Hermeneutics: On How Hard Hermeneutics Is

It’s an interesting fact that we insist that a church isn’t “scripturally organized” if it has no deacons, even though the scriptures do not tell us what the deacons are supposed to do — at least not very clearly.

But we don’t bother to honor the qualifications list of 1 Timothy 5 respecting enrolled widows, which is very similar to the lists regarding elders and deacons. Indeed, many today would brand a church with female deacons damned for liberalism even though many congregations of the early church had female deacons and the fathers of the Restoration Movement approved deaconesses! Why the reversal?

(1Ti 5:9-10 ESV)  9 Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband, 10 and having a reputation for good works: if she has brought up children, has shown hospitality, has washed the feet of the saints, has cared for the afflicted, and has devoted herself to every good work.

“Wife of one husband” in v. 9 is sure a lot like “husband of one wife,” isn’t it?

And we often build our theology of church organization and worship (ecclessiology) on the early church fathers, and many of the early churches had an order of widows.

Bobby Valentine has recently posted a marvelous article on female deacons in the Restoration Movement. Bobby writes,

Isaac Errett was the inheritor of the mantle of Alexander Campbell and editor of the Christian Standard. In 1873 he had opportunity to address texts in 1 Timothy (5:9ff) in this manner,

“The qualifications evidently point to a ministry involving the exercise of hospitatlity, the are of the afflicted, the training of children, and the instruction of younger women in the duties of life. Taking this as referring to deaconesses – and this seems to us the most reasonable interpretation – the text throws more light ont he duties of their ministry than any other in the New Testament. It does not follow that all deaconesses were necessarily widows but that among the widow supported by the church those possessing qualifications could be profitably employed in this office”

(“Deaconesses,” CS [7 June 1873], 188)

His article clearly demonstrates that the early Restoration Movement leaders accepted the idea of female deacons and often considered 1 Timothy 5:9-10 to give a qualifications list. This is consistent with the early church fathers. But the practice entirely died out. Why?

Most of the early Restoration Movement leaders approved female deacons. The early church had female deacons. And yet it’s now unthinkable, a sign of liberalism run amok, even damnable to have female deacons? Why?

I can’t prove this, but I have a theory. In the late 19th Century, the states passed a series of laws giving women the right to own property and sign contracts. One article explains,

In colonial times, law generally followed that of the mother country, England (or in some parts of what later became the United States, France or Spain). In the early years of the United States, following British law, women’s property was under control of their husbands, with states gradually giving women limited property rights. By 1900 every state had given married women substantial control over their property.

In the early 20th Century, the Women’s Suffrage Movement resulted in the right to vote for women. And so these were times, much like the Equal Rights Amendment era of more recent years, when women sought greater rights and when conservative institutions — like many churches — reacted negatively.

An article printed in The Apostolic Guide on July 2, 1886 by A. R. Terrell under the heading, “Should Women Speak in Public?” gives a sense of the reactionary mood of many in the church —

From my earliest boyhood, I have had a very exalted opinion of women, and I do hope and pray that she will be no improprieties in the future which will change that opinion. There has always appeared to be about her a sweetness and delicacy of soul which seemed to lift her far above man in the roughness and coarseness of his nature. For this reason and for Bible reasons I abominate the whole modern heresy of “women’s rights” and everything that squints that way. A female politician makes my flesh crawl. Women’s suffrage is nauseating. Even to think of a woman in the pulpit or on the lecture rostrum is disagreeable to me, for women’s sake and for God’s sake. In the same line of sentiment I disapprove of a woman conducting prayer where there are mixed audiences. I never heard but two women lecture and I trust it will never be my displeasure to hear another. The whole thing is disgusting o me, whether the lecture is delivered in behalf of temperance, politics or religion.

For a delicate refined woman to do the work of one of our politicians or preachers would be a physical impossibility. That there are women brave enough, and energetic enough, to try to do the work of men, I do not for a moment doubt. But that they are able to undergo the trials, the hardships, and the difficulties of man, I can’t believe. Further they must be out in all sorts of weather, and speak from once to twice a day. For women to attempt to do the work of these servants of man and God would result in her death. But, whenever you find a woman who may endure the hardships of man, you may set it down that she is a poor excuse of a woman.

The women who exert almost divine influence over all around them are those sweet, chaste, modest, refined unassuming creatures who do not appear to be trying to influence anyone. I will admit all the rights that such a woman claims–all that I myself possess–if she will let me alone, and keep her distance from me.

(Quoted in this article.) So the best I can figure, our nearly uniform acceptance of women as female deacons (“deaconess” wasn’t coined as a term until well after the New Testament was written) died in reaction to the American political scene. To allow women to hold an office of service would appear to approve their national agenda of seeking the power to own land, contract, and vote, and so many men pushed back in one area where they remained utterly in charge: the church.

