Tag Archives: patriarchy

024 I Dorothy Littell Greco: For the Love of Women, Uprooting and Healing Misogyny in America

Welcome back to The Beautiful Kingdom Builders Podcast for Season Two!!! I have incredible conversations in store for The Beautiful Kingdom Builders audience, and cannot wait to share each episode with you this fall.

In this season opener, I am thrilled to share my conversation with Dorothy Littell Greco about her book ‘For the Love of Women,’ exploring misogyny’s systemic presence in society and the church. She shares personal stories, biblical perspectives, and practical steps towards healing and empowering women within Christian communities.

As Christians, we are called to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. Misogyny is ultimately a failure to love women. Addressing Christian misogyny is essential for faith communities.

You can learn more about Greco and her work on her website,
and follow her on Facebook and Instagram and Substack. Her book is essential reading
for anyone who purports to love women.

Please enjoy this episode of The Beautiful Kingdom Builders podcast on YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, Substack, and more! 

TRANSCRIPT:

Ruth Perry (00:15)
My guest today is Dorothy Littell Greco, who wrote the amazing book, For the Love of Women, Uprooting and Healing Misogyny in America, which I devoured. My copy looks like it’s been through the wringer because I was twisting it all sorts of ways so that I could write and take notes and I just loved

Dorothy Greco (00:32)
That’s great.

Ruth Perry (00:32)
it so much. It really spoke to me. I know that women who read it will really speak to them because we know this and I hope that men will take the time to read it as well and really engage with the subject matter because it really matters that Christians love our women and girls and care for them really well. And so just to start off, what compelled you to write this book and how has your own spiritual journey shaped the tone and vision of this book, Dorothy?

Dorothy Greco (00:58)
It does. Yeah, so I have, since the time that I can remember as a three to four year old little girl have not been sort of the typical feminine little girl. Like I wasn’t into Barbies. I wasn’t really into dress ups. I really loved to be off in the woods, exploring, investigating. I love sports. I started competitive sports when I was five, if you can believe that, and played Division 1 college field hockey all the way through all four years.

And then after graduation, I found myself in a very male-dominated field. I worked as a photojournalist primarily doing professional sports. So it was often me and maybe two or three other women sitting around the court of Boston Celtics while there were 20 or 30 men, or at football games or baseball games. So I had to figure out what does it mean to be a woman?

I was never sad or grieved that I was a woman, but…What does it mean to be a woman and to exist as a woman in a world that is dominated by so many men and often led poorly by those men? When I became a Christian in college, I think it was really disorienting to me because my initial time in church or parachurch organizations, they were more complementarian, meaning that there were very defined gender roles for men and for women.

And so here I was someone who felt a great deal of agency and autonomy and then was being told like actually you have to really get smaller and submit yourself to the men in your life. I, you know, there weren’t any men in my life at that time as a single woman. So I had to work out like how does the gospel really, what does it mean to me? What does it mean to be a woman? What does it mean to walk in my gifts?

So there was all that personal stuff. And then coming into the last probably 10 years in American culture, it just feels like there’s a misogyny epidemic. There’s so many examples of the ways that misogyny is playing out. Everything from the abuse of the American gymnasts by Dr. Larry Nasser to the women who have been abused within the Southern Baptist denomination. The ways that the current president is maligning women publicly, calling reporters piggies and I won’t say the word because I don’t know whether that’ll get us in trouble, but witches with a different first letter.

And I thought this can’t be what it’s supposed to be like. This can’t be what it’s supposed to be like, particularly for those of us who are following Jesus. So I felt like there was an invitation in a sense from God. It wasn’t like an audible invite with a here’s an RSVP, but there was a sense of the Lord drawing me in and saying, I think that you have something to say here and would you like to partner with me in writing this book because I think you could do it. So it really was just saying yes to that inspiration and that invitation and wanting to speak into the ways that I think that women are devalued and not loved, in the ways that I think that the Lord would have them be valued in love.

Ruth Perry (03:50)
Can you share what your definition of misogyny is that you start your book out with?

Dorothy Greco (03:55)
Yeah, I felt like I needed to stretch out the book definition and the definition that, you know, we can find in the dictionary is simply the hatred of women. And that feels way too narrow because it’s easy for men to say, well, I love my wife or I love my daughters. I love my mom. I love my sisters. Therefore, misogyny, this conversation about misogyny doesn’t apply to me and then just move on. And that just feels way too easy.

So I wanted to be able to define it in a way that stretches it out and makes us more aware of the systemic nature of misogyny because it’s not just an individual thing. There are systems that keep it in place. So this is how I define it in the book. Misogyny is a persistent, insidious belief that men’s ideas, wants, needs, and experiences are more important than women’s, and that legal, religious, and social systems, as well as intimate relationships, should uphold this principle. This belief system subsequently influences the laws, policies, practices, and ethos of a given culture.

