Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Teaching, preaching, and authority



This got some buzz on the Internet:


I hold Piper and Schreiner in high regard, but I think their argument is confused. In fairness, I think Andrew Wilson miscast the argument.

i) One question is what "authority" meant in the ancient world. To my knowledge, authority meant the power to command or forbid. The wherewithal to enforce compliance.

The ancient world had a muscular conception of authority. Authority was coercive. The power to impose your will on another. To punish noncompliance. Forcing others to do your bidding. To do things against their will.

ii) In addition, this text is bound up with the related issue of "submission." Submission and authority are correlative. Submission is the counterpart to authority. 

Submission can be voluntary or involuntary. That's where authority comes into play. Having the clout to make someone submit to your demands. Take the power of Roman masters over slaves. And that was ultimately backed up by the Roman army. 

iii) In that context, I don't see how teaching is ipso facto wielding authority over another. For instance, I read lots of books and articles by atheists. I do so to critique their arguments.

Do I put myself in submission to an atheist by exposing myself to what he says? How could a Christian philosopher or apologist ever refute an atheist if merely reading or listening to an atheist is equivalent to submitting to an atheist? 

An atheist may wish to wield authority over the reader, but that's not real authority. He hopes to influence what the reader believes. But I'm a very "insubordinate" reader. 

iv) Perhaps Piper or Schreiner would say a congregation is a captive audience, so that makes it more coercive. If so:

a) That goes beyond the text. The text doesn't specify that setting. 

b) If I don't like what I'm hearing, I can up and leave in the middle of the sermon. Or I can refuse to return to that church. 

c) Presumably, they don't think a parishioner should submit to whatever a preacher says. Presumably, they think we should exercise critical judgment when we hear a sermon. Evaluate what we hear. 

v) Piper and Schreiner use the word "regularly," but isn't that a weasel word? That modifies the issue to a question of degree rather than kind. 

vi) I think Paul was probably dealing with a house-church situation in which upper class women hosted Christian gatherings. They had authority by dint of their social class and the fact that it took place under their roof. 

Again, I'm not saying it's just culturally conditioned. Paul's discussion includes the cross-cultural principle of male headship. 

In addition, even the culturally-conditioned aspect can have cross-cultural analogues. There can certainly be modern situations that are comparable to what Paul is discussing. There can be women in authority, to whom men are subordinate–in business, government, and academia. (Whether that ought to be the case is debatable.) 

But it's not analogous to, say, a supply preacher in a modern American church. A preacher is not an authority-figure in that sense. At best, a preacher has moral authority, or the authority of an expert witness. It's a matter of rational persuasion rather than dictatorial power.  

I don't see that inviting Lydia McGrew to do a talk on the Resurrection or the reliability of the Gospels is what Paul had in mind. I don't see that inviting Karen Jobes to do a series on 1 Peter or 1 John is what Paul had in mind. I think that requires Piper and Schreiner to operate with a very diluted concept of authority which is not recognizably authoritative in the ancient sense of the concept. 

Remember, the question at issue isn't women in the pastorate. The question was framed in terms of an all-male church board. It's just a question of a woman addressing a mixed audience.  

vii) Catholic apologists routinely cast the issue in terms of "interpretive authority," as if what matters is who said it and not the quality of the evidence or the supporting arguments. But evangelicals need to resist that tendentious framework. 

Likewise, charismatic personality cults elevate the "anointed" speaker to the status of lofty authority-figure. But, once again, evangelicals need to resist that paradigm.

viii) There's a tension in Schreiner's position. He himself has reviewed books by "evangelical feminists." He must read women to review women. He must read egalitarians to refute egalitarians. Does that mean he's learning from a woman? 

Same thing with the JBMW, which reviews "evangelical feminist" literature from a complementarian perspective. Does that mean women are teaching them? There's a sense in which the women are teaching them what the women think Scripture means. Are they bowing down to a woman by reading egalitarian literature to critique it?

What about countercult ministries that scrutinize the theology of Joyce Meyers or Paula White. They must listen to these women preach to evaluate their theology. Are they submitting to their authority by hearing them preach? How could they critique them without hearing them?

What about conservative pundits who critique the legal opinions of Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Elena Kagan. Are they in submission to a woman when they examine their legal philosophy?
xi) I'd add that "teaching" is ambiguous, because it's a two-party transaction. To say a woman taught men or a man was taught by a woman can refer to what the woman did, or it can refer to how the student or listener responded.

On the one hand it can mean a man learned from a female teacher.

On the other hand, it can mean a woman expressed her opinion, but the man disagreed.

A listener may be unreceptive to what the teacher has to say.


xii) Paul commended older Christian women for counseling younger Christian women (Tit 2:3-4). And he commended Lois and Eunice for indoctrinating their grandson Timothy (2 Tim 1:5; 3:15).

So Paul doesn't object to women teaching, or even to women teaching males. Hence, I infer that his underlying objection is to women wielding authority over men. In their capacity as authority-figures (e.g. a Roman noblewoman), he objects to women teaching men. That's the only consistent position I can make out of his varied statements. Merely hearing a woman express her views doesn't subjugate a male listener. 

14 comments:

  1. > iii) In that context, I don't see how teaching is ipso facto wielding authority over another. For instance, I read lots of books and articles by atheists. I do so to critique their arguments.

    Why are you arguing against teaching having authority? The article separates them. It says that teaching and having authority are forbidden.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because authority is the underlying issue. Unless you think a woman teaching men subverts male headship, what's objectionable about it? That's what's supposed to make such teaching objectionable.

      Schreiner has argued that "the creation of Adam first gives the reason why men should be the authoritative teachers in the church."