I’m old enough to remember how condescending we were toward women members only 30 and 40 years ago. Many of our preachers happily defended denying them authority and the ability to teach by their gullibility! Burton Coffman, who is normally a very sensible commentator, in a note captioned “On the Deceivableness of Women,” states,

It is a gross mistake to view the natural capacity of women for being deceived as in any manner whatever a reflection upon womankind. It is positively her most adorable characteristic. …

But are there not historical examples of strong-willed, powerful women, impossible to deceive, who now and again have held the rod of empire or the affairs of state with great ability? Yes, indeed! But exceptions do not make the rule. Wherever such leadership exists in women, it is still a masculine trait. … Nature produces a two-headed calf now and then, but that is not the rule.

Commentary of 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus & Philemon (1978), page 172. If you read the literature we wrote from about 1980 back to about 1890, you find much the same attitude reflected by many respected preachers, published in our respected publications. These were mainstream views.

But I don’t think they come from the Bible. I think they come from reaction against women seeking greater civil rights — to contract, to own property, and to vote — a very strange place for Christian men to find their principles. It was not conscious, but as women were demeaned to further a political agenda, the low view of women made it into our theology.

Now, there are some lessons to be gained from our history —

1. Our theology doesn’t always come from the Bible. Sometimes it comes from the surrounding culture. Sometimes it comes from reacting against our surrounding culture. The goal isn’t to be counter-cultural — it’s be true to Jesus

We read our cultural (or anti-cultural) views into the Scriptures, often resulting in highly anti-Christian views being read into the text. (Our views on race during the 20th Century would be another not-so-shiny example. If you disagree with my reading of history regarding women, justify the church’s attitude toward blacks in the 1950s and 1960s. The prevailing racism of the Churches of Christ was utterly contrary to the gospel and yet that thinking dominated our behavior and discourse.)

2. Once worldly views slip into our theology, our justifications for those views don’t go away easily. Even today, when most would admit that racial segregation is anti-gospel, we have segregated churches and greatly fear to merge chuches. Someone might lose power. Someone might not get his choice of hymns. Change is hard. Old habits don’t break easily. Old thought habits are especially hard to break.

3. Objectivity is therefore very, very hard to come by. Those who claim to be entirely objective in their reading of the text may be at the greatest risk of error as their claim keeps them from having the humility to check their conclusions carefully.

4. To come closer to true objectivity, we have to discipline ourselves to check our work against others. This means not merely investigating the views of our own tribe, but the views of others — especially those who wrote and thought at different times and thus in different cultures. If you want to learn transcultural principles, it helps to see what the Scriptures look like to other cultures.

But even then, we still have to do the hard work of hermeneutics. And it is hard work. And we have to seek a hermeneutic that we can apply consistently, and have the courage to do so. And the greatest courage — and the greatest love — for many is the willingness to admit being wrong.

We in the Churches of Christ have a culture of debate, where the goal is to defeat the opponent, rather than to seek truth. We have the truth, and so our opponent is wrong, and so our goal is victory.

A better culture would be one of humility — before God, before the text, and before those we disagree with. We should come to the debate willing to admit that we’ve been wrong because the goal is to find the truth in community, to seek truth together.

Read the comments section. How often does reader 1 respond to reader 2 by saying, “Thanks for that insight. I stand corrected.” No, normally, when we can’t answer, rather than changing our views or, better yet, saying “thank you,” we withdraw from the discussion, disappear for a few days, lick our wounds, and then return later to make the same refuted arguments all over again.

It’s not healthy. And it’s tough. I hate it when I have to take down a post and re-write it because I was wr . r. r. r. ong. It’s hard to say. It’s harder to type. But the best hermeneutics come from those willing to be shown wrong.

Sadly, in a denomination that often suffers from a perpetual fear of damnation, members are drawn to the bombastic, confident preacher, because they desperately wish they shared his confidence. They revel in his assurance — and wish they could be as assured. And so another result of legalism is not only to impose unnecessary fear on the members but to empower the arrogant.

May God help us all.

Am I pushing for an order of widows? No. Not exactly. Well, yes. Actually, I think every church should have an order of retirees — who work fulltime in the Kingdom using their wisdom and experience to help God’s will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

Do I think the qualifications list in 1 Timothy 5 should define the order? No. Because most of our retirees don’t need to be supported, unlike First Century widows. And we need to include men. And married folk, too. We are living longer. Roman men didn’t worry much about retiring because few lived long enough to retire.

We need a culture of service — where church work is not considered a burden to be escaped but an opportunity to be treasured. After all, we’ll be serving God in heaven (Rev. 22:3). If we don’t like serving God, heaven is going to be hell for us.

You see, I think this is the direction of God’s redemptive work in the church. I think widows were only the beginning. As society prospers and people live longer, the application of the principle changes and becomes broader. The command is redefined in terms of our current culture. But the principle given by God stays the same.