By Rev. Henry Sun
Special to the Herald

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.  And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.” (1 Timothy 2:12-14 [NIV]).
“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]).

I mentioned last month that 1 Timothy 2 was my least favorite chapter in the New Testament.  This week’s column expands on that thought with the help of two Christian siblings in the Catholic– that is, the universal– family of faith:  John Piper and Rachel Held Evans.
Recently, Piper– the Chancellor of Bethlehem College and Seminary in Minneapolis– and Evans– a best-selling author and Christian blogger– had an indirect conversation about the relationship between men and women.
It was indirect because they didn’t have this conversation with each other.  Instead, Piper published a piece called “Sex-Abuse Allegations and the Egalitarian Myth” on the desiringgod.org website, and Evans responded to it on her blog with her piece “Patriarchy Doesn’t Protect Women:  A Response to John Piper” at rachelheldevans.com.
In reading both pieces, it seems clear to me that Piper’s criticism of gender equality is correct from this perspective:  there are texts in Scripture that support the subordination of women to their husbands, and women to men in the church in general.  Piper gives high priority to the narrative in Genesis 3, interpreted through the filter of 1 Timothy 2:12-14, quoted above.  He adds to that the exhortations within the New Testament that men should “love their wives” (Colossians 3:19, Ephesians 5:22-33; see also 1 Peter 3:7 “treat them [that is, your wives] with respect as the weaker partner and heirs with you of the gracious gift of life”).  His conclusion?  “This divine design for men as men to show a special care, protection, and honor to women is essential for good — for the good of families, churches, society, and for women in particular.”
Evans, on the other hand, argues that violence against women is as old as time itself, manifesting itself in stories from the OT that long pre-date any theological conception of egalitarianism (citing the stories of Hagar [Genesis 16], Tamar [Genesis 38], Lot’s daughters [Genesis 19] and Bath-Sheba [2 Samuel 11] – references supplied).  Most importantly, Evans focuses attention on Paul’s affirmation in Galatians 3:28, quoted above.  Evans concludes that “Patriarchy is not counter-cultural. It has for centuries been the norm. What’s truly counter-cultural is imitating Jesus, who, ‘being in very nature God,’ surrendered his power and privilege to become a human—one birthed, nursed, protected, befriended, and BELIEVED by women.”
No matter how one adjudicates this debate – full disclosure, I thought that Evans had much the better of the argument – what could not be clearer is that both of these Christians seek to ground their views in a faithful reading of Scripture.  This is true both for Piper’s patriarchy and for Evans’ egalitarianism.  Indeed, as I read these texts in their ancient contexts, I find it hard to disagree with Piper’s reading of 1 Timothy 2.  I wish that somehow it said something else, but it does not seem to.  1 Timothy 2 lays out a vision of men and women in which women are forever deemed second class citizens because Adam was created first and because Eve committed the first sin.
That reading does not, however, cohere easily with Paul’s affirmation that in Christ there is no male or female (Galatians 3).  It is interesting to note that Piper nowhere mentions Galatians 3 in his piece, and that Piper has generalized texts that speak to the husband-wife relationship as being normative for male-female relationships in general.  Nor does it cohere with the existence of prominent women leaders in the early church.  Peter Davids reminds us that Paul mentions the women Phoebe, Lydia, Euodia, Syntyche, Priscilla, and Junia as ministers, deacons, fellow workers, co-laborers in the gospel, and apostles in Romans 16 and Philippians 4 (Hard Sayings of the Bible, 666).
And so we are faced with a choice. We can, like Piper, affirm the theological priority of 1 Timothy 2 over Galatians 3 and thereby affirm the ontological superiority of men over women, husbands over wives, and talk about the genders as being separate and distinct but equal.  (Of course, “separate but equal” as a legal doctrine has not fared well, despite the Supreme Court’s decision in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896.)
Or, we can like Evans affirm the theological priority of Galatians 3 over 1 Timothy 2 and thereby affirm the ontological equality of women with men and wives with husbands, and interpret 1 Timothy 2 as reflecting (perhaps) a local concern with false teaching and the women who learned about and advocated for it (as does Davids, cited above).
But whatever choice we make, it must surely be obvious that because BOTH choices are grounded in Scripture, WE are the ones who are the active moral agents making one theological choice or the other.
That’s part of what makes reading Scripture in the 21st century contentious.  We all would like to think that we are passive devotional students of these biblical texts, allowing Scripture to speak its message, and thus to inform our consciences and our characters, and finally to effect our own spiritual transformation, the way that water poured on a plant enables the plant to grow and flourish without any obvious work by the plant itself.
The problem is that this passive model ignores the active role we play in assessing and evaluating one part of Scripture against another when the two parts do not speak with one voice.  We are active readers who decide whether and how to be faithfully obedient to Scripture.  (Every parent who has had to feed toddlers who are unwilling to eat and toddlers who are eager to eat knows well the importance of active involvement in eating!)
Both Piper (who is choosing to prioritize 1 Timothy 2 over Galatians 3) and Evans (who is choosing to prioritize Galatians 3 over 1 Timothy 2) are choosing how they will be faithful to Scripture.  Once their respective choices have been made, both then struggle with the question of how to faithfully obey that priority within the community of faith and how to situate their decision within the broader context of the whole, canonical, Scripture.
A vibrant faith for the 21st century must acknowledge the reader’s active role in this process of a faithful reading of Scripture.  Indeed, it will affirm it and cultivate it as we actively seek to serve and follow the Risen Lord as ministers of reconciliation on behalf of the Kingdom of Heaven.

Sharing is caring!