Category: Church Life

According to Complementarian Michael Kruger, Listening to Women is Essential if We Hope to Successfully Confront Spiritual Abuse in the Church

~ Sarah J. O'Connor ~ Leave a comment

Christianity Today ran a nice review of Michael J. Kruger’s new book Bully Pulpit: Confronting the Problem of Spiritual Abuse in the Church. I wholeheartedly agree that Kruger’s book is small yet mighty and will prove invaluable in addressing the issue of spiritual leaders who, as Kruger states, use their position to manipulate, domineer, bully, and intimidate those under them in order to maintain their power and control (24). 

However, the complementarian reviewer failed to mention the place Kruger grants women in identifying and confronting abuse by religious leaders. In his extensive research, Kruger spoke with people in different denominations and with varying theological viewpoints from across the country. These included pastors, leaders, congregants, and victims themselves.

What Kruger learned was this: women’s voices are essential, yet too often dismissed.

Though not the dominant focus of the book, Kruger points out a couple of things: 1) women often suffer more from a bullying leader; and 2) drawing them into the solution is absolutely essential. Honestly, though I would go farther than Kruger, placing women in all decision-making processes, I can’t say enough good about this book. 

Kruger is on the money in his description of the tactics and motives of bullying leaders and why these individuals – who go into ministry because they love Jesus – end up abusing their flocks. His explanation of the reasons churches don’t stop abusive leaders, description of how victims suffer, and suggestions for avoiding the problem are also on point. More could be said, of course, but what Kruger does say is significant. His book will be an important resource for years to come. 

Today, though, I want to look at some of Kruger’s thoughts on how spiritual abuse can target women and why women are a necessary part of the solution.

In his second chapter, Kruger talks about layers of authority that can add to the depth of abuse. For example, if a pastor domineers a member of his staff, he does so from two positions of authority: that of pastor, and that of boss. But if the staff member is a woman, the pastor:

…may wrongly exploit an additional male-female dynamic as yet another level of perceived authority. (26)

Kruger is a New Testament scholar, pastor, and complementarian, so I doubtless would disagree with his theology of gender. Yet I do concur with Kruger on this: women are not called to submit to men just because they’re men (26). I also appreciate the fact that Kruger recognizes the prevalence of the belief in a generalized male-female hierarchy and the many problems it engenders. Through his research he uncovered serious issues in the treatment of women in what he terms “patriarchal” churches. 

In churches that embrace a patriarchal theology, the weight of this authority [of men over women] is felt even more acutely. Although patriarchal theology should be distinguished from biblical complementarianism, some groups claim to be complementarian but effectively operate with a patriarchal paradigm…These churches often have a severe top-down male authority structure that is not to be questioned or challenged, especially by women. These church cultures create an ideal environment for spiritual abuse. (26)

Kruger goes on to recount the story of a pastor who tried to use I Corinthians 14:34-35, which talks about women being “silent” in church, to muzzle a woman who had come forward with concerns. Kruger observes that this was “an appalling and irresponsible application of that passage.” Though I’m not entirely convinced it’s possible to extract patriarchal theology from complementarian practice, I appreciate Kruger’s acknowledgement of the dangers of this mindset.

Later Kruger talks about other ways churches dismiss claims brought forward by victims. One has to do with the idea that victims’ experiences cloud their judgment, making them “overly emotional and therefore unreliable” (92). In describing this mentality Kruger writes:

This tactic is often used if the victim coming forward is a woman. It’s all too easy for an abusive pastor to convince a room of his fellow, all-male elders that a woman cannot be trusted because she, like all women, is too sensitive and therefore unreliable (unlike him, of course). (92)

Kruger has no patience for this type of response, as it discounts women’s testimony out-of-hand, and bluntly asserts that it lacks charity and compassion and, in particular, demeans women.

In his chapter on creating an environment that is less susceptible to abuse, Kruger highlights the importance of not placing bullying individuals into leadership positions in the first place. One way to avoid this is to talk to people who worked under the applicant in prior positions. Kruger then notes:

Make sure to reach out to women at the candidate’s prior church, either a volunteer leader or female staff. In my experience, search committees almost never talk to women but only men. …Women often have a radically different perspective on their church than men do. (115)

No kidding. Especially women who serve directly under the senior pastor. 

One pastor I knew, after losing one woman staff member after another due to his demanding and domineering leadership style, realized that deep-down, under his many magnanimous overtures toward women, he was a misogynist. Unfortunately, in spite of this momentary self-revelation, I’m not sure he ever succeeded in overcoming his deep-seated beliefs in the inferiority of women.

Kruger goes on to suggest that instead of giving the senior pastor authority to hire and fire church employees at will, an independent hiring and firing committee made up of elders and non-elders, including both men and women, should be established (118). When it comes to the pastor’s annual performance review, Kruger says it needs to include not only fellow elders, but also those who work under him and a few church members. Once again this team needs to incorproate both men and women (119). 

Kruger is also up-front about the fact that abusive leaders are often not held accountable because those tasked with the job are too often yes-men or close friends. To avoid this, Kruger writes:

One way to add independent, outside voices to the leadership structure is to invite women to participate. As already noted, women typically have very different perspectives on the church than the men, and their voices aren’t always heard. (120-21)

Kruger goes on to state that even complementarian churches can implement this idea by including women on official committees or as nonvoting advisors to the elders. I once served as an elder in an officially complementarian church, which might seem like a contradiction in terms. However, our bylaws were written such that women composed only one-third of the eldership, maintaining a male majority.

I don’t know that Kruger would go for women elders. Nonetheless, he insists on women’s inclusion in leadership bodies:

Whichever way it is done, women’s voices can prevent the church leadership from becoming overly insular and ingrown. (121)

One team where the inclusion of women is vitally important, according to Kruger, is an accountability committee whose task it is to:

…handle issues related to the senior pastor’s job performance, as well as fielding any and all complaints related to the senior pastor’s behavior. …This team would be the hub of the wheel when it comes to dealing with claims of spiritual abuse. (124)

It is impossible to overstate how important including women on such a team would be. One of the reasons for having women elders at our complementarian church was their usefulness in resolving a dispute involving a woman. The idea was that a woman’s perspective would be invaluable in such a case, without which a fair resolution might be impossible to attain. 

Too bad it never worked out that way in practice.

That may be why I appreciate the way Kruger demonstrates the necessity of including women on such a team.

Imagine a scenario where a woman claims the senior pastor is harsh and heavy-handed. After she makes these claims, she soon finds herself in a room alone with a group of men who all happen to be close friends of the senior pastor. Suddenly they’re peppering her with questions, essentially cross-examining her. It’s not hard to imagine how she might feel like she’s the one under investigation. And the scenario only gets worse when that senior pastor talks to these men offline, weaving a narrative about the woman, claiming she’s difficult or hard to manage or insubordinate. (125)

Instead, Kruger writes, what should happen is this:

Imagine a female church staff member is the director of a church’s mercy ministry and works with and reports to the senior pastor. After years of domineering, heavy-handed treatment from the senior pastor, the woman finally decides to report the behavior. She goes to the accountability committee to share her story. That committee is composed of men and women who are trained (at least broadly) in how to spot abusive behavior and who exhibit a posture of sympathy and openness to such claims. (129)

The committee listens carefully and then proceeds to take appropriate steps. Whatever conclusion is reached or action is taken, the process protects the victim and makes it much more difficult for the abuse to continue unchecked.

