From Adam's Rib to Women's Lib
"A Rationale for Role Distinctions"

Much is being said today within the religious community concerning the role that women should take in the worship assemblies of the church. Many are advocating a much broader role for women which would include such things as preaching, leading prayer, leading singing, waiting on the Lord's table, and even serving as elders and deacons.

The proposed rationale for such a radical change within the church is culture. It is said that the biblical objections to women taking a leadership position in the church were culturally based, and that "male domination" stood on an equal footing with slavery. Brother F. LaGard Smith describes their rationale by saying:

Paul regulated (but did not explicitly abolish) slavery and male domination in his own time, and for the very same reason in each instance: so as not to hinder the gospel's spread by an abrupt break with culture. However, the apostle decisively sowed the seeds which eventually would grow into the abolition of both institutions. It would seem that faithfulness to Paul's missionary principles now call for a reversal of his actual applications, since moral sensitivities of the larger culture today are offended by both slavery and by the subjugation of women and an insistence on either would tend to hinder the gospel's credibility and spread (The Cultural Church, pp. 84­85).

Now to be sure, there were some things in the Bible that were culturally based. And as culture and customs changed, the specific application of those things may change (riding animals and walking versus going in automobiles and airplanes).

However, to assert that male spiritual leadership was simply a cultural necessity is one thing, to prove it from Scripture is quite another.

In the New Testament, there are three prominent passages that address the submissive role of women. They are 1 Corinthians 11, 1 Corinthians 14, and 1 Timothy 2. Let us briefly address these passages to determine whether the rationale for the submission of women was culturally motivated.

1 Corinthians 11:1­6: There are many difficult issues in this passage. However, it is not my intent to address all of these difficulties. What I would like to examine is simply the rationale, if any, that was given for the submissive role of women.

First, notice that the role distinctions have nothing to do with value (1 Cor. 11:3). Christ is certainly in no way inferior to the Father, neither is the woman inferior to the man. A woman's value is not diminished because she is in submission to man any more than Christ's value is diminished by his submission to God the Father.

In 1 Corinthians 11:5, Paul said that it was a dishonorable thing for a woman to pray or prophesy with her head uncovered. However, it was not dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head uncovered. Now, I know that there are a myriad of questions that could be asked about this section of Scripture, but it's my intent just to ask one: "Why was it dishonorable for a woman to pray or prophesy with her head uncovered, but it was permissible for the man?" The answer is provided in verses 7 through 9: "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of the man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but the woman for the man" (NKJV). The appeal for prohibiting women from doing what the men could do was not culture, but creation! Paul did not defend this role distinction upon the basis of culture, but upon the creation order that transcends culture.

1 Corinthians 14:34: We need to be careful when we appeal to this passage in an attempt to address the role of women. Do not misunderstand, it does address the role of women in the church, but to ignore the context of this passage is to open one's self up to many problems. This passage is couched in the context of miraculous gifts and how they were to be regulated. And in this context, Paul said, "Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive." Here is where we need to be careful to keep this passage in its context, because it also commands some men to keep silent (1 Cor. 14:28, 30).

However, let us explore a very important question: "Why were the men and the women in this passage commanded to keep silent?" Notice that the appeal for the silence of men differs from the appeal for the silence of women. In the case of the men, they were instructed to keep silent so as not to create confusion by having more than one speaking at the same time (1 Cor. 14:33). But this is not the appeal for silence on behalf of the women. In the case of women, they were instructed to keep silent and submissive because "the law says" (1 Cor. 14:34). Many students of the Bible believe that law refers to Genesis 3:16, "Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you. "Again, we have a role distinction set forth, and again the appeal was not culture, but creation. Paul appeals for the women to keep silent, not because of Corinthian culture, but because of God's creation order from the very beginning.

I Timothy 2:9­15: Here, too, Paul expresses a role distinction between men and women. In contrast to men who are instructed to pray everywhere (1 Tim. 2:8), women are not permitted to "teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence" (1 Tim. 2:12). And to what did Paul appeal for such a role distinction? "For Adam was first formed, then Eve" (1 Tim. 2:13). Once again, the appeal is to creation, not culture.

Does it not seem the least bit strange that we are being told by some that the role distinctions of men and women were culturally motivated, but in the three passages that address these different roles, not once is culture mentioned? Paul never appealed to culture as his rationale for role distinctions. The "cultural argument" is merely an assertion without any supporting evidence. These role distinctions are a part of the divine order from a sovereign God that must be respected.