If you’re an orthodox Christian, already familiar with the doctrine of the Trinity, you might like to head somewhere else right now. This article will probably be, as they say, preaching to the converted.

But if that’s not you, and the idea of the Trinity is new, challenging, confronting, downright heretical, or, as far as you’re concerned, completely unbiblical…just hear me out.

I grew up being told all these things about the Trinity. I can confidently say now that not only do I believe I was misinformed about what the doctrine endeavours to articulate, I was also misinformed about the historical background and context of this doctrine, what the early church taught regarding the nature of Jesus, and what scripture itself teaches.

Several things resulted in a massive shift in my perspective, understanding, and belief of this doctrine, which I’d like to share in this article and which I hope will be helpful to anyone wrestling with this topic. It’s not necessarily everyone’s conversation of choice, but it’s come up several times with different individuals in the past few months, and so now seemed like the right time to share some thoughts on this one.

The Context Of The Council Of Nicea

In the spring of 325AD, a council of Christian bishops convened in the city of Nicaea (now known as the town of İznik, in modern-day Turkey). They met to deliberate over a theological dispute that had arisen concerning the nature of Jesus, his origins, and his relationship to God the Father.

Known as the Arian controversy – named for the presbyter and priest (Arius) to whom the controversy is attributed – the gathering was not so much an argument about whether Jesus was God, but rather, a dispute over whether Jesus was eternal; and therefore without beginning, or whether he had been created before time and was therefore subordinate to the Father.

This is an important distinction: the Council was not arguing over whether ‘Jesus was God‘ (God the Son), as I had always been taught. This was a dispute over whether he had always existed (and was therefore of the same substance as the Father) or whether he had been begotten/created (and was therefore similar but not the same as God the Father).

“Arian theology holds that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who was begotten by God the Father with the difference that the Son of God did not always exist but was begotten/made before time by God the Father; therefore, Jesus was not coeternal with God the Father, but nonetheless Jesus began to exist outside time.“

This was an ontological argument. Who was Jesus before he was Jesus, did he always exist before time or was he created before time? Was the Son equal with the Father or subordinate? Was he the same as or different from the Father?

What Did The Early Church Teach?

The reason the Arian theology was so controversial is because it was a change to the status quo. The early church taught and believed in the divinity of the Son, and that his nature was the same essence and substance as God the Father. They believed that Jesus, as the Word of God, was eternal, was from God Himself, and therefore was of the same substance as God.

“According to its [Arianism’s] opponents, especially the bishop St. Athanasius, Arius’ teaching reduced the Son to a demigod, reintroduced polytheism (since worship of the Son was not abandoned), and undermined the Christian concept of redemption, since only he who was truly God could be deemed to have reconciled humanity to the Godhead.” | Britannica

We have not just the writings of well-known apostles like Paul and Peter and John, but also those who came after them – extra-biblical sources – who taught about Christ as the Word of God, the virgin birth, and the incarnation. Names such as Ignatius, Clement of Alexandria, Polycarp, and Ireneaus, many of whom were contemporaries and disciples of the apostles, wrote and taught extensively on this subject. You can read, for example, Ignatius’ letter to the Ephesians (written some time between 107–110 CE) here.

It is an egregious misrepresentation to say that the divinity of Christ was invented in the fourth century; what is actually true is that the accepted understanding of the nature of Christ was being challenged. The intention of the Council of Nicene was, therefore, to define, in written form, what the church already believed and taught regarding Jesus, binding Christendom together in unity across different traditions and practices.

The Nicene Creed used the same three-fold structure as the more simple and earlier creeds, such as the Apostles’ Creed, which had touched very little on this topic, and, because of this particular controversy, went into more depth and detail in relation to Christology – that is, the nature and origin of Jesus Christ.

Is ‘Trinity’ In The Bible?

The early church fathers taught and believed in the divinity of Jesus, his existence before time, and his incarnation as the Word-Made-Flesh. But perhaps they had deviated significantly in doctrine in the first few years of the church’s existence?

This is often one of the criticisms leveled at the Trinity from those who reject it, a two-fold dismissal if you like; firstly, that the word ‘trinity’ isn’t mentioned in the Bible and, secondly, that its ‘official introduction’ in the fourth century (a claim shown to be a misrepresentation, at best) was ‘the great apostasy’ the church had been warned about (2 Thessalonians 2:1-3).

It’s suggested that as early as AD98, only a generation on from the incredible outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2), the church had veered wildly off-course and into heresy, even with the Holy Spirit as guide and teacher, the very recent reality of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the powerful witness of those who had walked with him, many of whom were still alive.

Honestly? I find that extremely unlikely.

I trust not only the teaching of the apostles themselves, who were radically transformed by their experience of the resurrection, but also the work of the Holy Spirit, active and powerful, in growing the church and supporting the new believers in their faith. It just doesn’t seem credible to me that something so important, so vital, so life-changing could be corrupted and derailed so early on.

Certainly, the church began to face challenges as time went on, particularly as the apostolic age drew to a close. It experienced great periods of persecution, followed finally by a shift in fortune in the form of open favour from Rome’s pagan Emperor, Constantine, the emperor of the Nicene Creed. Yet it was during the early years of persecution and struggle that we find the orthodox doctrines being taught and written about, not formulated later under, as is sometimes asserted, pagan influences.

You can research any of the early church fathers and their teaching for yourself. Ignatius, for example, an early Christian writer and later Patriarch of Antioch, wrote many letters which serve as examples of early Christian theology. He, along with Polycarp, another apostolic father, are traditionally held to be disciples of John of the Revelation, and demonstrated their ‘trinitarian’ consciousness in their writings.

Just as the word ‘omnipotence’ isn’t found in the Bible, and yet we understand the concept of God’s supremacy and power to be taught throughout scripture, so, too, you won’t find the word ‘trinity’, and yet the concept of One God, revealed to us in three distinct persons, completely unified with each other, can be found throughout the New Testament.

Here are several biblical passages which teach this concept regarding the Christology of Jesus. Take some time to read through them for yourself: John 1:1–5, John 1:1–5, John 5:17–18; John 10:33–38,  Hebrews 1:1–4, Colossians 1:18-20, Colossians 2:9, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Philippians 2:6-11, John 17:5, 2 Corinthians 8:9, John 8:58.

While the word ‘trinity’ is not explicitly used in the New Testament letters and epistles, the concept of the trinity was certainly expressed by biblical authors and was the understanding of the early church, as can be seen by the extensive writings of the early church fathers. It was this understanding that the Nicene Creed attempted to articulate and document in 325AD.

God Is ‘One’ So The Trinity – ‘Three Gods’ – Can’t Be Right. Can It?

One of the huge misconceptions that non-Trinitarians hold to is the belief that the doctrine of the Trinity teaches there are three gods. In reality, the Trinitarian doctrine actually affirms biblical monotheism and rejects the heresy of ‘three gods’ (polytheism). 

The Bible teaches that God is One, but not in the numerical sense that is often used by non-Trinitarians. God is One in the sense that there is no other. He, alone, is the singular God in all the universe. 

The ancient Jewish prayer – known as the Shema – recites this truth “Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one. And as for you, you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength“.

The meaning of this famous prayer is that the people of Israel were to learn to listen and love God fully, above all else, with all their hearts. The Shema wasn’t making a statement about God’s essence but rather His preeminence. It wasn’t intended to function as a negation of the idea of the Trinity but as a statement of allegiance to the only true God, particularly relevant for a people who had been steeped in polytheism for generations.

“This prayer has been one of the most influential traditions in Jewish history, functioning both as the Jewish pledge of allegiance and a hymn of praise.” | The Bible Project

Interestingly, Jesus quotes the Shema on two occasions in the synoptic gospels, in Matthews 22 and Mark 12. In Matthew, he follows up immediately with questions about the origins and paternity of the Messiah, the Messiah’s relationship to the great king of Israel, David, and the title given to the Messiah of ‘Lord’; an interesting progression of thought from Jesus, and one which had the effect of reducing his audience to silence.

Isn’t The Trinity Doctrine ‘Catholic’?

If, by ‘catholic’, you mean ‘universal’, then yes. For the first fifteen hundred years of the church’s history, there was only one, ‘universal’ church and early creeds will often refer to the church in this way. The church’s official position in relation to the nature of Christ had been documented in the Nicene Creed in 325AD and it remains the official, orthodox, (accepted) doctrinal position.

However, I suspect what  is actually being asked is, “isn’t the Trinity doctrine part of the Roman Catholic Church?” (ie ‘a Catholic thing’) and the short answer is no. The Trinity isn’t only specific to the Roman Catholic Church. All three branches of Christianity (Eastern Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Protestantism) subscribe to the doctrine of the Trinity.

Even after the Protestant Reformation swept through Europe, beginning with the nailing of Martin Luther’s 95 Theses to the castle church in Wittenberg, the resultant split between the Catholic Church and its Protestant offspring largely revolved around the idea that people should be independent in their relationship with God, taking personal responsibility for their faith and referring directly to the Bible for guidance, instead of priests or popes. The Reformation rejected the doctrine of papal supremacy, among other things, and arrived at different views on ecclesiastical polity, apostolic succession, and the nature of salvation, however disagreement on the Trinity was not one of the areas of argument.

That being said, there are a few exceptions; some further religious movements arose out of the Protestant movement which rejected the doctrine of the Trinity; these branches of Christianity are known as ‘Unitarian’ but are Socinian rather than Arian in theology.

What Does It Mean To Be God?

The Bible gives us many descriptions of Who and What ‘God’ is, endeavouring to help us understand the concept of God, as best we can, from our limited human experience.

The Bible teaches that God is the Creator of all things, the source of all life, sovereign over all, powerful, and perfect. Without beginning and without end, He is eternal, holy, clothed in light, glorious as the sun. Yet He is also tender, loving, forgiving, as compassionate as any mother to her children, and as protective as any father defending His family.

We are created in His image, bearing many of His attributes, yet because of the fall, bound by mortality and constrained by sin. The fall in Eden resulted in brokenness in our relationship with God, creating an impenetrable barrier that we couldn’t cross (Exodus 33:18-23). As the popular worship song, ‘Jesus, My Living Hope’ laments, “How great the chasm that lay between us, how high the mountain I could not climb.“

Until Jesus came, no one had ever seen God face to face. Yet as Timothy writes (1 Timothy 3:16), the invisible God was made visible in Jesus, “this is, without question, the great mystery of our faith; God was revealed in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.“

If we could not come to God (and we couldn’t – see below: ‘God Does The Saving’), then God would come to us.

“The Word became flesh and blood, and moved into the neighborhood. We saw the glory with our own eyes, the one-of-a-kind glory, like Father, like Son, Generous inside and out, true from start to finish.” | John 1:14

John, writer of the fourth gospel, offers a more insightful perspective, opening with the otherwordly prologue regarding Jesus and his origins; specifically, the identification of Jesus as the Word, who was with God and was God in the beginning.

Through Jesus, he says, all things have been brought into being; he is the light and life of humanity, who became flesh and dwelt among us. We have seen his glory – face-to-face at last – as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

God came to us, wrapped in the perishable, temporary covering of flesh and bone, the full intensity and glory hidden within Jesus. We have a hint of what that glory was like in Luke 9:29-32, where the veil was lifted momentarily and his appearance was altered, an event the Bible calls ‘the transfiguration’.

Jesus himself declared that only he could reveal God fully, in his words, “no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him” (Matt 11:27b) and that “the person who has seen him [Jesus] has seen the Father.” (John 14:8-9).

The gospel of John offers more: seven ‘signs’ culminating in the resurrection of Lazarus (proof of Jesus’ power over even death itself), and seven ‘I am’ discourses, culminating in the declaration by Thomas concerning Jesus as “my Lord and my God”. The first instance, in John 8:58, leaves no doubt that Jesus’ claimed to be God incarnate, because the Jews were infuriated by his reply and took up stones to kill him.

“John’s “high Christology” depicts Jesus as divine and preexistent, defends him against Jewish claims that he was “making himself equal to God”, and talks openly about his divine role and echoing Yahweh’s “I Am that I Am” with seven “I Am” declarations of his own.” | Stephen L Harris, Understanding the Bible

Jesus was fully God; the invisible God made visible in a way that we could draw near to, touch, walk with, and eat with. Yet Jesus didn’t count his equality with God as something to be held onto, but rather something to be set down, for our sakes, and did so ‘by becoming a man like other men’ (Philippians 2:7-9, Weymouth NT).

Nothing Is Impossible With God

Those who reject the doctrine of the Trinity often do so on the basis that it’s impossible; how could God become human or how could God die? And who was ‘left in heaven’ if God came to earth? (yet another misunderstanding about who was sent and who was the sender: “And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent His Son to be the Savior of the world.”)

Yet we also accept many other impossibilities in scripture: that life can be created from nothing, that sickness can be completely healed, that water and wind can be controlled, that time can be stopped, that water can be turned into wine, that bread and fish can be multiplied, that death itself can be overcome and vanquished. 

Nothing, literally, nothing is impossible with God and if we learn anything from scripture, it’s that we should be ready to entertain any possibility and expect any outcome. Though we might not always understand how something could be possible, that shouldn’t stop us from believing that it could. Our cry should always be, ‘Lord, I believe, help me in my unbelief.’

God is Spirit. He is not limited by shape, force, boundaries or time. The same, however, cannot be said of humanity. We are limited; by time, by physicality, by mortality, by sin. There are things we simply cannot do.  

What shifted in my perspective in this particular area was the realisation that without the doctrine of the Trinity, the concept of redemption becomes humanly impossible.

While Jesus had to be truly human – atonement was required on behalf of humanity and only a human could make this restitution (and I’ve written about Jesus’ humanity elsewhere) – if he had been only human, it would have been impossible for him to have overcome sin.

Limited in the same way that we are, even with the empowerment of the Holy Spirit, he couldn’t have lived a perfect, sinless life and, therefore, successfully ‘made atonement’ for sin, or have overthrown the greatest enemy, death itself.

This was the entire point of the giving of the Old Covenant; it was intended that humanity should realise through their failure to keep the Law, despite even the best of intentions, their complete inability to atone for or redeem themselves and restore their relationship with God.

Humanity was in an awful bind, a catch-22 situation of epic proportions: atonement must be made by a human…but no human perfect enough or powerful enough existed to make such an atonement. That is the very definition of humanly impossible.

“But behold“, God says, “I will make a way in the desert. I am about to do something new. Prepare the way of the Lord…” While impossible with humanity, nothing was impossible with God.

