Herein lies some of the challenges faced by the would be traveller committed to engaging with the discussion between egalitarians and complementarians in the church.
The episodes are both trying to engage with 1 Timothy 2 and Paul’s prohibition against women teaching and exercising authority in the church.
The conversation comes to a discussion about the Greek word authenteo, rarely found in extra biblical literature, which gets translated ‘with authority’.
The question is over whether the word is one that always implies a negative use of authority, or if it is a more neutral or positive term. Given how infrequently the word appears in ancient records the discussion inevitably goes to an example from the second century BC in which an individual demonstrates his business acumen to solicit the correct fee from a boatman for his services.
Listen to the interpretations for yourself (oddly both occurring around the 33m mark) from Terran Williams and Andrew Wilson.
Mere Fidelity, with Andrew Wilson, Alastair Roberts & Matt Anderson
Theodisc, with Terran Williams & Kenny Innes
What to make of it?
In one episode Terran Williams on the Theodisc podcast claims that authenteo is used in a negative sense and is therefore not something any ministry leader should do, let alone just women.
The ancient source supports his view, so he claims, since if authenteo is a negative word (‘dominate’ is often a preferred translation), the prohibition is only against a particular type of authority - one that no one should be permitted to use.
Andrew Wilson on the other hand (on the Mere Fidelity podcast) says that Triphon’s usage of authenteo is an example of a positive or appropriate use of authority. His reasoning is that the writer clearly expected to be praised by his boss for the authority he’s used. This supports Andrew's view that ‘with authority’ (a positive authority) is the correct translation.
Two readers, two teachers, one text, two opposite usages of it.
Heaven help us. Can it, one wonders? I truly hope so.
There are are other ‘opposites’ in the episode beyond this plain reading of the boatman text.
Terran posits that for complementarians much depends (almost their entire case, he claims) on their reading of on 1 Timothy 2.
Andrew however says: “very little of the discussion turns on the interpretation of this chapter.”
So, again - who’s right?
Honestly I find that the main challenge, speaking as a complementarian, is listening to and trying to engage in articles and ideas written by egalitarians. They come across a lot less objective and neutral about the passages they’re trying to interpret and there is often an ‘anti-complementarian’ tone explicit in what they’re saying. No doubt this is also true the other way round as well but given that, for egalitarians, it's a matter of social justice one might expect a slightly more adversarial tone.
In this episode, as in other things I’ve come across, they often put up (and then knock down) straw men, which very few complementarians believe. I don't think it's ever been part of the church's orthodoxy to suggest that 'women aren't leaders' or don't have 'a valuable and vital leadership gift.' Undoubtedly there have been examples of this through history but, as Terran points out, the biblical record refutes this. The issue on the table isn't generally about 'can women lead or teach' but 'are there any restrictions on where and when a woman can lead and teach.' Since the church's inception (even by it's earliest practices if the NT record is questioned) the answer to the latter question has been 'yes'.
On balance, I found Andrew and Alastair’s summation much more convincing. In my opinion they stay within the text far more, consider more of the context and leave fewer questions unanswered.
For one thing, Andrew points out that if authenteo is a negative use of authority, then its conjoined word ‘teaching’ must also be negative. A leading lexicographer, Andreas Kostenberger, has shown ('convincingly' says Andrew) that when two verbs are joined by a conjunction it is never the case that one is positive whilst another is negative.
Thus when Paul says ‘to teach or to exercise authority’ both must be positive or both must be negative. This matters for, if Terran is right, then he also needs to show that ‘to teach’ in this sentence is also negative (ie false teaching). But Paul doesn't say that. He could have said that, but he didn’t.
Alastair also points out that it’s odd how women are being prohibited from doing this only to men and not women also. In a passage like this that interchanges between men and women deliberately, ‘men’ is not being used as a gender neutral catch-all either. Terran claims that the qualifications for elders and deacons are meant to be read as gender neutral, in the same way that we might address 'guys' when speaking to both sexes. Again I find this unconvincing if only because Paul switches in 3:11 to say 'their women likewise...'. Saying that he's being 'gender neutral' doesn't make sense to me if he than interrupts himself to speak specifically to women (hadn't he already been speaking to them?)
In my opinion, Williams and his co-host Kenny don’t engage with the strongest form of the argument or give credit to the weight of historical precedent and scholarship before them.
To hold to the historic and biblically faithful teaching of male and female and our respective roles in marriage and the church is, let’s be honest, culturally offensive. This makes it harder to hold for the reason that being maligned isn’t a pleasant experience.
The conclusion is often drawn by egalitarians (though perhaps not my Williams and Innes, I don't know) that people who hold to a complementation reading are misogynistic patriarchs who want to keep women down, certainly this is the suggestion (if not outright accusation) of Beth Allison Barr in 'The Making of Biblical Womanhood). To my mind they don't show enough hermeneutic or historical humility and often, instead, simply assume the worst of their opponents. After all, why else would someone hold the view that is such an anathema in a modern western society?
Why else indeed. Unless of course, it’s what the Bible teaches and the job of any church elder should be to uphold the word of God - even the bits we and our culture find offensive.
Rather surprisingly Terran very graciously read an earlier version of this blog and sent me a link to his response to Mike Winger's 9 hour episode on the word. I'd encourage everyone to read it if you're interested in the steel man of his case - thanks Terran:
Listen to the two episodes in full, let me know what stands out to you…