Which is the point of Kruger’s book. 

We have a situation in the church where spiritual abuse abounds and too often continues unchecked. Kruger’s volume will be a helpful antidote to this tragic state of affairs.

They Should Have Known: Jephthah, Southern Baptists, and Sacrificing the Vulnerable

~ Sarah J. O'Connor ~ 7 Comments

Early this year I started penning an article on Jephthah, but I had so much going on that I found it difficult to quiet my mind for writing. Things have settled down a bit now, though, so here goes nothing.

You may recall the narrative. Jephthah was that incomprehensible character who so misunderstood God’s word and his ways that he sacrificed his daughter to fulfill a vow. It’s one of those Bible horror stories that I hate so much, yet somehow feel compelled to decipher. Even when I try, I can’t escape my inner need to comprehend what went wrong and what we can do to avoid falling into the same trap.

But to do that, we first need to figure out exactly what that trap is. I mean, our natural reaction to Jephthah is that no way, not on your life or even your death, would we or could we ever make the same mistake. 

Child sacrifice? Are you kidding?

And then, when a decades-long mishandling of reports of sexual abuse by the Southern Baptist Convention hit the news outlets in May, I wondered if there was some connection between the two. What was going on inside Jephthah, and what is it that he should have known that would have altered the outcome? And what was going on inside the SBC, and what is it that they should have known that would have changed everything?

When we look at the SBC scandal, it’s not so much that we find sin in an institution populated by human beings since, as Jesus reminded us, these things will come (Matt. 18:7). Rather, it’s the way the abuse was denied and covered up for decades, the way victims were stonewalled and intimidated and accused of wrongdoing themselves, the way the perpetrators of over 700 cases of abuse were moved around and protected at the same time their names were placed on a secret list the Executive Committee claimed could not and did not exist.

It’s the fact that the leaders of the convention were convinced that clamping down was what they had to do, that they had no option, that these accusations might simply be the hysterical imaginations of “professional victims,” or even a satanic plot to distract the SBC from its mission.

Whatever you say. 

Still, for my purposes here, does all this SBC nightmare relate in any way to what Jephthah did to his daughter? 

Perhaps.

Living during one of the most depraved times in Israel’s history, Jephthah is the consummate anti-hero, the unlikely and unexpected individual God raises up to accomplish his purposes. Son of a prostitute, Jephthah was driven out of the family circle by the legitimate sons. Without land or inheritance, Jephthah had to make his way in the world by his wits, eventually becoming known as an effective military leader. Later, when the Israelites were suffering under the Ammonites, they appealed to Jephthah for help. 

Here’s how he responded:

“Didn’t you hate me and drive me from my father’s house? Why do you come to me now, when you’re in trouble?” (Judg. 11:7)

It’s pretty clear that Jephthah had never gotten over his banishment, that he was still deeply wounded and bitter. Why should he help the people who kicked him to the curb, who treated him like dirt?

Which is a pretty good question. Yeah, why should he? But Gilead was in a bad way and desperately needed this outcast-outlaw, so the top-guns decided to take things to the next level and offer Jephthah a hefty enticement.

The elders of Gilead said to him, “Nevertheless, we are turning to you now; come with us to fight the Ammonites, and you will be head over all of us who live in Gilead.” (Judg. 11:8)

You will be head. Wow. Now that’s worth pausing and thinking about. 

Dangling vindication and acceptance before his very eyes, these men were promising Jephthah actualization of the significance he had always longed for. It was an amazing offer, beyond belief. Would these Gileadites truly follow through once the victory was won? Or would they reverse gears, claiming they never said such a thing? 

So, to make extra certain his victory would secure his leadership, Jephthah asked: 

“Suppose you take me back to fight the Ammonites and the Lord gives them to me – will I really be your head?” The elders of Gilead replied, “The Lord is our witness; we will certainly do as you say.” (Judg. 11:9-10)

The deep rejection Jephthah had suffered inflated the dream of becoming leader to an unmanageable size, setting him up to do the unthinkable. Obsessed by the possibility of his future glory, Jephthah was willing to do whatever it took to ensure the success of his mission.

Including bribing God.

Jephthah made a rash vow, promising to sacrifice the first thing that came out of his house upon his return, if God would but grant him victory. The vow was very specific, very clear, very horrid: the sacrifice would be a burnt offering. And Jephthah knew very well that the first creature exiting his dwelling might not be an animal. 

Yet that was the point. In an environment influenced by pagan rites that viewed human sacrifice as the ultimate act of devotion,[1] Jephthah was willing to take that risk of risks as long as he got the victory he required. He didn’t promise human sacrifice outright, but if that’s the way it fell out, so be it.

And, as J. Clinton McCann notes, “Undoubtedly, the text reflects the arrangements of a patriarchal culture in which women were subordinate, marginalized, and manipulated. And it also reflects the typical reality that the marginalized have little choice but to comply.”[2]

Here’s the catch: Jephthah was wrong to make the vow and wrong to keep it.[3]

Disastrously, his only child, a daughter, emerged from the house, dancing to the sound of timbrels. Jephthah was devastated yet believed he must fulfill his promise.[4] So, after allowing two months for his daughter and her friends to mourn the fact that she would never marry, Jephthah “did to her as he had vowed” (Judg. 11:39).

While some commentators have sought to lessen the horror of Jephthah’s act by claiming that “he presented her at the local shrine as a perpetual spiritual sacrifice,” they “ignore the plain meaning of olah and overestimate Jephthah’s spirituality.”[5] Arguments that the sacrifice was symbolic rather than literal arise from wishful thinking and our revulsion at the heinousness of the act. There is nothing in the wording of the text to indicate a figurative interpretation. 

However difficult it may be to accept, “We are clearly meant to understand that Jephthah literally sacrificed his daughter.”[6]

Ultimately, Jephthah slayed this defenseless maiden on the altar he had constructed in his heart, the altar he hoped would take away his feelings of insignificance and pain, the altar of self-interest.

What’s strange is that Jephthah didn’t seem to know the things he should have known. Apparently aware of the teachings of the Mosaic Law regarding the importance of fulfilling your vows (Num. 30), Jephthah appears ignorant of the fact that this same Mosaic Law uncompromisingly condemns child sacrifice (Lev. 18:21; 20:2-5).[7]

Jephthah also seems devastatingly unaware that “if someone unwittingly vows to do something evil, when he realizes he has done wrong he must confess it and bring a suitable animal as a sin offering.”[8]

And if a person was so remarkably dense that they did not comprehend that killing one’s only daughter was wrong, something that never entered Yahweh’s mind (Jer. 32:35), they could fall back on the legal exception of paying the equivalent value in exchange for the person devoted to the Lord.[9] For a teenage girl, this would amount to ten shekels (Lev. 27:5).

Yet perhaps the most obvious thing Jephthah should have known was that he could have taken the hit himself. This was always the case with a vow and the big reason people made haste to fulfill them. If you made a vow, but didn’t follow through, you would bear the consequences, bringing the curse upon yourself.[10]

In other words, Jephthah could have refused to kill his daughter and instead cast himself on Yahweh’s mercy. It would seem that in the worst possible scenario, Yahweh would have struck Jephthah dead.