The Word Who was in the beginning, Who called life into being, Who is the source of life and light of humanity stepped in the very creation He had made in order to save and redeem it. The Word – truly God – became human, He became the representative of us all and in his human body, the war against sin and death would be waged and won.

What was impossible for us became possible with God. Jesus Christ – truly human and truly God; the One and Only Begotten Son of the Father had come to save the world and reconcile us back to God.

God Does The Saving

It seems to me that once you start paying attention, you realise the Bible is telling the same story over and over again, but just in different ways, and it can perhaps be summarised in one simple sentence: “God Does The Saving.”

“Praise the Lord, who carries our burdens day after day; he is the God who saves us. Our God is a God who saves; he is the Lord, our Lord, who rescues us from death.” | Psalm 68:19-20

At every turn, humanity’s inability to overthrow the curse of Eden is demonstrated, as chapter after chapter of the Bible lays out the moral bankruptcy of the human race. Humans were unable to wage war against sin and win, or to overthrow death. The separation that had resulted from the fall in Eden couldn’t be healed just by human power, it needed divine intervention. 

It would be God, and it was always going to be God, who would do the saving.

I think this raises another significant point, and one which is worth spending some time on: the difference between a grace-framed salvation theology and a works-framed salvation theology.

Grace tells us that God saves because of Who He is, not because of who we are. We are saved by grace through faith – and this is not of ourselves – it is a gift of God. Human endeavour played no part in the work of saving or redeeming humanity back to God. (Ephesians 2:4-10). And this ‘work of saving’ took place long before we ever turned to God, even, as Romans comments, “while we were still sinners.“

Jesus showed us the kind of human we were intended to be, and the kind of holy life we were purposed for, an exact representation of the divine. He didn’t achieve this through grit, sheer willpower, or determined asceticism, but because he was also truly God. Nothing of his life should convince us that we can ever be like him, by our own resolve, strength, or determination or that by doing good we are contributing to our salvation.

Even the most steadfast, committed, faithful Christian does not add anything to the victory won by Jesus and it is only the work of Christ-in-us that we are able to become more like God (our works, however, do prove our faith is real – and I’ve written more about that here).

Irenaeus, an early church father, puts it like this: ”For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.”

I think the problem with making Jesus human and only human is that we are making the work of salvation a human endeavour. We are in danger of seeing Jesus’ life as a model for good behaviour (that will somehow make us right with God), and we are framing our Christian life as an exercise of our own determination and willpower which will enable us to overcome. Unspoken but implicit in this theology is the idea that “if you try hard enough, you too can overcome like Jesus”. 

But it is only in Christ that we are more than conquerors; we are graciously invited into his victory, and it is only because, in Christ, who was divine, God raising us up to partake in the divine nature (theosis) becomes possible.

In Conclusion (And Not To Be Considered Exhaustive!)

If you’ve been wrestling with this topic, the best place to start is always, of course, with scripture. And the best way to start is by asking questions. 

I would suggest you take some time to read through the New Testament letters and gospels and notice what the writers are telling you about Jesus. If the idea of ‘the Trinity’ is new or challenging for you, simply set that aside for now; you’re not seeking to prove or disprove the doctrine, only to hear what scripture has to say. Begin the exercise with a willing mind, an open heart, and a prayer for God to reveal Himself. 

Read about church history, particularly the first 300 years, for yourself, and seek out the writings of the early church fathers (pre-Nicene era). Is the language used or are the concepts described by them compatible with scripture? Or do they introduce ideas thoroughly at odds with the Bible?

Familiarise yourself with the background and context of the Council of Nicea. What was the reason they gathered? Does this reshape your understanding of the creed and provide better explanation to the language used within it? Are the conclusions of the Council (irrespective of their ‘wordiness’) consistent with your journey through scripture and history?

Consider the reason for Jesus’ coming: why was he sent and what did he accomplish? Jesus himself told us when only just a young boy that “he must be about His Father’s business” (Luke 2:49). What was “this business”? Of particular relevance to these questions is Jesus’ discourse in John 8:12-58.

Don’t try to arrive at a resolution or conclusion in a single moment and allow yourself the freedom to acknowledge that there are things you may not know or understand now, or ever. Our hope rests not in our complete comprehension but in our posture of trust in the One who saves.

And finally, I would respectfully encourage you to consider this: our theology – what we think about God – is important. How can we begin to know and understand ourselves and our place in this expansive creation if we have no sense of the One who made us and the purpose for which we’ve been made?

However, a robust and living theology will spring from understanding and experiencing who God is and what He has done for us, in Jesus, not simply by giving agreement to a statement or creed of ‘theological beliefs’. 

To know God is to know Jesus, whom He sent (John 17:3), and, therefore, the true starting point of our theology as Christians is looking to Jesus and, fundamentally, to God, in Jesus, crucified. It is in this that we see the extent to which God was prepared to go in order to rescue and redeem us.

Although deeply theologicial in its language, I believe the Trinity doctrine boldly endeavours to affirm and clarify this reality, underscoring the deep committment of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit to rescuing, redeeming and restoring creation.

 

• (Not a reader? Take a listen instead ⇓)

I want to make it clear that this article is not attempting to discuss in any comprehensive way the differences that exist between the genders of male and female, unique and important as they are, nor how God sees those differences working together in complementary ways within marriage. 

In a world that, at times, seems to have been driven mad by competition and comparison, the unique differences between the genders are no longer celebrated or championed, as God intended them to be. Yet many of these differences are, in fact, deeply rooted at a biological level and are at the very essence of our individuality as humans. Men and women are the same in many ways but there are also fundamental differences between us, differences which are coded into our DNA and which have important implications for each gender. You can read more about some of these differences in the article ‘The War On Gender’.

---

The ongoing conversation about the ‘role’ of women; in the church, in marriage, and indeed, in society in general, is not something that is new, only specific to our own time, or a subject that the early Christians didn’t also have to navigate and reevaluate, specifically in the light of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

It’s a subject that impacts me personally, both as a woman and as the mother of two daughters, and my understanding and position in relation to this topic was one of the first of many things to shift during the past few years of Christian journeying.

Christians generally fall into two camps on this subject, describing themselves as either complementarian, or egalitarian, both descriptors being somewhat inadequate explanations of the entirety of each side’s viewpoints. But, generally speaking:

– Christian Complementarianism is the view that men and women have different but complementary roles and responsibilities in marriage, family life, and religious life, particularly in areas deemed as ‘leadership’.

– Christian Egalitarians “believe that the Bible mandates gender equality, which implies equal authority and responsibility for the family and the ability for women to exercise spiritual authority as clergy.”

I was raised in a complementarian church, where the areas of leadership, speaking, leading, praying, and teaching were generally reserved for men. There were some (baffling) exceptions; women could teach Sunday school students (but only boys up to a certain age), women could lead worship (by way of playing the church organ), and women could vote in the general church elections for those who would serve for the year (but could not serve themselves in those roles). They could also publish written material, but not address the church publicly from the platform (although it was known that several wives would ‘write their husband’s preaching or sermon material’, which would then be presented by and as if it were the husband’s work).

It was also a head covering church, a subject I talk more about in my article ‘Leaving’. This further added to the confusion for me around whether women could or should speak publicly in church. 1 Corinthians 11:4 seemed to permit women to (at the very least) pray and prophesy, as long as their heads were covered (yet this too was prohibited in the church in which I grew up).

It wasn’t until I was in my mid-30s, with three children of my own, that I began to seriously reconsider this subject, among many others, reexamining almost everything I had been told and thought I knew, in the light of scripture.

This particular conversation loomed large in my mind. It seemed to me, to be an important subject to be personally convicted and informed on, and one which I could see would have implications for my own relationship, my church life, and, into the future, the lives of my daughters particularly.

What was God’s will for me as a woman and a Christian? Where or what was my place, if that was even the right word, as part of the wider Christian community and in terms of my giftings and calling? What did this all mean when outworked in the context of my marriage? And what sort of framework would I teach my daughters and my son about their status before God and their place in His story of redemption, particularly in their own relationships and church life?

Sincere Christians can be found on both sides of the argument and both will affirm the infallibility of the Bible and its authority over Christian believers in relation to faith and practice. Yet both sides arrive at vastly different conclusions. Which one is right – and does it even matter?

I came to see that the differences primarily lie in the interpretation of biblical texts and how these texts should then be applied within the context of our society and culture today. (I’ll talk more about the specific texts that are interpreted by complementarians to restrict women in certain roles later in this article).

I also came to recognise that we all bring preconceptions and often unconscious biases when considering biblical texts. We absorb much from our upbringing, our world-view perspectives, our cultures, and the influences of our families and peers. These biases, whether we are conscious of them or not, often contribute to issues becoming much more than ‘just a conversation’.

Even the time-consuming and difficult task of translating the native texts of the Bible into the many languages in which it can be read today involved some degree of personal interpretation by the translators, as they laboured over which word or phrase was best represented by the target language.

With all this in mind, any topic that carries such a degree of weight, which I think this topic does, needs to be considered in the light of several aspects: context, culture (relevant to the context), our own bias or interpretative understanding, and the overall scope and message of not just the immediate text but scripture in general.

The Importance Of Context

Context includes things like consideration of the surrounding text, not just the text in question, the overall flow of the immediate text, the audience the text was written for, the cultural expectations of the time and the language in which the text was originally written. 

We also need to reconcile our interpretation of any text with the overall theme and message of the gospel – the primary narrative of the Bible. If a conclusion doesn’t ring true according to the gospel, it must be reevaluated in this light. The gospel is the story in all the Bible. It’s not just a message about our own personal salvation from sin but the story of what God has intended for all His creation. Its massive scope stretches from the first pages of Genesis through to the last book of the Bible, Revelation. 

It’s a compelling and all-encompassing narrative that includes lofty themes such as the glory and sovereignty of God, the creation and capacity of humanity to image God’s glory, the fall and redemption of humanity, the purpose and kingship of Jesus, the new creation of a resurrected community of image-bearers and, finally, the arrival of ‘the new heavens and new earth’, when God will be all-in-all and the gospel story will have reached its resolution.

Any conclusions we draw from particular passages in the Bible must align with these consistent gospel threads, woven throughout scripture.

Exposure to the gospel story often causes radical upheaval in our lives; challenging and contrasting our perceptions of ‘what is’ against ‘what will be’. We’re invited personally into the massive scope of the Bible’s story, to see things from God’s perspective and understand the greater purpose that is at work for all of humanity.

We will often recognise that our previous practices, beliefs, or worldviews must change and now be conformed to the purposes and ideals of a loving and just God, represented to us in the life and mission of His Son Jesus. 

This was the experience of the first-century Christians, to whom many of the letters and epistles of the New Testament were written. These letters, from writers such as Paul the Apostle, and James the Just, highlight the many challenges these believers faced in their new life of faith and serve as valuable reminders to us today of just how radically the gospel reoriented their lives and realigned humanity, living at the time in the shadow of the Empire. 

The letter to Philemon is one such example. This letter, written by Paul to a believing master concerning a slave who had found Christ, gives us important insight into how masters and slaves were to relate to one another as fellow believers. Slave owners, rich in property and persons, weren’t to consider their slaves as possessions but as part of God’s family. Their legal relationship might remain that of master and slave (and Paul gives valuable advice in other places to both masters and slaves who now found themselves believers of Christ), but, in reality, they were now family, bound together in Jesus, and it is this status that should dominate their new relationship.

Jews who thought of themselves as God’s unique and chosen people were now to consider Gentiles as family, loved by the same God, and this particular issue is highlighted in Paul’s letters to the churches at Ephesus and Galatia.

Importantly for many women, men were to consider and treat women as equals in the purpose and plan of God for humanity; directly challenging a long and complex history of patriarchy.

What Is Patriarchy?

“Patriarchy is a social system in which men hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property. Some patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage.

Patriarchy is associated with a set of ideas, a patriarchal ideology that acts to explain and justify this dominance and attributes it to inherent natural differences between men and women. Sociologists tend to see patriarchy as a social product and not as an outcome of innate differences between the sexes and they focus attention on the way that gender roles in a society affect power differentials between men and women.

Historically, patriarchy has manifested itself in the social, legal, political, religious, and economic organisation of a range of different cultures. Even if not explicitly defined to be by their own constitutions and laws, most contemporary societies are, in practice, patriarchal.” (Wikipedia)

Patriarchy is a social system in which men are the primary authority figures in the areas of political leadership, moral authority, and control of property and this extends to control over other men (of lesser status, or slaves), women, slaves, and children.

Both Jewish and Roman societies were patriarchal and hierarchal, and it is into this context and these cultures that the gospel is preached, received, and adopted. This context serves as an enlightening framework for many of the issues that the early apostolic writers and fathers speak into.

Where To Start?

It’s often hard to know where to start with this topic. Right at the beginning, in Genesis? Smack bang in the middle of the ‘I suffer not a woman to teach’ passages? At the dawn of early Christianity?

All have relevance to the conversation and, together, form a compelling picture of God’s heart for His church, God’s purpose for His people, and His will for men and women in His story. I talk a lot about the Genesis framework in my article ‘Stop Promoting Gendered Hierarchy!’ as well as many of the differences between complementarian / egalitarian viewpoints, so if you’re interested in reading more about that, head on over there.

In this article, I want to look particularly at:

– The position of women in the early church and the church’s teaching on that, and
– Three passages in particular which have (in my opinion) been severed from their context and used to support a faulty interpretation in relation to Women and the Church.

1. Early Christianity And Women

The women who followed Jesus assumed ministry in the earliest Christian communities alongside men. Women were the last disciples to be found at the foot of the cross (Luke 23:55-56) and the first at the empty tomb, witnesses to the truth of the risen Christ (Luke 24:9-11). Women, at this time, were simply not considered credible witnesses so the fact that the resurrection is announced first to the women who had followed Jesus is more significant than we perhaps realise. 

We are given some insight into how the gospel would shift and reorient the relationship between men and women, and particularly the experience of women themselves, through many of the synoptic gospel stories.

One such story is that of Mary and Martha, two sisters who, with their brother Lazarus, had come to know Jesus through his itinerant ministry and had become very dear to him. It’s recorded that Jesus visited Bethany, their hometown, at least 11 times, and it’s one of these visits that’s recorded for us in Luke 10.

It seems, at least from Luke’s account, that Martha was the homeowner and it is she who welcomes Jesus and his disciples into her home, working quickly to prepare dinner for them. Her sister, Mary, in contrast, isn’t concerned with thoughts of hospitality or guest room preparation but sits at Jesus’ feet listening to what he taught.

