Paul’s Women:

A Response to Mark McFall's “Women in Bible Times”

by J.M. Blankenship

The controversy over the role of women in the bible has brought forth many ideologies, some even dangerous. Many conservative church denominations even resort to a first century oppression of women, claiming that their actions are biblically justified. Growing up in such an environment, I even attended a conservative, Baptist Bible college where the oft claimed consensus is that "women are not called to the ministry, they are called to a man" who may be called to the ministry. To this point of view, even God treats men and women unequally, in stark opposition to the Pauline claim that "there is neither... male or female" (Gal 3:28, NET). The convoluted justification is a claim that all are equal for salvation, but in other areas of God's grace and calling, men and woman are on different plains. When talking to a young assistant pastor who recently graduated from a Bible college of the sort, I brought him to the point that not only was his claim textually unsupported, but the proof of history is set against him by the myriad examples of great woman leaders of God throughout the Church's existence, that we then discussed at length. His answer was an unsatisfactory, sweeping generalization that "all those ministries started by women have failed." I need not even point out the manifold problems in such a conjecture. Obviously, the confusion of the matter is problematic at best and potentially dangerous.

Mark McFall has pointed out the problems of treating the cultural aspects of the Bible as commandments. But it's quite difficult when such an explicit statement by Paul condones the subservience of women. Reading these passages, it seems no other interpretation can be found but that Paul understood women to be second-place, under the control of men. The face-value reading of these passages by Paul seems to pose problems about his theory of the place for women. But let me begin by explaining what seems to be a certain quirk about Paul.

We’re probably all familiar with the strange passage of 1 Corinthians 11:15, which explains the woman’s hair “is her glory” to justify a woman's wearing of a head covering when she prays or prophesies in the assembly. This suggestion of Paul's seems that he has either contradicted his "sit down and shut up" policy or he's just softened up between letters. He compromised. Or perhaps he just plain hasn't decided what he thinks. On the other hand, we should take a look at chapter fourteen of the same book. Here he speaks about “tongues.” This mysterious gift of the Spirit is recognized by Paul as a legitimate gift. However, he seems quite embarrassed by it. He advises the Corinthians to keep it on the down low since prophecy is better. Why? Because it more practical. He warns that an excessive use of tongues looks bad for the church to those outside, nor is it beneficial to the church as a whole but to the individual. A legitimate gift by the very Spirit of God, yet there’s reason to suppress it. Again, we remember how Paul acquiesced to the converted Pharisees' demands that Timothy get circumcised (Acts 16:3) when just a chapter before he preached, along with Barnabus, as emphatically as possible against the converted Pharisees’ claims that gentiles must be circumcised to follow the law of Moses (Acts 15:1-29). So, then, to the Corinthians, he advises woman to wear head coverings, as mentioned before, in line with the popular cultural traditions of his time. Within the same book, Paul warns against an excessive use of tongues that would make an outsider discredit and alienate himself from the church, as well as it has no group benefit. It's obvious that, as this newly formed religion was taking root in Palestine during the first century, Paul did not want it to die on account of it discrediting itself by alienation from the current cultural trends nor by excessive conflict, both internally and externally. Not that Paul wanted the church to immerse itself in the trends of the current culture or be wishy-washy in its beliefs, but that he wanted it to be fully aware of these things and not do anything to compromise Christianity's adaptation into the world. Remember, to conclude his discussion on women and head coverings, Paul stated emphatically that “if anyone intends to quarrel about this, we have no other practice, nor do the churches of God” (1 Cor 11:15, NET). He clearly states here his intentions: all the churches do this - so do it! Again, we see Paul’s avoidance of internal contention and cultural disruption.

Paul was certainly one who knew how to prioritize. He became "all things to all men" since to him the petty squabbles that normally plague our churches were not as important as the world's conversion to Christ. He would bend and sway with the small things, standing firm on the big things, because he knew how to differentiate between those issues that he believed were temporal and those he believed to be eternal. Perhaps he did have some subconscious traditional ingraining that was hard for him to shake, as we all do. And his conflict existed with the obvious gender equality expressed by Christianity, as McFall points out. But we can't forget that Paul knew exactly what was eternally important and what wasn't and that the church's continued existence was worth a little acquiescence to local culture.