So, instead of an innocent bystander caught in the web of a grown man’s self-interest, a foolish and needy man would have faced the consequences himself.

And here is where I pause and ponder what the SBC Executive Committee should have known and what they could have done.

The first thing they should have known is simply that there are specks and there are logs (Matt. 7:3-5), that while it’s true we all stand before God as sinners, some sins cause far greater harm than others. 

Have you ever noticed that Jesus never told someone with a speck to take it out before helping another with their log? Yeah, I know this might simply be a case of perspective, that when it’s in your eye, a speck feels like a log. Perhaps the log and speck are the same size, perhaps your sin and my sin are equally bad, perhaps the big idea is to confront myself with a bit of no-punches-pulled truth. 

Which is always a worthwhile endeavor.

On the other hand, maybe there really is a difference between a speck and a log, and maybe Jesus meant that some blind spots are humongous while others are miniscule, and if we have a great, big, honkin’ log in our eye, we have no business picking at someone else’s speck.

So, let’s just say there’s a woman who was repeatedly sexually assaulted by her pastor beginning at age fourteen and then, when pregnant, was required to “repent” before the church. She was not permitted to mention the identity of the father, however. Let’s say she grows up and at some point decides to speak out, and maybe she’s a little angry, or even a lot.

Then, just for argument’s sake, let’s imagine she sins in the process, perhaps by an inability or even unwillingness to love and pray for her enemy, as Jesus commanded. 

Then what if, in some leadership role we inhabit, we are charged with the task of picking out the specks and logs in this scenario. 

Where do we wield the ax? What are the logs and what are the specks? Or are all these attitudes and actions, well, equal? Do sexual abuse and its coverup truly correspond to an imperfect response to horrific mistreatment?

A second thing the SBC leaders should have known is how Jesus’s teaching about causing one of the “least of these” to stumble applies to their decision to cover up the abuse. 

If anyone causes one of these little ones – those who believe in me – to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come! (Matt. 18:6-7)

How many victims of abuse, when blamed, shamed, ignored, stonewalled, and vilified, manage to maintain their faith without stumbling or tumbling into disheartened disbelief? How many of these men, women, and children, but mostly women and children, walk into their future with hearts whole and minds free, souls full of trust in God?

And what does Jesus think about all this?

Another thing the Executive Committee should have known is that sometimes it’s necessary to break a vow. I don’t know what their commitment to the SBC looked like, but I do know that in positions like this you hold both a legal and ethical responsibility to protect the organization. 

However, as with Jephthah, there are limits. If greater principles are involved, such as truth or justice or protecting the least of these, the lesser must give way. You refuse to sacrifice the vulnerable on the altar of your duty or your reputation or even your mission.

You let go of self-interest and take the hit yourself.

As former Southern Baptist Russell Moore writes in his scathing rebuke of the conservative leadership that propelled the SBC on the trajectory that resulted in this massive coverup:

We were told they wanted to conserve the old time religion. What they wanted was to conquer their enemies and to make stained-glass windows honoring themselves – no matter who was hurt along the way.

Yes, there’s a price to pay when you take the hit, when you shelter the vulnerable instead of sacrificing them on your all-consuming altar of self-protection. 

Yes, you may be criticized. Yes, you may face legal ramifications. Yes, the mission may suffer.

And yes, you may even face death – death of the position or acceptance or significance you always longed for.

But that’s the price you pay to do what’s right.

Photo by Kenny Eliason on Unsplash

[1] “Child sacrifice is thought to be an extreme extension of the idea that the more important the object of sacrifice, the more devout the person giving it is.” Wikipedia, “Child Sacrifice.”

[2] J. Clinton McCann, Judges (Louisville: John Knox, 2002), 83.

[3] Barry G. Webb, The Book of Judges (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 336.

[4] Webb, 335, writes, “Whether or not Jephthah should have kept his vow…he clearly thought he had to.”

[5] Daniel I. Block, Judges, Ruth (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999), 372.

[6] Webb, 333.

[7] Webb, 336.

[8] Webb, 336.

[9] Block, 377.

[10] Block, 377.

Why I Write: For the First Time, Women Are Less Religious Than Men

~ Sarah J. O'Connor ~ 3 Comments

I haven’t been posting much on my blog lately, partly because I’ve been working on some other writing projects but also because I’ve taken a position at my church as the executive pastor. But recently Christianity Today came out with a report that explains why I write, why I believe God has called me to throw my hat in the ring with so many others who are discussing what the Bible does and does not say about women.

“With Gen Z, Women Are No Longer More Religious than Men” details recent research demonstrating that the differing rates of religious involvement for men and women in the United States, which previously has always shown higher rates among women, has reversed in younger generations. It is no surprise that compared to previous generations there are more nones (who identify as atheist, agnostic, or nothing in particular) among all Gen Zers (women and men). The startling fact is that this is the first generation in which women nones outnumber men.

Historically, about 5 percent more American women than men have reported holding some form of religious belief. This still holds true for Americans over the age of 50 but begins to flip as we come to younger Americans. The lines meet somewhere around age 35, and by the time we get to 20-year-olds, it is men who are about 5 percent more likely to be religious than women, at least in the population as a whole.

This shift has occurred primarily among White non-Hispanics, where the discrepancy is greater than 5 percent. Among young Asians and Hispanics, women remain more religious than men; among Gen Z Blacks, women are slightly less religious than men. But when it comes to young Whites, women are significantly less likely to adhere to any faith, lagging behind men by 9 percentage points.

Traditionally, there has been an even wider gap in church attendance. In evangelical churches, on average, women have comprised about 60 percent of people in pews. Once again, this still holds true for older generations but has reversed among those under 40. 

For the over 70 crowd, men are about 8 percent more likely than women to report that they never attend church. Among those under 20, however, women are some 3 percent more likely never to attend. Also, while Gen Z men are slightly more likely to attend religious services than men over 70, Gen Z women are about 6 percent less likely to go to church than their older counterparts. 

Reading these stats transported me back to a conversation I had with a council member of the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood a few years ago. When I suggested that evangelical women were struggling with the way their identity and place in the church has been presented, he quickly responded, “Women are fine. It’s men who need help.” He went on to cite various statistics demonstrating that women are doing much better than men.

It is true that women are pursuing college education at higher rates, graduating more often, advancing more professionally, and earning more than they used to. Women have also adjusted more easily to a modern economy that no longer provides as many employment opportunities in traditionally male occupations, such as manufacturing and mining. 

This has resulted in some of the lowest employment rates for men that the United States has ever seen, with only some 70 percent of men in the workforce compared to 85 percent in the mid twentieth century.[1] It has also resulted in women in their 20s outpacing men in earning power. In addition, men report higher rates of various addictions, from substance abuse to online gaming,[2] suffer “higher poverty rates than their counterparts 40 years ago,”[3] and are much more likely than women to live with their parents in their 20s and 30s. Clearly, men face significant challenges in America today.

Yet none of the issues facing men is causing them to leave the church in droves. In fact, if there is any connection between cultural issues and men’s involvement in religious activity, it may be that these challenges are having the opposite effect, pushing men toward faith rather than away from it. As I mentioned earlier it is interesting, in a world where adherence to any type of belief system is decreasing, that Gen Z men are slightly more likely to attend religious services than their counterparts over 70.

