Considering Freedom and Boundaries

In a recent Session meeting, one of the elders asked a particular question that related to the issue of men and women in the church. It was a question about which people have differing opinions, even if they are in general agreement regarding the larger issue.

I sent him some exegetical and historical work I’d done on the pertinent texts in years past. I also sent him links to a few books on the topic. One was a book I had not seen before, and decided to read for myself. That was Kevin DeYoung’s Freedom and Boundaries: A Pastoral Primer on the Role of Women in the Church.  I was particularly interested because DeYoung serves in the RCA, a denomination in which many egalitarians have found a home. He is a complementarian, so I wondered how he handled this particular issue.

He wrote the book (published in 2006) for congregations similar to his own which did not have “official” positions on the subject. He wanted the book to be understandable for lay people. He wanted to display an irenic spirit. The goal was not to bash those who disagree with him. He did not want to descend into vitriol or presenting strawman arguments (how a view is presented would not be recognizable to those who hold the view).

I believe he succeeded in both cases.

Much of the book is taken up with looking at the passages at the heart of this discussion (Genesis 1-3; 1 Corinthians 11; 1 Corinthians 14; 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Timothy 3. He also handles some common objections as well as briefly outlining the many things he believes women can do in the church. In the appendices he includes his sermon on Ephesians 5 and the similarity in arguments for those espousing egalitarianism and the acceptance of homosexual behavior in the church.

“Controversy, because it makes us think more carefully and support our ideas more substantially, can actually strengthen the church.”

He begins with a series of questions to “set the stage” for the larger discussion. He affirms that this is not a “salvation” issue (I disagreed with one of my favorite professors in this issue, and have friends with whom I disagree). It is a question for the well-being of the church. As such, we should investigate it.

He then talks about issues for interpretation. These include praying for the illumination of the Scripture, the analogy of faith (clear Scripture interpreting less clear Scripture), recognizing genre, the use of community (historical and contemporary) and how to distinguish normative teaching from non-normative. These basic issues are fundamental. He handles them briefly but clearly.

In Genesis 1-3 he recognizes the equality of men and women. This is not a discussion of equality. They are both made in the image of God. As egalitarians are fond of pointing out, the word translated “helper” is a very positive one and often used for God. The two also came from one flesh and become one flesh.

There is some common ground here. Biblical complementarianism is not intended to keep women barefoot and pregnant. It is not meant to denigrate women in any way. Anyone who argues it is, whether left or right, has not understood the position. Yes, there are people out there who twist the biblical doctrine to their own sinful purposes (like any biblical doctrine, like justification or election).

The question is not about essence or status before God. The issue is about roles (though that can be greatly misunderstood) w/respect to authority in the home and the church. Time for a “isn’t Cavman stupid story.”

While looking for work back in 2008-10, I interviewed with an insurance company. I had sent them the wrong resume, the one I sent to churches. To make things clear for some churches I referred to male headship in home and church. One of the two interviewers was a woman. And while we laughed at it initially, they continually went back to the issue. Could I submit to a female boss? Of course! I had often, and could again. My mistake caused me no small amount of frustration (I wonder if they asked to interview me just to see me squirm) and most likely the job. Rightly understood, male headship is not about men over women generally. Women can hold positions of authority in the workplace and government. Women can teach men in colleges and universities. Complementarianism does not exclude women from these positions and ways of serving society.

But we also see something else in the creation story. Adam was created first. Adam was given instruction by God. Adam named Eve (an example of exercising authority). She was made “for” him, to complement him, and help him fulfill the Creation Mandate to fill, subdue and rule the earth (she’s his queen, not his slave). And while she was deceived and sinned first, it was Adam’s sin that plunged us all into sin and misery (Romans 5).

One of the controversial points is the meaning of “desire” as part of the curse. DeYoung spends some time here showing that it should have the same meaning as in chapter 4 due to the similar context and grammatical construction. This is where there is a difference of opinion with both egalitarians and “new wave complementarians”.

