Burk misses the flow of Paul's argument in 1 Timothy 2. He is an apostle charged with bringing salvation to all mankind. On that basis he exhorts men and women - targeting (as it were) certain points or characteristics which he (and the Holy Spirit of course) deemed universal.
Men are to lift holy hands eschewing the male tendency toward wrath and doubt and we could spend a fair bit of time exploring these characteristics, how men are more given to pride and anger and are less naturally given (we might say) toward faith which is something quite different from the normal Evangelical definition of faith as simple knowledge and assent.
Women are given to vanity and loquacity and thus these tendencies are to be restrained. Some err in thinking Paul prohibits all adornment - that would be going beyond the exhortation here and of course we can touch on some of the other relevant passages as well. In 1 Peter 3 such a literalistic wooden reading would in fact forbid women to wear clothes at all - a patent absurdity.
And so because of this, some will use the same line of argument with regard to 1 Timothy 2 and say that Paul's proscription is not meant to be taken too literally. But it's no wonder our culture struggles with this. The ideas of silence and submission (let alone shamefacedness) not only offends modern feminist sensibilities but strikes even at basic Enlightenment assumptions regarding the individual.
Now we can say that Paul's words are 'outdated' or limited by cultural context, and at that point the gates are wide open. Or, we take them seriously as they are rooted in creation-based arguments. He commands the women to be silent. Is this a universal command - applicable at all times and in all places? No, he makes it quite clear in the next chapter that he's speaking in the context of the Church and (it is rightly assumed) the public gathering. Priscilla could teach Apollos and women can discuss doctrine with men. That's not what is being prohibited. The issue here is leadership to be sure but it is implied that public teaching is also wed to the notions of leadership and authority. This is what is being forbidden to them. The argument is rooted to creation and the Fall and thus does not change with cultural context - unless one is willing to simply dismiss the notion of apostolic authority.
Burk suggests his ban on speaking is not total. And so we find this practice all too common in Evangelical churches with 'sermonettes', worship leading, and Scripture reading with short commentary and prayer. We're seeing the 'creep' as well in Confessional circles and it's become quite common for women to teach men in seminaries and to teach in the context of podcasts - like Sunday School, these settings are considered extra-ecclesiastical or outside of worship. I'm not sure where Burk would fall on all these questions and yet his basic argument and assumption fails. Paul is pretty explicit. The issue is women assuming the role of leader and authority which is what public teaching entails and assumes. But even this is not all as there are further restrictions on women speaking in church - certain to prove offensive to contemporary mores.
Burk cites 1 Corinthians 11 as an example of women speaking, but ignores both the context as well as the specifics of the passage. It doesn't actually support what he suggests. He suggests that if women can speak in 1 Corinthians 11, then the ban must not be total in 1 Timothy 2 - or else there's a contradiction. This is a case of apples and oranges. The apostle Paul would indeed be contradicting himself as there's a passage that speaks even more emphatically than 1 Timothy 2. In 1 Corinthians 14 Paul says:
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
And yet how can we understand this in light of chapter 11 when he speaks of women praying and prophesying? - which again is the point Burk appeals to in order to argue that women can talk during the church gathering.
These chapters are dealing with the charismata and at that point in time women (such as Philip's daughters) were still included in the task of prophesying. It was extraordinary Prophesying as opposed to preaching - or what we might call prophesying. Now, chapter 14 also deals with charismatic prophesying (with tongues in particular) but in this instance he commands (quite emphatically) that women be silent.
This could mean that women exercising the gift of prophesying (and here we assume the reference to prayer is not 'ordinary' prayer (as it were) but 'praying in the spirit (1 Cor 14.15)) were forbidden from doing such during the assembly or church meeting. The gifts were valid but not to be exercised in that context. That's possible but problematic given the overall context of the epistle and Paul's statements in chapter 11 - especially with regard to the head-covering.
