we need another Christian man to tell us how we ought to think about women within the Christian context, however, this has been something I have thought about for years and always wanted to do a post/talk on this topic. desire to write a post vs. uncertainty in navigating gender role/climate? Lastly, I get a little nervous about the word “egalitarianism”. I recognize and understand what is being said of course. I think part of my anxiousness is that our culture is so polarized; that a decision on one point commits us into a specific group. The other part of it is that egalitarianism is a hope without the knowledge of, as NT Wright calls, “our freedom in Christ”. What NT Wright means by “our freedom in Christ” is, the hope that is found on the cross points to a completely separate “philosophy” that is outside of (or not constrained by) egalitarianism. Egalitarianism states that all humans should either get the same or be treated as the same in respects to political, economical, social, and civil rights status. As Christian, maybe we start our understanding of equality, not by “should be the same”, but by “already the same”. “Already the same” as in there is no gender (or race). There is only, individuals, human beings, creatures, God’s people, community, etc. In other words, as the Apostle Paul writes:

“There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28 NIV)

Galatians 3:28

Th book of Galatians is about The Law vs grace. Who is considered inheritors and part of God’s family and who is not. The point Paul is making in the book of Galatians is that God has one family and this family consists of all those who believe in Jesus; this is the family God promised to Abraham and The Law can’t stand in the way of this unity which is now revealed through Jesus. However, the book of Galatians (and more importantly this particular verse) is not at all about how we could relate to one another within this family; it is about the fact that the ground is even at the foot of the cross.

Interestingly, as to the English Standard Version, Paul is a lot clearer in what he is conveying:

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28 ESV)

The ESV is considered essentially a “literal” translation that tries to capture the precise wording of the original text. As such, it emphasizes on “word-for-word” correspondence. It’s interesting that Paul is stating ‘no male and female’ rather than using another neither/nor statement. “Neither…nor” is a sentence structure that is used to connect the same kind of word or phrase in the sentence and it make it a negative statement about two things. For example:

“Neither the Houston Rockets nor the Portland Trail Blazers will be able to beat the Golden State Warriors”.

To put it in another way, both teams, unfortunately, will not win against the Golden State Warriors. Not this team and not the other. The verse from the NIV is essentially stating the same thing as the ESV verse, but what’s fascinating, at least for me, is Paul in the ESV is emphatically saying “no” instead of using the same “neither…nor” pattern.

Gospels

We can’t ignore the fact that Jesus chose twelve male apostles. There were all kinds of reasons for this within the practical and cultural world in which they worked and lived in. But every time this point is made, we need to remember that the disciples all forsake Jesus and ran away; and it was the women who came first to the tomb, who were the first to see the risen Jesus.

The Greek word for “apostle” is “one who is sent off”. It refers to an emissary or anyone sent on a mission. As a result, an apostle becomes an ambassador of the one who sent him/her. A representative or promoter of a particular news. We frequently think of the twelve disciples and Paul when we think of the word “apostle”. Then we remember that there are other people that hold the title ‘Apostle’. Andronicus, Junia (a woman), James, Barnabas, Apollos, Timothy, Silvanus, and Epaphroditus. But what makes these particular people, the non-original twelve, “apostles”? More importantly, what qualifies someone, like Mary Magdalene, to be an apostle?

Essentially, it boils down to three criterias:

• To have seen Jesus after the resurrection

• Received the the good news (i.e. Jesus has risen), not through any other means, but through Christ himself

• Is tasked to go and tell others the good news that Jesus is risen

This is incredibly significant because this makes Mary Magdalene, not only ‘The First Apostle’, but it also makes her the ‘Apostle to the Apostles’. If an apostle is a witness to the resurrected Christ and is commissioned to tell that Jesus has risen, then there were women, like Mary, who deserved the title of apostle before the men did.

The promotion of women is not a totally new thing with the resurrection. We see this during Jesus’ public ministry, the story of Mary and Martha in Luke 10. Most of us commonly think of this story in terms of Martha is the active one and Mary is the passive or contemplative one when it comes to having guests in our home; and that Jesus is simply affirming the priority of devotion to him. That devotion is part of the importance of the story, but the far more obvious fact for any first-century reader would be that Mary should be in the back room like every other women. Instead she was sitting where men at the time typically sit. This, I am pretty sure, is what really bothered Martha. Of course Martha was upset about being left to do all the work, but the real problem behind it was that Mary had cut clean across one of the most basic social norms. (One example of this is, if you were to invite me to stay in your house and, when it came to bedtime, I set up my bed in your bedroom. We have our own clear, but unspoken rules about our spaces and so did they). Mary ‘sitting at his feet’ is a phrase that is commonly understood today as the adoring student gazing up in admiration and love at the wonderful teacher. However, to sit at the teacher’s feet is a way of saying you are being a student, picking up the teacher’s wisdom and learning. You wouldn’t do this just for the sake of informing your own mind, but in order to be a teacher yourself.

