Service and Silence

From Gospel Translations

Current revision as of 20:26, 11 May 2012

The winds of the sexual revolution sweeping across our land have carried much debris into our lives. One of the worst effects of this “revolution” on the church has been the radical cultural shift that accompanied it. This new distance from first century culture has caused Scripture to appear cloudy where once it was viewed by all as perspicuous. Men and women today find what was once clear to be opaque.

Is Scripture really so difficult to understand? Consider two oft-asked questions related to this subject. First, “May women be deaconesses?” Second, “Is silent submission a command only for ancient patriarchal cultures, or is it a universal imperative binding on the church today?”

THE OFFICE OF DEACONESS

Let us inquire first whether there is a biblical basis for the office of deaconess and, if so, whether that office is identical to the office of deacon. Four Scripture passages bear most directly on this matter.

Acts 6 is ground zero for the foundation of the diaconate and, historically, the church has looked to this account for our understanding of this office.

1 Timothy 3:8–13 provides a list of qualifications for the office of deacon. Verse 11 of this passage often has been pointed to as describing qualifications for deaconesses, but the verse is ambiguous in the Greek. The New King James Version translates it, “Likewise, their wives must be reverent.” Yet theNew American Standard Bible Updated Edition has it, “Women must likewise be dignified.” The Greek word in question could be rendered either “wives” or “women,” leaving open to debate whether Paul is speaking to female aspirants to the diaconate or adding to the list of qualifications for male deacons that their wives be reverent.
The third text is Romans 16:1, which reads, “I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea.” This word “servant” also could be translated “deaconess.”
Finally, in 1 Timothy 5:9–10, Paul gives qualifications for an order of widows instituted in the church of Ephesus.

First of all, I’m convinced the church has, through the centuries, properly looked to Acts 6 for the foundation of the office of deacon, and I believe it is significant both that men only were selected for that office and that the men selected were set apart for their work by the laying on of hands and prayer. Following the Acts 6 pattern today, only men would be selected for the office of deacon; those men selected would be ordained; and their work would be centered on personal and spiritual care for widows, orphans, those imprisoned, the sick and homeless, and others in distress.

Second, the office of deacon has suffered an attrition of dignity, and we need to work toward recovering a biblical vision for this office. Too often deacons have only minimal contact with the needy in their congregations, instead focusing on building maintenance, bank accounts, and budgets. Acts 6 gives a much different picture.

Third, it seems unlikely that either 1 Timothy 3:11 or Romans 16:1 indicate that women and men held the same office of deacon. Otherwise, how do we explain there being no mention of deaconesses in the literature of the early church until halfway through the third century? As one scholar writes, “There is not a single instance in the entire history of the Christian church of women deacons who are of the same office and function as male deacons, until the nineteenth century.”

A natural explanation of 1 Timothy 3:11 might be that these women were a part of an order of widows, similar to that mentioned in 1 Timothy 5:9–10, who devoted their remaining years to ministry to other women and to nursing the sick and invalid.

We must ask those proposing an office of deaconess whether they find the biblical precedent for this office in Acts 6, 1 Timothy 5, or both. An answer to this question will do much to clarify matters.

SILENT SUBMISSION

Let us turn to the second question: “Is silent submission a command only for ancient patriarchal cultures, or is it a universal imperative binding on the church today?” We read, “Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law also says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only? If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized” (1 Cor. 14:34–38, NASV).

What on earth does this mean —women are to “keep silent;” they are “not permitted to speak;” they are “to subject themselves;” they are to save questions for “their own husbands [or men] at home;” and again, they are not to “speak in church”?

This text shocks our twentieth century sensibilities. We find it difficult even to read these commands, and when we arrive at the end of the text and see Paul quickly dismiss those who reject them, we have a hard time not being sympathetic toward those numbered among Paul’s opposition. Yet there it is in black and white: “But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.”

Calvin explains Paul’s statement in this manner: “It was not Paul’s intention to give any opportunity to the quarrelsome people, who are never done disputing. It’s as if he said: ‘If anyone does not grasp this, I have no time for his uncertainty; for that will not impair the certainty of my teaching in the slightest. Let me therefore have nothing to do with a man like that, no matter who he is.’”

Were we inclined to dismiss these commands as an obscure passage, we would do well to note that these same themes are repeated elsewhere: “Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence” (1 Tim. 2:11–12).

Again the Holy Spirit establishes the rule of quiet submission, adding here that women are not to teach or exercise authority over men, “but to be in silence.” Why?

Notice that Scripture doesn’t tie these commands to the Fall but to the order in which God created Adam and Eve. This order of Creation is the bedrock upon which all scriptural teaching concerning the leadership of men and the submissive silence of women is founded.

Most of us can see the value of authority and submission for the peace of any institution. But for women to be silent? Why should silence be emphasized with one sex but not the other? Aren’t men also to be silent? “He who restrains his lips is wise” (Prov. 10:19b)?

Then, too, if we cast these commands of Scripture in concrete, are we not being more rigorous than Paul, who seems to allow for women praying and prophesying within the assembled body of believers? “But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head” (1 Cor. 11:3–5a).

It’s true that silence can deceive and wound, and there are times when to be silent is sin. Further, it seems apparent that in some contexts women’s speech was welcomed in the apostolic church, fulfilling the prophecy of Joel: “‘And it shall come to pass afterward that I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions’” (Joel 2:28).

Still, Scripture calls women to be modest, reserved, submissive, and quiet, and women who hear this call and obey it are following “the Lord’s commandment.”

It’s difficult to create a safe space for the discussion of these scriptural commands, since the church of our time seems intent upon eradicating any vestige of female deference. Yet efforts to evade this responsibility by claiming that these commands pertain only to ancient patriarchal cultures are double-edged swords. The same argument can be made concerning endless other texts. John Stott put it this way, “The danger of declaring any passage of Scripture to have only local (not universal) and only transient (not perpetual) validity is that it opens the door to a wholesale rejection of apostolic teaching, since virtually the whole of the New Testament was addressed to specific situations.”

So, does Scripture require us to enforce this rule, granting no exceptions? Or are there occasions when women are allowed to speak and aspects of leadership which women may exercise within the congregation? Where do we stop?

Perhaps our question ought not to be “where do we stop,” but “where do we start” obeying this command? What congregation do you know of that has seriously discussed this command and sought to implement it?

We salve our consciences by saying that only men are eligible to hold office in the church, but is this really all that Paul was addressing? Was he simply cautioning us against placing women in the office of teaching or ruling elder? And when he commanded that women not exercise authority over men but be silent, was this intended simply to bar women from the pulpit or to bar them from preaching without the invitation of, and supervision by, a male board of elders?

By way of illustration, when planting, the gardener drops the seeds close together in the row. Later on though, after the seedlings sprout, he thins them out so each seedling has room to grow. Failure to do this produces sickly plants and little fruit. Similarly, women who obey Scripture, giving themselves to submission, modesty, and silence, create a healthy environment within which the leadership and love of men are able to take seed, grow, and produce fruit for the benefit of all who live under their care.

Women are privileged to give the gift of silence and submission to their church. Those who claim that these gifts are obsolete have not heard the voice of the Spirit in this word of our Lord: “Let a woman learn in silence with all submission.”