Or, as extraordinary (and yet temporary) functions, these women Prophesying were valid in the church gathering, and as such he touches (I believe) on the notion of the prophet being in the Divine Council and yet these aspects are touched on in passing and not elaborated upon - hence the confusion for many. In other words prophets speaking the oracles of God were hearing the words in the context of God's Throne and the celestial/angelic council As such these women needed to be covered as they would be a temptation to the angels as was the case in the days before the flood. You cannot understand his point on head-coverings apart from Genesis 6 and the angels lusting after women. Though this teaching is rejected by most of today's Reformed community it is not only deeply rooted in Church history, it is also plainly taught in the New Testament, they simply refuse to acknowledge it.
Additionally it should be noted that if this office is no longer practiced the head-covering issue (it could be argued) reverts to the 'nature' default that he suggests. The women not praying or prophesying (charismatically) would be exempt.
Obviously for those who believe such gifts are still valid - one wonders why their women teachers aren't covered!
In this case the imperatives in 1 Corinthians 14 (which closely match 1 Timothy 2) would be considered 'normative' and thus in effect today. The 1 Corinthians 11 passage was a contextual passing reference, one both extraordinary and temporary and thus does not contradict or negate what Paul says about women being silent in the other passages.
The one option that does not work at all is to argue that what Paul says in 1 Timothy 2 is true but it's more or less 'softened' or tempered by 1 Corinthians 11 - even while ignoring 1 Corinthians 14 altogether. This is what Burk does in this article.
His points about a peaceful and quiet life (1 Tim 2.2) are true enough but do not account for the force of Paul's directive of 'silence' in 1 Tim 2.11 and 1 Corinthians 14.34. They are different words but both convey the same idea.
I'm not sure I even fully track with his appeal to Ephesians 5. There's no doubt that submission or subjection is enjoined on all believers vis-a-vis the elders of the Church, but at the same time in 1 Corinthians 14, the silence command is connected to submission to a husband as the women are exhorted to 'ask their husbands at home' - for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
It's interesting how the Sunday School loophole (arguing that it's not officially church, even though the church is gathered and it's a formal meeting) is used to allow women to speak and in abundance. As previously noted, in recent years the 'conservative' loophole has expanded to podcasts and seminary professorships as well. 1 Corinthians 14 applies to such gatherings - to such didactic meetings or contexts in which women are authoritatively correcting or teaching theology to men in a corporate or public setting.
Over the last generation it has been easy to trace how this loophole (which provides cover for acculturation and compromise) has been utilised to allow women first to teach - and then to teach men - and at that point it's no great leap to teach in the context of the formal assembly. As previously stated I've been in churches where there's a mini-sermon/exhortation before hymns and other points of the service wherein women are pushing the envelope. The answer is simple - it's a shame for them to speak in the church.
I would also note that the shame Paul speaks of is referenced elsewhere such as 1 Timothy 5.14 - the younger widows (and by implication young women) are exhorted to marry and give no occasion for to the adversary to speak reproachfully - in other words they are not to bring shame on the Church by their non- or anti-domestic behaviour. His exhortation is to marry and to remain in the domestic sphere - to bear children and guide the house.
Likewise in Titus, the young women are again encouraged toward the domestic sphere that the word of God be not blasphemed, the notion again touching on the idea of women out in the world (as it were) bringing shame on the Church.
The failure on the part of the Evangelical world to obey the apostolic exhortation on both these points has given the error a double foothold or double beach-head and it has proven devastating. The answer is not to temper this tendency but to call it out and expose it. Women in positions of authority and leadership out in the world are going to balk at the notion that suddenly on Sunday morning in the Church they are commanded to submission and silence. The contemporary Evangelical practice (in keeping with the culture) seems schizophrenic and it's hardly surprising to find the cultural norm is winning the day.
But of course calling this out or taking a hard line on this will quickly empty your church and I'm sure Burk (who is connected to a popular and financially flourishing institution) knows this and thus tempers his rhetoric. The issue is not whether or not women should teach geometry - he does not specify if he means privately or publicly. Obviously Paul is not giving instructions on what kind of tasks or teaching are legitimate outside the Church and the teaching is not given in the form of 'rules'. Wisdom is required and everyone's circumstances are different. We must be careful and resist being quick to judge. Not every working woman is a feminist. There are situations in which women can and maybe even ought to work. These are often temporary. Wisdom and discernment are required.