He has a short (too short?) chapter on Jesus and women. Jesus departed from culture in significant ways. He talked to women in public despite not being related to them. He honored women, instructed women (some were his disciples), received help from women etc. Yet, it is most likely significant that the 12 were all men. Jesus was not afraid of man. If he thought women could be Apostles, he could have chosen some. Mary comes to mind.

“The Father and Son share the same essence and rank, and yet in their relationship, the Son submits to the Father while the Father never submits to the Son. No inferiority. No inequality. Yet, different roles.”

In 1 Corinthians 11 there are plenty of issues. One of the main ones is the meaning of “head”. Is it referring to authority or source? Replace “head” with each of them and see which makes more sense, not just for men and women but Christology and the Trinity. He also builds a grammatical and historical case for authority.  He also shows how the principles at work here were not just for the Corinthian church but in a larger section in which he notes this was ordinary practice for churches.

In the worship service we find in 1 Corinthians 11 that women are able to pray (outloud), read and even prophesy (this is one place where the Puritans’ understanding of prophecy doesn’t work). Prophesy was to be evaluated, therefore it was not authoritative. It is not to be confused with preaching.

“Paul allowed women to prophesy, but did not allow them to join in the weighing of the prophecy.”

As we shift to 1 Corinthians 14 we must recognize that the instruction that women are to be silent cannot rule out what Paul already said women can do. He writes within the context of his previous instruction. This command is not absolute, but determined by the context which is the evaluation of prophecy. They were not to speak while the prophecy was examined and weighed. Churches are overly prohibitive if they do not allow women to speak in church- period. Such a view takes the command out of its context in both 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Corinthians 11.

1 Timothy 2 is another controversial passage. Note that Paul breaks with culture in encouraging women to learn. DeYoung reminds us of the events recorded in Acts regarding Ephesus. The main leaders against the young church were men, not women. So, to argue that Paul is talking about out of control, controlling women is to distort the historical context of this letter. In the very next chapter, Paul says these are matters concerning the household of God. These instructions are not culture or situation bound but for the church wherever it may be. Additionally, Paul grounds his comments about women teaching and exercising authority in creation. It isn’t about women behaving badly. It is meant to be normative for the church.

Paul did not permit women to teach or have authority over men in the church. This is not about false teachers (why single out women, can men teach error?). It is about submitting to the created order in the church.

In 1 Timothy 3, keeping 1 Timothy 2 in mind, we find the qualification for officers in the church. There are two offices in the church: elder and deacon. One teaches and rules while the other serves. According to both chapter 2, and the qualifications in chapter 3 women are prohibited from serving as elders because of the primary functions of elders.

What is not as clear is verse 11. Is it referring to the wives of deacons or women who are deacons or deaconnesses? DeYoung presents the arguments for both. He leans toward the 2nd view. But it is hard to be dogmatic about this when you are examining the Greek.

In the church (which is the focus on this book) he basically says that women can serve in numerous ways- teaching children and other women, prayer, leading committees, etc. The only thing they are not to do would be exercising authority over men and teaching men whether this was as an elder or a mixed Sunday School class. He had not issues with women facilitating mixed Bible studies (not exercising authority, but facilitating) or a prayer meeting.

I’ll briefly say that in the home, “roles” should not be understood in such a way as to define “men’s work” and “women’s work”. It is about following the lead of the husband (not all men) just as the church is to follow the lead of Christ. There can and should be discussion and input (you pray to Christ our Head, right?). But God holds the man responsible as the head even if he doesn’t act like it. DeYoung’s sermon on Ephesians 5 in Appendix 1 is helpful in evaluating what it is and is not.

He then moves into the common objections against complementarianism. I should leave you with good cause to buy this good book. I think he answers those objections from the text and context. This book is readable. He was not very technical in light of his intended audience and his purpose. And he was brief as this book is only about 150 pages. In this book, I think he’s done a great service to the Church.