Ruth Perry (04:50)
Yeah, that’s so good. And you emphasize that this isn’t just a women’s issue. That misogyny is also a men’s issue. Why should men care deeply about this?

Dorothy Greco (05:00)
Yeah, I think that they should care about it on several fronts. One is misogyny harms them too. You know, I’m the mom of three sons and there were so many times when we’re in a public setting or in a church religious setting and all of our kids were very emotionally attuned. Both my husband and I think of a pretty high emotional intelligence. So obviously that was important that we teach that to our kids. And there were situations where you know, our son would be crying about something that was legitimate. And somebody would say, stop crying, boys don’t cry.

So that kind of constraining of male emotions, in particular, vulnerable emotions, emotions that are around hurt or pain or sadness, really makes their emotional palette quite narrow. And oftentimes then the feelings come out as anger, like because that’s the only acceptable emotion in American culture for men, they can be angry and they can be really angry, but they can’t cry. So we think that there’s that component which really harms men. But also being in relationships where there’s equality rather than hierarchy is just better for everybody because if it’s a hierarchical relationship then the one on top always has to be exerting energy to control the person underneath of him.

While that clearly has some payoff, some benefits to it, in the long run, it’s exhausting. And there’s a lack of true intimacy that happens in those kind of relationships. So I think for those very personal reasons, men need to care about misogyny. And for those men for whom they would say that they are followers of Jesus, it’s pretty clear in scripture that they are called to love women and that they’re called to serve, they’re called to treat others with kindness and with dignity and with compassion. So there’s that, larger, I think, ask that scripture makes of us.

Ruth Perry (06:47)
Yeah, and I also think what happened at the fall was that we became disconnected from that intimate relationship that we had with God and with each other, and that we all do better when we all do better. I think our culture is so independent and individualistic that we can think that we can be an island of one. But we really do depend on each other and need each other and when we care for each other and we are all doing well, we all do better.

Dorothy Greco (07:15)
Yeah, the goal should be mutual flourishing, like organizing our lives, organizing the world, organizing our churches so that we’re paying attention and helping everyone to flourish rather than just the people at the top.

Ruth Perry (07:27)
How does misogyny intersect with power and nationalism and then the fear that we see in public discourse today?

Dorothy Greco (07:33)
Yeah, that’s a big topic and we could spend an entire hour just talking about that. Lots of people have written about that. I haven’t written a whole lot about it, but I do talk some of it, about some of it in the book. think in David Fitch has a great book, Reckoning with Power, and he talks about two kinds of power, worldly power and godly power. And the former, worldly power, is finite. It’s very prone to abuse. It’s exerted over top of others.

And godly power is infinite and it is never used to force or to coerce or to manipulate anyone. So if men are relying on worldly power, and it is mostly men, not only, but mostly men, are relying on worldly power to get what they want, to influence, to coerce, to control, to manipulate, to be in charge, there is a limited amount of that kind of power and they fear losing it.

And I think that’s why we see the fear flare up like what happened in Washington on January 6th. Those folks were afraid that they were going to lose their power, their connection to power. So they abused their power in an attempt to protect their status. In my opinion, nationalism is a lot about fear, fear and pride, like the sense that we are better than other people. White folks are better than other people.

So there’s a fear of losing the majority, a fear of not having the kind of privileges that they’ve had. And that obviously plays out within the church, it plays out within marriages, it plays out through misogynistic systems where one person is afraid that they will lose control and so then they double down to try to make sure that they can get what they want.

Ruth Perry (09:08)
Yeah, that really resonated with me when you talked about worldly power versus Godly power. So then you systematically break down and with great research show how misogyny is present in so many aspects of our life from healthcare to the workplace to government, media and entertainment, sexual relationships and in the church.

As I was reading that first chapter about healthcare, I mean, I could spend an hour just telling you different ways that I’ve experienced misogyny in healthcare. And most recently, in October, I was bit by a black widow spider three times. And I felt it bite me. I had red welts where it happened. And I went to my local doctor’s office and showed the bites and said, I was bitten by something. I didn’t see the spider, so I didn’t know what it was and she told me I was having a panic attack. It took my body nine days to get all that venom out and I was in excruciating pain. But she just saw a woman, and I told her I’m in excruciating pain, and she told me I was having a panic attack.

Dorothy Greco (10:06)
Wow, wow, I’m so sorry. I’m sorry to say that that is not uncommon. That kind of treatment is not uncommon.

Ruth Perry (10:10)
But I thought it was particularly important that we talk about how misogyny in healthcare especially affects women of color and poor women and marginalized women. Could you share some of that?

Dorothy Greco (10:21)
Yeah, the word that’s often used here is intersectionality. both misogyny and racism sort of overlap each other in this space. Women of color are often seen in our culture as less than, as not credible witnesses, even to their own lives and their own experiences. So when they come into the ER, for instance, they’re more likely to be ignored or mistreated.