There are many jobs and 'career paths' out there but not all are appropriate for Christians and even fewer for Christian women. Life is complicated and messy but the normative model is for Christian women to remain in the domestic sphere. And since we're not Dominionists we understand this ethic as covenantal and not universal. Lost career women (as it were) don't need legislation forcing them to stay home and bear children. What they need is the gospel faithfully preached and taught - a rare commodity indeed. Once they are transformed and renewed by the Holy Spirit - the Biblical path will become clear to them. I'm not worried about the women of Babylon. My concern is for the daughters of Zion.
But lest we allow the exceptions to become the rule or we get lost in a fog of rationalisation and casuistry, we need to emphasize again that I am arguing that these notions of silence, shamefacedness, and submission go along with his exhortations toward domesticity and discretion - both spheres are connected with his concern that the conduct of women does not bring shame on the Church or give its adversaries occasion to blaspheme. This part of the discussion is frequently ignored and Burk's article is no different. It is so counter-cultural that few are willing to even touch on this and yet these issues cannot be separated from the debates regarding women in the Church.
And as I have long argued, the remaining dissent and debate was effectively shut down in 2008 as the Christian Right was in a panic. From their skewed perspective a Black Muslim-Communist (sic) was about to win the presidency and John McCain was no friend to the Evangelical movement and generally disliked by them. The Christian Right's politicos were in a real quandary and they feared Evangelicals would stay home or worse vote for Obama because of the spiralling unpopularity and the failures of Bush.
Enter Sarah Palin. She was literally their saviour and they got behind her 110% and any dissent within Christian circles was shouted down. They did not want to hear the voices of those concerned about the fact that this feminist wife and mother was taking an assertive leadership role - with her husband looking like a milquetoast chump in the background. The debate was over and it led to a flood of Evangelical women entering politics resulting in the crude and sluttish behaviour of contemporary women like Boebert, Taylor-Greene, Mace, and others.
The same is true with divorce. It started with the Christian Right's endorsement of Reagan and thirty some years later would result in the full embrace of Trump, a serial divorcee and unabashed adulterer, whoremonger, and rapist.
Burk is correct in suggesting the argument is not about women being inferior or of lesser intellectual capability. That has nothing to do with it. These are modern attempts to discredit the argument. Burk is to be commended for his handling of this portion, but the article and the larger set of arguments still exhibit some concerning deficiencies and a great deal more could be said about the nature of the relationship in the Garden, the effects of the Fall, and what is hinted at in terms of Eternity. It does not negate the larger truth regarding men, women, and authority in the Church but it does provide for a more nuanced discussion - something most 'conservative' leaders are hoping to avoid, especially in denominations where these questions remain controversial. Remove the controversy and there are some very promising discussions that can be had about what is hinted at in eternity, in Christ, and in context in which marriage no longer has any import.
This larger issue of feminism and disobedience to Scripture is a huge problem in the modern Western Church and I find that many 'conservatives' are not addressing the problem and properly answering it but rather are doing something akin to treading water or more often than not moving the goalposts and defining themselves vis-a-vis the most radical elements on the Left. The real issue here is Scriptural authority and Sufficiency. The latter point in particular is ignored or danced around and in many cases modern Evangelicals consistently demonstrate that they reject the ideas of Scriptural Authority and Sufficiency when it comes to ecclesiology - how the Church is structured, governed, how it shepherds the flock, and how it worships. Burk's own congregation (while perhaps better than many that are out there) also exhibits this problem in terms of its polity, worship, etc.
This touches on a final point - the vacuum is often filled with modern sensibilities in terms of marketing. The Church is approached as a consumer product to be sold and one that offers services. Discipline and the Christian life and ideas of leadership and discipleship are more often than not determined by this same marketing ethos combined with a heavy dose of psychology. This triad of Feminism, Divorce, and Psychology overtook Evangelicalism in the 1970's and by the 1990's had won the day. Until this is addressed, leaders like Burk and his bosses will continue to tread water. But they know full well that taking on this triad will empty churches and destroy denominations and 'ministries', and so like the proverbial elephant in the room, they are ignored.
https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2021/02/mammon-and-accommodationist-triad-of.html
https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2022/11/inbox-psychology-follow-up-i.html
No comments:
Post a Comment