The import of this is likely to be quite lost on us, reading this story, as we do, several centuries removed and in our native English translation. Without understanding the cultural context of this passage, we may miss what is actually quite profound. 

Mary’s posture – ‘sitting at Jesus’ feet’ was what a disciple would do when learning from a rabbi. Paul the Apostle, later in Acts 22:3, speaks about being ‘educated as the feet of Gamaliel’, who was an esteemed rabbi in Israel.

One of the primary duties of a rabbi, or teacher, was to teach Torah. A rabbi would train disciples to emulate him (and even surpass him in knowledge and the practical application of the Torah). However, this was an exclusively male domain – women were completely excluded from interacting with or studying the Torah.

Throughout the generations, from the destruction of the Temple, Jewish creative and spiritual life revolved around Torah study. All forms of literary expression and spiritual creativity came from Torah study and their purpose was to enrich and deepen it. Jewish history throughout all those generations found expression in spiritual creativity, not in any other form (such as politics). From this we can deduce that women’s exclusion from Torah study removed them from the heart of existence, and they were not considered important in passing on the heritage and tradition to future generations. Women had no part in the bet midrash, the center of spiritual creativity, or in the religious courts, the seat of the Jewish community’s autonomy, because a rabbinic judge must have comprehensive Torah knowledge. Women did not serve in community positions because these roles were identified with knowledge of Torah. | Torah Study

Yet the gospel of Luke makes it clear that Mary was assuming the posture of a disciple, that she was listening and learning at the feet of an esteemed ‘teacher in Israel’, and further, that Jesus commended Mary’s actions and refused to enforce the religious norms of the day in order to exclude her from this circle of learning. She was encouraged to take her place among the men, learning in quietness as was the acceptable posture of all rabbinic students. These are thoughts that Paul the Apostle will pick up in his letter to Timothy (one of the sticky passages I’ll look at later on in this article).

“Jesus’s valuing of women through the gospels is unmistakable. In a culture in which women were devalued and often exploited, it underscores their equal status before God and his desire for personal relationship with them.” | Confronting Christianity, Rebecca McLaughlin 

Women actively participated in praying and prophesying within the early church (Luke 2:36, Acts 21:9, 1 Corinthians 11:5) and were equal recipients of the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1-4, Acts 2:17, Acts 10:45). They preached the good news alongside Jesus and later Paul, taught the new believers ‘the way of God’, and provided pastoral care and discipleship in the early church (Romans 16:1-2, Romans 16:3-5, Luke 8:1-3, Acts 18:24-26, 1 Corinthians 16:19, Philippians 4:2-3). The reality of their significant involvement is shown throughout Paul’s letters, in the Acts of the Apostles, and other early Christian writings.

The last chapter of Paul’s letter to the Romans (Romans 16) begins with a commendation of ‘Phoebe, a deacon (greek: διάκονον (diakonon) – meaning ‘an attendant or servant; especially, a Christian teacher and pastor’ – Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance) of the church of Cenchreae’, followed by a mention of married couple Priscilla and Aquila, as ‘co-workers’ with Paul (and their home as ‘the meeting place of the church’). The letter concludes with a compiled list of 26 other church leaders whom Paul wishes to recommend, ten of whom are women. Paul’s letters constitute the earliest Christian manuscripts available and provide strong historical evidence of the important involvement of both men and women in the new Christian church. 

Power couple Priscilla and Aquila are mentioned several times in scripture, always together, and were pivotal supporters of the newly planted church at Ephesus (Acts 18:). It’s while they’re here that they instruct Apollos, recently arrived from Eqypt, an eloquent speaker and a follower of Jesus who knew the scriptures well, more accurately in the way of God (Acts 18:26). Priscilla’s name appears first here in the record (and in three other places), perhaps signaling her higher social status than that of her husband, or perhaps her superior teaching capabilities and gifting. Together, however, they exercised leadership among the fledgling churches and were both held in high esteem, with their partnership highlighting one model of ministry in the early church (Romans 16:7; 1 Corinthians 9:5).

Scripture reveals that throughout God’s story, women have shared significantly in contributing to the ‘kingdom mission’ of God (Exodus 15:20, Judges 4:4, Isaiah 8:3, 2 Kings 22:14, 2 Chronicles 34:22, Proverbs 31:1, Luke 2:37-38).

What becomes abundantly clear in the New Testament is, that despite the cultural norms or preconceived notions of the people to whom the gospel was preached, a seismic shift occurred in how people: men and women, slaves and masters, Jews and Gentiles – related to and viewed one another, as followers of Jesus. 

The church – the body of Christ – is made up of all of God’s people, who participate together as a ‘kingdom of priests’ and ‘ministers of reconciliation’, entrusted with God’s vital message for humanity (1 Peter 2:9, 2 Corinthians 5:18-19). We see demonstrated in the church not just redeemed and sanctified individuals but a collective community of people who live a ‘resurrected life’ in the light and glory of the King – Jesus. They are a new kind of human, a new creation, and, through the redeeming work of Jesus Christ, can fully participate in the mission and purpose God had intended for humanity from the beginning. 

The kind of church that Paul had in mind when he wrote is organic – a living, breathing body, in which every member, both men and women contribute to the function, health and growth of that body. “What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up.” (1 Corinthians 14:26, see also Hebrews 3:12-13, Hebrews 10:33-35) 

“The term organic church does not refer to a particular model of church. (We believe that no perfect model exists.) Instead, we believe that the New Testament vision of church is organic. An organic church is a living, breathing, dynamic, mutually participatory, every-member-functioning, Christ-centered, communal expression of the body of Christ.” – Frank Viola, Pagan Christianity: Exposing the Roots of Our Church Practices

Every member of the church is a valued part of the body of Christ and the Apostle Paul gives a great deal of loving instruction in his letters as to how each person in the church is to behave towards and care for ‘the other’. 

Both men and women are included in the instructions to love one another (Romans 13:34), to bear with and forgive one another (Romans 15:7, Ephesians 4:2), to honour one another (Ephesians 4:2), to be kind, tender-hearted and compassionate towards one another (Ephesians 4:32), to serve and submit to one another (Galatians 5:13, Ephesians 5:21), to encourage, instruct, teach and admonish one another (Hebrews 13:16, Romans 15:14, Colossians 3:16), to be hospitable and share with one another (1 Peter 4:9, Hebrews 13:16), to pray for and confess to one another (James 5:16) and to carry one another’s burdens (Galatians 6:2).

A Word Of Caution From The Apostle Paul

The collision of the gospel with first-century Roman/Jewish life resulted in a massive upheaval of many commonly held beliefs and practices, as it often still does for us today. Long-held perceptions were challenged by the larger scope of the gospel story. In a highly patriarchal, hierarchical society, the gospel insisted that anyone could seek and find God, that He was ‘no respecter of persons’, and that all could participate in the kingdom and priesthood of Jesus.

Women, particularly, experienced Christian life in radically different ways from what was permitted or acceptable within Roman or Jewish society. Women’s position – as humans, as spiritual creations, as participants in the body of Christ – was elevated and placed directly alongside their male counterparts, as equal participants in the mission and story of God, as God had intended from the beginning 

Yet Paul the Apostle, who wrote a large portion of the New Testament letters, is also at pains to impress upon the believers in the early church that while in this new life of faith women are not lesser than men, neither are they greater (1 Corinthians 11). He returns to the earliest account in the scriptures, the story of the creation, and corrects erroneous beliefs that were being promoted (that women had been created first and were therefore superior) (2 Timothy 2:13-15).

He also overturns other long-held cultural beliefs (that women were inferior and that their usefulness or their contribution were essentially negligible). Men and women ‘in the Lord’ are interdependent, Paul states, regardless of how the surrounding culture may view this relationship. Neither one is without the other – and all things come from God. (1 Corinthians 11:8-12).

The counter-cultural practices that were permitted and encouraged within church life had the potential to be misunderstood, resulting in unhealthy church teaching and possibly poor gospel witness to unbelievers, and Paul sought to instruct and guide the new believers on many different matters that arose as a result of these changed dynamics. There were a multitude of factors that needed to be considered for men and women in this largely unknown landscape.

Women, The Church, And Moving Out Of The First Century 

One of the best-kept secrets in Christianity is the enormous role that women played in the early church. Though they leave much unsaid, still, both Christian and secular writers of the time attest many times to the significant involvement of women in the early growth of Christianity. – Christian History Institute

The early centuries of Christianity show clear evidence of a great deal of activity by women in the life of the congregations (Romans 16:1-2, Romans 16:3-5, Romans 16:6, Romans 16:12-15, Acts 1:12-14, Acts 5:1-2, Acts 9:36-37, Acts 17:34, Luke 8:1-3, Philippians 4:2-3, Philemon 2, 1 Corinthians 16:19).

However, as Christianity became more established in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, the church itself began to change – moving from primarily meeting in private spaces to meeting in the public sphere. Christianity became legitimised and was adopted as the official religion of the Roman Empire (313AD). It moved toward becoming more formal in organisation and a male hierarchy of the clergy began to develop.

The conversion to Christianity of Emperor Constantine is seen as the great turning point for Christianity and by 380AD, Emperor Theodosius had issued the Edict of Thessalonica, which made Christianity, specifically Nicene Christianity, the official religion of the Roman Empire. This era (circa 100AD to either 451AD or 787AD), later known as the Patristic era, was heavily influenced by theological writers such as Tertullian, St Jerome, Augustine, and St Clement of Alexandria, who had one or two unfortunate things to say in relation to women:

“The curse God pronounced on your sex still weighs on the world. …You are the devil’s gateway…. You are the first that deserted the divine laws. All too easily you destroyed the image of God, Adam. Because you deserved death, it was the son of God who had to die”. – Tertullian

“Fierce is the dragon and cunning the asp; But women have the malice of both.” – Gregory of Nazianzus

“…The consciousness of their own nature must evoke feelings of shame”. – St Clement of Alexandria

“…Woman is the root of all evil.” (Like most early Christian theologians, Jerome glorified virginity and looked down on marriage. His reasoning was also rooted in Genesis:) “Eve in paradise was a virgin … understand that virginity is natural and that marriage comes after the Fall.” – St Jerome

In the early days, women had found a level of power in Christian communities that they lacked in the Roman Empire at the time, and were instrumental in its success. However, as time went on, women lost the authority that they had had, and were increasingly subjugated and pushed out of important roles. 

By the close of the Patristic era, almost all roles within ministry in the church had become reserved only for men.

The attitude toward women in areas of leadership and teaching in the church looked more like the attitudes of the early Jewish rabbis, famously summarised by the stinging opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus: “The words of the Torah should be burned rather than entrusted to women.”

“Yet throughout the centuries, the teachings and practices of many Christian leaders continued to contribute to the oppression and silencing of women and the diminishing of their value and contribution to the work of the church, a very different attitude to the radical egalitariasm lived and preached by the early Christian believers.” | Women And Their Roles In Early Christianity

As Thomas Wilson, in The Arte of Rhetorique, 1560 comments: “What becometh a woman best, and first of all? Silence. What second? Silence. What third? Silence. What fourth? Silence. Yea, if a man should ask me till Domes daie I would still crie silence, silence.“

2. The Troubling Texts

There is a great deal of evidence of women’s participation in the early church and the role they played in early Christianity. Certainly, scripture and history itself show that women actively participated in the life of the early church in all areas, including leading, teaching, disciplining, praying, and prophesying.

Yet there are three specific texts or passages in the New Testament that have been interpreted in such a way as to seemingly contradict the early church’s egalitarian message preached and practiced in other places.

The verses in question are found in 1 Corinthians 14:34-36, 1 Timothy 2:11-12, and 1 Corinthians 11:1-16.

These verses are sticking points for many people, and form the basis for the framework adopted by the church I grew up, as well as many other churches today. The practical outworking of this framework stretches to accommodate what is known as ‘soft complementarianism’ (meaning women are generally involved in many aspects of ministry, although the role of the senior minister or pastor, and often eldership, is reserved for men), through to a more traditional understanding of complementarianism, in which women are restricted from most areas deemed authoritative, leadership, or teaching, as was the church I grew up in.

As I said at the outset, my understanding and position have shifted dramatically. I have had the opportunity to read the texts for myself, from multiple translations, and with a wealth of scholarly critique and commentary available alongside. My previous approach to scripture – essentially proof-texting or cherry-picking verses, is now quite different. Context is king – and whole letters are included in my consideration of interpretation and application, not just a verse or sentence on either side. Additionally, I have the clear framework of Genesis at my disposal – God’s original intention for humanity:

The book of Genesis is a means to a theological end; its purpose is to illustrate God’s relationship to creation and His intention of dwelling with us. “The whole purpose of Genesis 1 is to set the ideal human community  – a place in which the image of God, or the imitation of God, is actually going to be realised.  That, of course, gets distorted in Genesis 3 when humans disobey God. But the first chapter outlines the ideal.” (Professor C. John Collins) (emphasis mine).  

With all this in mind, here are my thoughts on the ‘troubling texts’. My conclusions are summarised for brevity and I’ve arrived at these conclusions from the many different resources I’ve personally read, listened to, and watched. I certainly don’t expect my reader to consider them, alone, to be conclusive arguments for an egalitarian position. I would urge anyone interested or unsure about this topic to make a point of studying both the passages and reading or listening to the resources and commentaries (both for and against) for themselves. To that end, I’ll recommend some great resources at the end of this article.

1 Timothy 2:11-12 –

Firstly, the context of the letter to Timothy is important. Paul is writing to his young associate Timothy, who was helping train new believers and carrying Paul’s letters back and forward between Paul and the newly planted churches. Paul writes to encourage and guide in the development of healthy leadership within the church – not ego-driven or self-centered but governed by mutual submission to Christ (Ephesians 5:22). The best kind of leadership is always the kind modeled by Jesus, who came as a servant to minister in truth and humility and who is the life-force of the church (John 15:5). Badly formed and misguided leadership can cause great damage (and this is why 1 Timothy is still such a relevant passage for us today). 

But before Paul begins to even discuss leadership, he encourages men to first focus on intimately praying with God and the women likewise (worship). A humble relationship with God (Micah 6:8) must precede any kind of leadership. Paul then addresses the men, commenting that he wants them to ensure they are free from anger and controversy in every place of worship, and the women, stating they are not to be obsessed with the latest fashions or beauty routines but focused on true beauty: God’s message of salvation in Jesus.

However, the significant issue that Paul bookends his letter with is that of false teaching. He had already urged Timothy to stay in Ephesus (where he was when this letter was written) and stop those whose teaching is contrary to the truth. (1 Timothy 3:3). He now writes again to instruct the believers to be filled with love, have a clear conscience, and genuine faith. Some, however, had missed the whole point and were speaking confidently as teachers, even though they didn’t know what they were talking about (1 Timothy 1:5-7).