What I tried to explain to the CBMW council member that day was that the unique challenges men and women face arise from different sources. Men, and perhaps White men in particular, are facing new hurdles in the outside world, as detailed above. But women, and perhaps uniquely White women, are facing a situation within the church that is prompting them to step out for good.

The question is this: Why are women, who historically and across the globe have been more religious, leaving the church and even the faith in such high numbers?

I can only answer that question anecdotally. From my experience, the driving motivation is that women, especially younger women, do not feel as respected in the church as they do in society at large. In today’s world women can aspire to any profession and any position. Their agency as decision-makers in the public arena is affirmed. In most cases, women are treated as just as intelligent and capable as men, if not more so.

Then these women go to church and are taught that the woman was created second because women need guidance, because women need leadership from a man. They are told women were created to follow and support, but not lead, and that the essence of a woman’s identity is submission. They are trained to believe they must listen to and learn from men who may never take the time to listen to and learn from women. 

And though they have spent decades or years or days loving the God of the Bible, they begin to wonder if he’s truly good. For how could he be good if he created one sex to rule the other, one sex to be listened to and one to listen, one sex to command and the other to obey? And yet that is apparently what the Bible itself teaches about this God of Creation, this Ruler of the Universe, this Lover of their souls, at least according to what they have heard at church.

These women don’t need a pep talk, they don’t need to be patronized by those who laud the wonders of the hierarchical ordering of male and female, and they don’t need a sort of aggrandized, paternalistic “protection” from men who are neither their fathers nor their bodyguards nor the cop on the beat.

What they need are answers rooted in scripture, a believable explanation of the text that makes sense, that is faithful to the ancient historical context, that relies on the text as written and doesn’t add or subtract words here or there to prove that the “plain” sense is truly plain,[4] that doesn’t jump to modern conclusions in a modern context about what some or other passage must mean.[5]

And they need to know their value, they need to know God loves them and that he created women, just like men, to participate in the ruling and subduing of this little planet for his glory, and that it brings him honor when they do so.

This, my friends, is why I write.

Image byJack Sharp on Unsplash.

[1] The male civilian labor participation rate was some 85 percent in the 1950’s but so far this year (2022) it has hovered around 70 percent.

[2] According to Andrew L. Yarrow, a senior fellow with the Progressive Policy Institute, twice as many men as women report being hardcore gamers. See his “Why Progressives Should Stop Avoiding Men’s Issues” in the Washington Post, Jan. 18, 2019.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Many translations add “a sign of” or “a symbol of” before the word “authority” in 1 Cor. 11:10. Also, “she” has often been changed to “women” in the first half of 1 Tim. 2:15, giving the impression that the “they” in the second part of the verse refers to women, which is not at all apparent from the original wording. The updated ESV also has also changed “your desire shall be to your husband” to “your desire will be contrary to your husband,” based on an understanding of Gen. 4:7. 

[5] An example here would be that because the Bible emphasizes the submission of wives to husbands (though it demands the mutual submission of all believers), Christian marriage must be arranged hierarchically, with one person (the husband) holding personal and absolute authority over another (the wife). The error here is the same as assuming that because the Bible enjoins obedience of slaves to masters and citizens to emperors, we must arrange our employment and government systems hierarchically, with one person (master, emperor, king) holding personal and absolute authority over another (slave, citizen). But very few people believe that. Mostly, we know that systems where power is shared are more in line with principles of Scripture than those that grant absolute authority to one individual. So we have employment systems based on contracts and laws and government by rule of law rather by the personal power of one or even a few individuals. For more on this, see my article “Rethinking Christian Marriage.”

So Yes, I Do Want Authority

~ Sarah J. O'Connor ~ Leave a comment

There’s a lot of talk about authority in Christian circles these days – who has it, who does not, who should, who should not. It has become a dividing line between truth and error, solid ground and slippery slope, particularly when it comes to who holds authority in the church and in the home. 

Presuming what Jesus, Peter, and Paul really meant when it comes to men and women and womanhood and manhood, authority has become a line in the sand, the rails that tell us who grew up on the right side of the tracks and who still hangs out on the wrong, who is in and who is out, who deserves admiration and respect, who is worthy of heartfelt love, and who deserves nothing but scorn. 

More than anything, conceptions of authority govern who speaks and who is silent, who leads and who follows, who decides and who agrees. In extreme cases, authority grants one Christian the right to tell another she must not leave her violent husband. In more run-of-the-mill scenarios, authority justifies affixing “unbiblical” to a union where the husband listens to his wife as much as she listens to him, where responsibility, decision-making, and initiative are shared, where the hopes and dreams of both are equally cherished. 

On both sides of the deck beliefs about who has authority, how authority functions, and who may sit in official positions of authority define the limits of the pool.

I doubt that Jesus is happy about this. We are so often at odds, divided, devouring one another in our quarrel over authority. It must grieve his heart. 

Sometimes I simply want to bow out of the fight. 

Yet now, unexpectedly, I can’t. I’ve been launched into a position of authority so, like it or not, the battle has invaded my peace. 

My role is a supporting one.[1] Still, it entails a title, a platform, and includes leading, directing, teaching, and preaching. There is value in this positional authority, in the authority granted by a community of believers to those entrusted with oversight. We need structure. We need to know where to turn, whom to ask, what to follow. Someone, or some ones, need to bring focus, clarity, protection. 

I do see that.

But what I want to tell you is that the authority established by humans, the authority associated with a role, a position, or a title, is not important to me. It’s not been something I have looked for, desired, or run after. 

The authority I care about is the authority Jesus grants, the authority he demonstrated on a daily basis, the authority that sets people free. I want the authority that comes through humility, service, faith, love, pure-heartedness, and compassion, the authority that comes from walking with Jesus.

Jesus healed the sick, set demoniacs free, raised the dead, and forgave sinners. The crowds were amazed because Jesus spoke with authority – unlike the elite, those teachers of the law who whipped up so much batter about their positions of authority while their words fell flat as pancakes.

One day Jesus encountered two wildly violent demon-possessed men and set them free with a word. The demons jumped into a herd of pigs, cascaded them off a cliff, and the townspeople asked Jesus to hit the road.

Then the whole town went out to meet Jesus. And when they saw him, they pleaded with him to leave their region. (Matt. 8:34)

Jesus’s authority was way too much for the town, too dangerous, too uncontrollable.

The religious leaders were infuriated with Jesus, asking by what authority he went around doing so much good. Who did Jesus think he was, restoring a man’s hand on the Sabbath? Who did he think he was, forgiving sins, driving out demons, raising a girl from the dead? Who gave this interloper from the wrong side of the tracks the right, the authority, to do any of this?

Yet all their scurrying about, their flying accusations and whispered conspiracies could not stop Jesus. Their claims to power, their fantasies of control, could never hinder Jesus from doing what he was put on this earth to do. 

And that’s just it. You can’t control real authority, the authority backed by the power of God, no matter how hard you try. You can say it’s unauthorized and refuse to permit it in your circles, but you can’t control it.

