Women-Blockers I Respect
Bible “Strict Constructionists”
When it comes to women
entering ministry there are plenty of people in the church intent on blocking
them. Some are active woman-blockers,
others furtively pocket-veto women entering ministry with a NIMBY*
attitude. I think all women-blockers are
wrong and will eventually be remembered like we now look at people who argued
that Native Americans did not have a soul, or that women should not vote, or
that guitars are instruments of the Devil.
My credentials as an opponent of women-blockers are sturdy.
But there is one group of women-blockers I respect. Those are the
folk who have a Bible hermeneutic where they honestly attempt to “bring over
directly to today” the plain reading of Bible verses. That is, they oppose women in ministry
because they believe the Bible should be applied directly from the first
century to today without any filtering for the social world of the first
century or any other factor besides simply directly applying the words to today
“as is.” These “strict
constructionists” say the Bible “says what it means and means what it
says.” They allow for no explaining away
of Scriptural commands as being for “that time” or bring “the principle”
forward to today. Rather, they say
whatever Jesus, or Paul, or any other Bible writer said then is directly
applicable to today “as is.”
For instance, on the women in ministry issue consider
Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 14:34.
He said “let women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to
speak, but they are to be submissive.” Bible
“Strict Constructionists” believe Paul
“meant what he said and said what he meant” therefore this applies directly to
today “as is” without considering the role of women in the first century,
individual problems in the Corinthian church that may be mitigating factors, or
anything other than the “plain words in the Bible applied directly to today’s
church.”
To be honest, I respect these people if they are
consistent. That is, I respect them if they consistently
apply the rest of the Bible in the same fashion—with “strict constructionist” procedures.
o
So are you a “strict
constructionist” on the women in ministry issue?
o
Are you also then a “strict
constructionist” on other Bible matters like these?.
1. Our women do not braid their hair, wear gold or
pearls or costly clothing. (1 Timothy 2:9) No fudging, now—just let Paul “mean what he says and say what he
means.” The teaching here is plain—then
is this how the all the women in your church look?
2. Our women wear a head covering when they pray or
prophecy. (1 Corinthians 11: 4, 5,
13) C’mon no fudging here either— Paul
“meant what he said and said what he meant”—a woman must have a head covering
to pray. If you are “strict
constructionist” you must bring this over as plain teaching and join the
Mennonite practice—or maybe even go beyond, for the veil of the first century
was certainly no flimsy mosquito-netting-like veil. Be consistent—if you are going to
ban women from ministry using one of Paul’s statements—you can’t cherry-pick
through the Bible deciding which ones “come over direct” and which ones you
chose to run through a social filter.
Bring them all over and I will
respect you. Otherwise you are
fraudulently using your hermeneutic simply where it matches your pre-supposed
cultural opinion.
3. Our board members and ministers are all married—we
exclude all single people from leadership at our church. (1 Timothy 3:2;
4. Our minister’s children are obedient. (1 Timothy 3:4) Strict constructionists
have no room to fudge here and talk about the first century life-and-death
power of a father over his children—therefore you must simply “bring it over
direct” and let Paul “say what he meant and mean what he said.” He said that you can’t be a minister if you
have kids who don’t obey you or even become rebellious. After all, how can you rule the church if you
can’t rule your own kids? So what do
you do if your minister has a teenager who rebels? If you are a strict constructionist, I assume
you are consistent with this verse just like you are about women speaking in
church or having authority over men. Be
consistent and I will respect you.
5. We all speak in tongues at our church. (1 Cor 14:5) After all,
Paul was clear when he said “I would like every one of you to speak in
tongues.” He meant what he said and said
what he meant—he wanted us all to speak in tongues. Thus a “Strict
Constructionist” must take this apostolic desire in Scripture seriously and
“bring it over direct” to today.
OK, I don’t need to list all 75 of my favorite verses
where most women-blocker “strict constructionists” switch hermeneutics mid
stream. You get my point. The vast
majority of people who claim to be opposed to women “having authority over men”
because “it is the plain teaching of the Bible” are merely cherry-picking
verses where they use this direct-to-today hermeneutic. When it comes to many other verses, they
switch hermeneutics and “bring over the principle” or “adapt the central truth
from the first century” to today. This is a mistaken approach to Scripture
and I cannot respect someone who plays with Scripture with such a caviler
spirit.
What is really happening is
their position comes first (e.g. women shouldn’t be ordained/I hate feminists/women
are getting too much power/whatever,) then they search for Scriptural backing
for their already-established position. When they find a verse they claim they
hold their opinion because “it is the plain teaching of Scripture.” Then when they are confronted with
explanations about the first century social setting, or some view of the verse
which brings over a principle, they blow it off by saying “Paul meant what he
said and said what he meant”—it comes over to today “as is.”
But this kind of person is
often a fraud when it comes to the rest of the Bible—just follow them around,
listen to them preach, read their writing, listen to their explanations of
other difficult texts—and you will repeatedly see them abandon their “plain
sense of the words for today” hermeneutic on other issues. Thus they are fraudulent in their
interpretation of Scriptures. They are
people-with-positions-seeking-biblical-support, not really disciples seeking to
follow the whole Bible in their life.
You can’t trust this sort of Bible manipulation.
But if you are a consistent “Strict constructionist” I
respect you.
While I respect you, I believe you are still wrong.
And, you don’t belong in my
denomination—this time NIMBY applies to you.
* NIMBY
= Not In My Back Yard