Paul urges Timothy to command the false teachers to stop teaching false doctrines. These ‘teachers’ were devoted to myths and endless genealogies, abusing the law, and forbidding marriage and certain foods. For a church to be healthy and flourish, it needed to be grounded in truth and empowered by genuine faith, its leaders devoted to sound teaching and holy worship, things that the church at Ephesus was in danger of losing sight of.

The subject of false teaching and how to combat it in a church context is a recurring theme throughout the letter and it seems clear that this is the overarching context of Paul’s comments.

Approaching the first ‘troubling text’, then, “Women should learn quietly and submissively. I am not permitting women to teach men or have authority over them; Let them listen quietly” (1 Timothy 2: 11-12), there are several ways in which this passage can be interpreted. In light of the context, culture, and the framework of Genesis, the one that I believe makes the most sense is this:

This passage is not a prohibition on women speaking or teaching, universally or for all time, but a time-limited injunction to deal with a specific and local issue. Paul’s comments are instructions for how the believers in Ephesus, both men and women, are to generally conduct themselves in church affairs, and for women, particularly, how they ought to behave in matters of learning and teaching.

False teaching was an issue, that’s clear, and it seems that women, who had long been barred from the traditional all-male sphere of learning Torah and rabbinic study, were behind the eight-ball, so to speak. By-passing the appropriate framework for adequate instruction would result in godless ideas and old wives tales, and the church at Ephesus needed to pay greater attention and give specific focus to sound teaching, for both genders but particularly in relation to the women, who had no experience in this area.

Women were to learn in quietness and obedience, just like everyone else. This is the posture advocated for students of rabbis – catch the connection to the story of Mary I commented on earlier – and Paul, rather than silencing women, is actually advocating equality and liberation for women in Jesus, far surpassing what they may have experienced in their culture. But it must be done properly, and not at the expense of the equality of men or at the cost of false or shallow teaching. Women must first learn, then they can teach, with the same attributes of faith, truthfulness, and love in leadership to be shown by both men and women (1 Corinthians 13:4-8). 

The original word translated as authority in English is the Greek word authenteō, used only once in all of the New Testament, and is not the usual word used in Greek to mean authority, as we would understand it. 

Over the course of its history this verb and its associated noun have had a wide semantic range, including some bizarre meanings, such as committing suicide, murdering one‘s parents, and being sexually aggressive. Some studies have been marred by a selective and improper use of the evidence. The issue is compounded by the fact that this word is found only once in the New Testament, and is not common in immediately proximate Greek literature. | CBM Resources

It’s important to ask why Paul uses this rare word when he could have used other more common words to convey authority, if that’s what he meant. A single word can’t be severed from its context, so the entire letter and surrounding text particularly need to be taken into account when trying to understand and interpret Paul’s use of this word and his overall meaning.

I believe what he was getting at was this: concerning their learning and teaching, women aren’t to take over, act in domineering ways, or tell everyone else what to do (just because they are now ‘free in Christ’). Neither are they to use their gender as a weapon, either sexually or authoritatively, claiming superiority over men or absorbing the cultural myth (that Eve was formed first and was therefore more important).

Paul concludes this section by reminding the believers of the dangers of false teaching and poor leadership, which results in deception and transgression. He recounts the Genesis story of humanity’s fall, giving the example of Eve who was deceived by the serpent’s false teaching (and sinned first), with Adam right behind her (who, although not being deceived, sinned anyway). Yet, although Adam was made first (and could be considered by the men as ‘more important’), it was through Eve that salvation came about.

This passage isn’t about prohibiting all women, for all time, from leadership or teaching, but about matters of faithful church leadership and careful church teaching, specifically for the church at Ephesus, but still applicable to us today.

Links: https://bit.ly/2wMnDXk, https://bit.ly/3dGijp9 https://bit.ly/39z4Ufm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdTtrONvrCo https://shorturl.at/eikC2

1 Corinthians 14:34-36 –

These two verses are a somewhat jarring and odd inclusion in a long dialogue from Paul about spiritual gifts, which begins in chapter 12. In fact, they are at direct odds with the force of Paul’s argument and, quite frankly, do not seem to fit the context through these previous chapters in which Paul is discussing the ‘body of believers’ – those who gather together in Jesus’ name – and what that looks like in real terms. He uses phrases like “To each person has been given the ability to manifest the Spirit for the common good” (1 Corinthians 12:7), “As it is, there are many parts, but one body” (1 Corinthians 12:20), “Now you are the body of Christ, and each of you is a member of it” (1 Corinthians 12:27) and “Some of us are Jews, some are Gentiles, some are slaves, and some are free. But we have all been baptised into one body by one Spirit, and we all share the same Spirit” (1 Corinthians 12:13).

The context of the first epistle to the Corinthians is one of a church in disarray and Paul tackles all manner of issues that had arisen in this church – irresponsibility, promiscuity, immorality, quarrelling, and disunity. In short, the Corinthians had forgotten that they were God’s church – the body of Jesus, set apart for a spirit-led life – and that the knowledge of their salvation in Jesus was meant to transform them, in love, to a life in common ‘with Jesus’. When we get to Chapter 14, Paul is still discussing the importance of acting for ‘the greater good’ of the church, in relation to spiritual gifts.  There are three explanations around verses 34-36, which are as follows:

1. These verses are considered to be a reader-added marginal gloss. They were added at some point in the translation process, probably very early on, as a notation in the margin by a scribe. Subsequent translations either added them in position between verses 33 and 36 or place them at the end of the chapter, after verse 40. The fact that they ‘float’ in several translations, in terms of positioning, does lend weight to this idea, along with the presence of a distigme (two dots) in the margin, the general symbol marking the location of any kind of textual variant. You can read more about this here: https://bit.ly/3arPNp2. You will notice that if you skip over these verses (as if they never existed in the original letter), the flow of the chapter remains intact and Paul’s conclusion to his dialogue makes perfect sense. Commentators have noted that ‘this ‘gloss view’ explains all the external and internal data, preserves the chiastic structure and integrity of Paul’s argument, and avoids conflict with Paul’s other teachings.
   If these verses are original, then it is an entirely reasonable conclusion that they were written to address a specific issue in, admittedly, a very messed up church. Given we know that women did pray and prophesy from other passages in the Bible (Luke 2:36, Acts 21:7-9, 1 Corinthians 11:5-11), the seeming prohibition on the women in these verses must be specific and contextual, rather than general and unlimited in time, much like the injunction in 1 Timothy 2. 
2. 1 Corinthians is largely Paul’s response to a large number of topics that the church had written to him about, seeking clarity and instructive advice (1 Corinthians 7:1 “Now for the matters you wrote about:“). From Chapter 7 onwards, he speaks to a number of topics the Corinth church had asked him about, at times quoting their statements or comments verbatim. We certainly don’t take those comments themselves to instructive or inspired, merely Paul’s reiteration of certain questions asked (followed by his replies or comments in relation to those questions). We see this pattern at the beginning of Chapter 7 (‘concerning sexual relations/married life), Chapter 8 (‘concerning food offered to idols’), Chapter 11 (‘concerning worship and the Lord’s supper’), and Chapter 12 (‘concerning spiritual gifts’). 1 Corinthians 14 is a continuation of Paul’s thoughts in relation to spiritual gifts, and the passage is question (1 Corinthians 14:34-36) can quite easily be read as ‘the matters you wrote about‘ (forbidding women to exercise their spiritual gift of prophecy or tongues). His comments, including a refutation to this question/statement are in verses 36-40, which makes it clear that they (“my brothers and sisters“) “should be eager to prophesy, and are not to forbid speaking in tongues. But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.“

Any one of these explanations would be acceptable to me. The one that doesn’t make sense is that women are being prohibited from ‘speaking in church’, universally and in perpetuity. Here’s why:

– Paul’s comments are intended for both men and women. Some English translations may inadvertently obscure this by their use of the word ‘brethren’ or ‘brothers’ but the correct understanding of the original Greek (ἀδελφοί (adelphoi – meaning brothers or siblings) is that Paul is addressing men and women both – the believers as a whole, who are the family of Christ.

– The context is a call to orderly worship and, in particular, the appropriate use of spiritual gifts, such as prophesying, speaking in tongues, interpretation, and special revelation. We know that these gifts were given to both men and women (Acts 1:14, 2:4, 17-18, Acts 21:9-10), and in fact, only a few chapters earlier Paul had instructed the church on the culturally correct way this gift was to be exercised (either by a man or a woman) (1 Corinthians 11:4,5). It would seem rather odd that only a few chapters later, he would reverse this entirely and silence women, especially those who had been gifted with prophecy, tongues, or interpretation.

– These gifts were given for the edification of the church ie they were intended to be heard aloud by all, and not for personal or private edification.

–  The context of the immediate text in question is ‘if they have questions, they should ask their husbands at home‘. Some differentiation seems to be being made here, that the women in question are possibly ‘wives with questions‘, not just the women in the congregation in general. Again, the context is orderly and edifying worship for all, and wives who have questions are instructed to ask those at home, rather than during congregational worship where it would be distracting and disorderly. (The Greek word for woman and wife (as for man and husband) is the same, so several differing interpretations could be drawn from this alone.)

• Paul concludes his thoughts by encouraging everyone to be eager to prophesy and not to forbid speaking in tongues. His caveat (and the actual context of the chapter) is that everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.

Links: https://bit.ly/3arPNp2 and https://bit.ly/2wD2G15

1 Corinthians 11:1-16 –

This is by far the largest section of verses and can initially appear somewhat confusing and challenging to interpret. In fact, these verses are regarded by commentators as ‘one of the most obscure passages in the Pauline letters’.

Again, we must remember the context of this epistle – that is, it was written to a church in disarray with a multitude of issues that Paul was speaking into. The particular issue he is addressing here, in these verses, distinctly relates to the cultural context of Corinth. Particularly, Paul is referencing the issues of homosexuality, gender fluidity, and immorality rampant in that culture, and which influences we know the Corinthian church were floundering under.

The particular passage that seems to indicate hierarchy is this: “But I want you to realise that the head (κεφαλὴ (kephalē) of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” (1 Corinthians 11:3-4). However, there are fourteen primary reasons to interpret head as referring to “source” rather than “authority” in this passage (see links below), and this alternate translation changes the meaning of the passage entirely. (Incidentally, this same word is used by Paul in Ephesians 5 – the ‘husbands and wives’ chapter, where, once again, source rather than head seems to be a much better translation of the original word and better fits the overall context of the passage. I write more specifically about this passage in my article ‘Husbands and Wives’.

I believe 1 Corinthians 11 is not describing a system of hierarchy, as is sometimes supposed, but rather is speaking to the fact that men and women within the church should present themselves in ways that honour the uniqueness of their own created gender, particularly in the light of their gospel witness, as well as honouring the source of each gender. 

These verses (particularly 4-5) are, again, a striking affirmation of women’s equal standing with men in church leadership in that Paul simply assumes that “every woman,” like “every man,” could prophesy and pray in public.

To briefly summarise, Paul is addressing the importance of believers exercising their freedom in Christ carefully, so as to not bring disrepute to their witness of the gospel. Christians need to be mindful and culturally aware not to display themselves in ways that malign the gospel or damage its credibility. Their ‘oneness in Christ’ does not mean that markers of gender are no longer relevant or valued. As Ronald W Pierce comments, “General decency or even one’s cultural preferences should never distract from the message being preached.”

The relationship between men and women in the church is an important one and the overall principles of respect, mutual submission, and love shown by all are continually argued for in all Paul’s writings.  However, one of the most important principles that is being emphasised in this passage is the importance of the way a Christian behaves (here, particularly in relation to their gender signaling), so as to be a credible witness for the gospel, a theme also picked up by Peter in his first letter to the early church (1 Peter 1-5). 

The message [of 1 Corinthians 11] is, “Don’t use your freedom in Christ as an excuse to dress immodestly. In demeanour and word keep it clean!” Furthermore, men and women should show respect to each other, honouring the opposite sex as their source. As Paul stresses in the climax of this passage, believers must affirm the equal rights and privileges of women and men in the Lord. Women, as well as men, may lead in public Christian worship. Since in the Lord woman and man are not separate, women who are gifted and called by God ought to be welcomed into ministry just as men are.” – Philip B Payne, Ph.D New Testament Studies

Links: https://bit.ly/2QVZa8I and https://bit.ly/3auVuCP

Conclusion

I believe these ‘troubling texts’ have often been mistranslated, have long been misinterpreted, and largely misunderstood, leading to a faulty understanding of God’s will for Christian women and their place in the church. They have been used to build a flimsy framework that does not stand up to close analysis and which runs contrary to Scripture itself, the historical and biblical evidence of women’s full involvement in church ministry, and the greater scope of the gospel story.

I believe that when they are read and understood correctly, as Paul intended them to be, they affirm women’s active and fully participatory role in the church alongside their male counterparts and provide a robust and inspiring framework for the church today, as they did in Paul’s day, recognising that wherever the church gathers together, it’s most basic principle is to incarnate Christ.

I haven’t adopted this position simply because I wanted to, because I’m a raging feminist, or because I have no regard for what scripture really teaches. I’ve arrived at my position – egalitarian – because I genuinely and wholeheartedly believe this is what scripture consistently and cohesively teaches about women and the church.

This might be your position also, or it might not. Either way, I’d love to hear from you. Don’t hesitate to get in touch via the contact form or drop a comment below.

---

If you would like to read more on this subject by other authors, I’d recommend the following: Rediscovering Scripture’s Vision For Women (Lucy Peppiatt), Gender Roles And The People Of God (Alice Matthews), The Blue Parakeet (Scot McKnight), Man And Woman: One In Christ (Philip B Payne), Pagan Christianity (Frank Viola), and Reimagining Church (Frank Viola).I’d also recommend listening to the Kingdom Roots Podcast by Scot McKnight (there are over 200 episodes and he covers many topics, including the question of gender equality, so I’ve linked one specifically here to get you started.)This article was first published 15 November 2020 and has been reworked 15 March 2024

“You can’t read the New Testament without seeing the call to holiness in the Christian life. But that holiness is a work of God’s grace as the Holy Spirit empowers the believer to live a life pleasing to God. New Testament holiness is a joyous privilege, not a heavy burden and duty.

 

New Testament holiness enhances life, it never diminishes it. This is what Jesus modelled so well and it’s why genuine seekers of God were drawn to him. Simply put, he was attractive.