When Jesus had called the Twelve together, he gave them power and authority to drive out all demons and to cure diseases, and he sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal the sick. …After this the Lord appointed seventy-two and sent them two by two…. (Luke 9:1-2; 10:1)

I have no interest in the authority that can do no better than spend ten years working with a guy yet at the end all the poor man can do is barely manage his addiction. I couldn’t care less about the authority that has nothing more to offer the brokenhearted than a pat on the back and a tuna casserole, a hug and a don’t-give-up.

I will pass on the authority that holds onto its money and convinces itself it deserves this perk or that, this special treatment or that indulgence. I’m not interested in the authority that leads to arrogance and selfishness, to the quenching of every good and perfect gift. I recoil at the authority that twists the tangible work of Christ into warrant for abuse. I can live without the accolades, the deference, the respect, if Jesus will but work through me to set captives free.

Which I’ve seen a few times. 

I’ve seen a daughter, pushing seventy yet still traumatized by childhood suffering, by the abuse of a wicked father. I’ve seen her set free in a moment, in a prayer. 

I’ve seen a father sick, helpless, and virtually bedridden for three years, yet choose to worship God anyway. I’ve seen him touched and healed and restored to purpose and destiny.

I’ve seen a son, bound by pornography and all its destructive effects, helpless to help himself. I’ve seen him walk clean and clear, mind and heart free and alive.

I’ve seen a mother, overwhelmed by the death of her twelve-year-old daughter eight years running, released to move forward, to start living life again.

I’ve seen a husband, born with a broken body, bullied incessantly and struggling with despair and thoughts of ending it all, encounter the love of God in a real and tangible way, finally knowing that he is a true son worthy of love and respect and hope and destiny.

I’ve seen eyesight restored, demons cast out, hearts set free. 

So yes, I do want authority. 

Because I want to see more. I want to see more spirits and hearts and minds and bodies restored. I want to see purpose and destiny and healing released, freedom and joy experienced, life and love expressed. Sometimes it’s a process; sometimes it occurs instantly. 

Either way, I’m all in.

If you hold a position, the title of pastor or leader or elder, and Jesus has imbued your ministry with true authority, with the power that sets people free, I rejoice with you. The reason you have been given this platform, this role, is so you can do the work Jesus did, the work of rescuing, saving, delivering, setting free.

Never forget that.

If I speak and people listen, pray and demons flee, touch and hearts fly free, these are not from me; they are from Christ. On my own I can do nothing, I control nothing, I have authority over nothing.

Nothing, nothing, nothing.

And I’m absolutely fine with that. 

He must increase, but I must decrease. He must become greater; I must become less. (John 3:30; NASB and NIV)

[1] Executive pastor. To understand why I believe women can be pastors, please reference my articles on 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2:12.

Can a Woman Be a Pastor’s Right-Hand Man?

~ Sarah J. O'Connor ~ 1 Comment

Just to clarify, I’m not talking about the pastor’s Girl Friday, who pens the letter in his name, buys the coffee at Costco, and types the announcements into the bulletin. Neither am I referring to the pastor’s Yes Man, the one who is uniformly loyal, gets behind every plan, and takes the pastor’s side in every disagreement. 

What I’m thinking of is that person who can be fiercely loyal yet also possess the courage to speak the truth, who is overwhelmingly supportive yet can correct or admonish when necessary, and who does so only out of a pure and undefiled love of God. It’s the one who hears from God and can speak for God not just out of their own wisdom, however valuable that may be.

I’m talking about the person God uses as a prophetic voice in the life of the pastor.

And since, in most cases, the senior pastor is a man, I’m going to focus on whether God might ever call a female leader to serve as a male lead pastor’s right-hand, truth-speaking, prophetically-gifted “man.”

The prophet Nathan, in his relationship with King David, might be the closest biblical example of this role. We only have record of a few of his interactions with the king, but those we do shed light on how God uses someone in this position.

We encounter Nathan for the first time in 2 Samuel 7. David is at rest from his enemies and settled in his palace when he turns to Nathan, apparently one of David’s regular palace companions, and states that he would like to build a permanent home for the ark of God. 

Nathan, speaking out of his wisdom, loyalty, and knowledge that God’s favor rested upon the king, encourages David to do “whatever you have in mind” (v.3). However, that night the word of the Lord comes to Nathan declaring that David is not the man for the job. Nathan has to eat humble pie and reverse himself, delivering an unhappy and unsettling message to his friend. 

Yet that is exactly what is required of Nathan as a prophet of the Lord.

The next time we see Nathan he is confronting David for taking Bathsheba and having her husband Uriah killed in battle (2 Sam. 12). If you think telling David he was not the guy to build the Lord’s house was rough, imagine confronting the most powerful monarch in the ancient Near East about abuse of power, adultery, and murder. And then imagine that insanely powerful man’s response to your challenge.

What comes to mind is a Mark Driscoll screaming at the top of his lungs, Who the **** do you think you are??[1]

Yet David wasn’t that man and didn’t respond to Nathan’s rebuke like that at all. 

Sure, Nathan was savvy, presenting David’s sin to him in the form of a parable about a poor man and a rich man. The poor man had only one little lamb while the rich man had many, yet, in unconscionable selfishness, the rich man took the poor man’s lamb and served it to his guest.

Initially David responds with outrage at the heinous deed, declaring that the man who did this ought to die. But when Nathan confronts David with the words, “You are the man!” (v. 7), David is immediately repentant, admitting, “I have sinned” (v. 13).

What do we learn from Nathan? What does this right-hand man role consist of? 

At its core it is not something that can be conjured up, that results from our own wisdom and insight and knowledge. It is truly God who appoints, authorizes, validates, and verifies this ministry. 

Most of the time we speak out of our understanding, which of course is valid and necessary. Yet sometimes in our understanding we are at complete loggerheads, we are blind to our sins and failings, or we have simply missed God somewhere along the way. 

It is in these moments that we need an intervention, a supernatural intervention. The point is, even if we permit God to speak, which does not always happen, we don’t get to choose the vessel. We might think it should be this person or that person and not this one or that one, but it’s not up to us. We can listen all we like to the wisdom of the saints, but if God has not chosen to speak through them in a specific instance, there is absolutely nothing we can do about it.

Yes, discernment must be activated and whatever is said must be weighed according to the scriptures and the witness of the Holy Spirit within the broader community. No doubt there are false “words” and false messengers. 

But there are also true words and faithful messengers.

All of this brings us back to our initial question: 

Would God position a woman as a male pastor’s right-hand man?

How do we answer this question? By proof-texting one verse? Or do we consider how God himself used the voice of women in Scripture?

You can probably guess what I think.

The New Testament is very clear that God will speak prophetically through both men and women. Peter, quoting Joel 2, declares:

In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy. (Acts 2:17-18)

In the church age, no longer would God speak prophetically through a few “professional” prophets. Now this anointing would spread wide, without the limits we are so accustomed to placing on God regarding who he may or may not use to speak his truth. Young and old, male and female, Jew and Gentile, slave and free all received the Spirit, and all could be used by God according to his will and his purposes (Gal. 3:28).

Paul agrees with Peter, assuming as an established practice that both women and men will prophesy in the worship service:

Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head – it is the same as having her head shaved. (1 Cor. 11:4-5)

Yes, men and women were to abide by culturally determined dress codes, but their freedom to prophesy publicly was not restricted according to sex.

