Can Women Wear Pearls in Church?(pt.1) by Emily Wallace

INTRODUCTION

Many egalitarians accuse complementarians of selective literalism concerning passages of Scriptures discussing women wearing jewelry or braided hair. Egalitarians would argue that because in today's culture it is ethically permissible for women to wear pearls, gold or braided hair, women now do not have to submit to their husbands because both of these commands were addressed to a specific culture. This paper seeks to prove that complementarians are not guilty of selective literalism in 1 Timothy 2:9-10 and 1 Peter 3:3-5, and that Scripture does not ethically prohibit women from wearing pearls, gold or having braided hair.

First, egalitarians would argue that both Adam and Eve were created in God’s image (rightly argued), but that Adam’s role as the head is just a result of the Fall. Furthermore, they would profess that women no longer have to submit to their husbands because Christ came to this earth and established a new covenant. Egalitarians have to reinterpret many passages of Scripture concerning a woman’s role in the church to fit their view (Eph. 5:21-22; Col. 3: 18-19; 1 Peter 3:1-7). Ultimately, this view must be rejected for it elevates a woman’s experience above the authority of the Word of God.¹

Secondly, complementarians would argue that both Adam and Eve were created equal in God’s image, but that Adam’s role as head of the home was established before the Fall, and not as a result of sin (Gen. 2-3). Women are created equal in essence yet with different roles. Complementarians believe that a wife should graciously submit to her husband’s servant leadership, care and protection (Eph. 5:21-22; Col. 3: 18-19; 1 Peter 3:1-7). Even though there are some qualifications for women in ministry, the many valuable ministries of women far outweigh the few restrictions Scripture imposes.²

BRIEF BACKGOUND/DEFINITION OF FEMINIST HERMENEUTICS

Hermeneutics is the key issue in the gender debate among evangelicals today. What exactly does the Bible say about gender roles? Is the feminist interpretation correct? These questions certainly have seemed to divide evangelicals for approximately the last forty years. The feminist movement re-emerged in America in the 1960’s with key leaders such as Betty Friedan. She spoke of ideas such as the “trapped housewife syndrome,” and that women were empty and dissatisfied.³ Friedan said that the only way a woman can find herself is through doing her own creative work.⁴

This paper will focus on “biblical feminists” or “egalitarians” which differ from secular feminists in that egalitarians accept Scripture as their sole authority.⁵ Biblical feminists assert that a feminist interpretation is correct and that the Bible teaches an egalitarian ethic. This egalitarian ethic displayed in the home is seen in a mutual partnership marriage where neither spouse will lead or have the final authority. This egalitarian ethic in the church is seen in role interchangeability between the sexes. ⁶ They see gender roles as being the result of the Fall and that these roles are abolished as the result of Christ’s redemptive work. Therefore, redeemed individuals should display this egalitarian practice of role interchangeability. Complementarians would say that a feminist interpretation of the Bible is flawed and leads to a misrepresentation of the Word of God. They believe the Bible teaches the complementary roles of men and women. These roles were established before the Fall and are not abolished through Christ, but are maintained as the ideal set forth at Creation.

Egalitarians commit many exegetical fallacies when interpreting God’s Word. The first main fallacy egalitarians are guilty of is forming incorrect presuppositions. An example of one such presupposition is that the Bible’s teachings do not contradict themselves in that they are a reflection of the character of God and He cannot contradict himself.⁷ Biblical feminists fall short of this and bring to the text certain presuppositions based on culture and experience that fall outside the Word of God.

Secondly, is a fallacy called the normative; it applies to believers at all times and places.⁸ For example, 1 Timothy is written for a particular church, Ephesus. This letter was written to deal specifically with their problems such as false doctrine possibly including an early form of Gnosticism. However, the teaching in the book is to be read like a church manual, according to 1 Tim. 14-15, meaning the application pertains to believers at all times and places. Therefore, the passage concerning women not being allowed to teach or have authority over men, applies to all believers at all times (1 Tim. 2:12). Biblical feminists may say that the teaching is only applicable to the original audience with no universal application.⁹ The biblical feminist places more emphasis on what Scripture means today to them, therefore, they leave behind what the original audience heard.¹⁰

The third main fallacy is that the text is transcultural. The general rule being that Scripture is normative unless Scripture itself states otherwise.¹¹ One common question that arises is, “How much does culture play a role in how I should interpret the text?” The problem is not always with the principle itself, but rather how it should be applied. ¹² There are two diagnostic questions that should be asked: “Does Scripture convey universal principles or culture-limited application?” and “What method can distinguish the normative from the cultural in Scripture?”¹³ Second Tim 3:16 should be followed: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” Paul declares all Scripture applicable to living a life of righteousness; therefore, all of it is to be followed despite the current culture. Biblical feminists would limit the text’s application and assume that it was only meant for the original hearers to follow: “…the egalitarians have tended to use the cultural vehicle as a reason for relativizing the truth of God to some ancient now irrelevant advice.”¹⁴