 

He didn’t just do holiness, he was holy. Yet no one had more life and everywhere he went, dead things came to life.

 

New Testament holiness is a mark of real life, the one that Jesus rose again to give us. It’s Jesus living in and through us.” | Lance Ralston

“In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.” | John 1:4, NIV

While it’s true that repentance – a change of mind –  is absolutely a factor in deciding to follow Jesus, repentance is not just a sudden and miraculous renovation of our previously bad life. Jesus didn’t come to make bad people good but to make dead people alive.

Christianity isn’t about behaviour modification (although getting to truly know Jesus will inevitably result in our behaviours changing) but about life being breathed into dead things.

People who were spiritually dead, dead in the most significant way there is to be dead, are reanimated and resurrected by the same power that raised Jesus from the dead; given a new identity, a new purpose, and a new hope.

The holiness that develops and grows in someone who has decided to follow Jesus is a work of the Holy Spirit, as their hearts become convicted by the things that need to change in their life. It’s not as a result of ‘modifying and conforming to acceptable Christian behaviours’ (outward conformity) but because of an inner conviction of the heart, as the flourishing life of God takes root and begins to grow in them.

In the same way that light causes natural things to grow, the light of Jesus will cause growth and flourishing in our lives. This holiness is a joy, not a burden, a mark of the real life that we were always intended to live.

Repentance isn’t a one-time act, then, but an ongoing process, a conscious decision to turn from darkness and begin walking in light. But this doesn’t happen instantly and it doesn’t happen without opposition and difficulty.

Paul the Apostle likens it to a war constantly being waged within us:

“I have discovered this principle of life—that when I want to do what is right, I inevitably do what is wrong. I love God’s law with all my heart. But there is another power within me that is at war with my mind. This power makes me a slave to the sin that is still within me. Oh, what a miserable person I am! Who will free me from this life that is dominated by sin and death? Thank God! The answer is in Jesus Christ our Lord.” | Romans 7:21-25, NLT

Christianity is primarily a choice to enter into a relationship with God, not simply a ritual or a religious code of ethics. It’s living in communion with the Father and His Son and allowing ourselves to be led by the Holy Spirit in each decision we make in our lives. It’s living in freedom from the power that sin and death formerly had over us, even though that power continues to clamor for our attention and tries to convince us that the old way was better.

Christianity is about the reality that we are saved (justification), we are being saved (sanctification), and we will be saved (glorification). It’s a process, not a one-time event, and it’s a lot messier in our own life – and in other’s lives – than we are likely to be comfortable with.

But we are not without help, and we know that our help comes from One who has already won the battle. If we continue to put our trust and confidence in Jesus, there is nothing that will come against us that he hasn’t already defeated and over which we will not prevail.

It’s a lifetime journey, ‘a long obedience in the same direction’ (Eugene Peterson), which sometimes we’ll get right and many times we’ll get wrong.

We are people who, as Paul the Apostle comments, were once dead in our sins but are now being made alive in Christ.

What Does This Mean Practically?

The great commission given to all believers – go into the world and make disciples – was an imperative to make followers of Jesus; to collaborate in the great mission of God of bringing dead people back to life.

In the original language of the New Testament, the word disciple is translated from a Greek word, mathētēs (μαθητὴς), from manthano, meaning “to learn”. Mathētēs therefore means (unsurprisingly) a learner, a pupil or a scholar. More accurately though, it means to be a learner in the style of an apprentice, that is, someone who not only accepts the views of their teacher but is also practicing the same to eventually become like their teacher (Matthew 10:24, Luke 6:40), an accurate replica of the original.

Catch a couple of keywords there?

Learning. Practicing. Apprenticing. An accurate replica.

The Christian life takes time, and learning, and failure, and practice, and repetition. It’s a process that is moving us from dead to fully alive, from looking and being nothing like Jesus to being an accurate and true replica of the original. And it’s all done in partnership with the Holy Spirit, Who has taken up residence in our life, Who leads us and convicts us in all truth, and Who has been given to us as a seal and a promise of God’s intention to complete the good thing He has begun in us.

What this means practically is that we need to have courage, be kind, and get more specific.

Have Courage

Sometimes it can feel like choosing the Christian life is signing up for one seriously long slog through endless trenches of mud. We tell ourselves, it’s going to take back-breaking work, deprivation, difficulty, and desperation. Nevertheless, we steel our nerves, clench our knuckles, and resolve to get on with the work ahead.

If we approach the Christian life as a sole endeavour, viewing its success as entirely down to our own merits and strengths, we will inevitably fail. Remember what Paul had said: “there is another power within me that is at war with my mind. When I want to do what is right, I inevitably do what is wrong.” Left to ourselves, we’ll get it hopelessly wrong, every. single. time.

But while the Christian life certainly won’t insulate believers from hard times or difficult situations, the most important factor before taking that first step is to know and understand that we are not doing it alone. It’s not down to our own willpower, strength, or capacity. And I’m not talking about being part of a local church, although that’s a vitally important aspect of Christian life. I’m talking about being in a partnership with the Holy Spirit, allowing the Holy Spirit into our lives to do the work He is meant to do.

The Spirit dwells inside every true Christian and the evidence of the result of His work is “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control” (Galatians 5:22). The same power that raised Jesus from the dead is constantly at work in us, convicting us, guiding us, comforting us, leading us, renewing us, and changing us so that we are becoming more and more like the One we’ve chosen to follow.

But it’s a partnership, not a dictatorship. We need to allow Him to do this work.

Sometimes the biggest step in our Christian journey is to decide not to try to control more, but actively choosing to relinquish control, to surrender our will to God and allow Him to change us. He’s more than willing, He wants us to succeed, and He’s provided everything we need to be more than conquerors.

Have courage. The battle is the Lord’s – all you need to do is wear the armour He’s given you.

“Finally, be strong in the Lord and in His mighty power. Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” | Ephesians 6:10-18

Be Kind

We’re all at different points in our spiritual journey. Some are just beginning; with a lifetime of regret they’ve chosen to lay at Jesus’ feet. They have all the enthusiasm of a newborn calf, trying to run on wobbly, newly unfurled legs, yet none of the finesse and experience of seasoned Christian life. They’re still holding tightly to things from their old life, craving the comfort and familiarity of the things they’re used to, even though they know in their heart these things are burdens that need to be set down. For sure, they’re going to mess up. We know this because everyone does, no matter how well-intentioned a person starts out.

Some may hit the ground running – no newborn stumbles for them, but, like in the parable of the sower and the seed, difficulty strikes, hardships appear and their faith suddenly begins to waver. The heat of desert seasons becomes all too much and they’re in danger of throwing it all in.

Others start out more steadily, less forest-fire blaze and more home-fire burning. They grow in faith but, as time passes, they also grow attached to spiritual performance. They begin to major in minors and become drawn into extremes in a misguided zeal for religious purity. They begin to employ the use of ‘formulas’ and ‘doctrines’, pressing good people of faith into conformity with systems, and setting up rigid religious and social guidelines for themselves and other believers. Their faith has metastasized, becoming toxic and destructive, a kind of spirituality that slowly imprisons the mind and poisons the soul.

All these people (ourselves included somewhere in the mix) are people that Jesus died for. Our first action, always, when trying to ‘build each other up in our most holy faith’ is to remember who these people are.

There are few truly evil people in our churches (although, there are some and we need to be aware of that reality) and a great deal more only-human people, who struggle with what it is to be human, with all our emotions, fears, doubts, mistakes, and joy.

While, as Paul the Apostle says, this doesn’t mean we should continue in sin that grace may abound – on the contrary, we continually encourage and preach the necessity of turning from the old life and pressing forward in the new – our encouragement, teaching, counsel, and reproof to one another needs to be wrapped by kindness, the same kind of loving kindness that God has shown to us, and which led to our repentance.

“And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the Lord’s people.“But you, dear friends, must build each other up in your most holy faith, pray in the power of the Holy Spirit, and await the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will bring you eternal life. In this way, you will keep yourselves safe in God’s love. And you must show mercy to those whose faith is wavering. Rescue others by snatching them from the flames of judgment. Show mercy to still others, but do so with great caution, hating the sins that contaminate their lives.” | Jude 1:20-22, NLT

Get More Specific

Jesus wasn’t just a great teacher, an inspirational leader, or a good person.

He was the One and Only Son of God. The Word, who took on humanity and dwelt among us.

He came into the world to save the world from the consequences of sin. He came to overthrow death. He came to vanquish the enemy of all things true, and just, and right. In his own words, he came so that we might have life and have it in abundance.

Knowing this, we need to get more specific about what it is that God is doing in and through us, right now in our little corner of the world. He’s in the resurrection business, busy making all things new and He’s invited us to participate in that mission, to bring that light and life to others.

The kind of Christianity we live and demonstrate isn’t about adhering to strict religious ethics or morals, convincing others about the rightness of our doctrines, advancing a particular denominational brand or flavour, or showing a pseudo kind of holiness we wear like a badge. It’s about living the real life that Jesus came to give us, a resurrection life that brings healing, transformation, flourishing, and genuine holiness.

The question, then, isn’t what should we be doing? (or not doing) but what is life-giving? Is what I’m choosing, promoting, or advancing flowing from that flourishing, resurrection life that Jesus came to give us? Does what I do and say enhance life, bring freedom, initiate transformation, and cause holiness to develop in myself and others?

Are we becoming more and more like Jesus, an accurate and true replica of the original?

Let’s get more specific and remember: we’re in the resurrection business.

Let’s continually point to Jesus, the light and life of the world, the one who has made it all possible. He didn’t just do holiness, he was holy. And yet no one had more life and everywhere he went, dead things came to life. That’s the kind of Christianity we want to have too.

“God the Father knew you and chose you long ago, and His Spirit has made you holy. As a result, you have obeyed Him and have been cleansed by the blood of Jesus Christ. May God give you more and more grace and peace. All praise to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is by His great mercy that we have been born again, because God raised Jesus Christ from the dead. Now we live with great expectation, and we have a priceless inheritance—an inheritance that is kept in heaven for you, pure and undefiled, beyond the reach of change and decay. And through your faith, God is protecting you by His power until you receive this salvation, which is ready to be revealed on the last day for all to see.” | 1 Peter 1: 2-5, NLT

 

(Not a reader? Take a listen instead ⇓)

Faith Under Fire

It’s been nearly five years since the religious community I grew up in ‘regretfully accepted my withdrawal from fellowship‘. In reality, I did no such thing, their statement was simply an awkward and disingenuous way to excommunicate me because I could no longer affirm, without reservation, particular tenets they held to be watertight and immutable.

I feel that had the Bible genuinely been our mutually agreed authority, there would have been no good cause to excommunicate me and plenty of good reasons to continue affirming me as a Christian in the Lord (as I do them).

I struggled a lot in those first few years with what I perceived to be the injustice of the situation. I have always been someone who has taken life, in general, pretty seriously (perhaps, my husband would wryly comment, a little too seriously at times) and my faith, in particular, quite seriously.

As a child, I had been aware of several church members who had been excommunicated through the years, with the church being told of such a decision by a public announcement issued from the front after the service. Children were always ushered out during these announcements, such things considered unsuitable for young ears, but we were not unaware of the solemn hush that would fall as we made our way outside, with the grim news eventually making its way to us regardless, through the whispers of our older, more astute peers.

It seemed to me, as a 12-year-old, that excommunication was the most awful thing that could ever happen to a person, worse than death; an all-encompassing, church-wide determination that a person had failed to keep the faith and had become a heretic or, worse, an apostate.

To experience it myself, then, many years later was shocking. It implied I had not measured up to the expectation of Christian living, and this judgment sits uncomfortably with me. I had no glaring moral issue or unrepented sin that would give cause for such action. And yet, I felt like Hester Prynne, with the letter ‘A’ (for apostate, in my case) painted in bold, vivid red on my back for all to see.

The seeming dismissal of the authenticity of my faith was and still is painful and difficult to understand. I wondered silently, had I failed to keep the faith?

All The God Colours

For someone raised in such a black-and-white tradition of viewing both scripture and the Christian life, adjusting to life outside of this – beyond the pale – has been both liberating and confronting.

I have learned about the messy but vital reality of the local church; filled with sinning and flawed humans who are being renewed daily by the grace of God, asking their questions and voicing their doubts along the way. And when I say messy, I don’t just mean a few hymn books out of place in the proverbial church pew.

There are many things that Christians agree on – the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, that God created all things, that humanity is estranged from God and in need of forgiveness and redemption, and that Jesus will one day return, bringing with him the new heaven and the new earth.

And then there are the things that Christians don’t agree on – eschatology (end times theology), the nature and workings of the Spirit today, old earth/young earth, what kind of worship is the right kind, the role of women in the church…

In my former Christian community, end-time theology was extremely important. A robust understanding of the (mostly accepted) end-time view was expected. Some would even go so far as to say that holding the correct end-time view (which must include Russia as the ‘bad-guy’ protagonist), was a vitally important part of bone-fide Christianity, right up there with the virgin birth and the resurrection. (Given Jesus had very little say about Russia, or the apocalypse for that matter, I had decided to largely untrouble myself with such conversations (unless they’re simply two Christians shooting the breeze – albeit somewhat left field, over a cold summer bevvie…).

In the wider Christian world, the end-times are often hardly given a thought. Sure, Jesus is coming back, and all things will be put right in the end, but the timing and mechanics are largely a mystery when all’s said and done. Jesus himself even said, “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.“

In contrast, a lot more time is spent on the here-and-now: how are you living; are you moving closer to God, does your life show the fruit of the Spirit?

An in-depth understanding of the atonement was also required. It was not enough just to say that you believed Jesus had saved you, you also needed to be able to explain exactly how this was done. Was it his life? His death? His blood? Was he a substitute (definitely not) or was he a representative? And what did you know about propitiational atonement?

Propitiational atonement? You may as well be speaking double-dutch. Some Christians wouldn’t have a clue what you might mean by that funny, old-fashioned word, but they sure as heck know that Christ died for their sins, and so they could have a relationship with God, and their faith is firmly placed in this truth.

(And, in fact, the community can’t even come to a consensus among themselves on the mechanics of the atonement, and multiple splits have occurred and still occur on this subject alone, with neither group affirming the other as true Christians).

Exposed to widely varying (and, in many cases, extremely interesting) perspectives on all manner of biblical topics, I have been forced to reexamine my own position and reevaluate, in many instances, how I had been taught to read and approach scripture. What may have once appeared to be the only way of reading the text was suddenly only one of several ways, and viewing scripture in light of all its nuances often opened up new ways of understanding, both scripture and others’ interpretations of it.