So what, precisely, do we think these women in the early church prophesied about? (Just pondering here for a moment.) Who was going to win Sunday’s chili cook-off? Or who should have kitchen duty that week? Or perhaps which babies would sleep through the church service and which would fuss for an hour?

Or do you think these first-century churchwomen prophesied like Elizabeth and Mary and Anna, who were among the first to speak forth the identity and work of the Messiah (Luke 1:42-43; 46-55; 2:38)? Or Abigail, who prophesied David’s future kingship yet warned him, very personally and very directly, not to jeopardize all that in the heat of the moment (1 Sam. 25:28-31)? Or perhaps Huldah, who interpreted Scripture, speaking the word of the Lord to the king and the nation, giving them God’s bad-news-good-news report of the day (2 Kings 22:15-20)? And then there’s Deborah prophesying to Barak, directly and personally instructing Israel’s top military commander on his role and responsibility in God’s plan for the nation (Judg. 4:6-9).

Well, how do you think God used women in the early church, and how do you think God might choose to use them today?

It’s been a few years now, but I’ve seen God use women in this role. In most cases it wasn’t planned and was never officially acknowledged; it just happened. No one was more surprised than the senior pastor himself, for it was a God-move, a God-anointing, a God-position.

So perhaps, when God moves into our pre-planned and prearranged and perfectly-ordered systems, we should simply get out of the way.

Photo by Patrick Fore on Unsplash

[1] “The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill” podcast series by Christianity Today contains this audio. If I remember correctly, the quote airs on every episode and is discussed in its context on one of the later episodes.

John MacArthur, Beth Moore, and Jumping to Conclusions: The Assumptions Behind a Hierarchical Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12

~ Sarah J. O'Connor ~ 20 Comments

Last week I listened to a podcast where two women explained how they “stand with the Bible” when it comes to their hierarchical interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12. As far as these Sheologians[1] are concerned, this verse proves that women should not teach the Bible to men, be in positions of authority over men, or be pastors and elders. The meaning of the verse is plain as day, they argued, so anyone who disagrees with their view is ignoring scripture.

These ladies went on to mockingly characterize women who believe God has called them to pastoral ministry as obsessed with selfish ambition. Women who “feel called” to church leadership, they laughed, go around whining about what they will do if they can’t be elders or pastors, as though there’s nothing else that needs to be done! As though men who aren’t called to be elders or pastors should go around complaining that there’s nothing for them to do, especially when there’s more than enough work to go around![2]

Then over the weekend a video of John MacArthur telling Beth Moore to “go home” hit the internet. After the laughter and applause died down Mac Arthur added, “There’s no case that can be made biblically for a woman preacher. Period, paragraph, end of discussion.” MacArthur went on to explain that “when you literally overturn the teaching of Scripture to empower people who want power, you have given up biblical authority.”[3]

Aside from the fact that the tone of both interviews was dishonoring, the idea that there is no room for differences of interpretation on this topic is presumptuous. John MacArthur and the women on the podcast are not “standing with the Bible” as they claim, but with certain interpretive assumptions they bring to Scripture, especially to 1 Timothy 2:12. This is what we need to grasp.

And this is why it is vital to take the time to identify those suppositions and determine if there are compelling reasons to accept them as a convincing argument for gender hierarchy in the church. We can do this with an attitude of respect toward those who come to different conclusions than we have. We do so by focusing on the ideas rather than attacking and mocking individuals.

So today I want to identify the main traditions that lie behind the interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12 that is said to prove male authority in the church. As you read you can think through the validity of the preconceived notions you have brought to the text. I won’t accuse you of rebelling against Scripture if, after weighing the evidence, you land on a different island than I have. I only ask that you take the time to listen, think, and perhaps do a bit of research.

Let’s review the passage first. We’ll look at vv. 8-15 since there’s wide agreement that these verses go together.

Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing. I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 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. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (1 Tim. 2:8-15)

Okay, here we go.

Assumption #1: The setting is the church meeting.

Women can teach men or be their supervisors elsewhere, it is argued, but 1 Timothy 2 is about what happens at church, so women aren’t permitted to teach or supervise men in church. This is a widely held view on all sides, yet it seems to arise primarily from church tradition. The passage itself has no markers to indicate that it has to do with a congregational setting such as “your meetings” (1 Cor. 11:17), “when you come together” (1 Cor. 14:26), or “as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people (1 Cor. 14:33).

Also, the earlier commands about women dressing modestly and men praying without disputing point away from the church meeting, since presumably women should dress modestly everywhere and men should pray without arguing everywhere (as v. 8 states). At minimum it must be acknowledged that the congregational setting is an assumption, not something stated directly in the text.

Assumption #2: The switch from plural men and women to singular woman and man is inconsequential.

Virtually all hierarchical interpretations blow past this change that comes between v. 10 and v. 11, claiming that the singulars point to women and men in general. But in vv. 8-10 Paul was already speaking of men and women in general, so why the switch? And why the argument that the “plain sense” of the passage demands that a woman does not teach/exercise authority over men, when in fact all it states is that Paul does not want a woman to teach/exercise authority over a man?

Also, most hierarchicalists permit women to do the one thing the passage appears to prohibit, i.e. teach a man privately one-on-one. It is the public teaching of God’s word to a group of men that is forbidden, they say. Yet if we hold to a high view of the inspiration of scripture we ought to do our best to apply what is stated rather than what is not stated. We should also assume that Paul made the switch from plural to singular for a reason. Has, in fact, the setting shifted from men and women in general to the individual man and woman in relationship, perhaps in the home as husband and wife?

Assumption #3: The term translated “have/exercise/assume authority” is a general term simply meaning to be in a position or role of delegated authority over others.

The fact is that the word in the original language, authentein, is very rare and historically has proven extremely challenging to understand. Though modern studies have demonstrated that authentein is not a general term for exercising authority but rather has connotations of domination, domineering, and control, it is very difficult to turn the Titanic of hundreds of years of English Bible translation away from the iceberg of accepted interpretation. When your interpretation is unsinkable, why would you jump ship?

Even Chrysostom, who believed wholeheartedly in male authority in marriage, told men they should not authentein their wives. Clearly he did not understand the word to refer to a rightful use of authority, or he would not have forbidden it. An informed understanding of the word therefore indicates that Paul is not disallowing proper delegated authority or a position of authority, but rather inappropriate sinful dominance.[4]

Assumption #4: The prohibition on teaching combined with the one on exercising authority refers to the role of elder/pastor.

This one is a big leap. Even when I understood the passage hierarchically, it never occurred to me that it was talking about elders and pastors. In contrast to 1 Timothy 3 which explicitly deals with leadership roles in the church, chapter 2 does not mention them at all. Perhaps now that some of the foremost complementarian scholars acknowledge that neither 1 Timothy 3 nor Titus 1 prohibits women from becoming elders and pastors, it is seen as necessary to build the case from 1 Timothy 2.

So it is argued that since teaching and having authority are functions of church leaders, what Paul is actually prohibiting is the promotion of women to these specific roles. Yet a plain reading of the text would not lead one to the conclusion that it forbids women from becoming pastors and elders, but rather that an individual woman should not have an inappropriate relationship of dominance over an individual man.

Assumption #5: Verses 11-14 are perfectly clear even though v. 15 is not, since an understanding of v. 15 is not essential to Paul’s main point.

