Author Archives: A.A.

About A.A.

Go where no one else will go. Do what no one else will do.

Wesleyans in the Wilderness: Assurance vs. “The Dark Night of the Soul”

The Beginnings of Wesleyan Assurance

“Can you be sure of your salvation?” Most evangelicals would answer with a resounding “yes,” but would have difficulty answering the follow-up question—“how?” We may agree on how salvation happens—Romans 10:9-10—but it is more difficult to agree on how assurance happens.

Calvinists tend to see justification as an objective fact, grounded in God’s timeless decrees, independent of our emotions, and for some, even independent of our continued guilt. Christians are taught to distrust their experiences. There is a virtue to this system in that it engenders self-forgetfulness. But it offers precious little compassion in moments of doubt or depression. Depression is only a misapprehension of divine decrees. “Who are you, O man?” Doubt is a rejection of the form of determinism called “the doctrines of grace”. We lack assurance only by lacking understanding.

Into such a theological winter came John Wesley with his “strangely warmed” heart, teaching personal, inward assurance of faith as a distinctive doctrine. Salvation was both fact and experience for Wesley from that moment at Aldersgate Chapel:

I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone for salvation, and an assurance was given me that He had taken my sin, even mine.
(Journal of John Wesley, dated May 24, 1738.)

Over against Calvin’s credal, decree-bound assurance, Wesley placed an experience of assurance. He grounded it doctrinally in Romans 8:16, among other verses. Like James Ussher, Wesley translated the verse this way:

The same Spirit beareth witness with our spirits, that we are the children of God.

This verse and the doctrine of experiential assurance was absolutely pivotal in early Methodist theology. In The Lives of Early Methodist Preachers, a compilation of 41 biographies of Wesley’s pioneer preachers, assurance plays a key role in salvation narratives. At least eight of them—Hanson, Hopper, Payne, Rodda, Valton, Walsh and Whatcoat—specifically refer to Romans 8:16 in their conversion narratives. But not all experienced assurance as a lifelong reality.

The Eroding Value of “Assurance”

The irony comes from the volatile mixture of Wesleyan holiness and Wesleyan assurance, both of which play a major role today not just in Methodist congregations—which include some 70 million members—but among the world’s 500 million Pentecostals and Charismatics, whose theology is essentially Wesleyan in character.

Wesley taught that total victory over sin is not only possible, but normal for Christians. This is easy to defend from Scripture, with bald statements like “everyone who sins is a slave to sin” (John 8:34); “anyone born of God refuses to practice sin, because God’s seed abides in him” (1 John 3:9; compare though, 1 John 1:8-10). But it is hard to defend from Christian experience.

The strong expectation of assurance and the strong expectation of continuance in Methodism lead us to a strong expectation of continuing assurance. Wesley’s preachers frequently recorded that this combination was stumbling block to them, leading them to rationalize their own salvation. Read the words of Thomas Payne, after his conversion:

. . . But I had a Calvinian library, which I often read. And hence I imbibed that miserable notion, that it was absolutely necessary every believer should come down from the mount [i.e., by sinning, or doubting]. Hence I was persuaded that I must lose my first love; that I must doubt of my justification, which those wretched casuists lay down as one great mark of sincerity. For want of knowing better, I listened to these, till I lost the witness of the Spirit.

“Losing the witness of the Spirit,” of course, is tantamount to losing salvation in Wesleyan language, which rejects perseverance of the saints. Some contemporary writers make a helpful distinction by teaching that we may lose the witness or filling of the Holy Spirit without losing the Holy Spirit.

Another early Methodist preacher, John Valton, has a similar narrative of gaining assurance at the moment of conversion, but losing assurance afterward.

I have been much tempted to doubt of the pardoning love of God which I received in London. Because it was not incontestably clear, I feared it was not really the case; and that my comforts were only the drawings of the Father.

Bruce Hindmarsh comments on John Valton:

A few weeks later he was able to believe again. Significantly, Valton thought he might have been in the “wilderness state described in Mr. Wesley’s sermon”, and acknowledged that not everyone passed through the wilderness to the promised land. . . .

Valton believed that he had fallen into the desert experience or “dark night of the soul”, and according to Wesley, he might lose his salvation! He referred to a sermon in which John Wesley explained the historic Christian teaching of the “wilderness state” in some detail. The theological tension between the “wilderness state” and Wesleyan assurance is obvious.

The sermon referred to by Valton was one in which Wesley explained the reasons for the loss of love, joy, and peace that so many experienced after conversion. He identified the possible causes of this “wilderness state” as outright sin, simple ignorance, or overwhelming temptation, but stressed that God does not withdraw from us; it is always we who withdraw from him. For Wesley, one might well need to be “renewed by repentance” and “again washed by faith”. Indeed, one could be converted again and again.
(Hindmarsh, Evangelical Conversion Narrative, p. 247; he cites Wesley, Works (BE), ii. 217; see also Works vol. 6, Sermon 46, as published in 1872, here.)

Certainly, to a Calvinist, Wesley’s view of salvation can lead to needless introspection, and a shaky, human-dependent salvation. Anyone in a state of depression may be stumbled by the thought that they might have inadvertently lost their first faith.

One can see how practical pitfalls come up both from affirming and denying the perseverance of the saints—namely, too much assurance on one side, and not enough on the other.

“The Valley” in Arminian Preaching

George MacDonald, an untraditional Arminian, wrote scornfully of assurance in his “unspoken sermon” on “The Hardness of the Way”:

None can know how difficult it is to enter into the kingdom of heaven, but those who have tried—tried hard, and have not ceased to try. I care not to be told that one may pass at once into all possible sweetness of assurance; it is not assurance I desire, but the thing itself; not the certainty of eternal life, but eternal life. I care not what other preachers may say, while I know that in St. Paul the spirit and the flesh were in frequent strife.

MacDonald made room for doubt and difficulty in his own relational theology. Perhaps, in his view, Christian assurance is distinct from a full-proof certainty.

Oswald Chambers, an admiring reader of George MacDonald, wrote that we usually lose our high feelings by failing to act on what God has revealed to us.

Never allow a feeling which was stirred in you in the high hour to evaporate. Don’t put your mental feet on the mantelpiece and say, “What a marvellous state of mind to be in!” Act immediately, do something, if only because you would rather not do it. If in a prayer meeting God has shown you something to do, don’t say, “I’ll do it”—do it! Take yourself by the scruff of the neck and shake off your incarnate laziness. Laziness is always seen in cravings for the high hour; we talk about working up to a time on the mount. We have to learn to live in the grey day according to what we saw on the mount.
(My Utmost, April 16th entry)

In any case, Chambers concludes, we must live in low moments by what God revealed to us in better times. This was the topic of a famous sermon of his entitled “Can You Come Down?” The sermon deals with Jesus and the disciples’ transition from the Mount of Transfiguration to the valley where he deals with unclean spirits (Mark 9; Matthew 17). The theme was echoed in another famous sermon, Mountains and Valleys in the Ministry of Jesus by G. Campbell Morgan.

In a sermon about “processes”, Joseph Parker preached not only that we must sustain our obedience in the valleys, but that remembering the mountain will help us to do so.

We should lay up some memory of the Divine triumphs which have gladdened our lives, and fall back upon it for inspiration and courage in the dark and cloudy day. Go into your yesterdays to find God!

This was a perennial theme with Parker—we cannot always keep yesterday’s assurance, but we can resurrect it by memory. I believe D. L. Moody had a saying, that if God did no other miracle for him, he could live out his days content upon the memory of all that God had already done in his life. Memories help us make meaning out of our low moments.

“The Dark Night of the Soul”

The Dark Night of the Soul is the title of a poem and treatise by a 16th-century Catholic mystic, John of the Cross. The title of the book has been borrowed by many as another favorite term for what Wesley called the “wilderness state”, a state of depression or lack of spiritual awareness in the life of the Christian.

John of the Cross relies somewhat on The Cloud of Unknowing, an anonymous classic from two centuries earlier. ‘Unknowing’ meant ignorance, or unawareness, so the “cloud of unknowing” is a poetic term for whatever blocks the divine vision from view.

The Middle English of The Cloud of Unknowing is difficult, but it is an important work for those trying to understand the theological tradition of righteous unawareness of God. Below is an important passage (ch. 3).

Let not, therefore, but travail therein till thou feel list [desire]. For at the first time when thou dost it, thou findest but a darkness; and as it were a cloud of unknowing, thou knowest not what, saving that thou feelest in thy will a naked intent unto God. This darkness and this cloud is, howsoever thou dost, betwixt thee and thy God, and letteth thee that thou mayest neither see Him clearly by light of understanding in thy reason, nor feel Him in sweetness of love in thine affection. And therefore shape thee to bide in this darkness as long as thou mayest, evermore crying after Him that thou lovest.

For the anonymous author, this cloud of unknowing between us and God affects not only our feeling, but our reason. This leads us to think that God’s holy ones may be not only depressed, but even doubtful.