Suddenly I was no longer sure I was right on every single thing because I realised I’d never had the opportunity to genuinely consider alternative interpretations or views. Neither was I sure that being right was the point of the exercise.

People will try to tell you the Bible is black and white on every subject but it’s not, not by half. There’s plenty of grey, and bold, glorious colour too. There’s space for openness and conversation and listening and learning and for seeing things from different angles.

It’s a living book, this word of God, intimately speaking to each one of us as if it were written for us alone. It contains a kind of magic, a mystical power that changes our hearts and transforms our lives. And so sometimes we’ll hear its song like a harmony played on different instruments. And yet holding these harmonies together is the beautiful melody, always true, always constant, always trustworthy:

For someone raised to judge the authenticity of someone’s Christianity by their degree of understanding (or perhaps more accurately, their (correct) position on a myriad of doctrinal matters), this shift in perspective has not come without its challenges.

Challenging Your Status Quo

The way we think, the habits we form, the people we become are shaped by many things. We typically develop unconscious biases as a result of the things we were taught and the observations we made throughout our childhood. These implicit and explicit biases are influenced by our backgrounds, personal experiences, societal stereotypes, and cultural contexts, and when we look at religious life, it’s not so very different.

Many things that we do or think as Christians find their origins in scripture – but, conversely, a lot of things don’t and, more often than not, are simply generational traditions passed down until they become commonly established practices or beliefs (without necessarily any particular biblical weight behind them).

‘Traditions’ are described as inherited, established, or customary patterns of thought, action, or behavior (such as a religious practice or a social custom) or a belief or story or a body of beliefs or stories relating to the past that are commonly accepted as historical though not verifiable.” They can also be “the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction”, “cultural continuity in social attitudes, customs, and institutions”, or “characteristic manner, method, or style”. – Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I wrote more about traditions here so my intention isn’t to talk about them in any further detail in this article, only simply to point out that while there’s nothing implicitly right or wrong with traditions (the Bible never condemns traditions of themselves), Jesus’ words in Mark 7:6-8 remind us that traditions shouldn’t ever supersede God’s Word.

One of the biggest shifts in my journeying beyond the pale has been to attempt to recognise when these occasions of bias arise, and learning to examine the thought patterns, past beliefs, practices, or traditions that I may have once held to be true and immutable, challenging them in the light of scripture.

I think this challenge to our preconceptions and biases should form part of our spiritual disciplines throughout our Christian life, not just in moments of crisis, deconstruction, or external challenge.

As NT Wright comments, part of the genius of genuine Christianity is that each generation has to think it through afresh; not just receiving the faith but also keeping the faith; that is, constantly evaluating our beliefs and practices to see if they reflect the original apostolic teaching, traversing the space between certainty and disbelief with skepticism and faith held in both hands.

‘Part of the genius of genuine Christianity is that each generation has to think it through afresh. Precisely because God wants every single Christian to grow up in understanding as well as trust, the Christian faith has never been something that one generation can sort out in such a way as to leave their successors with no work to do.’ (N T Wright)

I wasn’t taught to hold this sense of healthy skepticism as a critical reality of my journey of faith. Rather, everything that I had to know and could know was supposedly imparted before my water baptism, and my Christian life thereafter – until death or Jesus returned – was simply about ‘protecting the truth’ and not ‘leaving the truth’ (don’t let the heretics in and don’t become a heretic).

Yet I have learned that the truth is far more simple than I first imagined and, further, is not a commodity to be owned or protected by us. It’s God’s truth and He can and has protected it throughout the ages. Our job is simply to make sure we’re walking in that truth – keeping the faith; constantly asking ourselves if our personal beliefs and practices continue to line up with the teaching of the apostles (and being committed to adjusting, if necessary).

The Teaching Of The Apostles

While being a Christian is certainly communal, and while Christians tend to believe mostly all the same fundamental creeds, and while the creeds and practices of Christianity can be taught and preached and are, in many ways, intrinsically invaluable to religion, true religion is the individual and deeply personal matter of one’s binding to the person of Christ.

Religion, therefore, in the truest sense of the word, cannot be passed down. It must be personally received by each individual, for themselves.

The Book of Acts, which recounts the early days of the first-century church, records what this looked like. The recurring theme throughout the book is a threefold message of salvation, repentance, and abiding, which every person who would call themselves a believer wholeheartedly adopted and received:

salvation + repentance + abiding

First, a message of salvation was preached; the desperate natural state of humanity and how God set out to rescue humanity, through Jesus, whom He raised from the dead. The scope of God’s story is, of course, much larger than our own personal salvation, but the primary message of evangelism is that we are estranged from God but that He has made a way home.

Then, a message of repentance was taught; the need to reject one’s former way of living and take hold of God’s provision of living water by being born again of water and spirit. This is the primary message of discipleship, a decision to become a follower of Jesus, who is both Lord and Christ. It is, as Eugene Peterson puts it, a long obedience in the same direction.

Finally, a commitment to abiding in Jesus – keeping the faith – was communicated; which includes the necessary reality of being part of the community of believers. By becoming a follower of Jesus, we are no longer just an individual Christian, but part of a collective body, the body of Jesus Christ. We are part of the church: a gospel-shaped, gospel-saturated, and gospel-sending living and breathing organic reality.

What’s also incredible to contemplate is that when we abide in Jesus, we are also in common union – community – with all those who are also abiding in him, both in our present time and throughout the ages, a great cloud of faithful witnesses of the risen King, the people of the kingdom (1 John 2:28, John 15:1-27, Hebrews 12:1-2).

We are connected right back to those at the epicentre of the most explosive and world-changing event: the resurrection of Jesus Christ. We are connected by the precious blood of the lamb and nothing can separate us from the love of God, apart from us choosing to leave the light and walk again in darkness (Romans 8:31-39).

Written about 300 years after the birth of Christ, the Apostles’ Creed summarises the foundational Christian beliefs taught by the early church and is an invaluable touchstone for us as we constantly examine whether we are keeping the faith.

“Examine yourselves to see if your faith is genuine. Test yourselves. Surely you know that Jesus Christ is among you; if not, you have failed the test of genuine faith.” 2 Corinthians 13:5

Keeping The Faith

Keeping the faith is the practice of constant personal evaluation; examining the state of our heart, being truthful about the orientation of our life, and showing evidence of the Spirit being present, through the adding to our faith of virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness, and love (which are all outworked in community).

Repentance is not a one-time act but a constant reorienting of our hearts towards God every single day of our Christian journey, a daily decision to walk in the light and not in the darkness. Do we remind ourselves of the place in which we used to be, the dominion of darkness, dead in our transgressions and sins, and ensure that we have not, like Lot’s wife, looked back, turning the direction of our life towards those former things which have passed away?

Believing (from the Greek word pisteōs (πίστεως), meaning to entrust) is firstly a posture of the heart. Are we continuing to place our trust, like faithful Abraham, in the provision of living water that comes from God? Are we reminding ourselves each day that we are saved by grace, through faith, and not by our own efforts, it is the gift of God? Are we resting in that promise? Or have we, like the foolish Galatians, begun adding additional spiritual acts to the formula of salvation, convincing ourselves that our performance somehow contributes to God’s work of grace (in our life or others)?

And are we abiding in Jesus, outworking our life of faith in the community of his people? Do we remain connected to the vine, bearing much fruit as Christ works in us and through us? Are we remaining in Christ’s love, keeping his commandments by loving our fellow Christians in the same way that Jesus has loved us? For a branch cannot produce fruit if it is severed from the vine, and, likewise, we cannot be fruitful unless we remain in Jesus.

Whether you find yourself in a season of drought, part of a flourishing faith community, at the edges of everything you’ve ever known, or out beyond the pale, I would encourage you to remember this: the Christian life is not an academic exercise. The strength of our faith is not judged by the intensity of our emotions; faith is trust and it’s only as good as the object of our trust.

The question, then, isn’t “do you truly believe” but, “who do you trust“? Are you pointing to Jesus, are you resting in his grace, and are you demonstrating his love?

Are you keeping the faith?

Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be courageous; be strong.

“But you, dear friends, must build each other up in your most holy faith, pray in the power of the Holy Spirit, and await the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will bring you eternal life. In this way, you will keep yourselves safe in God’s love. And you must show mercy to those whose faith is wavering. Rescue others by snatching them from the flames of judgment. Show mercy to still others, but do so with great caution, hating the sins that contaminate their lives.

Now all glory to God, who is able to keep you from falling away and will bring you with great joy into His glorious presence without a single fault. All glory to Him who alone is God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord. All glory, majesty, power, and authority are His before all time, and in the present, and beyond all time! Amen.” | Jude 1:20-25, NLT

(Not a reader? Take a listen instead ⇓)

It can be tempting to view the early first-century church in rather glowing terms – a ‘golden age’ of church history when the believers were all-in, the church totally had it together, and the believers shared all things in common. I’ve heard Acts 2:42 touted as somewhat of a touchstone for church authenticity, with a revival of these (implied: blissful, albeit persecuted) glory days being the true mark of genuine Christian living.

And there’s no doubt that something miraculous did occur in those first heady days of the church. How 12 demoralised and terrified disciples were transformed into confident, articulate evangelists and leaders can only be a work of the supernatural; the intervention of the Spirit of God, combined with the sure knowledge of the truthfulness of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

How thousands of ordinary men and women, living in the shadow of the greatest empire the world had ever seen, were not only receptive to the message about Jesus Christ, but convicted of their guilt and need for him, confessing their sins, turning to God, and being baptised in that same name is nothing short of incredible.

The world was turned upside down; reordered and rearranged, with Jesus proclaimed as king and thousands confessing that truth and bowing the knee, despite the threat of persecution, imprisonment, and even death. The church of Christ was born, against all odds, and grew and flourished, against all odds, and each day the Lord added to their fellowship those who were being saved.

But right from the beginning the church was flawed, as  Jesus always knew she would be, and she has been flawed ever since; a living, breathing contradiction.

On one hand, she is otherworldly, empowered by the supernatural; transformative and inspiring, a living witness to the reality and power of resurrection. On the other hand, she is compromised, earthly, at times a feckless and faithless bride-to-be, who, forgetting her first love, seeks affection and affirmation from others.

At times, she has colluded with the powers of this world, exchanging her birthright for what amounts to a mess of pottage. And at other times she has stood resolute, a solitary light burning brightly in a very dark world.

As John Dickson puts it in his extraordinary and fascinating book, the church has been both bully and saint throughout her long history, and sometimes she has been both at the same time.

JOHN WRITES SOME LETTERS

The Christian message spread quickly throughout the empire and, by AD90 or thereabouts, at least seven churches of significance had been established in what is now western Turkey, the area known as Asia Minor. Only a generation removed from the greatest event the world had ever seen and yet even these churches already showed the extremes that would characterise the Christian identity for centuries afterwards.

John, known by historians as John the Elder, was exiled to the island of Patmos, not far from the coast of Asia Minor, for, in his own words, preaching the word of God and for his testimony about Jesus. It is while on this island that John sees a vision, a man standing in the middle of seven golden lampstands, with eyes like flames of fire and a voice like mighty oceans. He tells John that he is ‘the first and the last, the living one who holds the keys of death and the grave.’

“Write“, the man instructs John, “Write down what you have seen and what these things mean, the things that have already begun to happen and the things that will still happen.“

Further, John is to write seven letters, one for each church in Asia Minor, containing a message from the one who holds the seven stars in his right hand and who walks among the seven lampstands.

What follows is both insight and warning, commendation and condemnation. It will be a moment captured in time yet these observations about the church will remain true for all time, throughout all her years to come and amidst all her battles with culture and secular pressure.

1. To Ephesus, he writes:

It’s not enough just to hate that which is evil, nor only to suffer for it. You must also cling to that which is good. You must love God with every fibre of your being as you did at the first, and you must love one another. Love God, love people. It’s so easy to harden by degrees, to become so firm and intractable against evil, so diligent for truth that one can forget, amid all that fortitude, to love, to be empowered by the knowledge that it was love that freed you, love which is the first and greatest command and that it is love that will last forever. Without love, you are nothing.

Repent and turn again, do the works that you did from the beginning, whose motivating force was love, not hate.

2. To Smyrna, he writes:

Don’t be afraid. Remember when I was still with you I told you that in this world you would have trouble? The devil roams around like a roaring lion, seeking to devour and destroy. But I have overcome this world, I have defeated the prince of darkness, and so will you, if you remain faithful. Even if you face death in this world, whoever is faithful will be victorious and will not be harmed by the second death. I was dead, but now I’m alive and I live forevermore. Because of me, you’ll live too.

You may think you are poor and that you suffer, and indeed, in this world, you may endure terrible things for my name’s sake. But I want to remind you of the riches you are inheritors of, in my name, and by the shedding of my own blood. Look to me – I am holding a crown of life, reserved for you from my Father. Courage, dear hearts.

3. To Pergamum, he writes:

Your loyalty is astounding. You have refused to deny me, despite the threat of exile or execution, even in the face of martyrdom, and all the while living under the shadow of the empire. Your hearts have remained constant, even as you watched your very own bishop, my faithful witness, burn like a candle in Satan’s city.

And yet you compromise on truth. You tolerate among you those whose teachings are leading your people into religious and moral sin. While love is everything, love without truth is nothing at all.

I am the word of truth, the two-edged sword, piercing through soul and spirit, joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. Repent of your sin, or I will come against you suddenly to fight against those deceivers and liars.

4. To Thyatira, he writes:

I know you and I see myself in you. Your love, your faith, your patient endurance, your service to one another, your vision and passion to keep growing in these things, and your desire to hold tightly to that precious hope that you have received. You love me and I love you; you are my people.

But why are you allowing this prophet, who is no prophet at all, to teach and preach among you, claiming that sexual immorality and idol worship are acceptable when offered in my service? These are the dark and evil ways of pagan gods, of those living in darkness. You have been called out of darkness, into my glorious light. Let there be no sexual immorality, impurity or greed among you. Such sins have no place among God’s people. I have given your false prophet time to repent and she refuses; I will no longer overlook her sin, nor those who collaborate with her. I will give to each of you whatever you deserve.

But to you who have not followed this false teaching, I ask nothing more from you than that you hold fast in faithfulness. I promise you, I am coming soon.

5. To Sardis, he writes:

Wake up, wake up! Your lamps are growing dim and your oil is running out.

You only have a little remaining and even now that light grows weak and faint, and is in danger of being extinguished. You think that you are healthy, and whole, and flourishing, yet your garments are stained with evil and you are little more than a corpse. Faith without deeds is dead and you have separated the body from the very source of life which would empower it. Repent and turn to me again – you proclaim yourselves unworthy of the name to which you hold.