Hierarchicalists tend to throw up their hands over how in the world a woman can be saved through childbearing/childbirth, yet treat the difficulties posed by v. 15 as inconsequential or at least secondary. Read as a whole, however, it is apparent that in v. 15 Paul is responding to the issue that caused him to place restrictions on “a woman” in the first place. The passage builds to v. 15 and finds its climax there. For that reason it is essential to come up with a coherent explanation of v. 15 before we can assume we understand vv. 11-14. Without this, we do not know what problem Paul is addressing.

If v. 15 is understood in its simplest sense – that a woman will be kept safe through the ordeal of childbirth – it completely changes our conception of the situation Paul was addressing and the focus of his restriction. But my main disagreement with the traditional interpretation on this point is their claim that vv. 11-14 are plain as day while at the same time they struggle to make sense of v. 15. The two do not go together. At minimum it ought to be acknowledged that many unanswered questions remain that can and do affect the interpretation of vv. 11-14.

Assumption #6: The appeal to creation in v. 13 points to a fundamental hierarchical ordering of man and woman.

Since the man was created first, so it goes, men are created to be in authority over women. Yet Paul never says anything about men having dominion over women. His focus is that a woman (or a wife) should not teach a man (or a husband) in a domineering way or, perhaps, dominate him through her “teaching.” In other words, the appeal to creation may simply be a warrant that lends support to the idea that it is wrong for a woman to dominate or control a man, particularly her husband.

I believe we can agree that it is wrong for anyone to dominate another. Jesus called this “lording it over” others and strictly forbade it, even by those in proper leadership positions. The Bible never states that it is fine for a man to authentein a woman nor are men ever encouraged to exercise “proper” authority over women (echein exousiazo), but only to love them as Christ loved the church.

Assumption #7: The appeal to the fall in v. 14 demonstrates that women are inherently unsuited for leadership.

Paul’s point, hierarchicalists argue, is that women should not fill church leadership roles because they are more easily deceived than men. Yet Paul does not say that women in general are more easily deceived. It is a leap to assume this is what he meant and then apply it to all women everywhere, though that is precisely what was done throughout church history up to the modern age.

It is just as possible that Paul used Eve to communicate that some women in Ephesus were being deceived, just as he used Eve’s example to warn the Corinthians about the deception they had fallen prey to (2 Cor. 11:3-4). And in 1 Timothy 2:8-15 it seems that the specific deception had something to do with childbirth, explaining Paul’s focus on the women in this passage.

Assumption #8: The individuals who need to exhibit godly character in v. 15 are women.

This assumption has been reinforced by Bible translations that have changed the wording of the original language to “clarify” the meaning. Instead of what is stated in the Greek – “she will be saved/kept safe through childbirth if they continue…” – some English Bibles say “women will be saved/kept safe through childbirth if they continue…,” giving the impression that if women will continue in godliness God will reward them in some way. But the word “women” does not occur in the Greek of v. 15 and the verb “be saved/kept safe” is singular, so the subject is “she.”

If we take the original wording at face value, the “they” most likely refers to the man and woman of vv. 11-12. Except for Adam and Eve (who are past needing either salvation or protection) they are the nearest antecedent, and hence the most likely referent. If this is the case v. 15 would mean that a woman will be preserved through childbearing if she and the man she had previously been attempting to dominate (perhaps her husband) would now join forces and pursue faith, love, and holiness with propriety together.

Assumption #9: Submission and quietness are timeless feminine ideals.

Hierarchicalists teach that submission in quietness is the timeless role of women. This means women are to submit to the limitations and expectations placed upon them by men in the church and in the home, and they are to do so with a joyful spirit of servanthood. Men, on the other hand, are to establish those limitations and expectations with a humble spirit of servanthood. Both are called to servanthood, the one by following expectations and the other by setting them.

What we need to recognize here is that submission and the lack of agitation and aggressiveness entailed in the Greek word “quiet” or “quietness” were considered fundamentally feminine virtues by ancient Greeks and Romans in the same way that obedience was considered a fundamental virtue of slaves. There is undoubtedly a cultural component behind the application of these specific virtues to women in this setting.

I am not saying that women need not submit to proper Christian teaching or that they may be aggressive or contentious in learning environments. My point is that to take the words Paul used here and assume they describe the foundational calling of womanhood takes the passage out of its context. The New Testament teaches that submission and quietness are fundamental Christian virtues. All believers are called to submit to church leaders and Christian instruction without becoming contentious, so it is not surprising that Paul brings this up here.

Assumption #10: The Artemis/Isis cult background of Ephesus does not influence the interpretation of the text.

A recent study has demonstrated significant links between 1 Timothy 2:8-15 and the Artemis cult so predominant in Ephesus.[5] Strong parallels exist between the behavior and attire of first-century goddess worshipers and Paul’s instructions. The immodesty, the plaiting of the hair with gold and pearls, and the domineering aggressiveness Paul prohibits were all key components of the cult. In addition, Artemis was connected with the goddess Isis in a way that indicates an ancient myth that asserted the woman was created first and the man was deceived enjoyed some acceptance in Ephesus.

In addition, we know that Artemis was worshiped as the “savior.” One of the key ways she functioned in this role was by protecting women through the ordeal of childbirth, the greatest threat to a woman’s health in the ancient world. Women were terrified of death or disability resulting from pregnancy and childbirth, and therefore were devoted to their goddesses of fertility. Walking away from paying homage to Artemis as part of their newfound Christian faith would have been terrifying, since the goddess was known to be vindictive toward those who dared to cross her.

With all of this in the background, it would not be surprising that some of these women were questioning their safety in childbearing and becoming contentious about certain Christian teachings, like the fact that they needed to turn away from idolatry. Paul wanted them to calm down, learn the truth, and be reassured that they could safely turn away from Artemis worship because Jesus would take care of them.

Whether you accept this precise reconstruction or not, it is difficult to argue that the Artemis background makes no difference to an interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:8-15, as many hierarchicalists seem to assume. One way or another, it needs to be integrated into our understanding of this passage.

The Path to Hierarchy

The path to an acceptance of gender hierarchy in the church includes, of necessity, grappling with the verifiability of these ten assumptions. As in a steeplechase competition, you can’t go around a barrier or skip a water jump and claim you finished the race. You may have gotten a lot of exercise, but you didn’t do the steeplechase.

In the same way there is no honest path to a hierarchical reading of 1 Timothy 2:8-15 that goes around any of these points. You have to go through them. In the end it was this weighing of all of my preconceived ideas that changed my views on the subject, though I’ll admit it took a lot of reading, a lot of study, and a lot of time.

If you take the time to work through each assumption yet still settle in the land of hierarchy, I respect your decision.

But at least you know how you got there.

[1] Their self-designation and the name of their organization. My earlier footnote here mentioned that I was unable to ascertain the names of the two women, but thanks to a reader I have learned that they are Summer White and Joy Temby. The confusion resulted from inadvertently accessing Summer’s earlier website at sheologian.com. The current site is sheologians.com. Thank you, Maria!

[2] “Why We Aren’t Egalitarian” by Sheologians, on podcast.apple.com, accessed 10/15/2019.

