Mary Lambert of Watertown, New York, is being discussed all over the web. That’s her on the right. She’s 81, and has taught Sunday school for 54 years at her American Baptist church. But Mary was recently dismissed as a teacher because her church decided to take a literal interpretation of Paul’s statement in 1 Timothy, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.”

Rev. Timothy LaBouf, who came to the church a full two years ago brimming with principle, explained that outside the church, a woman can hold any job she wants, whether or not it involves teaching or overseeing men. But not in the church. This seems, to my untrained ear, like he’s watering down literalness, but so be it. As a town council member, it’s expedient that he do so. He also clarified that he interpreted this only to refer to “women teaching spiritual matters in a church setting.” So he was working hard to squeeze the Bible into his preferred mold. Kind of like a George Bush signing statement.

As you might guess, I’m not in LaBouf’s camp. I’ve always been a “grace and freedom in Christ” person when it comes to issues where the Bible isn’t firm. So has our denomination. Like many (most?) people, I view Paul’s words as wise instructions for that culture, but not as biblical absolutes for all time. Some folks choose to err on the legalistic side when it comes to what women can and can’t do, but I can’t see Jesus doing that. He constantly did battle with rule-makers. Jesus was about grace and freedom. When he died, the curtain in the temple that separated the men from the women and the Jews from the Gentiles–the thing was torn in two. Hint hint.

Here’s my beef: why enforce only that one verse? Doesn’t true integrity toward the literal interpretation of the Word require that you go much further?

Warning: Amateur theologian on the premises. Potential ignorance trailing close behind.

Here’s the whole passage, 1 Timothy 2:9-12:

9 I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. 11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

If it’s unbiblical, then it’s a sin. Can we agree on that? If these verses are biblical absolutes–Rev. LeBouf’s apparent view–then literalness demands that we view anything but strict adherence as sin. Therefore, it’s sinful for a woman to teach a man or have authority over a man. But this passage illuminates other female-related transgressions which Rev. LaBouf must also confront. Otherwise, it’s just selective sexism, in my book. According to verses 9-11:

• It’s a sin for a woman to braid her hair. If a woman braids her hair, whether or not she’s at church (the Bible makes no distinction), Rev. LaBouf and the elders must confront her over her sin. Withdraw her membership, if necessary.
• If a woman wears expensive clothes–it’s a sin. Do not allow it.
• If a woman wears pearls or gold–rebuke her. She is sinning. You must not allow this clear sin in your midst.
• And if she makes a comment or asks a question in church–kindly instruct her to refrain from using her vocal chords. Unless she is silent, she is sinning. The female voice employed in a teaching setting with men present is an abomination to God. That’s what the Bible says…literally.
• Right?

And while we’re at it, let’s enforce 1 Corinthians 11, which says women should have long hair and pray and prophesy (preach?) with their heads covered. And let’s make that guy who sings with the Gaithers cut his hair, because the same passage says, “If a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him.” Don’t watch those Gaither Homecoming videos until he gets out the snippers, because you’re just condoning his sin.

My point is–if you claim to take the Bible literally, don’t play at being literal. Don’t just pick and choose what’s convenient. I know plenty of ministers who enforce verse 12. Show me a minister who also enforces verses 9-11, and I’ll show you a minister who is consistent in his convictions. Otherwise, as I said, it strikes me as selective sexism on the part of the male guardians of theology.

Many scholars interpret 1 Timothy 1:9-12 as more of a cultural thing–that in that male-dominated place and time, a woman in leadership could scandalize the church and thereby hinder the presentation of the Gospel. Women were uneducated, and in Ephesus, where Timothy ministered, it’s possible that some women converts had been prostitutes to the goddess Diana. Paul spoke of becoming all things to all people, of being a Greek when he was among the Greeks so that he could win them to Christ. His primary concern was communicating the Gospel. He didn’t want peripheral things to distract from that. I think that was his concern here, not some rule which, he may be suggesting, emerged from his own pastoral practices (“I do not permit…”). He was acknowledging the realities of that time and place (just as elsewhere, he told slaves how they should act, but he wasn’t condoning slavery–just recognizing that they had to deal with reality).

Tony Campolo and Brian McLaren, in Adventures in Missing the Point, make this case in a chapter I read last weekend. They contend that if Paul were ministering today, he would place no such restrictions on women in ministry, because in our 21st Century culture, such restrictions would hinder the spread of the Gospel. It’s a case where accommodating the culture is okay biblically. Inflicting First Century conniptions upon our present-day culture would be offensive, a turn-off.

The “turn-off” factor is certainly alive and well in Watertown, New York. Watertown’s mayor, Jeffrey Graham, was bothered by the reasons Pastor LaBouf gave for Mary Lambert’s dismissal. “Those are disturbing remarks in this day and age. Maybe they wouldn’t have been disturbing 500 years ago, but they are now.” Which is exactly Campolo’s and McLaren’s point.

Repeat: You are in the presence of an out-of-control, amateur, even juvenile, theologian. Proceed with caution.

I believe in the priesthood of all believers, not just the priesthood of male believers. When Acts 2:17 says “your sons and daughters will prophesy” (and “prophesy” in the Bible refers to preaching), I believe this was a gift for the whole church to hear, not just women or children. And the New Testament mentions so many women who are clearly more than quiet wallflowers–Priscilla, the daughters of Philip (prophets), Chloe, Lydia, Nympha, Phoebe, Junia, and others–that it requires acrobatic rationalization to dismiss them all. Unless you can show that the Bible definitively demands that women keep their traps shut (and apply it consistently in your own situation), I choose grace and freedom.

One more thought. If it’s a sin for a woman to teach me, then it’s also a sin for me to put myself in a position where I am taught by a woman. I used to listen to teaching tapes by Jill Briscoe, really wonderful stuff about women of the Bible. Was that a sinful act on my part? Should I repent? Would Jesus have told me to burn those tapes, along with any books written by women through which I might, inadvertently, learn something? Should I, at age 18, have stopped seeking advice from my mom? The literal 1 Timothy makes no exceptions for moms. Then there’s my female college teachers. Shame on you, Miss Patton! You not only taught me stuff, but you exercised authority over me in a Christian context! Where was Rev. LaBouf when I needed him?

And while we’re cleaning house: no more talking by women on worship teams, especially if it’s something constructive that might get through a guy’s thick skull and edify him. Only guys on worship teams can talk. And we can’t have women giving testimonies in church. A guy might hear and be blessed. And let’s bring back all those women missionaries. My church supports a woman missionary in Asia who has authority over male missionaries, and no doubt teaches men in various church-related situations. If it’s a sin for a woman to teach or oversee a man in the States, then it’s a sin among Christians in Asia. Either that, or we’re pathetically paternalistic.

If it’s not a clear biblical absolute–don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t let women talk in church (?)–then I opt for grace and freedom. That’s what I get from the totality of Scripture and particularly from the teachings and example of Jesus. Otherwise, I need to start reprimanding women for braiding their hair. And I just can’t see Jesus getting too worked up about that. The literalists are rarely consistent; they pick stuff here and there to follow, but ignore other stuff. But if you go with grace and freedom, consistency is not so difficult. In fact, it’s very natural. Heaven forbid.