One can see why this tradition is not very popular among Protestants. The wilderneds state is frequently maintained as a pattern founded on human experience and tradition, not reason or revelation.

There are hints of the “dark night” in Scripture, though, aside from the impressions we receive from the narrative of Jesus descending the Mount of Transfiguration. Winkie Pratney, an Arminian writer, has written a book called The Thomas Factor which draws on a theological tradition of sanctified doubt. Pratney sees, in the story of Elijah in 1 Kings 19, a kind of dark night of the soul. In spite of his powerful and victorious confrontations with evil, Elijah speaks of suicide. He says he alone has remained faithful. But God leads him to rest. An angel ministers to him and feeds him, not once, but twice. God reminds him that he has “seven thousand in Israel . . . that have not bowed to Baal.”

Conclusion

There is a loss of assurance that may happen in the life of a Christian, but it is not permanent. As Romans says, the Holy Spirit testifies to us that we are God’s children; but from what we know of history and biography, it is neither a constant, continual, lifelong witness, nor is it an emotional or intellectual witness. Spirit speaks to spirit.

The dark night of the soul entails some confusion of both feeling and facts. It led Elijah and Jonah to feel suicidal; it has led others, like Frederick Buechner, to question our most deeply held traditions about death and immortality. But confusion of facts and confusion of feelings should not always lead to a confusion of faith. We do not have to know that the sky is blue, or feel that the earth is round; there are many facts in our lives that are always true, though removed from our awareness or transcending our small understanding. We know they are true by a steady iteration of experiential confirmations, and an interruption does not change what we already know to be true. We may lack certainty and yet maintain assurance.

In affirming these things, we should free believers to rest not on their own awareness or assurance of God’s atoning work in their lives—but on the fact itself.

Review: The Virgin Birth and the Incarnation

Leave a reply

Author: Arthur C. Custance was a research scientist with an overflowing interest in anthropology, biology, theology, and biblical languages. He obtained his M.A. in Middle Eastern Languages in 1941, and completed his Ph.D. in Anthropology in 1954, though his degree was delayed five years by prejudice against Custance caused by his literal understanding of biblical creation. He conducted research in physiology for Canada’s Defence Research Board and wrote sixteen unique books, mainly on the intersection of biblical theology and modern science.

The Virgin Birth and the Incarnation (1976) is Book 5 of 10 in The Doorway Papers, a series of studies fusing biblical study with scientific research. Much of the series explores aspects of the Creation, Fall, and Flood in Genesis, but many other themes are included.

It is divided into essays, so the topics are related but you can easily read and enjoy any essay without the others. The individual essays are themselves divided into chapters, and some of them are quite long.

The essays in this volume are:

Longevity in Antiquity and its Bearing on Chronology: This is a great study of the genealogy of Genesis 5, with statistical and historical data to back up the claims of human longevity. While many claim that there is some numerical or scribal anomaly in the years of Genesis 5, Custance supports a literal reading.
The Nature of the Forbidden Fruit: It was probably not an apple—so what was the forbidden fruit? And how did it affect Adam and Eve when they ate it? Custance shows the effects that certain foods can have on humans.
If Adam Had Not Died: This essay reviews scientific concepts connected to the Incarnation of Christ. Included here are several intriguing and strange ideas about the physiology of Adam himself. Custance is looking at the immortal physiology of Adam as a precursor of the immortal life of Christ.
The Virgin Birth and the Incarnation: The titular essay connects the concepts of “the seed of the woman” in Genesis 3, the virgin conception of Christ, and the immortality found in Christ. This is one of the most important of the entire Doorway Papers series as it presents ideas related to core Christian doctrines (as opposed to, for instance, whether the flood was local or global).
The Trinity in the Old Testament: This is probably the best thing I’ve read on the Trinity. Custance shows that it was not a new idea to God, although maybe it was to man. Many great Bible references will show you that the Trinity is not a foreign concept to the Old Testament.
A Fresh Look at the Meaning of the
Word ‘Soul’: Body, soul, spirit? It is not always clear in modern thought whether there is a difference between soul and spirit, but in the Old Testament there is a clear distinction. Custance offers a solid biblical study of how these terms are connected with bearings on the creation of Adam and the death of Christ. I don’t believe that Custance’s explanation differs too far from the detailed explanations offered, for instance, by Watchman Nee. For an interesting perspective from the Old Testament, look into the work of Robert Alter on this.
How Did Jesus Die?: This essay is a study of the physical causes of the death of Christ, centering on the possibility that Jesus died of a burst heart, an idea promulgated in 1871 by William Stroud. (Pioneer Library published Stroud’s book as an ebook.)
The Resurrection of Jesus Christ: In three chapters, Custance treats the “historical”, “theological”, and “experiential” aspects of the bodily Resurrection of Christ. This study is mainly theological.
The Unique Relationship between the First and Last Adam: This essay continues to develop some themes from the titular essay about Adam and Christ.

The Virgin Birth and the Incarnation is an important volume within The Doorway Papers, and in many ways it is a predecessor to Custance’s magnum opus, The Seed of the Woman.

Read: You can read The Virgin Birth and the Incarnation and Arthur Custance’s other works for free over at custance.org.

I read this book in 2006 and finished this review in 2021. I guess that tells you how memorable and unique the book was.

Review: Earliest New Testament Translations

2 Replies

Earliest New Testament Translations is “an interlinear comparison of the [six?] earliest English translations 1382 to 1611, updated to modern English.” My edition includes:

Wycliffe’s 1382 translation, which was done from Latin, not Greek;
Purvey’s 1395 revision of Wycliffe’s New Testament;
Tyndale’s 1530 New Testament, which was translated from Greek;
The Geneva Bible (1560), which was translated by a group of Reformed scholars in Switzerland;
The King James Version, completed in 1611.

This was put together and self-published by Clayton Porter. Porter has expanded to include other translations over time, so there are a number of volumes and versions out there, both digitally and in print.

This is an excellent parallel translation. I like that the spelling has been updated; reading Wycliffe without it is both unnecessary and a pain, even for a linguist. (It is very seldom that the outdated spelling creates any lexical ambiguity, but very often that a modern reader cannot guess what word is meant.)

In addition, the introduction was helpful in highlighting the differences between the translations.

Reading this brings to light how much we owe to Wycliffe and Tyndale, whose works are not so easy to get a hold of even now. Versions that pre-date the King James are extremely important to English history, but sadly do not appear on most Bible study websites like BibleHub, BibleGateway, or Blue Letter Bible.

This is an important addition to my digital library and I highly recommend it for anyone who wants to explore why a New Testament verse has always been translated “this way” and not “that way.” Below I’ve given a few things I learned and some examples from the book.

Committee or Single-Scholar?

A key question to consider in reading a Bible translation is whether or not it is the product of group effort. As a kid I always imagined that translations are done by one dude with a very good dictionary, but since Geneva, nearly all have been done by committee. Single-scholar translations do not generally get a lot of attention anymore: Young’s Literal, Darby’s, Weymouth’s, Moffat’s, Wuest’s, and The Passion Translation are hardly considered by academics. I do see Young’s Literal sometimes referenced as a baseline for a purely literal translation (not a “reading” translation), and Weymouth’s work is highly regarded by some. Moffat’s was quite fashionable around the time of World War I, but enthusiasm waned. Robert Alter’s work is probably the biggest exception to the rule. Almost any modern Bible translation, regardless of the language, is done by committee.

So the work of Wycliffe and Tyndale is exceptional in this regard. It means that their personality “colors” the New Testament text. This sounds like a negative assessment, but I hardly mean it that way. Each individual brings out shades of meaning in the text that give us new lenses of interpretation and help us see the Word with fresh eyes. There is a wonderful novelty to reading Wycliffe and especially Tyndale. Their work required tremendous creativity, a virtue not often praised in Bible scholars or translators.

The Originality of Tyndale

Tyndale is exemplary in many respects, and may have contributed more neologisms and original wording than the King James—for instance, we are indebted to him for the words “scapegoat” and “passover”. He translates ekklēsia as “congregation” instead of “church”, and has many other eccentricities.

He also just stands out as someone with many novel (but tenable) readings of the Greek. For example, Tyndale—in my opinion, correctly—translates 1 Corinthians 14:34a this way:

Let your wives keep silence in the congregations.

The Greek phrase αἱ γυναῖκες ὑμῶν is awkwardly translated “your women” in quite a few versions, both old and modern, starting with Geneva. I can only guess that the intended meaning is the church’s women. Others only have “women” or “the women”, which make it sound like Paul is making a very broad prohibition. But the plural possessive pronoun ὑμῶν (“y’all’s”) and the universal use of “husbands” in the very next verse mean that we are most likely dealing with a situation involving specific Corinthian wives, not all women for all time. Theologian Michael F. Bird writes that this is the case in his booklet on women’s roles.

Of all the translations I found, only Tyndale, Coverdale, and the WEB version use “wives” in this verse.

A Committee of Centuries

Modern Bible translations are heavily influenced by tradition, and, for good or for ill, it is very difficult to break free of. Translators are not only bound to the work of their translation committee and revision committees, they are bound to a committee of centuries. It is not hard to find verses in which either Wycliffe or Tyndale set a tone that has never been broken.

Observe 1 Timothy 2:5:

For one God and one mediator is of God and of men, a man Christ Jesus … (Wycliffe, Wycliffe-Purvey)

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and man, which is the man Christ Jesus … (Tyndale, Geneva)

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus … (King James)

This verse exemplifies the awkwardness sometimes found in Wycliffe’s version. Like Slavic languages, Latin has no definite or indefinite article (“a” or “the”), which is why we have “a man Christ Jesus.”

You can also see that Geneva is identical to Tyndale. Bible versions are almost never made with a clean slate; translators basically revise past versions rather than reinventing the wheel.

It is very rare to find examples where all four translations disagree. Here is one that I find intriguing (Galatians 2:21):

I cast not away the grace of God; for if rightwiseness is by the law, then Christ died without cause. (Wycliffe, Wycliffe-Purvey)

I despise not the grace of God: For if righteousness come of the law, then Christ died [is Christ dead] in vain. (Tyndale, brackets showing a later revision)

I do not abrogate the grace of God, for if righteousness be by the Law, then Christ died without a cause. (Geneva)

I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. (King James)

In the last phrase, Geneva followed Wycliffe and King James followed Tyndale, showing that they are not just revising the most recent version; later translators had access to multiple translations and compared to choose the preferred reading of a phrase.

But they cannot agree on how to “English” this word ἀθετῶ, with various attempts shown in bold. It is notable that they differ so widely. Here are some more modern translations of the same phrase:

I do not make void the grace of God. (Young’s Literal)

I do not nullify the grace of God. (Weymouth, RSV, ESV)

I do not set aside the grace of God. (Darby, NIV, NKJV)

I do not treat the grace of God as meaningless. (NLT)

I hope that this review helps others to understand some of what I have learned from this wonderful parallel New Testament, so that we can better live by God’s Word and edify God’s people.

Review: The Openness of God

Leave a reply

The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God (1994) is an introduction to “open theism”, known to some “dynamic omniscience”.

For those new to the concept: open theism is the idea that the free future choices of accountable moral agents (read: humans) are not in any meaningful sense knowable—if future choices were known with any certainty (as in Augustinianism or Molinism), then they could not be free future choices. It relies, then, on an intuitively linear view of time in its metaphysics. Time as measured by us is a mere construct; but time as a directionality and causality is basic to all existence, including God’s, and it would be logically absurd to argue that anyone was ever “outside time”. Time is not a physical reality that you can enter or exit. Open theism, then, involves both philosophical and theological considerations, and both are handled at some length in The Openness of God.

The Openness of God, despite its length, felt to me like a fly-by. The biblical chapter did not have many new things to say to me, as someone who had reviewed these arguments for many years, but the “historical considerations” was much more relevant to me since I am weak in that area.

The writers argue that certain attributes of God in “classical” theism were derived from Greek philosophy, not from the Bible or Judeo-Christian thought. This is a key argument, because followers of the early church father such as Augustine have maintained for many centuries that God is outside time, and some regard this as the only orthodox position.

The research probably benefits from multiple authors, but I also felt that it made the discussion feel slow, and sometimes repetitive. The book is organized around the different kinds of arguments used to defend open theism.

I did not like that in some chapters the discussion is framed around “rejecting” or “accepting” universal foreknowledge as such. I prefer the language of Samuel Fancourt, who must have been the first Englishman to articulate open theism in the 1720s. He denied that God foreknew our free moral choices in advance, but he always maintained that God’s foreknowledge is absolute. Open theists simply have a different view of time, so certain things cannot be foreknown. (Edit: In a 2021 podcast, Greg Boyd and Thomas Jay Oord have agreed that the grounding fact of open theism is not that God voluntarily limits his omniscience or omnipotence, but that God does not need to predict what is merely possible, not certain.)

If you want to think about ideas like the suffering of God and how we see God’s activity in time, I would recommend something more practical and biblical. Many authors (as I mentioned above) have written on these topics without making dogmatic arguments that tend to remove focus from the application of biblical truth. This is an important debate, but it is primarily important because we need to balance our metaphors about God in the same way that the Bible does and live in light of that truth. Expository writing can meet those goals. However, this book is intended as a theological introduction to a way of thinking. I guess it would meet that goal pretty well if you wanted a clear introduction to “open theology”; though, something like Michael Saia’s Does God Know the Future? or Greg Boyd’s Letters from a Skeptic might be less time-consuming and more palatable for those who are not academics.

This review was written around 2013 and posted in 2021.

Scripture Questions on Women in Leadership

Leave a reply

Some of you are aware, this is a topic I have been studying for much of 2021. This post is a partial culmination of months of study and about 20 books studied. I skimmed more than a dozen early Victorian books because I wanted to go well outside the modern debate to find out what old-time preachers said about Eve. What I found shows that consensus about women's subordination and men's authority was nearly unanimous; but there was precious little consensus about how that could be supported from the Genesis narrative. Below, you'll find a general overview of the biblical issues involved, starting with Genesis.

The Major Questions

The question of the role of women in our day can be summarized in three circles: 1) marriage/family; 2) the church; 3) society/creation. Logically, there is an implicational hierarchy at work; despite a spectrum of views on the topic, it is difficult to substantiate women’s submission in only one or two of these spheres when woman is free in the larger sphere. (This explains Christian feminism.) Conversely, when creation language is appealed to (cf. 1 Cor. 11, 1 Tim. 2), it is difficult not to imagine that all women are subordinate or inferior to all men. (This explains biblical patriarchy.) This is why the issue is so polarizing, and intermediate positions are hard to maintain.

The biggest Old Testament question is whether female subordination was intended from creation, or is a consequence of sin. Most, but not all, classical commentators choose the former; nearly all contemporary commentators choose the latter. From my own study of Genesis, equality seems to be the starting point. Martin Luther even supports this in some passages in his commentary on Genesis, though he later contradicts himself.

The biggest New Testament question is about the meaning of the prohibitions (1 Cor. 14:34, 1 Tim. 2:11) and domestic codes (Eph. 5, 1 Pet. 3). There is no question that Paul considered many women his “co-workers”. Most also maintain that Phoebe was a deacon (Rom. 16:1–2); and many from ancient times have believed that Junia was an apostle, as is the plainest reading of Romans 16:7. If we privilege these narratives, which are many, then we may choose to severely qualify the aforementioned prohibitions. If we privilege the prohibitions, then a lot of historical and scriptural evidence has to be thoroughly re-examined. Either position requires liberties in interpretation, which is why this debate must remain a second-order issue.

The Minor Questions

In this overview, I list all of the key Bible passages in this discussion. For each scripture, I’ve placed three views:

H = the hierarchicalist/complementarian view
M = the mutualist/egalitarian view
My thoughts = my evaluation of both arguments, with variant perspectives

Views presented here, when not cited, are generally taken from two representative works: on the hierarchicalist side, David Pawson’s Leadership Is Male: What Does the Bible Say? (1988); on the mutualist side, Lucy Peppiatt’s Rediscovering Scripture’s Vision for Women: Fresh Perspectives on Disputed Texts (2019). For a more moderate egalitarian perspective, see this booklet by Michael F. Bird.

1. Does the sequence of creation imply that woman is not a leader?

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 1:27

H: Genesis 1 shows man’s relation to God (vertical); Genesis 2 shows man’s relation to woman (horizontal). The first account emphasizes equality between the sexes “in value, potential, and destiny” (Pawson, p. 15), but the second account shows that in fact woman is created second, and man is therefore the leader. In 1 Timothy 2:13, Paul appeals to the order of creation for this reason.

M: “Since they are like God, they are best suited for a unique relationship to God.” (Dempster, qtd. in Peppiatt) Genesis 1 makes it clear that all humans may relate directly to God, but a hierarchicalist/complementarian interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:7 directly contradicts this, since it states that woman only relates to God through the mediation of man.

My thoughts: John Calvin, Philip Doddridge, and many other hierarchicalists believe that the sequence of creation was irrelevant, and Paul appealed to the order of creation to make a different point in 1 Timothy 2. It was very common in the Victorian era to speak of Eve as the “crowning grace of creation” (e.g., John Angell James).

2. Does the manner of Eve’s creation imply female subordination?

And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet [‘ezer kenegdo] for him.
Genesis 2:18

H: “Woman was made from man. Woman was made for man. Woman was made after man.” (Pawson, p. 18; similar language is employed by many authors) See 1 Corinthians 11:8–9. Woman is a helper which means that she is subordinate.

M: “In later Mishnaic Hebrew, the root of [kenegdo] means ‘equal.'” (Peppiatt)

Helpers can also be inferiors, equals, or superiors. On the Hebrew phrase translated “help meet”, David Freedman writes, “I believe the customary translation of these two words [i.e., ezer kenegdo or “helper”], despite its near universal adoption, is wrong. That is not what the words are intended to convey. They should be translated instead to mean approximately ‘a power equal to man.’ That is, when God concluded that he would create another creature so that man would not be alone, he decided to make ‘a power equal to him,’ someone whose strength was equal to man’s. Woman was not intended to be merely man’s helper. She was to be instead his partner.” (R. David Freedman, qtd in Peppiatt, p. 49)

Additionally, when Paul says that woman was made for man, he seemingly corrects (or contradicts) his own words on this point when we move from 1 Corinthians 11:8–9 to 1 Corinthians 11:11. (See more below.)

My thoughts: Older commentators frequently take the manner of Eve’s creation to imply a profound intimacy between Adam and Eve. The same is true of Adam’s naming of Eve. It is mainly in modern theology that every detail of the text is exploited to make Eve subordinate. In numerous Jewish commentaries and Church Fathers, the creation of Eve from Adam’s rib is taken to imply that they were created from the same “raw material”, which makes them compatible. My favorite is Sforno (16th c.), who wrote that kenegdo literally means ‘equal’, but God clearly couldn’t have meant positional equality, otherwise who would wash the dishes and cook the meals?

3. Does the curse of Eve introduce female submission, or extend it?

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Genesis 3:16

H: The word “multiply” indicates that this curse is only an extension of already existing subjugation. The third line, “thy desire shall be to thy husband”, includes “an unusual Hebraism which means an ambition to control, manipulate, possess someone (as its occurrence in Genesis 4:7 clearly shows). That is, having led her husband into sin, she must now live with a continuing urge to subordinate him to her wish and will” (Pawson, p. 25).

M: The line, “thy desire shall be to thy husband”, has also been translated “your desire shall be contrary to your husband.” Thus, the possible translations are directly contradictory to one another.

My thoughts: Pawson has certainly overinterpreted this verse. Many translators (such as Alter) believe it follows Song of Solomon 7:10: “for your man shall be your longing.” There are other interpretations of this verse as well. In any case, there is no clear indication of female subordination before this verse.

In addition, commentators of the rank of Martin Luther and John Wesley deny that woman was subordinate before the fall, but modern complementarians generally affirm this. There are many other points in which modern complementarians (Pawson, Ortlund, etc.) are at odds with classical commentators.

4. Why does Adam name Eve?

And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
Genesis 3:20

H: Adam names Eve because he has authority over her. “Naming in Scripture is an expression of authority. . . . Incidentally, a legacy of his action is to be found in a wife taking her husband’s surname after marriage.” (Pawson, p. 18; cf. Ortlund; Luther’s Commentary on Genesis)

M: “One person names another not because he or she has authority over the named person but because he or she is the right person to identify or determine the essential significance of the named person.” (Andrew Perriman, qtd. in Peppiatt)

My thoughts: I thought it was strange that Pawson mentioned women taking their husbands’ last names, because this seems to happen only in Western European cultures. In most of the greater Middle East, South Asia, Korea, and China, a woman retains her father’s name at marriage; in Latin America, following Spanish custom, children take both parents’ last names (i.e., Pablo Ruiz y Picasso).

I would add that I know many aunts and grandmas who received new names from their nieces, nephews, and grandchildren, which throws a wrench in that idea! My own family calls me by a name given by my brother. Many societies in Latin America, Slavic nations, and Arabic-speaking nations use special names only within close family. The prerequisites of the act of naming can be kinship or intimacy. Authority is only one consideration, and it does not conclude the matter.

The best evidence against this logic, though, is found in Rabbinic commentaries, where Adam is regarded as the first human to name God. Surely Ortlund, Piper, and Grudem would not say that this implied that Adam had authority over God!

5. What may we learn from women who prophesy?

And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.
Judges 4:4

H: Prophesying is merely relating the words of God, and does not equate to teaching, leadership, or authority, and thus women may prophesy in both Testaments. (Pawson)

M: Female leaders and prophets—such as Deborah, Miriam, Zipporah, Manoah’s wife, Ruth, Hannah, Abigail, the Wise Woman of Tekoa, the Shunammite Woman, Huldah, and Esther—show that women had considerable freedom during the time of the Old Covenant. (Ellicott’s Commentary states this.) Special qualifications or limitations of women are imposed by societies, not by revelation.

My thoughts: I have heard several opine that women primarily lead when men aren’t taking up their God-given role as leaders (i.e., women may lead as an “escape clause”). The story of Barak and Deborah exemplifies this. But this doesn’t explain away all the prophetesses of the Bible.

In Barnes’ Notes, on 1 Corinthians 11, he writes that female prophets plainly “expound the Word of God” (contra Pawson) but gives other reasons that modern women should not teach. He writes that they would require the same inspiration as scripture’s prophetesses. The complementarian position here—that women could prophesy at one time but now cannot teach—is problematic.

6. Why did Jesus only call male apostles?

And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach . . .
Mark 3:14

H: Jesus only ordained twelve men, when he could have ordained six men and six women, to better represent both sexes. (Pawson)

M: “Although the twelve apostles were men, Jesus surrounded himself with women disciples as well. R. T. France writes, ‘In the cultural context of the time it was perhaps inevitable that men should form the inner circle around Jesus, but Luke 8:1–3 suggests that that inner circle was not very sharply distinguished in practice from the wider group of companions among whom women were prominent.’ Luke tells us that Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna, and many other women accompanied Jesus on his mission and funded him out of their private means. Jesus chose women as traveling companions, disciples, and patrons of his mission.” (Peppiatt)

My thoughts: I agree with R. T. France. Some cultures are simply more gender-segregated in their activities, so I would not use the maleness of the twelve apostles as a talking point here. It is a descriptive fact, not a prescriptive fact.

7. Did Priscilla have a teaching role in the early church?

¹ And [Paul] found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them. . . . ¹⁸ And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow. . . .²⁶ And he [Apollos] began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
Acts 18:1, 18, 26

Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers [literally, ‘co-workers’ (KJV, ESV), ‘fellow-workers’ ] in Christ Jesus . . .
Romans 16:3

Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.
1 Corinthians 16:19

Salute Prisca and Aquila . . .
2 Timothy 4:19

H: Priscilla is frequently named before her husband Aquila because of her high social standing. On Acts 18:26: “The verb ‘teach’ is not used on this occasion, they did it later and it was a private context in their home, not a public one in church” (Pawson, p. 43).

M: “Four of the six times [Priscilla] is mentioned, she is mentioned first, giving us a clear indication that she is deemed to be the most prominent of the pair. In addition to this we know that she had a crucial role in instructing Apollos in the faith (Acts 18:26). Prisca, Mary, Tryphaena, Tryphosa, and Persis all ‘worked’ with Paul. Gaventa writes, ‘That bland verb does not convey a great deal in English, but this is the language he uses elsewhere when he is speaking about apostolic labor (as in 1 Cor 3:9; 4:12; 15:10; Gal 4:11; 1 Thess. 5:12)'” (Peppiatt).

“It is evident that Priscilla has served as a teacher (Acts 18:24, 26, 28).” (Oden, First and Second Timothy and Titus, p. 98)

“Does it not seem as if Priscilla ought to be a greater Christian teacher than Aquila?” (Joseph Parker, The People’s Bible, in loc. Acts 18)

My thoughts: In verse 26, the verb for “took him” (προσλαμβάνω) can mean “received him into their home”, but the context here also matches closely with Matthew 16:22 and Mark 8:32, where Peter “took” Jesus aside and rebuked him.

Contra Pawson, the verb for “expound” (ἐκτίθημι) is hardly weaker than “teach”. In the Septuagint it means to “lay down” a decree; in the NT, it involves taking time to set someone straight who is mistaken. Thus, Peter “expounds” his visions to the Judaizers (in Acts 11:4), and Paul “expounds” the kingdom of God “both out of the law of Moses and out of the prophets” (Acts 28:23). It is unconvincing to claim that “teach” differs categorically from “expound”, or that Priscilla was excused in correcting a prominent and well-versed male teacher because it was “private” (which is likely but not necessarily clear from the text).

In addition, no mention is made of Priscilla’s pedigree in the NT, but we do know some of Aquila’s background; so Pawson is only speculating as to why her name comes first. Chrysostom (4th c.) surmises that she must be “more zealous, and more faithful.”

8. Was Phoebe a deacon?

¹ I commend unto you Phebe [= Phoebe] our sister, which is a servant [‘deacon’ in NIV, NLT] of the church which is at Cenchrea:
² That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer [or ‘leader’ in YLT] of many, and of myself also.
Romans 16:1–2

H: Some writers and translators believe that Phoebe is a “servant”, not holding the office of deacon. Other hierarchicalists hold that women may in fact hold that office—of the related office of “deaconess”—but not higher offices in the church.

M: “The history of translation has certainly misled us on the nature of Phoebe’s central role in the early church.” (Peppiatt) “Paul uses [διάκονος] to describe his own ministry (1 Cor 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6; 6:4; 11:23; Eph 3:7; Col 1:23, 25).” (McCabe, “A Reevaluation of Phoebe,” 99.)

Several also point out that the Greek participle for “being”—οὖσαν, here translated “is”—frequently is used of someone holding an office, not of someone acting temporarily in a given capacity (as “servant” or “helper”).

My thoughts: The translation “servant” is speculative and is inadmissible here. Women have served as deacons since the earliest days of the church. One gravestone, found on the Mount of Olives, refers to a deacon Sophia as “the second Phoebe” (Η ΔΕΥΤΕΡΑ ΦΟΙΒΗ), showing that she was certainly believed to be a deacon in the early church at Jerusalem.

The discussion gets quite convoluted on whether Phoebe was a female deacon or a deaconess or a servant. Thomas Timpson, in his book on New Testament women, argues that she was not a deaconess, but simply a woman of privilege with great influence (though Timpson is not here arguing that women can’t be deacons).

In any case, it is problematic to argue from the union of 1 Timothy 2 and Romans 16:7 that women can be deacons but not elders; the phrasing of 1 Timothy 2:11 relates mainly to the manner of leadership, and does not prohibit female elders any more than it prohibits female deacons. If 1 Timothy 2:11 is read flatly, then women cannot teach in any capacity, period. That includes public schools, weaving, and dog grooming!

9. Was Junia an apostle?

Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
Romans 16:7

H: Some writers say that Junia is only travelling with the apostolic band (Pawson), or that she is highly regarded by the apostles, but not an apostle herself.

M: Chrysostom (4th c.) was overawed by Junia, writing that she was not only an apostle, but “of note among” them. Later, translators such as Martin Luther, Eberhard Nestle, and Kurt Aland suppressed this evidence of a female apostle, replacing “Junia” with a male name; furthermore, when the name “Junia” resurfaced, various liberties were taken with the text because of theological bias.

My thoughts: The plainest reading is that Andronicus and Junia are apostles, and women are nowhere prohibited from apostleship or eldership in the New Testament.

10. Does a wife have authority over her husband?

The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
1 Corinthians 7:4

M: In the Roman Empire, a man had near-absolute power over his wife and children, and the statement that the wife has authority over her husband’s body is a tremendously subversive statement.

My thoughts: As Peppiatt brings out in Women and Worship at Corinth, there is definite tension between 1 Corinthians 7:4, where a woman clearly “has authority” (ἐξουσιάζει) over her husband in one area of their marriage, and 1 Corinthians 11:10, where a woman has to wear “authority” (ἐξουσίαν) on her head, because of the angels.

11. Does a woman have to cover her head in worship?

²Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. ³But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. ⁴Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. ⁵But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. ⁶For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. ⁷For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. ⁸For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. ⁹Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. ¹⁰For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. ¹¹Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. ¹²For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. ¹³Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? ¹⁴Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? ¹⁵But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. ¹⁶But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
1 Corinthians 11:2–16

H: Verse 3 (like Ephesians 5:23) points out male headship, meaning men hold authority over women. Women may “pray” and “prophesy” (v. 5), but need to show submission and modesty in doing so. For some (Barnes), other special conditions would have to be met, such as clear evidence of inspiration. Paul clearly links veiling and submission to woman’s status at creation, in verse 8. This gives it the widest possible scope.

M: Peppiatt, in her book, Women and Worship at Corinth, proposes that Paul is quoting from his opponents in this passage, and she lists a number of rationales for doing so:

1) In verse 6, the writer advocates shaving women’s heads; the clearest explanation here is that it is a reductio ad absurdum for a prescriptive practice that Paul disagrees with.
2) In verses 7 to 9, woman does not relate directly to God, but relates to him through man. This contradicts verse 11, which makes man and woman interdependent. Verse 11 begins in Greek with a strong adversative particle, “nevertheless.”
3) In verse 10, women are encouraged to cover their heads “because of the angels”—a phrase for which no firm explanation has been given.
4) In verse 14, Paul could not be teaching against men having long hair, because he himself had long hair while fulfilling his vow.
5) In verse 14, Paul appeals to “nature itself,” which is not an argument that Paul uses elsewhere.
6) Very few churches throughout history have sought to apply this passage in their church worship. So it is apparent to everyone that there is some interpretive difficulty here.

More reasons are listed here.

A further consideration is that the hierarchicalist view of “headship”, which makes this a statement of man’s authority over woman, also makes a statement of God’s authority over Christ. This doctrine, known as “eternal functional subordination”, is now supported by many prominent theologians because of complementarianism—see the work of Kevin Giles on this.

12. Must women keep silence in church?

³⁴Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. ³⁵And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
³⁶What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? ³⁷If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. ³⁸But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
1 Corinthians 14:34–38

M: Paul is quoting from his opponents in verses 34 and 35, and in verse 36 he is strongly contradicting them. According to Peppiatt, 1 Corinthians 11 and 14 together show that Paul was combating misogynism in the Corinthian church.

It is also very problematic that no “law” (v. 34) enjoins obedience on women, though some believe this to refer to Genesis 3:16 (which is a curse, but is found in the Torah).

My thoughts: In my opinion, λαλεῖν is mistranslated. It should be “it is not permitted for them to talk”. The verb has no reference to public speaking, which is why, if it is to be universally applied, then women can’t even greet each other in church.

Michael F. Bird believes that the context here has something to do with marital relations and family discussions during church teachings; as a principle, no one (women included) should disrupt a sermon by discussing the sermon with their neighbor or family member.

13. What is meant by “neither male nor female”?

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 3:28

H: In context, this verse relates to Abraham’s covenant. Only free, Jewish males could receive inheritances, and in Christ we all inherit the blessing of Abraham.

M: It is impossible to so strictly separate soteriological implications from social implications. (Peppiatt, Bird)

14. What about the “household codes”?

²²Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. ²³For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. ²⁴Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. ²⁵Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; ²⁶That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, ²⁷That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. ²⁸So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. ²⁹For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: ³⁰For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. ³¹For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. ³²This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. ³³Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
Ephesians 5:22–33

¹⁸Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.
¹⁹Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.
²⁰Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord.
²¹Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged.
Colossians 3:18–21

¹ Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; ²While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. ³Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; ⁴But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. ⁵For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: ⁶Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
⁷Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.
1 Peter 3:1–7

H: Even if historical context mitigates these commands, they cannot be negated on the basis of scriptural authority and inspiration.

M: Philip Doddridge, in the 1740s, wrote that mutual submission was the greater command, and these are lesser commands within that frame (though Doddridge still believed in male headship). This is an important consideration.

R. W. Dale, in 1882, relates these passages to church-state relations, writing that the New Testament church was not meant to be revolutionary or radical in a political sense. Paul therefore commands Christians to obey the law of the land. They did eventually overturn the social order, but only by degrees. Dale writes, that these domestic codes are harder on men than women. Commanding men to self-denial and marital faithfulness was radical in the Roman era.

In his Lectures on Ephesians, Dale notes three arguments against a marital hierarchy:

If wives must obey husbands, then slaves must obey masters (American emancipation happened in Dale’s generation);
Paul never says that wives are to “obey” their husbands, Titus 2:5 KJV being a mistranslation (Joseph Parker and others have agreed);
“Marriage is transfigured” (p. 356) by devotion to Christ, so that we are “not under law but grace”, and any subjection or sacrifice enjoined of either spouse is representative of a tender affection founded in Christian love.

15. Who were Euodia and Synytche?

²I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in the Lord. ³And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.
Philippians 4:2–3

My thoughts: Paul must have addressed these women in a corporate letter because they had some unresolved controversy which had bearing on the direction of the local church. It is hard to imagine, then, that they were not significant leaders, and it is patronizing to contend that they only taught women and children. (I share this view with Moises Silva.)

16. Why does Paul say he will “suffer not a woman to teach”?

⁹In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided [braided] hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; ¹⁰But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. ¹¹Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. ¹²But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. ¹³For Adam was first formed, then Eve. ¹⁴And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. ¹⁵Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
1 Timothy 2:9–15

H: Verse 12 relates back to Genesis 3:16, in which woman is by nature tempted to usurp the authority of the man. In verse 13, Paul establishes that the priority of Adam in creation means also that he holds priority in teaching and decision-making. In verse 14, Paul further establishes that “Adam was not deceived”; man, therefore, is less liable to deception than woman.

M: It is clear from a linguistic point of view that αυθεντείν (KJV, “usurp authority”) means something like “dominate”, and is not referring to prohibiting the holding of any specific office.

Some argue that 1 Timothy 2:11–15 involves the female cult of Diana (or Artemis) of the Ephesians. This comes from the Kroegers’ book, I Suffer Not a Woman.

Timothy was in Ephesus;
Women had a dominant role in the pagan cult there;
“Braided hair” (v. 9) was a sign of pagan devotion;
Diana was routinely invoked during childbirth, so Paul is clearly encouraging women not to fear in childbirth in v. 15.

Michael F. Bird denies the Kroegers’ argument, but maintains that the passage is not transcultural; it does not apply to Christians of all times and places.

My thoughts: Even classical commentators have noted that

the sequence of creation does not imply male authority (v. 13);
Adam was deceived, but not in the same way or time as Eve (v. 14);
“she shall be saved in childbearing” is one of the most enigmatic statements in the whole New Testament (v. 15), and is often taken to refer to either “the seed of the woman” in Genesis 3:15, or a reversal of the curse of Eve in Genesis 3:16.

Since many eminent authorities have denied the literal sense of verses 13, 14, and 15, which are supporting context for verse 12, this problematizes the exploitation of this passage to deny women leadership roles. It indicates that there is some important missing context here, though theologians cannot agree what it is.

The parallel mentions of external fashions here in 1 Timothy 2 (“braided hair”) and again in 1 Corinthians 11 (“veils”) are also strong cues that Paul is addressing specific cultural practices in these two important passages.

Review: Bourgeois Babes, Bossy Wives, & Bobby Haircuts

3 Replies

Author: Michael F. Bird is an Australian New Testament scholar and author of many books. His books and teachings mainly pertain to core Christian doctrines such as justification, Jesus’ divinity, and Jesus’ messiahship.

Overview

Bourgeois Babes, Bossy Wives, & Bobby Haircuts: A Case for Equality in Ministry (2012) is Michael F. Bird’s defense of women in ministry, including a brief account of how he changed his mind on this issue.

In describing why he changed his mind, Bird cites two growing concerns he had: 1) Paul’s co-workers in the gospel included many women; 2) Prohibitions on women in Bird’s church far exceeded those of Scripture, and women were forbidden even from leading songs at co-ed small group meetings.

Then Bird breaks the false dichotomy by showing that there is a spectrum of opinions involving women in leadership.

Though the back cover uses the phrase “taking a stand”, Bird’s position in this debate is stubbornly moderate—I was going to say, annoyingly moderate. His exposition of key texts will not satisfy complementarians or thoroughgoing egalitarians. (Bird opts for the more conventional terminology here, though I prefer the more transparent terms, hierarchicalist and mutualist.)

Like complementarians, Bird allows that men hold authority in households, since “man is the head of the woman”. He tempers this by stating that the New Testament household codes are all framed by commands involving mutual submission. In Bird’s view, this transforms—but does not negate—male headship.

Like egalitarians, Bird allows that many women ministered, taught, and preached alongside Paul, and the two key prohibitions (1 Corinthians 14:34 and 1 Timothy 2:13) are not transcultural. Though he considers himself a moderate egalitarian, I’ll discuss ways that his position on these passages differs from many or most egalitarians.

Key Passages

Bird states that passages like 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 (on veiling women during worship), 1 Corinthians 14:34–36 (on women remaining silent in church), and 1 Timothy 2:11–15 (on women “teaching or exerting authority”) relate to local social and spiritual conditions, and are not mandates for all churches in all time. But that does not make them irrelevant.

1 Corinthians 11:2–16

In 1 Corinthians 11, a number of befuddling statements are made involving women wearing (or not wearing) veils during Christian worship. Bird points out that this passage cannot be used to silence women in church, since it states that women may “pray and prophesy” publicly, if they meet the conditions of appropriateness and modesty.

He argues throughout the booklet that, though Paul appeals to the creation order, veils were clearly related to local customs regarding modesty. This connection between the creation order and local custom is an important one for Bird, because this can determine how we treat both 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Timothy 2.

Bird does not require any special pleading or wrangling of the text. He simply states that in this passage “Paul intends to correct male behavior just as much as female behavior” (p. 25). Paul mentions Christ as the head of man and then the husband as head of the wife, but he is not setting a “chain of command” according to Bird:

There is indeed a hierarchy of relations between the persons mentions in the various couplets [1 Cor. 11:3], but one that must also be understood in light of the gospel, where Paul affirms mutuality, reciprocity, and the value of others in the relationships that characterize the new creation.
Michael F. Bird, Bourgeois Babes, Bossy Wives, and Bobby Haircuts, p. 25

1 Corinthians 14:34–36

On 1 Corinthians 14:34–36, Bird does not adopt either the “interpolation” argument or the “quotation” argument, often appealed to by egalitarians. But he points out that 1 Corinthians 14:34 blatantly contradicts 1 Corinthians 11:5, in which women can pray and prophesy. The weight of evidence seems to show that women can pray and prophesy (and teach) in public worship. But Bird (p. 29) writes that this passage relates to the relation of husbands and wives during public worship. (Incidentally, Tyndale translates 1 Corinthians 14:34 this way, but no other major English translation has done so.)

1 Timothy 2:11–15

Bird is not satisfied by the most common arguments on either extreme concerning this passage. Complementarians would say that it is transcultural and women cannot teach or lead men in spiritual ministry. Egalitarians frequently appeal to the local Artemis cult, which was led by women, as a source of false teaching and social issues in the Ephesian church where Timothy led. This second argument was popularized by the Kroegers’ book I Suffer Not a Woman (1994), but Bird writes that it was disproven by Steven Baugh. (He does not elaborate.)

Instead, Bird writes that women were involved in some heresy that involved a deviant view of creation. In my opinion, Bird is taking the same scheme as the Kroegers’ book but omitting all reference to Artemis. He chooses this stance, however, as a way of privileging the text over speculation about historical context.

Firmly choosing the middle of the road, Bird tempers all this by stating that Paul still prohibited women from ministry in Ephesus, and so there is a transcultural principle that must be gleaned from that. We cannot simply dismiss passages that are transcultural.

How Important Is It?

In his conclusion, Bird states that this is a second-order issue, not a first-order issue. Affirming women in ministry should not bar us from fellowship with those who reject them. In their 1991 edited volume, Grudem and Piper disagree, stating this is a first-order issue (meaning that they would not hold fellowship with those who disagree!).

It is strange to me that Grudem puts not preparing women for leadership on the level of Jesus’ messiahship, the Trinity, the gospel of salvation, the authority of Scripture, and the forgiveness of sins.

Conclusion

Finally, I would like to mention the difficulties of the position chosen by Bird.

There are logical difficulties attached to a moderate position, which is perhaps why it is seldom defended. What does it mean to affirm husband’s headship and women as leaders? Are the church and the home to be treated as totally separate spheres? If women are creationally unfit to lead the home, how are they fit to lead the church? Conversely, they can make decisions for the church, which is made up of many families, why can’t they make decisions for their own family?

Bird handles the biblical text quite well and covers quite a bit of the contemporary textual arguments found in the academy—and that in a very short space. He brings up some fantastic points about 1 Corinthians 11, but that section did leave me wanting more, since the passage is so obfuscated. Personally, I admire Lucy Peppiatt’s treatment of this passage; in my opinion, Bird does not have adequate space in this small book to address its manifold difficulties.

I’m also a tad annoyed at the typos that appeared in this staple-bound booklet from Zondervan. It was originally only an ebook.

It would be great to hear Bird again on these issues. He is an engaging and persuasive writer, and this is an impressively tactful treatment of a moderate egalitarian position.

Review: Leadership Is Male

1 Reply

Author: David Pawson was a Charismatic Bible teacher, known especially for his book Unlocking the Bible and the related teaching videos.

Overview of the Book

Leadership Is Male: What Does the Bible Say? (1988) is a systematic account of biblical complementarianism, or the view that men should take leading and teaching roles in the church, and are also “heads” over their wives.

Pawson begins with the nature of God. He points out that God himself is almost uniformly described as male throughout the Bible, and female language is only occasionally used. This is true, but I believe this great numerical difference is quite mitigated if you look at the preponderance of gendered metaphors rather than just mechanically counting the pronoun “he” as an indication of “maleness”.

The existence of male and female figures and language in relation to the being of God is something we have to become accustomed to, but is not describing an essential aspect of God’s nature.
Lucy Peppiatt, Rediscovering Scripture’s Vision for Women, p. 22

Since God is a spiritual being, I did not take Pawson’s first line of argumentation to be very helpful.

In chapter 2, Pawson then moves into Genesis. He argues that men and women are created with “vertical equality” towards God in Genesis 1, but “horizontal inequality” towards each other in Genesis 2. He finds justification for inequality in the method, purpose, and sequence of Adam and Eve’s creations.

Woman was made from man. Woman was made for man. Woman was made after man.
David Pawson, Leadership Is Male, p. 17; cf. John Angell James, The Marriage Ring (1842)

He also points to Adam naming Eve as an “expression of authority” (p. 18), citing the English custom of wives taking their husbands’ names. We are almost the only culture that does this, though. Children often take their father’s name, but sometimes both parents; and in much of the globe, women do not change their name at marriage.

There is not much indication of “male leadership” in the Adam and Eve cycle, though. Pawson uses only slight hints in the Genesis text, as I’ll show below; he also supports his argument with 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Timothy 2, two of the most problematic passages in the entire New Testament, even if we leave the “gender debate” aside.

Pawson then argues that both Testaments are essentially patriarchal, since Jesus only appointed male apostles.

The patriarchal nature of government among the people of God continues from the old into the new covenant.
David Pawson, Leadership Is Male, p. 40

In chapter 5, Pawson handles Pauline passages, beginning with Galatians 3:28, where Paul writes that in Christ there is “neither male nor female”. He argues that Paul uses ethnicity, slavery, and gender because only a free, Jewish male could benefit from Abraham’s covenant. That’s why in Galatians 3:29, we are “Abraham’s seed”, and that makes us “heirs”. The passage pertains to salvation, then, not leadership. Michael F. Bird and Lucy Peppiatt argue that it would be hair-splitting to limit this verse to salvation, as if salvation has no ethical implications; but Pawson does make some great points in expositing this text.

Pawson then goes through Pauline passages that limit women’s roles. He correctly notes that 1 Corinthians 14:34 “directly contradicts” 1 Corinthians 11:5—can women pray and prophesy in public, or do they have to remain silent? He admits the confusion of these passages, but writes that women are forbidden from questioning teachers.

The crucial point to note is that Paul appeals to the original order of creation [in 1 Cor. 11 and 1 Tim. 2], to the ‘very nature of things’ and to the universal practice of the churches; but he never mentions the social conditions in Corinth or the national culture of Greece. Enough said!
David Pawson, Leadership Is Male, p. 59

Pawson’s main defense for excluding women from leadership is basically that it is the most obvious (“literal”) way to read the Bible; thus, when Paul writes, “wives, submit to your own husbands”, Pawson takes this at face value. It is transcultural: that is, it stands as a word to the church for all time.

Literal Inspiration, Literal Interpretation

Regarding the household codes of the New Testament, Pawson sees the inspiration of Scripture as the crucial issue: either Paul was inspired, and we must obey it, or Paul was not inspired, and it does not matter for our lives. He does not address household codes as an ancient genre, perhaps because this was written in 1988.

Pawson is right that inspiration is a crucial issue. Egalitarians take several liberties with the New Testament text, and their arguments can be a little convoluted. But, as a reviewer of Pawson has pointed out, his reading is not entirely literal either! There are serious interpretive problems on both sides of the debate. Invoking a “literal interpretation” is not an escape hatch that saves us from interpretive problems.

I think the point I found least convincing in the book was that “prophecy” was not authoritative and did not involve teaching. He describes a prophetess as “passing on divine words”. But this is merely verbal dictation, as opposed to verbal plenary inspiration or dynamic inspiration. In the words of one Bible commentator, “no respected evangelicals maintain that God dictated the words of Scripture.” I doubt any Old Testament scholar would be satisfied with Pawson’s reduction of prophecy to dictation!

Here I’d like to point out a few places where Pawson is interpolating from his bias.

Pawson’s Not-So-Literal Moments

I Will Make Thy Suffering Great

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children . . .
Genesis 3:16, KJV

First, like Peppiatt, Pawson sees Genesis 1 to 3 as crucial to any view of gender relations. He sees the difference in roles mentioned in the curse as a continuation of existing roles. He defends this by noting that Eve’s pain in childbirth would “multiply” (Gen. 3:16); in his view, it could not multiply if it was not there before.

This may be a “literal” interpretation, but only in English. In Hebrew, the verb translated “multiply” means simply to “make great” and has no reference to a previous state. (“Multiply” is probably chosen because in translating a word it is preferred to use a single word, where possible.) The Hebrew phrasing is identical, for instance, in the angel’s promise to Hagar in Genesis 16:10: “I will multiply thy seed exceedingly.” This in no way implies that Hagar’s seed was already great, and does not function in that way in Genesis 3:16, as Pawson contends.

For Your Man Shall Be Your Longing

. . . and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Genesis 3:16, KJV

Pawson writes that the first phrase contains

“an unusual Hebraism which means an ambition to control, manipulate, possess someone (as its occurrence in Genesis 4:7 clearly shows). That is, having led her husband into sin, she must now live with a continuing urge to subordinate him to her wish and will.”
Pawson, Leadership Is Male, p. 25

Commentators are far from unanimous on the meaning of this phrase, and only a few are in concord with Pawson here. In citing Genesis 4:7, Pawson fails to mention Song of Solomon 7:10, which differs only slightly and is translated “his desire is toward me.” Robert Alter translates Genesis 3:16 literally: “for your man shall be your longing”.

According to the Pulpit Commentary, the phrase has been historically translated in three different ways using three cross-references already mentioned:

“Your desire will be against him”, following Genesis 4:7 (ESV, NLT);
“Your desire will be toward him”, following Song of Solomon 7:10;
“Your desire will belong to him”, following the Septuagint, in which case it accords with the following clause and is emphasizing woman’s subjection.

Some commentators also agree with Pawson that the woman’s subjection is God’s intentional design at creation; others, such as Matthew Henry, see it as a consequence of the fall. It is not “literally” clear from the text itself.

Peppiatt brings out these problems in her recent book. The possible translations, she writes, are opposite in meaning.

Suffice it to say, the problems of translation are many and varied, and that even in the ESV the editors have footnoted an alternative translation to “shall be contrary to” as “shall be toward.” This is quite a serious difference!
Lucy Peppiatt, Rediscovering Scripture’s Vision for Women, p. 53

Priscilla and Aquila Took Apollos Aside and Set Him Straight

Pawson also takes other liberties in historicizing a New Testament with no women in leadership.

And he [Apollos] began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
Acts 18:26, KJV

Pawson writes that this verse did not involve teaching and that it occurred privately. In my opinion, both are suspect, and show that he is wrangling the text to iron out what he perceives as an inconsistency.

In Acts 18:26, the verb for “took him” (προσλαμβάνω) can mean “received him into their home”, but the context here also matches closely with Matthew 16:22 and Mark 8:32, where Peter “took” Jesus aside and rebuked him. Contra Pawson, the verb for “expound” (ἐκτίθημι) is hardly weaker than “teach”. Eminent expositors like Joseph Parker and Thomas C. Oden write that “teaching” is exactly what Priscilla did! In the Septuagint, this verb means to “lay down” a decree; in the NT, it involves taking time to set someone straight who is mistaken. Thus, Peter “expounds” his visions to the Judaizers (in Acts 11:4), and Paul “expounds” the kingdom of God “both out of the law of Moses and out of the prophets” (Acts 28:23). It is unconvincing to claim that “teach” differs categorically from “expound”, or that Priscilla was excused in correcting a prominent and well-versed male teacher because it was “private” (which is likely but not necessarily clear from the text).

Bias-Free Reading?

As I have shown here, Pawson takes his own liberties with the text, omitting the inconvenient variety of understandings of Genesis 3:16. He has stated, though, that he is taking Scripture in its plainest, most “literal” sense. He seems to mean by this that he is arriving at a reading that involves no bias.

We all have biases, though, from the place and time in which we live. We are flesh and blood. None of us approaches the text as a robot. It is better to acknowledge where our loyalties lie, and move on.

Conclusion

Pawson’s book is a short and clear exposition of the complementarian viewpoint. Someone unfamiliar with the debate (such as myself) can use it as a starting point, but it does not delve very deeply into the textual issues involved. It’s also frustrating that he tells his readers that they can consult the “many good commentaries”, but does not name a single author!

The book—along with much of complementarian writing—suffers from the “Golden Age” fallacy. It treats history as beginning with (conservative) patriarchy and ending with (progressive) feminism. But history is much more cyclical. Grudem and Piper see the debate about women’s roles as beginning in the 1960s—completely ignoring the debates on women’s ordination in the 1880s, and tautologically dismissing the many women ordained through history as “unorthodox”. (Eastern Orthodox, Montanists, Waldensians, Moravians, Quakers, Methodists, Pentecostals—God help them, they didn’t subscribe to the Westminster Confession!)

Pawson has methodically split a number of hairs in the biblical text to make it sound completely univocal regarding women. Paul freely acknowledges women as “co-workers in the gospel” throughout the New Testament, and this included key roles in house churches; but elsewhere, Paul apparently prohibits women from teaching or even speaking in church! Pawson has quite sanitized New Testament house churches from having any radical feminists in “teaching roles”. The correct way to handle these texts is to begin by acknowledging the inherent contradiction or tension between the New Testament’s narrative passages and its ethical teaching, and go from there.

Tell Me Something New, Devil!

Leave a reply

When I awoke last night, the Devil came and wanted to debate with me; he rebuked and reproached me, arguing that I was a sinner. To this I replied: “Tell me something new, Devil!”
Martin Luther, The Freedom of a Christian, tr. Mark D. Tranvik

The Sudden (Re-)Conversion of Thomas Cooper, Atheist Lecturer

Leave a reply

Thomas Cooper (1805–1892) was a famed writer for the working-class Chartist movement in the early Victorian era. By degrees, he lost his faith and became a known atheist. He lectured on moral and social topics from an atheist perspective for many years, until—at the age of 40, while lecturing publicly at the Hall of Science in London—he suddenly recovered the faith-confession of his childhood and challenged all the skeptics in London.

In the second half of 1855, he writes of “a sense of guilt in having omitted to teach the right foundation of morals.” (The Life of Thomas Cooper, p. 352) But he did not announce the recovery of his faith until January 13th, 1856.

Read his astonishing story below:

“I commenced the year 1856 at the Hall of Science, with the aid of a large map of Europe, and signified that I should occupy the Sunday evenings by lecturing on the various countries, their productions, people, habits and customs. I delivered the first lecture on the 6th of January, “Russia and the Russians;” but on the 13th, when I should have descanted [blathered on], according to the printed programme, on “Sweden and the Swedes,” I could not utter one word. The people told me afterwards that I looked as pale as a ghost, and they wondered what was the matter with me. I could hardly tell myself; but, at length, the heart got vent by words, and I told them I could not lecture on Sweden, but must relieve conscience—for I could suppress conviction no longer. I told them my great feeling of error was that while I had perpetually been insisting on the observance of a moral life, in all my public teachings for some years, I had neglected to teach the right foundation of morals—the existence of the Divine Moral Governor, and the fact that we should have to give up our account to Him, and receive His sentence, in a future state.
“I used many more words in telling the people this and they sat, at first, in breathless silence, listening to me with all their eyes and ears. A few reckless spirits, by degrees, began to whisper to each other, and then to laugh and sneer; and one got up and declared I was insane. A storm followed some defending me, and insisting that I should be heard; and others insisting on speaking themselves, and denouncing me as a “ renegade,” a “turncoat,” an “apostate,” a “traitor,” and I know not what. But as I happened to have fought and won more battles than any or all of these tiny combatants put together, I stood till I won perfect silence and order once more; and then I told them, as some of them deemed me insane, we would try that issue. I then gave them one month for preparation, and challenged them to meet me in that hall on the 10th and 17th of February—with all the sceptics they could muster in the metropolis—to discuss, first, the Argument for the Being of God; secondly, the Argument for a Future State.”

Source: Thomas Cooper. The Life of Thomas Cooper, Written by Himself. 1872, pp. 353–354. I discovered this passage quoted among many other intriguing anecdotes in G. Holden Pike’s Dr. Parker and His Friends, 1904, pp. 269–270.

Review: Women and Worship at Corinth

3 Replies

Author: Lucy Peppiatt is an evangelical charismatic minister, theologian, and principal of Westminster Theological Centre in Cheltenham, England. She has pastored churches in the Church of England alongside her husband, Nick Crawley. Her research focuses on the Trinity, 1 Corinthians, and Paul’s view on women.

Full title: Women and Worship at Corinth: Paul’s Rhetorical Arguments in 1 Corinthians

Overview:

Women and Worship at Corinth (2015) may be the most intriguing book-length contribution to the Christian theological debate on women’s roles since the Kroegers’ I Suffer Not a Woman (1992). It is a thorough defense of the idea that Paul was quoting his opponents at certain points in 1 Corinthians 11; thus, the passage about head coverings for women is a Corinthian argument Paul is opposing, not a command he is giving them. An overview of her argument is available from the OnScript podcast.

The setting of 1 Corinthians

On 1 Corinthians as a whole, Peppiatt writes:

The letter is written to admonish the Corinthians for ways in which they have begun to depart from Paul’s original teaching and practices, and is a response to their reply to his original epistle.
Woman and Worship at Corinth, p. 2

This means that there is a lot of missing context, and—like the similarly problematic passage in 1 Timothy 2—commentators and preachers resort to (rampant?) speculation with regard to the church situation Paul is responding to. In both passages (1 Cor. 11, 1 Tim. 2), Pauline teaching on women seemingly contradicts Pauline practice (e.g., Rom. 16, Acts 18).

In this book, Peppiatt defends what she calls a “rhetorical reading” of both 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 and 1 Corinthians 14:34–36, asserting that Paul is quoting his opponents in both passages. She is not dogmatic, however, and begins the discussion by freely admitting her biases. She writes that even a “flat” reading of these texts is circumscribed by the limits of the reader’s imagination in reconstructing the context, and thus, there is no unproblematic (“literal”) way to read the text without coping with contradictions and difficulties (contra, among others, David Pawson).

What is the rhetorical reading?

It is already universally accepted that [Paul] quotes some Corinthian slogans in 1 Corinthians in order to make a point. These verses include 6:12, 13; 7:1; 8:1, 8:4; 10:23; and 15:12.
Women and Worship at Corinth, p. 4

A rhetorical reading of 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 will be unfamiliar to some readers, but we know that quotations were not always signalled by ancient writers, and that Paul quotes others many times in 1 Corinthians. A rhetorical reading in 1 Corinthians 14:34–36 has also been proposed convincingly for some decades.[1] Here I’ve bolded the verse where Paul is apparently quoting his opponents. The disjunction is obvious in verse 36.[2]

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
1 Corinthians 14:34–36, KJV, emphasis added to show proposed quotations

Given a rhetorical reading of 1 Corinthians 14:34–36, it is likely that Paul was dealing with some sort of misogynism in the church at Corinth (unlike those at Philippi and Ephesus, where women apparently held great influence). If we follow the “flat” reading of both passages, Paul truly intended for women to be veiled, at least in Corinth, during Christian worship, in which they pray and prophesy (11:5); but he also (somewhat confusingly) instructs women to be silent in church (14:34). The overlapping contradictions in these chapters, along with their contradictions to the early church’s recorded practices, require further explanations, and Peppiatt points out that scholars are routinely confused by many aspects 1 Corinthians 11:2–16.

A rhetorical reading of 1 Corinthians 11 was first proposed by Thomas Shoemaker in 1987, in a single “underdeveloped” article. Peppiatt has fleshed this out and found that quite a few contradictions result from a “flat” reading of 1 Corinthians 11.

Below is 1 Corinthians 11:2–16, showing the proposed quotations from Pauline opponents in bold.

²Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. ³But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
⁴Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. ⁵But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
⁶For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
⁷For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. ⁸For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. ⁹Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. ¹⁰For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
¹¹Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. ¹²For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. ¹³Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? ¹⁴Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? ¹⁵But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. ¹⁶But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
1 Corinthians 11:2–16, emphasis added to show proposed quotations

Why do we need a rhetorical reading of this passage?

Paul himself had long hair when he was in Corinth. Why then would he condemn long hair in men?
Paul contradicts himself within the passage: Are men independent of women, or are they interdependent?
Paul contradicts his own words later in the letter: Do women have to stay silent, or can they pray and prophesy with correct attire?
“Apostleship for Paul is marked by public dishonor and disgrace.” (p. 70) Why then does Paul appeal to shame and honor? Did he not say in the same letter that the apostles were disgraced before angels (1 Cor. 4:8–13)?
Even if we believed this was motivated by some local custom, historians do not point to any coherent custom in ancient Corinth regarding veils or hair.
Paul does quote his opponents elsewhere. “In sum, it seems that Paul does quote texts from others when composing his letters, and that he does not always signal those overtly with written cues . . .” (Campbell’s Deliverance, p. 541).
Paul mentioned the headship of Christ over men first. The order is not insignificant.
Paul used the word “nevertheless” (Gk. πλήν) in between two apparently contradictory passages.
Practically no church obeys the letter of 1 Corinthians 11, even though its argumentation is apparently rooted in the creation order, and therefore—according to Lucy Peppiatt and Michael Lakey—its commands should be considered transcultural if we choose the flat reading of the text.
Interpreting male headship as meaning “authority” (in v. 3) requires us to apply the same language to the Trinity, which leads to eternal functional subordination (EFS), which has been historically condemned as heresy.
Finally, we have no idea what is meant by the phrase, “because of the angels”! The line of thought drops off quite abruptly.

One final note

In his booklet on the topic, Michael F. Bird writes that 1 Corinthians 11 cannot be used to keep women out of ministry anyway, because the point of the passage is that women can “pray and prophesy” publicly if they follow culturally appropriate guidelines of modesty and unostentatiousness.

For more on this topic, see Peppiatt’s 2019 book, Rediscovering Scripture’s Vision for Women: Fresh Perspectives on Disputed Texts, which is a more thorough defense of Christian egalitarianism.

[1] Pepiatt cites: Allison, “Let the Women Be Silent in the Churches” (1988); Flanagan and Snyder, “Did Paul Put Down Women in 1 Cor 14:34–36?” (1981); Manus, “The Subordination of Women in the Church: 1 Cor 14:33b–36 Reconsidered”; Odell-Scott, “In Defence of an Egalitarian Interpretation of 1 Cor 14:34–36″ (1987).

[2] Some scholars, such as Murphy-O’Connor, have also argued that a scribe who disagreed with Paul added the bit about silencing women in 1 Corinthians 14:34–35; thus, it is a scribal “interpolation”. This is supported by some manuscripts in which the verse order is rearranged, with verses 34 and 35 being moved after verse 40 (though verses 34 and 35 are never omitted in the existing manuscript tradition). Odell-Scott argues that this was a scribal re-arrangement which lent to us a more positive interpretation of the verses about silencing women.