Yet not all of you have been faithless. You are mine, faithful friends, and you will walk with me in white, for you have shown yourselves worthy.

6. To Philadelphia, he writes:

You are the ones I love. You only have a little strength but you used all of it to obey my word and did not deny me. I have confessed you before my Father and I tell you again, whoever loses their life for my sake will find it. I have taken you for my very own and I will protect you from the great time of trouble that is soon to come upon the world. There is laid up for you a crown of life; continue to hold fast so that no one will take away your crown.

What I open, no one can close, and what I close, no one can open. Continue to put your confidence in me and you’ll not be disappointed.

7. To Laodicea, he writes:

Your indifference breaks my heart. You have so much possibility, so much you are capable of. I have placed eternity in your hearts, and yet you settle for mediocre. You are neither hot nor cold. I wish you would choose one or the other. Any decision is better than no decision at all.

You think you are rich and yet you flatter yourselves. You are poor; poor and naked and blind, desperately in need of ointment for your blindness and clothing for your nakedness. Your religiosity reminds me of the days long since past, of festivals and assemblies that were a stench to my nostrils. I do not accept them. I will have no regard for them. I despise this kind of religion.

Because you are merely lukewarm; fence-sitters, peacekeepers, colluders, I would spit you out of my mouth. Yet hear me now: I disciple all those I love and my criticism is proof of my love for you. So be diligent. Turn again from your indifference and return to me, your first love.

Lessons From The Seven Churches

Jesus is the light of the world and his kingdom, a kingdom of light.

Confessing that Jesus is the Christ joins us to that kingdom of light (1 John 18:22). When we join that kingdom, we have fellowship with the Father and with His Son (1 John 1:7). Because of this, we also have fellowship with others who are walking in that light that Jesus shines. Together, we have fellowship in his name.

These ‘people of the kingdom’ are Christians – Jesus’ disciples – bound together by the blood of the king. They are his church, both revealed and still hidden, and only truly known to the king.

John’s Book of Revelation describes them as scattered lampstands of light. Then, they were found throughout Asia Minor but now, these lampstands can be found all over the world, shining the light of Jesus and his glory throughout the earth. He is the source of light by which they shine and his love is their defining mark. But now, as then, they are imperfect, flawed, both compelling and contradictory.

What do we learn from these seven messages to seven churches in the first century?

We learn that both faithfulness and faithlessness can exist within the same church. We learn that neighbouring churches can differ in their fervour and resolve. We learn that no church has ever had it completely sorted and that no church was ever entirely awful. Every church has areas of strength but also areas that need improvement and renovation.

We learn that Jesus walked among them. He was their judge, he was their king, he was their first love and it was to him that they answered. It is to him, still, that the church answers, to him she owes her allegiance, he is the lifeblood and heartbeat of her identity.

And we learn that the Spirit moves still, blowing like the wind, hovering like a bird, illuminating the way like a flame in the darkness, imploring those who would have ears to hear to listen to His declaration:

Those who are victorious, those who overcome will shine like the stars in heaven, crowned with life and never to be harmed by the second death. Their names will be written in the Book of Life and a new name will be given to them, engraved on stones as white as snow. They will have authority and power, ruling over the nations with the same authority as God Himself, and to them will be given the bright and morning star for an everlasting inheritance. They will eat from the fruit of the tree of life, taste of the manna hidden away in heaven, and they will become pillars in the great temple of the God of all the earth. They will sit on the throne with the Alpha and Omega Himself, and proclaim: “The world has now become the Kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ,  and He will reign forever and ever. Amen”. 

Love Well.

Have Courage.

Seek Truth.

Keep The Faith.

Shine Brightly.

Trust Always.

Be Intentional.

(Not a reader? Take a listen instead ⇓)

This article is dedicated to two good men in my life, my father, Ken, and my husband, Luke. My father has always supported me, encouraged me, believed in me, loved me, and has never made me feel lesser. I wish there were more fathers like him. My husband’s love and support mean the world to me. He has always treated me as an equal, affirmed my value in our marriage, and rejoiced in my worth as a fellow-worker in the ministry of Christ. I am thankful for them both. “A good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children.” (Proverbs 13:22)

---

One of the more detrimental teachings that I believe has defined the church throughout her history and which continues to exert influence today is the idea that God established some kind of hierarchy of men over women at creation. Hierarchy, it’s claimed, was, one; either part of God’s original plan for humanity, established from the beginning or, two; God’s prescriptive punishment (primarily upon the woman), because of sin.

This hierarchy, if it was part of God’s original plan, also then flows through into a church or spiritual context; God’s arrangement for not just the first creation, but also the second (new) creation. While this ‘divine order’ or hierarchical structure might (seemingly) have been largely abandoned, particularly in our 21st-century, secular, western culture (it hasn’t really), it should nevertheless continue to be taught and implemented (and in many places, still is) in the life and function of the church, and should inform our basic understanding of the relationship that exists between men and women.

Off To A Bad Start

Most people would perhaps claim that they don’t believe women are lesser than men in their basic humanness (although the history of female infanticide, particularly in countries such as China, India, and Pakistan would argue otherwise). Many people, particularly from a Judeo-Christian worldview, might affirm that men and women are equal in worth and dignity as fellow humans (all of us, individually, are still more important (if we’re grading) than animals.

Nevertheless, in Christian circles, many would still point to the reality that God made Adam first.

Eve was created second, as a helper for Adam, and this fact – the order of creation, together with the purpose for which each was created proves some kind of divinely established hierarchy.

The bottom line: men were made first, to image God, and women were created second to help men.

It’s somewhat painful to hear it explained, in vaguely apologetic tones, that Eve was perhaps not much more than an afterthought, created to assist with the collecting of firewood, the gathering of berries, and other mundane pre-history tasks that would prove to be all too much for Adam on his own. (God had hoped one of the animals might do the trick but, alas, no joy there…).

It’s even more disappointing to see this perspective outworked in the church, resulting, in practical terms, in women being prevented in many places from contributing in any kind of meaningful ways, as they are gifted. Some hesitate at limiting a woman’s contribution entirely (soft complementarian; we’ll get to that term in a moment) and agree that women can bring their gifts and abilities in a limited capacity and as long as it’s under the leadership of men. However, hard complementarians are, in reality, hardly complementary in practice, allowing little to no contribution from women in the church.

Firstly, What Is Meant By ‘Hierarchy’?

hierarchy

/ˈhʌɪərɑːki/
noun

1. a system in which people or things are arranged according to their importance:
2. the people in the upper levels of an organisation who control it
3. a system in which the people within a company or organisation are organised into levels according to the authority they have:

“Hierarchy describes a system that organises or ranks things, often according to power or importance. At school, the principal is at the top of the staff hierarchy, while the seniors rule the student hierarchy. Also known as a pecking order or power structure, a hierarchy is a formalised or simply implied understanding of who’s on top or what’s most important. All that sorting and ranking can be helpful if you’re a business administrator, but if you find yourself arranging all the produce in your fridge according to a hierarchy of color, size, and expiration date, you might want to consider visiting a therapist.” | Vocabulary.com (emphasis mine)

Implicit in hierarchy are elements of power, importance, or authority (watch for these words later), none of which are necessarily wrong, in and of themselves, of course. For example, in a company or organisation, it may be appropriate and wise to confer more power or authority on someone with greater experience or a higher level of qualification.

Items that are rare, antique, or highly sought after (gold!) are deemed to be more valuable or important than more common or mass-produced items.

And, interestingly, our basic human needs are often laid out by way of a hierarchial pyramid classification system, with our psychological needs at the bottom and our social and relational needs sitting nearer the top.

However, two historical systems of hierarchy that we would perhaps be familiar with whose negative influences can still be felt today are patriarchy and colonialism. It can be argued that the conferral of power and authority to certain persons or classes of persons within these systems was often disproportionate and unjustified.

While hierarchy, in some instances, makes sense as a means of classification, does scripture teach that such a hierarchy exists between the genders? Does a disproportionate ranking of power and importance really exist between men and women? Is this God-ordained and God-sanctioned?

Does scripture teach that men are more important, more powerful, or have more authority simply because they are men? Is this really what God designed for humanity from the beginning?

Hierarchy + Complementarian || Egalitarian

There are two Christian views put forward that endeavour to describe the nature of the relationship between men and women. These views are described as being either Complementarian or Egalitarian. 

Christian Complementarianism is the view that men and women have different but complementary roles and responsibilities in marriage, family life, and religious life, particularly in areas deemed as ‘leadership’. 

Christian Egalitarians “believe that the Bible mandates gender equality, which implies equal authority and responsibility for the family and the ability for women to exercise spiritual authority as clergy.”

Both these views clearly offer biblical truths.

Men and women are different in many ways. These differences include both biological phenotypes and psychological traits. Some of these differences are influenced by environmental factors, yet there are also fundamental differences between the sexes that are rooted in biology.

The differences between the genders are unique and distinctive, designed to be this way by God. (Titus 2:1-5, 1 Peter 3:7) (1 Timothy 3:1 – 4:16). Both genders are intrinsically valuable and precious to God, and we see His characteristics displayed by the perfect merging of both masculine and feminine traits. These distinct genders are the fundamental building blocks of God’s creation and are part of God’s plan and purpose for His family. His definition of marriage (Genesis 2:24) and the procreation of the species (Genesis 1:28) is the natural outcome of the union of male and female and clearly supports the biological truth embedded in our DNA.

Yet men and women are also the same. Equal in value, dignity, responsibility, and relationship to one another (as we’ll see later in this article).

We are the same. And we are different. We are both equal and complementary. It was God’s intention that these differences exist, complementing one another, and the human race is better for the diversity between the two genders.

Both these factors are incredibly important in our relationship with one another, within marriage, and within our wider communities, and are critical to embrace in a church context. 

Complementarian Is Not Complimentary

The problem with complementarianism is that it’s not truly complementary in practice. Rather, true complementarianism functions as a (sometimes softly packaged but) essentially male-dominated hierarchy. I say true complementarianism because many married Christian couples who identify as  ‘complementarian’ actually function as equal partners – egalitarian in practice. Many churches that identify as complementarian actually function as mostly egalitarian in practice, often restricting only the role of elder or senior pastor to men.

And the reality is that many true complementarian leaders teach that male authority and female submission extend beyond marriage and the church into the rest of society. They believe that God really did instigate a male-dominated hierarchy at creation, that it was His original design for humanity, and that it extends into all spheres of life, including and not limited to the church.

For some, “the theology of complementarianism has become so deeply entrenched in evangelical belief that they have come to see it as an essential doctrine of the faith. That is to say, that it is a primary issue of salvation. For some evangelicals, complementarianism has become the benchmark of theological faithfulness, right alongside belief in God and acceptance of Jesus. As [John] Piper said in 2012, if people accept egalitarianism, sooner or later, they’re going to get the Gospel wrong.” (The Conversation)

Why Is Any Of This Important?

Well, I agree with John Piper in one respect: whichever framework we believe exists in Genesis will impact the way we read the rest of scripture and, by implication, the kind of gospel we teach.

I personally believe this issue directly impacts the way in which we teach this gospel narrative and that it shapes the way we then see church life, our own identity in Christ, relationships between men and women, relationships in marriage, who we raise our sons and daughters to be, and how these different relationships function in healthy and holistic ways.

The framework of Genesis is deeply connected to the gospel story we tell, to our theology and reading of scripture, and our view of what God intends for all humanity, in the end.

Before we even reach the New Testament (and encounter the few verses that seem to support gendered hierarchy), the way we have read and interpreted Genesis will have already determined through which lens we then view other (NT) passages.

In that sense, it’s of primary importance that we start from the correct foundations when building our theological house.

Setting Some Framework: Why Genesis 1-3 Is Foundational Theology

To try to prove that hierarchy is taught and embedded in the record of the creation of humanity and therefore also flows through into the church or a spiritual context, it’s actually necessary to jump pretty quickly away from the record of Genesis and proponents of complementarism will often start in 1 Corinthians 11:3. This verse “the head of the woman is the man” (1 Corinthians 11:3) is often referenced as inarguable proof that hierarchy (authority over women by men) exists, and indeed, was part of the original order of creation.

One of the epistles to Timothy is also referenced (1 Timothy 2:11-15), together with a few verses about husbands and wives from Ephesians (Ephesians 5:22-24) and it’s case closed. No qualifiers, no context, just a few proof-texts strung together and read back into the creation narrative.

1 Corinthians is an epistle written to challenge believers to examine every area of life through the lens of the Gospel. Paul specifically addresses issues such as divisions, food requirements, sexual integrity, worship gatherings, and the resurrection. 1 Timothy is another letter written by Paul, to encourage and guide the new believers in the development of good leadership within the church, not ego-driven or self-centered but governed by mutual submission to Christ (Ephesians 5:21-22). (Chapter 11 of Corinthians is actually considered to be one of the most obscure and difficult passages of scripture, and I talk more about this and the other ‘tricky verses’ here.)

Certainly, the New Testament has some thoughts to offer in relation to the creation narrative, the relationship between men and women, and the relationship that exists between spouses.

But before heading to the New Testament, I believe it’s important to set some framework around our interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis. We must read the New Testament through the lens of Genesis, not the other way around. And I think it’s safe to say that what existed before the fall was how God always intended things to be.

As Genesis points out, everything that goes wrong occurs after the fall. Sin enters the world (not good news), death hard on the heels of sin (even worse news), and a disrupted relationship between God and humanity from that point onwards.

Additionally, the purpose of the book of Genesis is to illustrate God’s relationship to creation and His intention of dwelling with us. “The whole purpose of Genesis 1 is to set the ideal human community  – a place in which the image of God, or the imitation of God, is actually going to be realised.  That, of course, gets distorted in Genesis 3 when humans disobey God. But the first chapter is outlining the ideal. The  book of Genesis is therefore a means to a theological end.” (Professor C. John Collins) (emphasis mine).

So it seems logical to assert that whatever was instituted before the fall was God’s original design for humanity, was intended to be normative and lifegiving for the flourishing of humanity, and (because of the effects of the fall) is restored and reinstituted through the redeeming work of Jesus (and we’d therefore expect to see this reflected in the life and activity of the new creation (the church)).

Genesis 1-3 clearly constitute foundational theology regarding God’s redemptive and restorative work in our world.