One of Game of Thrones main female character, Arya Stark, is a great example of how a character subverts cultural norms. For those of you who haven’t read the book or watched the show, the weight of oppression on women in the world of Game of Thrones is demonstrated most clearly in Arya as she repeatedly criticizes the restrictions placed upon her by her gender. She lacks any interest in needlework, but is punished for her refusal to engage in the skill or any other activities for her gender. What makes Arya Stark a compelling character is that she echoes much of Mary Magdalene in the Gospels. That is to say, Arya refused to acknowledge gender roles of her society and actively took interests in male-only activities. Much like Mary did.

I’ll have Part 2 out next week

I wanted to do a short series where we reflect on the stories and lyrics behind certain hymns. In order to get the most out of this series, it is recommended that you 1) read the lyrics while listening to the song, 2) read the Story, Thoughts, and Reflection parts of the post, and then 3) read and listen the song once more.

O Love that will not let me go,

I rest my weary soul in thee;

I give thee back the life I owe,

That in thine ocean depths its flow

May richer, fuller be.

O Light that followest all my way,

I yield my flickering torch to thee;

My heart restores its borrowed ray,

That in thy sunshine’s blaze its day

May brighter, fairer be.

O Joy that seekest me through pain,

I cannot close my heart to thee;

I trace the rainbow through the rain,

And feel the promise is not vain,

That morn shall tearless be.

O Cross that liftest up my head,

I dare not ask to fly from thee;

I lay in dust life’s glory dead,

And from the ground there blossoms red

Life that shall endless be.

Story

George Matheson (1842-1906) suffered poor eyesight from birth. At age 15, Matheson learned that he was going blind. He had an incurable condition that would eventually result in total blindness and there was nothing that could be done to help him. However, Matheson was not one to be easily discouraged, he enrolled in the University of Glasgow and graduated at age 19. Whilst at University, he had met and fallen in love with a girl who was a fellow student and they were planning to get married.

He broke the news of his impending blindness to her. To his astonishment and deep sadness her blunt answer came to him like a dagger to his heart, “I do not want to be the wife of a blind man” she said – and with that they parted.

Years later the memory of that repudiation came flooding back on the evening of Matheson’s sister’s marriage. His whole family had went to the wedding and had left him alone. And he writes during his immense anguish. In the darkness of that moment George Matheson wrote this hymn. He remarked afterward that it took him five minutes and that it was the only hymn he ever wrote that required no editing.

Each of the four stanzas begins with a key word—Love, Light, Joy and Cross—that are not only attributes to our relationship with Christ, but also names we give to Christ.

The Cross is the theme of the concluding stanza. Through Christ’s suffering on the cross “blossoms red”. Love, Light, and Joy that comes out of sacrifice—the sacrificial life which blossoms by shedding itself.

Thoughts

In modern English, the word “hope” means “to look forward to with desire and reasonable confidence” or “that events will turn out for the best”. In other words, optimism. Does that mean hope and optimism are the same thing? Is hope as simple as having a specific kind of mindset? In our world of Teslas, retirement plans, and Trump, modern people (and Christians) no longer remember how to speak of ‘hope’. More precisely, we have lost the language of articulating what ‘hope’ is.

Hope has become simply a wish for a positive outcome in some future event in our modern language. But if hope is wishful thinking, it might easily be misconstrued as some kind of optimistic defense mechanism in response to the human condition. That is, hope acknowledges the significant obstacles and deep pitfalls of life because hope has no delusions of the present reality. While the ideas of hope and optimism share similar characteristics, only hope can bear the weight of the despair and desperation.

There was period in my life where despair and death were two friends I welcomed expectantly. In such a short amount of time, people I loved were passing away due to cancer, lifestyle choices, and unexpectant circumstances. I had no time to finish processing each person’s passing because death knocked again and again. Thus, I ended up struggling to process the death of my grandmother, uncle, cousin, and a close friend at the same time. It would be easy to write that I had some sort of hope in the midst of all this, but in truth I was in a great deal of despair. At the time, hope was hard for me to grasp onto. It was only by going back to the story of the resurrection I found hope once again.

The resurrection (or more specifically New Creation) paints a picture of our ultimate aim or goal as Christians (telos). As the Apostle John writes,

Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” (Revelation 21:1-4)

This is a beautiful picture, however, there is a danger of seeing New Creation as an overly optimistic worldview. That is to say, it can be a slippery slope (at least for me it can be!) to see the resurrection AND New Creation as an attempt to turn our eyes away from the despair and suffering we see in world (and in our lives) and say “it will be made right”.

Therefore, the Christian life is not about ignoring despair through wishful thinking or seeing our lives as an one act story. It is about being present in despair and point to an expectation in the midst of that despair. This is essentially our faith: holding both hope and despair together.

Reflection

Take 30 seconds to 1 minute to reflect on what you read and your thoughts. After you finish reflecting, go back to Step 1 and listen to the song once more.