      Delete
    2. I'd add that "teaching" is ambiguous, because it's a two-party transaction. To say a woman taught men or a man was taught by a woman can refer to what the woman did, or it can refer to how the student or listener responded.

      On the one hand it can mean a man learned from a female teacher.

      On the other hand, it can mean a woman expressed her opinion, but the man disagreed.

      A listener may be unreceptive to what the teacher has to say.

      Delete
    3. That doesn't seem to work with your definition of authority.

      > i) One question is what "authority" meant in the ancient world. To my knowledge, authority meant the power to command or forbid. The wherewithal to enforce compliance.

      That's not the kind of authority you should have in a Christian marriage. A husband has the God given authority to lead his wife. But he shouldn't attempt to compel compliance if his wife chooses not to submit to him.

      Why can't the authority of a teacher in the church be similar to the authority of a husband with his wife?

      I would relate it to headship more than authority. God designed it that men would lead their wives in marriage. Similarly he designed it that men would teach adult men within the church.

      It's not that women can't lead or teach. It's that doing within the family or church goes against God's design.

      Delete
    4. Are you describing the realities of marriage in the 21C Western world, where husbands have no authority beyond moral authority? If so, you can't simply read that back into 1C marriage.

      I'm unclear as to you're claim that a women can't teach within the family. Are you saying a mother can't teach young sons?

      Delete
    5. From a Biblical standpoint, what do you think should happen if husband and wife disagree on, say, child-rearing. Suppose the husband is right. Something has to give. Are you saying the husband's authority doesn't trump the wife's opinion in that situation?

      Delete
    6. >Are you describing the realities of marriage in the 21C Western world, where husbands have no authority beyond moral authority? If so, you can't simply read that back into 1C marriage.

      I know that the 1C marriage was not like I describe. That husbands could force their wives to obey. I'm saying such actions are not an essential part of marriage as designed by God.

      > I'm unclear as to you're claim that a women can't teach within the family. Are you saying a mother can't teach young sons?

      My sentence was confusing. I was saying a wife can't lead her husband and can't teach in the church. Not that she can't teach in the home.

      > From a Biblical standpoint, what do you think should happen if husband and wife disagree on, say, child-rearing. Suppose the husband is right. Something has to give. Are you saying the husband's authority doesn't trump the wife's opinion in that situation?

      I think that it would be sinful for the wife not to submit to her husband in that case. But if she chose to sin the husband does not have the right to compel obedience through violence, intimidation, etc.

      Delete
    7. i) You seem to be demoting a husband's authority to an advisory role. To my knowledge, in the 1C Roman Empire, husbands had far more legal authority than wives. The legal system dealt the husband all the high cards.

      An exception might be if a high society woman married down. That's kind of like a man who marries the daughter of a Mafia Don. He better watch his step! If she complains to her dad...

      ii) That also goes to a distinction between legal authority and, say, physical compulsion. If, say, I lose in court, that doesn't mean violence was done to my person. It just means the court didn't back up my claims. So, for instance, I don't get any money from the defendant. I can't make him pay up, because I lost.

      That's different from him making me pay up. And even then, there are different ways of doing that, like property confiscation, garnishing wages.

      It isn't pretty, but it isn't necessarily equivalent to violence.

      Delete
    8. I don't think think it's merely an advisory role. The husband has moral and spiritual authority, but relies on the wife's submission for obedience. In contrast to a child where I would compel obedience if they didn't listen.

      Delete
    9. I can think of plenty of biblical commands and proverbs relating to discipline of children. I can't think of anything similar for husbands and wives.

      Can you give me an example of what the kind of authority you're talking about would look like in a modern marriage?

      Delete
    10. In an ancient context, isn't "authority" meaningless unless there's something to back it up?

      As far as modern marriage is concerned, since the laws are egalitarian, husbands have no more legal authority than wives. And as a practical matter, the system is tilted against men, so in reality, husbands have less authority than wives.

      So the question is anachronistic.

      Delete
    11. Perhaps the critical question on this track is: "What scriptural guidance is given to the husband for the case when his wife will not obey?".

      The cultural environment gave husbands a great deal of latitude in exercising power over their wives, likewise fathers over children, and likewise slaves over masters. As such, the NT writers are likely more concerned with teaching those in authority how to do so in kindness (Eph 5:28, 1 Pet 3:7, also Eph 6:4,9) than to give them permission to wield power.

      Delete
    12. Since modern law has stripped husbands of any distinctive authority, it's hard to give Scriptural guidance.

      What I'd suggest is that if either spouse consistently shirks their Biblical duties, that's probably grounds for divorce.

      I'm certainly not suggesting that a wife owes her husband unconditional deference. Husbands need to be wise. In 1 Sam 25, we have an example of a foolish husband and a prudent wife.

      Delete
  2. Also, I think the discussion has gotten off track. Getting back to the original point, there's a tension in Schreiner's position. He himself has reviewed books by "evangelical feminists." He must read women to review women. He must read egalitarians to refute egalitarians. Does that mean he's learning from a woman?

    Same thing with the JBMW, which reviews "evangelical feminist" literature from a complementarian perspective. Does that mean women are teaching them? There's a sense in which the women are teaching them what the women think Scripture means.

    What about countercult ministries that critique the theology of Joyce Meyers or Paula White. They must listen to these women preach to evaluate their theology. Are they submitting to their authority by hearing them preach? How could they critique them without hearing them?

    What about conservative pundits who critique the legal opinions of Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Elena Kagan. Are they in submission to a woman when they study their legal philosophy?

    ReplyDelete