What Genesis Says

1. No Hierarchy In Our Humanity: The crowning glory of God’s creation was humanity, and Eve, the final masterstroke, the finishing touch of the Creator’s hand (Genesis 2:22-24, 1 Corinthians 11:7). Created from Adam’s side, her status was, like him, one made in the image of God, with all the promise and capability of reflecting God’s glory (Genesis 1:27).

“Then God said, “Let us make mankind (Hebrew word Adam) in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground. So God created mankind in His own image, in the image of God He created them; male and female He created them.” | Genesis 1:26-27 (NIV)

The words used of Eve at her creation are the Hebrew words ezer kanegdo, translated rather unhappily as ‘helper’ and ‘meet for‘ in English. Our understanding of helper falls far short of the original sense of the word, which is used elsewhere in the Bible to describe God as a helper to His people or of a king to his subjects. The primary idea of the word lies in ‘girding’, ‘surrounding, hence defending‘, to ‘protect or aid’.

A better translation of the word kanegdo is the word ‘worthy’ or ‘suitable for’. The counterpart to the man, therefore, is “a woman of valour, equal to the man in capacity and ability whose worth is incalculable” (Proverbs 31:10). She is neither above man, nor beneath him, but stands confidently at his side, in protection and aid, as he does for her.

(The created order of man first, woman second, or the difference between the way each was created (man from the ground, woman from the side or part of the man), is often brought up in discussions about a supposed gendered hierarchy. Apart from the creation story in Genesis 2, however, the created order is not mentioned in the Hebrew Bible and Jesus does not mention it, but it is mentioned in two passages in Paul’s letters, as referred to above.

In this article, author Marg Mowczko takes a brief look at these two passages and at the significance that Paul places on man being created first and woman second, which she contends does not support a gendered hierarchy.)

2. No Hierarchy In Our Responsibility: God blessed the man and woman and gave them the commission to ‘be fruitful and multiply’, both having rule and dominion over the earth and the animal kingdom (Genesis 1:28). Clearly, neither could undertake such a commission of fruitfulness or multiplying without the other.

They also share responsibility for the care of the inhabitants of this world and the stewardship of the earth and its resources. In fact, this is the first place that we see God’s sovereignty enacted by His image-bearers and we later see this commission echoed in the new creation, where both men and women disciples are entrusted with the responsibility and privilege of ‘going into all the world and making disciples’ (Matthew 28:19, 2 Corinthians 5:19-20, 2 Corinthians 3:6).

This stewardship and responsibility were given to humanity, men and women equally, without distinction. Men and women are both created as equals in their purpose and capacity to fill the earth and rule wisely over it on God’s behalf and were both given the authority to do so from God Himself.

3. No Hierarchy In Our Conjugality: It’s stating the obvious here, but not only were Adam and Eve the first man and woman of the human race, they were also the first married couple. Their status as equals is shown in not just their relationship to one another as fellow humans (as discussed above), but also in their relationship with each other as spouses.

The early chapters of Genesis (prior to the fall) initially seem to offer very little by way of commentary on the nature of marriage apart from this comment in Genesis 2:23-24 (added long after the events of Genesis 2 actually took place):

“The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.”That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.” Genesis 2:23-24 (NIV)

However, in taking a closer look, Genesis 2 actually offers quite a lot.

The divine view of marriage (and the Bible’s definition is that marriage is between a man and a woman), although only touched on very briefly in Genesis 2, is quite clear. It’s a relationship defined by a commitment of two individuals (already demonstrated to be of equal worth and capability) to one another, which becomes preeminent to all other familial relationships. Two individuals choose to leave their family of origin and form a new family with one another, united together as one in a full and cooperative partnership.

Taken from Adam’s side, Eve is made of the same stuff as Adam. She shares a unique connection with Adam that the rest of the animal kingdom does not, having been created from his own body, bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. There is a unique kinship that exists between them.

Why did God create Eve in this particular way, when He could have just created her from the ground, as He did Adam? Why did God create Adam first and Eve second? And why does Adam name Eve rather than God naming her?

These are really good questions to ask and it’s important to understand what we are being told by this narrative (keeping in mind the foundational truth that the purpose of the book of Genesis is to illustrate God’s relationship to creation and His intention of dwelling with us.)

Jesus + The Church

There are beautiful theological overtones hidden within this creation story in relation to marriage, which point to the redeeming work of Jesus and the creation of the church, styled ‘his bride’ (John 19:34, Ephesians 5:25-27, 1 Corinthians 12:27). Paul the Apostle actually tells us in Ephesians that the church wasn’t modeled on the institution of marriage but rather, it was the other way around. “The church came first, marriage second”, he comments.

This seems odd initially, given the church didn’t exist until many thousands of years after the creation narrative, but it makes complete sense when we realise the Genesis narrative serves as a description of the blueprint for all that God has intended for humanity; God, in complete partnership with His people, to reflect His glory and purpose throughout the earth. The redemption and restoration of humanity, through the sending of Jesus, was never the backup plan, it was always the plan.

The story of Adam and Eve’s creation serves as a representation of the real story that would play out throughout humanity’s history; the good news that in Jesus, who is both saviour and king, God is saving, rescuing, atoning, justifying, ruling, and reconciling people for the glory of His name and in pursuit of His purpose.

The church only exists because of the sacrificial death of Jesus, prefigured by the deep sleep that came upon Adam. Her entire identity is shaped by her source, in Eve’s case, Adam, and in the church’s case, Jesus. She, the church, is made of the same stuff as him.

We are to think of the church – this community of believers – as a woman, a woman whose very life and existence were framed by the death and resurrection of a man. Through this man’s death and sacrifice, she is created and at his resurrection, she becomes a living creature.

Jesus says of the church (responding to Peter’s affirmation in Matthew 16:18 that he is the Christ, the Son of the Living God), “upon this rock, I will build my church; and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” Jesus identifies and names his bride, the ekklesia, who will be called out from among the nations, brought into existence from his own death and sacrifice, and part of his very essence as the temple of the living God.

Additionally, we know of Jesus that “he is the image of the invisible God, the God did it this way (in the order and way He chose to create Adam and Eve) precisely to shape our understanding of the more significant reality at work. The Genesis narrative teaches foundational theology about the church and her relationship to Jesus (and God’s ultimate redemption of humanity), long before she ever exists. (I talk more about the organic reality of the church as a woman of valour here).

Marriage, as depicted in Genesis 2, is a relationship defined by sacrifice, support, defence, commitment, and faithfulness; exactly the qualities we see at work in the relationship between Christ and his church.

Hierarchy: Things Go South

The purpose of the first few chapters of Genesis is to set the ideal human community; how things should have been before everything goes wrong. In essence, it describes perfect kingdom living and perfect human existence; what we hope to see completely restored at the end of all things (Revelation 21:1-4).

But things do go wrong. The first humans disobey God, sin enters the world, and punishment and consequences are set out.

Adam is told by God, “because of what you have done, I will curse the ground (punishment) and through painful toil, you will eat food from it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow, you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return” (consequence) (Genesis 3:17-19). The consequence of Adam’s disobedience, ultimately, is connected to the ground from which he was taken, death, and how that relates to all humanity.

Eve is told by God “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children (punishment), your desire will be for (towards) your husband, and he will rule over you” (consequence) (Genesis 3:16). The consequence of Eve’s disobedience, ultimately, is connected to the man from which she was taken, life, and how that relates to all humanity.

And this – the punishment and consequence – is where a final argument for the existence of a gendered hierarchy is made, but unfortunately, I believe, holds little weight.

It’s important to recognise the context in which the statements of Genesis 3:16 exists: they occur after the fall. As such, they cannot be considered God’s original intention for humanity, at the very least.

So is it merely descriptive or prescriptive? Is God simply confirming the dynamic of the relationship between men and women that will now exist, because of sin? Or has God had a change of heart regarding women’s previous status and position (demonstrated to be equal) and is now prescribing a hierarchy of all men, over all women, for all time?

I think, reading scripture as a whole, that we’re given a picture of redemption, renewal, and restoration. The new heavens and the new earth spoken of in Revelation show that God intends to restore all things, in short, to return creation to the state of very good as it first was in Eden. If this is biblical teaching, then we will see this reflected in the new creation, in the life of the early church.

And this is exactly what we do see. When looking through the lens of Genesis, we see the radical readjustment required and the challenges faced by the early Christians; where issues of race, class, social status, financial status, and gendered hierarchy are realigned and brought under the scope of what God had designed all along in Genesis. I explore this in more detail in my article Women In Ministry, which you can read here.

When considering the life and function of the early church, which included women fully participating in ministry, there is a marked reversal or divergence from the culturally and historically established norms and that this new reality is God-endorsed. I would contend that if a gendered hierarchy exists, it is a terrible consequence of the fall and not as a God-given prescriptive for what is healthy and good for humanity, or, specifically in light of this article, for the church.

Where Have All The Good Men Gone?

Some may think that, in any event, this is not a primary issue, as relates to the gospel. I agree…and I disagree.

I agree, firstly, that it’s a secondary issue in that I would still affirm those who hold to either view (complementarian or egalitarian) as Christians, fellow believers of the gospel of Christ. I don’t think that believing either one perspective or the other determines whether you are Christian or not.

But I disagree it’s not a primary issue. Where you land on this subject directly impacts the gospel narrative and shapes the way you will see church life, your own identity in Christ, your interpersonal relationships, marriage, and how these different relationships function in healthy and holistic ways.

As we move into the next generation of men and women, the story we tell our sons and daughters matters.

There are many good men who would possibly describe themselves as complementarian (essentially, proponents of a gendered hierarchy) but who also treat women with dignity and respect. While they may *believe* (or say they believe) that leadership and authority are restricted to men in marriage and within the church, they arrive at this perspective with a genuine belief that this is what scripture teaches and they endeavor to outwork this with humility and gentleness. However, in reality, particularly in marriage, and often in the church, these kinds of good men rarely function as true complementarians. They are far more egalitarian in thought and practice.

And then there are other men, those who would also describe themselves as complementarian, who are not good men. They are abusive, controlling, authoritative, demeaning, violent, and entitled.

Sometimes this behaviour is only seen and experienced behind closed doors while a pristine public image is presented to others.

Other times, this behaviour is the same whether at home or in public, with the perpetrators using scriptural teachings on the sanctity of marriage, forgiveness, the submission of women, and male headship to justify their behaviour. Complementarian men are compared, and often compare themselves, to Christ, while women play the role of the church who obeys and serves Christ.

However, as author Rachel Held Evans comments, “complementarianism doesn’t work—in marriages and in church leadership— because it’s not actually complementarianism; it’s patriarchy.  And patriarchy doesn’t work because God created both men and women to reflect God’s character and God’s sovereignty over creation, as equal partners with equal value.” 

One of the most significant challenges Christian women face today is recognising and dealing with the abuse they experience, which is often carefully cloaked and ‘legitimised’ in biblical language – obedience, submission, responsibility, leadership, authority, roles.

However, recognising abuse is one thing. Preventing it is another.

A horrifying statistic is that women inside the church are significantly more likely to have experienced abuse than those in the broader population. A report from the Anglican church found that despite some recent efforts and the fact that evidence of this has been reported on for years, many clergy remain in denial about it.

Many women do, in fact, recognise that they are the victims of abuse, that scripture is being weaponised and used against them to control and manipulate them, and yet are powerless to prevent it, change it, or speak out about it.

Scot McKnight, New Testament scholar, historian of early Christianity, theologian, and author has this to say:

“Complementarians teach biblical hierarchicalism and patriarchy and that men and women are equal, not in a substantive but spiritual sense. Their “role” language quickly morphs into power language. Hence, this hierarchy leads to entitlement and power and the requisite submission of the woman. There is a correlation between hierarchy and patriarchy and abuse by men of women. All abusive males are entitled, lash out in anger, seek control and demand submission. All abusive males think women are inferior.” | Complementarianism And The Abusive Male

There is no possible way that violence or abusive, controlling behaviours are justifiable from the text of the Bible. Perhaps this is most especially true of the few passages that so many abusers craftily and deceitfully employ.

“Males feeling entitled is a cultural product and complementarianism is such a culture that leads to such a product. Males who seize that culture’s control are more likely to abuse.

Two action steps: change the culture, change the males.” (Scot McKnight)

In Conclusion

The gospel is the story in all the Bible. It’s not just a message about our own personal salvation from sin but the story of what God has intended for all His creation. Its massive scope stretches from the first pages of Genesis through to the last book of the Bible, Revelation, and includes lofty themes such as the glory and sovereignty of God, the creation and capacity of humanity to image God’s glory, the fall and redemption of humanity, the purpose and kingship of Jesus, the new creation of a resurrected community of image-bearers and, finally, the arrival of ‘the new heavens and new earth’, when God will be all-in-all and the gospel story will have reached its resolution. 

God’s original design for humanity was not built on a gendered hierarchy. Instead, it was built on equality, cooperation, respect, commitment, and support, with each gender bringing unique and valued differences to the partnership. This mutuality, this joint responsibility, warped and damaged because of the fall, is restored and championed in the new creation; by those who call themselves Christians and who belong to the organic reality called the Church.

We need to keep God’s original intention for humanity (seen clearly in the first two chapters of Genesis) squarely in our sights when traversing the rest of scripture, particularly in light of which gospel narrative we tell.

Not only do I believe that gendered hierarchy doesn’t fit the biblical gospel narrative, I believe it to be theologically unsound. I don’t believe it’s what Scripture teaches at all in relation to the relationship between men and women, either naturally or spiritually.

Further, I believe that communities that engage in and promote the unequal distribution of power and authority between men and women – hallmarks of the complementarianism seen in many churches and Christian relationships – often result in cultures where abuses –  emotional, spiritual, physical, sexual, psychological, and financial – can thrive and flourish beneath the surface. Not only is this obviously harmful to individuals, but it’s also deeply damaging to the organic, corporate reality of the church and far from the abundant, flourishing life that God intended for all of humanity.

Stop promoting gendered hierarchy.

---

There is so much to read, watch, or listen to on this subject (including all the arguments presented for either a complementarian or egalitarian view). If you would like to read more on this subject by other authors, I’d recommend the following: Rediscovering Scripture’s Vision For Women (Lucy Peppiatt), Gender Roles And The People Of God (Alice Matthews), The Blue Parakeet (Scot McKnight), Man And Woman: One In Christ (Philip B Payne), Pagan Christianity (Frank Viola), Reimagining Church (Frank Viola), and this article by Marg Mowckzo (mainly egalitarian writers).

I’d also recommend listening to the Kingdom Roots Podcast by Scot McKnight (there are over 200 episodes and he covers many topics, including the question of gender equality, so I’ve linked one specifically here to get you started.)