What the heck do we do with a text like that?

 

According to the author of First Timothy: 

women are to be silent and submissive;

they are not permitted to teach in the Church…

nor to have any authority over men;

and, indeed, they can only obtain “salvation” through childbirth. 

This extraordinary diatribe has played a major role in the Church’s suppression of women––

indeed the Church’s oppression of women.

It figured prominently in the arguments of Saint Augustine… 

and the Mediaeval leaders of the Catholic Church.

It is still used forcefully by those churches that bar women from ministry––

like the Lutheran Church…

the Southern Baptists…

and the Anglican Diocese of Sydney.

But it also figured prominently in the battles for women’s suffrage in the nineteenth century…

prompting a leading suffragette––

Elizabeth Cady Stanton––

to exclaim:

“The Bible and the Church have been the greatest stumbling blocks in the way of women’s emancipation”.

And, a while back… 

former US president Jimmy Carter announced that he was writing a book…

in which he would argue that, worldwide, “the practice of religion” is probably the dominant cause or excuse for “violations of women’s rights”.

To what extent can we hear this text from First Timothy and–– 

with integrity––

respond, “In this is the Word of the Lord”?

 

Now, some commentators point out… 

that the whole text was drafted in a context where there were disputes about what it meant to be ‘church’;

thus, they point out, the author also issues instructions to men…

such that they would pray in an appropriate manner…

avoiding conflicts and angry disputes;

such commentators note that the author’s overarching aim is for the church to lead a “quiet and peaceable life”—

by which, he means fitting into their society…

not attracting any unwanted attention or resentment or punitive measures;

and, to that end, what the author says is in keeping with normal Graeco-Roman social practices…

where a woman’s place was, traditionally, to be silent and submissive;

where women were seen morally and mentally as weak and feeble…

and hence dangerous and a potential source of chaos––

if they were not controlled.

As such, the author’s appeal is a traditional one, harkening back to “the good old days”…

and how things used to be…

and how they ought to be.

And it’s made in a broader social context where women—

at least more educated, affluent, and well-to-do women—

were agitating for greater freedoms.

But, seriously, does any of that make this text any better…

or any less offensive?

After all, the author doesn’t make some contextual…

contingent…

or concessional response.

His response is, rather, generalised…

sweeping…

and intentionally absolute.

Drawing upon the Creation and Garden myths of Genesis two and three…

he argues for the subordination of women––

by implying that it was an innate aspect of God’s original purpose for creation;

and he argues for the subordination of women…

because of an inherent character flaw…

or an inbuilt moral weakness.

The author is trying to create a theological justification for his social traditionalism;

and for his vision of what the church ought to be… 

and how it ought to function.

 

Of course, his wasn’t the only voice.

The place and role of women in the church was a matter of discussion and debate. 

And, initially, at least, there were a number of churches where women played a significant role.

Within that context, the author of First Timothy is trying to stake a claim:

that his vision, his view, was THE truth.

Once again, he’s engaged in an exercise in power.

Once again, he’s watering down the radical nature of God’s love, mercy, and acceptance.

Once again, he’s making grace conditional.

And, once again, in seeking to speak in Paul’s name…

he’s distorting and subverting Paul’s message.

After all, when Paul––

the genuine Paul, that is––

draws upon these Genesis myths…

he uses the example of Eve’s deception to make the point that all humankind––

both men and women––

have a propensity to be deceived and go astray.

Not so the author of First Timothy!

Also, the genuine Paul is happy for women to remain single and celibate.

He’s also happy for them to speak, and pray, and teach in church…

as long as they do so in an appropriate way.

Not so the author of First Timothy!

For him, women only have a place in the Church––

indeed, in the Kingdom of God––

through marriage and motherhood…

through submission to patriarchal structures.

Because, for this author, God is ultimately a sovereign God.

God is in control.

God is a benevolent despot.

And, implicitly, that means that God is male.

Everything else flows from that image and that theology.

For this author, then, the church exists to buttress the social status quo…

with peace and harmony as the ultimate goal––

all of which requires unity of purpose…

with male authority and female submissiveness.

Not only does this all involve a theological distortion…

but it’s incredibly pastorally insensitive.

What does his claim that women are “saved” through childbirth say to single women…

or to women who were infertile?

If, for no other reason, this is wrong because it places ideology above compassion;

because it emphasises structures and institutions and dogmas––

albeit incorrect ones––

over people.

In so doing, this author––

more than anyone else––

laid the foundation for the structural suppression of women in the Church.

 

So, is there anything in this text that is redeemable?

Is there anything that is helpful?

Perhaps…

but not much!

Maybe it serves as an example of how not to do theology;

and how not to respond to movements of social change.

And maybe, unwittingly, it’s also challenging us… 

to consider how our vision of the church and how our practices as church…

help to perpetuate the suppression…

or even the oppression of women. 

 

Now, admittedly, that may not seem an issue to many of you.

After all, this church has moved a long way from its former days…

when only men served as deacons.

On the other hand, this church has never had a woman minister.

Now, of course, until a few decades ago that wouldn’t have been possible at all.

But, say, around the time when I came here it would have been.

Now, it could be argued, perhaps, that this Church has always chosen the best person for the job…

and, as it happens, that’s always been a man.

But how much of that is because our image of what constitutes a “good” minister is implicitly masculine?

And how much of that is the result of structural disadvantage––

of women not being seen as equally gifted or capable…

or given the opportunities to become so… 

because the system doesn’t allow them to be? 

At the same time, we also have to ask…

to what extent is this influenced by our language and imagery for God…

and our language and imagery for humankind––

not least in the hymns that we sing?

 

Are we… 

unwittingly… 

continuing the structural suppression of women in the church…

rather than affirming–– 

both in deed and in word––

that “colour, culture, sex or creed”

should never “enslave” nor suppress a child of God?