[3] “John MacArthur Beth Moore Go Home,” youtube.com, posted by reformationcharlotte.org, accessed 10/18/2019.

[4] On authentein see: Ben Witherington III, Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, vol. 1 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2006), 227; Klyne Snodgrass, “A Case for the Unrestricted Ministry of Women,” The Covenant Quarterly 67/2 (2009), 38; I. Howard Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles (New York: T. & T. Clark, 1999), 457-58; Andrew Bartlett, Men and Women in Christ (London: InterVarsity, 2019), 268-70; Cynthia Long Westfall, Paul and Gender (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2016), 290-94.

[5] Gary G. Hoag, Wealth in Ancient Ephesus and the First Letter to Timothy: Fresh Insights from Ephesiaca by Xenophon of Ephesus, Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplements, vol. 11 (Winona Lake, Indiana; Eisenbrauns, 2015).

Heads, Hats and Honor: Man as the “Head” of Woman in 1 Corinthians 11

~ Sarah J. O'Connor ~ 6 Comments

In 1 Corinthians 11 Paul goes on about church-goers covering and uncovering their heads in worship. At least most people agree that the setting is worship, and the majority understand Paul to be talking about head coverings rather than hair length, although that is a possibility given the wording.

Yet very few of us thoroughly modern Millies and Billys get stuck on the hat issue, thinking we have to apply the passage literally. At least here in the colonies. English royal weddings may flourish under the weight of over-the-top head coverings, but here in the New World men may wear hats and women can arrive hatless to church.

Not only that, these hatted and unhatted individuals can talk in church if they want to. Continue reading “Heads, Hats and Honor: Man as the “Head” of Woman in 1 Corinthians 11″ →

Jesus as Head of the Church

~ Sarah J. O'Connor ~ 3 Comments

Lately I’ve been writing about the husband-wife relationship, setting the background for what it means for a man to be the “head” of his wife. An important factor to consider before discussing the specifics of a husband as head of his wife is what Paul meant when he said Jesus was the head of the church.

That’s what I want to look at today. Continue reading “Jesus as Head of the Church” →

Tradition, Teaching and Women in the Church: Podcast with Dr. Juli Slattery

~ Sarah J. O'Connor ~ Leave a comment

I recently spent an hour chatting with psychologist Dr. Juli Slattery and author Michele Cushatt about how each of us is personally navigating the things we face as women who have a leadership and teaching role in the church. In our Java with Juli podcast Tradition, Teaching and Women in the Church, we also look at the role tradition and culture have played in forming our understanding both of Scripture and of a woman’s place in the church. While you’re over at Authentic Intimacy, you might want to check out some of Juli’s other podcasts and articles that cover a wide range of subjects.

Preaching at My Home Church

~ Sarah J. O'Connor ~ 2 Comments

I recently had my first opportunity to preach at my home church, Littleton Vineyard. Jim and I have been there almost two years now and have served in various capacities, but this was my first time in the pulpit. Which means that it was recorded. Our team was in a series on spiritual gifts and I was asked to give some insight into Hospitality, Pastoring and Exhortation . So if you’re interested in hearing my take on those gifts, or just curious about what I have to say, feel free to access the link above.

Letter to My Future Pastor, Part 3

~ Sarah J. O'Connor ~ 1 Comment

In the first two segments of this three-part series I discussed three of the most important qualities I would look for in a senior pastor if I were in the market, which I’m not. Today I’ll add one final thought. If you haven’t read them yet, you can access parts one and two here.

A Pastor Who Embraces Ethical Church Governance

This might seem like a no-brainer, but in my experience it’s harder than you would think for a church to put in place a system that ensures ethical practices, particularly when it comes to finances. In this post I’m not going to try to convince you that one form of church governance is better than another, whether congregational, Presbyterian, episcopal, or the more recent development of senior pastor as CEO, although I have my opinion on that. Continue reading “Letter to My Future Pastor, Part 3” →

Letter to My Future Pastor, Part 2

~ Sarah J. O'Connor ~ 11 Comments

In the first segment of this three-part series, I wrote about two of the most important qualities I would look for in a senior pastor if I were in the market which, by the way, I’m not.

Sorry about that.

But if you aspire to the pastorate, hoping to be someone’s pastor somewhere some day, today’s discussion may be the most helpful to you personally. Applying what you read here may make the difference between surviving for the long haul versus crashing and burning before your time. Continue reading “Letter to My Future Pastor, Part 2” →

Letter to My Future Pastor, Part 1

~ Sarah J. O'Connor ~ 4 Comments

Don’t have a heart attack. I have no plans to leave my church. But life throws its curve balls now and then and I have learned to be flexible. So if, for some unforeseen reason, I happened to be in the market for a new church or even just a new pastor, here are a couple of things I would look for in the person chosen to lead the flock. In my next two posts I will talk about two more. Continue reading “Letter to My Future Pastor, Part 1” →

Those Disgraceful Preaching Women

~ Sarah J. O'Connor ~ 6 Comments

Circuit preacher for a day. That’s how I felt a couple of weeks ago, when I filled in for a friend at his two churches. Except that I used a car, not a horse, and it was only two churches, not a circuit.

Two country towns, two small churches, two lovely groups of people. It was a fun experience.

I learned something that day: Methodists (how I was raised) have trespasses, but Presbyterians (where I was filling in) have debts. Which would have been a non-issue if they hadn’t expected me to lead the Lord’s Prayer.

No worries. They were very gracious. Continue reading “Those Disgraceful Preaching Women” →

When Forgiving is a Mistake

~ Sarah J. O'Connor ~ 2 Comments

At one point in our lives my husband and I oversaw several small groups at our local church. Our job was to be a resource for the leaders, helping them navigate the challenges they faced as they served God in this way. Now and then one would call because there was a problem.

One time a leader I’ll call Ron contacted us about a couple in his Bible study who had sinned against the group and refused to repent. Since their desire was to forgive the offenders and restore fellowship, Ron asked if we would first meet with him and his wife to understand the issue and then confront the offending couple according to Matthew 18:15-20. Continue reading “When Forgiving is a Mistake” →

Martin Luther King and the Back of the Church

~ Sarah J. O'Connor ~ Leave a comment

I recall my elementary school playground as a sea of white faces and bodies, of which mine was the whitest, flying in the towering swings and slamming the tetherball until its cord wound tightly around the pole. By middle and high school things were different, integrated. We called ourselves blacks, whites and Mexicans in those days (for some reason other groups like Asians and Native Americans didn’t have their own category) and I thought we all got along pretty well.

The Civil Rights Act was history, after all. Continue reading “Martin Luther King and the Back of the Church” →

My Encounter With Jesus-Minimalism

~ Sarah J. O'Connor ~ 4 Comments

I grew up dusting and sweeping and vacuuming around my mother’s seemingly endless array of stuff, vowing to myself from a young age, When I grow up I will never accumulate so many things and I will never-ever-ever spend so much time cleaning. Regularly purging my life of undesirables, I didn’t learn until later how weird my college classmates thought I was for wearing the same cords and the same two shirts (on alternate days, of course) as I rode my bike the eight miles to school each day. It made total sense to me. Yep, from day one I was a minimalist at heart.

But that didn’t make me a Jesus-minimalist. Continue reading “My Encounter With Jesus-Minimalism” →

%d bloggers like this: