Leadership in the Pastoral Epistles

Next up on our study of 1 Timothy is the qualifications of overseers and deacons in chapter 3. Before anyone wants to look at this passage as a manual on church leadership, I think it is best to examine, once again, why the letter was written. I saw this from Gordon Fee on church leadership and the Pastoral Epistles (PE) and I think it serves as a good reminder to our study.

Church order is a crucial matter. For many people this is the chief reason for turning to these letters. The idea that the purpose of the PE is to offer “a handbook for church leaders” seems to miss their occasion rather widely and simply cannot account for a large amount of the material. These letters have quite another purpose: they reflect church structures in the fourth decade of the church as Paul is correcting some theological and behavioral abuses. But church structures as such are not his concern.
It is a mistaken notion to view Timothy and Titus as model pastors for a local church. The letters simply have no such intent. These two men carry full apostolic authority, but in both cases they are itinerants on special assignment, there as Paul’s apostolic delegates, not as permanent resident pastors.
Responsibility for leadership in the local churches was from the beginning in the hands of several people, who apparently had been appointed by the apostle and his co-workers (cf. Acts 14.23). In the earliest letters these people are styled hoi proistamenoi (“those over you” 1 Thes. 5.12; “the one who leads” Rom. 12.8), language still being used at the time of the PE (1 Tim. 3.5; 5.17).

Fee puts both overseers and deacons into the category of “elders”. What, then, were the duties of these leaders? At this point our information is limited, precisely because this was not Paul’s concern. Two things seem certain: that the elders called overseers were responsible for teaching (1 Tim. 3.3, 5.17; Titus 1.9), and that the elders together (overseers and deacons) were responsible for “managing” or “caring for” the local church (1 Tim. 3.4-5; 5.17), whatever that might have involved at that time in its history. Beyond that, everything is speculative.
(This has been adapted from his commentary 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus in the New International Biblical Commentary series).

Look for more on church leadership in Paul's letters to come.

Wrapping Up (one of) the Thorny Issue(s) in 1 Timothy 2

Back to the verses in 1 Timothy 2.11-12: I do think that Paul is saying “I do not permit a woman to teach or dominate a man.” How do we interpret this verse today? I definitely think that Paul was giving this injunction to the Ephesians because there was a connection between false teaching and women, whether they were targets of false teachers or the propagators of false teaching (or likely both). Is this an Ephesian issue or a universal timeless one?

Let’s look some exemplary women of the New Testament:
Philip’s daughters, Phoebe, Chloe, Euodia and Syncthe, perhaps even Junia (a relative of Paul, who, with her husband Andronicus, was outstanding among the apostles). Were they silent in the churches?
In the context of disruptions in the assembly (1 Corinthians 11-14), Paul discusses women praying and prophesying. Paul, therefore cannot mean that women must remain silent, can he? What about 1 Cor. 14.34-35? It is shameful for a woman to speak in the church? How can she pray and prophesy but not speak? (We’ve already mentioned Philip’s daughters who prophesied).

Once again we cannot divorce Paul’s words from the cultural situation of the writing of Paul’s letter to Timothy. It would have been culturally unacceptable (with some exceptions) for women in the Greco-Roman world and in the Jewish context to teach men in an assembly. There is a quote from the Mishnah (ancient Jewish commentary on the Law) that it would be better to burn the Torah than to instruct a woman. It would have blown everyone's minds if he would have laid down rules encouraging women teachers in the first century. It was just enough that they were encouraged to learn.

If Paul’s injunction against women is universal in 1 Tim. 2.11-12 (and 1 Cor. 14.34-35), then how literally should we carry out the stipulations that women remain silent in the church? Doesn’t that mean that we should have no women giving testimony in the church or even singing in the choir?

No matter how you interpret this verse for your context, I think you need to approach this (and any passage) with extreme humility and with the awareness that you there are cultural barriers, time barriers and language barriers. Again, we also need to remember the occasional nature of Paul’s letters.

Ultimately I think the issue is one of order in the assembly and submission to the proper authority. All of us, men and women alike, need to submit ourselves to Christ’s authority. In accordance with Ephesians 5, there needs to be proper order between husbands and wives. Women are to submit to their husbands as their husbands submit to Christ (and give themselves up for their wives). There are so many household codes in Paul’s writings because the household was both a metaphor for the body of Christ and it was literally the place where the first century church met. Thus, if the church met in homes, there needs to be a proper amount of submission, wives to their husbands, but also all members to their overseers. I think that all members of the assembly who take any kind of leadership positions must be in proper submissive relationships to their overseers. God desires order in the assembly and most of the thorny injunctions from Paul to his churches dealt with disruptions in the churches.

And I didn't even get into the whole "women will be saved through childbearing issue"...

More on the Thorny Issue in 1 Timothy 2

I recently taught on 1 Tim. 2.11-15. It is a thorny passage that I have commented on before. I began my instruction where I believe all interpreters need to begin when approaching any of Paul’s letters. We have to remember that all of his letters are first and foremost letters to an individual/church in the first century Greco-Roman world. In this case it is a letter from Paul to his representative, Timothy, as he is trying to correct the false teachings of the overseers there at the church Paul founded in Ephesus. That is the first thing we need to keep in mind.

We have to remember that we are dealing with a distance of time, language and culture.

Again, we need to remember the major thrust of the letter that is the correction of false teachers at the church. We see the references in 1.3-7: men teaching false doctrine [myths and genealogies] as well as a faulty understanding of the Torah.
We need to see how these false teachers seemed to target women (perhaps younger widows). In 1 Tim. 5.11-13, we see these young widows being idle, going from house to house, being gossips and busy bodies, saying things that they ought not to. They are encouraged to get married, have children and manage their households. This is if they cannot live a single life devoted to pleasing the Lord (see 1 Corinthians 7). In 2 Tim. 3.1-7 and especially verses 6 and 7, we see false teachers worming their way into weak willed women’s homes. These were women who were always learning but not acknowledging the truth.

Then we turn to Paul’s injunction against women teaching or having authority (or domineering) a man.
Before we come to any consensus on the meaning of this passage, keep in mind also that Ephesus was the center of the worship of Artemis, a fertility cult centered around the goddess Artemis.
Keep also in mind that in verse 8, he had to deal with disruption in the church; this was men who were acting in anger and in quarreling. Then in verses 9-10, he deals with the disruptions caused by the women of Ephesus and their immodest dress.
The question, was this injunction against women leaders and teachers a contextual issue related mostly to Timothy and his community at Ephesus or is this a permanent injunction that Paul lays down for all churches and for all times? How should we interpret this passage today?

More to come...

My Apologies...

...to Albert Pujols.

I was tempted to look at Pujols' year and think that it is a down year for him. He is the only player to begin his career with 7 straight 30 home run 100 RBI seasons. It looks like he will fall short of 100 RBIs this year. Maybe the pack of great NL hitters have caught up to him and maybe he is falling back to earth and will never achieve the heights that he has reached. Or maybe…

I was reading the blog of the great Joe Posnanski and he was talking about Albert Pujols being underrated. I thought that was crazy talk until I looked up the stats.

Batting Average: .350 (!!!) 2^nd in NL

On Base Percentage: .462 2^nd

Slugging Percentage: .618 1^st

OPS: 1.080 1^st (on base plus slugging)

BBs: 79 3^rd (Walks twice as much as he strikes out)

Times on Base: 214 1st

Runs Created: 111 t-1^st (that is runs+RBIs-home runs)

Adjusted OPS+: 183 t-1^st (don’t know what it means, but baseball geeks love this stat)

Adjusted Batting Runs: 51 1^st (see above)

Batting Wins: 1^st (Ditto)

Offensive Win %: .828 1^st (again, don’t know but geeks like it)

Intentional Walks: 28 1^st (by far)

At Bats per Strikeout: 9.6 7^th (that’s pretty good for a power hitter, BTW Yadier Molina is 1^st followed by one of his brothers).

A picture of consistency: look at his numbers in different types of games:

Albert Pujols’ numbers in a tie game: .317/.418/.607.
Albert Pujols’ numbers within one run: .335/.430/.639
Albert Pujols’ numbers within two runs: .335/.432/.630
Albert Pujols’ numbers within three runs: .333/.427/.624
Albert Pujols’ numbers within four runs: .333/.426/.622

(Thanks to Joe Posnanski again for the numbers in different types of games).

That’s a pretty good year, even an MVP type year. I don’t understand all of those stats (like I noted) but Moneyball types and Bill James SABR types love those numbers.

So…Albert, I’m sorry I doubted you.

A Good Bit

I saw a guy at the Cardinal game yesterday. He had a Cards' jersey on with a very unique name and number on the back. Genius!

Intrigued...

Can you be inspired by gospel music created by performers that may have no real affiliation with Christianity or belief in the Gospel? Can you praise along with performers who have very little intention of creating music devoted to God but just because they like the form? Well, you may get your chance later this month. This is from Gospel Soundtrack, a blog from Beliefnet -

David Byrne and Brian Eno have teamed up for a new project inspired by gospel music. Byrne wrote the lyrics, Eno wrote the music.

Eno is quoted at thecelebritycafe.com:

"I was surprised by how little attention Americans paid to their own great indigenous musical invention: gospel. It was even slightly uncool - as though the endorsement of the music entailed endorsing all the religious framework associated with it. To me gospel was a music of surrender, and the surrendering rather than the worshipping was the part that interested me."

I found that comment interesting, because so often we forget that the act of praising and worshipping can only come after total surrender. How often do we overlook the surrender in our music? I can't wait to hear the album.

The new project, Everything That Happens Will Happen Today, will be available at www.everythingthathappens.com and staring August 4, listeners can download a free preview of the album.

I am intrigued as well. I signed up for the free download. I mean, seriously, how many of us have sung along with “worship leaders” who weren’t really believers? I am sure it has happened on more than one occasion.

N. T. Wright and a thorny passage

I have been teaching through 1 Timothy and next up for me is a lesson on the very thorny passage in chapter 2 verses 11 through 15.

NIV – a woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing – if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

My translation – A woman must learn with a quiet demeanor and all submission. But I do not allow a woman to teach nor to dominate a man, but to live in a quiet demeanor. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived but the woman was deceived and fell into sin. But she will be saved through child bearing, if she should remain in faith and love and holiness with propriety.

Not too much of a difference. But I checked out N. T. Wright’s translation and I just don’t see it. I am a big fan of Wright. I would lean more toward his views on "Paul and the New Perspective" than toward Piper. But I think he reads this passage with an end in view instead of merely presenting true understanding of the text. (Granted, he knows more Greek than I will ever know, but his translation of this passage is far off of everyone I’ve consulted – Fee, Guthrie, Mounce for example).

Wright – They (women) must be allowed to study undisturbed, in full submission to God. I’m not saying that women should teach men, or try to dictate to them; rather, that they should be left undisturbed. Adam was created first, you see, and then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived, and fell into trespass. She will, however, be kept safe through the process of childbirth, if she continues in faith, love and holiness with prudence.

I do like what he is trying to say, that the force of Paul’s statement is not I do not permit a woman to teach (which may have been the source or spread of the false teaching at Ephesus, more to come on that), but Wright is saying the force of the passage is that women are commanded to learn and do so undisturbed (Paul for Everyone: The Pastoral Letters, 24).

There is a lot to commend about Wright’s interpretation. It takes in to account the issues at Ephesus that Timothy was dealing with, such as, because the woman was deceived in Genesis 3, then women need to learn just as much as men do. I like that he interprets the submission that the women were to fall under was the submission to God and not to men in general. I don’t doubt this, but in view of what Paul had just written in 1 Timothy, he is dealing with the distraction, first that men were causing and then women. Wright puts things in the text that just aren't there. I think Paul is issuing an injunction against the women at Ephesus. Later I will deal with why this rule was laid down and the issue of whether this was a universal injunction or a temporal one, intended for the issues that Timothy was dealing with at Ephesus.