And I could share multiple stories that friends have shared with me, women of color, but it’s not simply anecdotal. Like there are stats that back this up. And I’ll just share a couple: that the US has one of the highest maternal mortality rates among all industrialized wealthy nations. Three women die every day of causes that could be avoided just here in the US. That’s not worldwide, that’s just here. And the rate for black women is three times higher than for white women.

Black women are more likely to be refused pain medication when they need it because there’s this appalling myth that somehow they should be able to endure more pain than white women. Black women over the age of 55 are twice as likely as white women to develop diabetes and that’s a complicated issue, right? There’s genetics, there’s the ways that poverty factors in and there’s not as much good food oftentimes for folks of color.

But then there’s often the reality that they’ll go in with symptoms, just like you did when you had your spider bite, and say, this happened to me, this is a real thing, this is an experience that I’m having. And then the response is to dismiss them, to ignore them, to tell them they’re lying even. And as a result, if you don’t treat diabetes early on, the consequences are horrifying. Loss of limbs, and even loss of life.

So yeah, there’s just so many examples of how women of color within the healthcare system in the United States get even worse treatment than other women.

Ruth Perry (12:11)
I also thought it was pretty shocking how many more studies they do and research they do into erectile dysfunction versus PMS, which affects 90 % of women and just the horrible experiences of women with endometriosis. I know a lot of my personal friends have that and how painful that is.

Dorothy Greco (12:29)
Yes, and the fact that they haven’t prioritized funding to research that. Apparently it can take between eight to 10 years to get a proper diagnosis, and then there’s no protocol for how to treat it. How is that even possible that there are so many women who suffer from this, and yet it’s not bumped up high on the list as something that needs to be studied? Yeah, it’s tragic.

Ruth Perry (12:50)
One of the more vulnerable sections of the book was about sexuality and relationships. How has misogyny distorted the way that many Christians understand intimacy and consent and mutuality? And then what would a healthy mutual honoring relationship between a man and a woman look like in a Christian perspective that would differ from that experience?

Dorothy Greco (13:09)
I opened that chapter, which I think is chapter six, with a very vulnerable verbatim story from a young couple. And he, the husband, entered the marriage still struggling with pornography. Had made progress, but it was still an issue for him. And perhaps more significantly, having been taught that once he got married and was able to have sex with his wife, that he wouldn’t have a pornography addiction anymore.

And this led to a tremendous amount of pain for his wife in particular, and ultimately for him once he began to realize the cost of his entitlement, the cost of demanding sex whenever he had the anxiety that would promote him or that would push him towards pornography use, right? Because the woman is not the answer to the problem of a pornography or any addiction. Like that goes way deeper than being able to have a sexual release.

So the entitlement that’s often part of marriages where there is misogyny is so toxic. It’s that sense that the man is more important, that his needs are more important, that he has the right to expect sex, he has the right to expect his wife to do whatever it is that he feels like he needs in that moment. That includes a lack of consent.

This goes way back to ancient English law. think it was in the 1600s that there was something called coverture that was established and then it became part of the American legal system whereby when a woman said, do, she was giving up all her rights to say no to her husband’s sexual advances. And that’s part of why it wasn’t until I think the end of the 20th century, beginning of the 21st where intramarital rape was actually a crime in all 50 states. So it’s shocking to me that that took so long for the legal system to realize that no, wives can be raped by their husbands as well.

And all of that contradicts so clearly what the gospel is all about, right? Which is not to elevate men and to diminish women, but that we are all equal before the Lord, right? That’s what Galatians 3 is talking about.

And so in a marriage where both the wife and the husband are seeking to follow Jesus, they’re gonna endeavor to create a mutual relationship. Yes, sexually, but in all facets. They’ll be asking questions like, there anything I can do to help you to flourish? Is there anything else that you need from me so that you can really thrive as opposed to the husband being the only one who matters, like his dreams, his desires are elevated over the wife.

In a marriage where there is mutuality, there is a lack of hierarchy and a lack of control, which is just so much better for everybody involved, particularly the children. When they can see that kind of equality and that kind of respect that’s going back and forth between their mothers and their fathers, then they begin to have a healthy understanding of what a marriage looks like that is a place where people flourish and where they love each other deeply.

Ruth Perry (16:01)
Your chapter on the church may be especially painful for many readers. Why do you think can become deeply entrenched in Christian spaces?

Dorothy Greco (16:09)
Yeah, and I’ll just add that that chapter was the most painful chapter for me to write. I was alternating between tears and anger as I did research for that. There is a very long, I don’t even remember how many parts it was, five, six parts, the Houston Chronicle did on the abuse that happened within the Southern Baptists. And to read through that whole series was infuriating. Just the level and the depth of abuse and the cover-ups that happened were appalling. So it was a very, very difficult chapter for me to write.

And you know, it’s very complicated, it’s multifaceted, and if we’re honest, we can say that men and women working together to lead, to pastor, serving alongside someone who sees the world very differently than you do is more work, right? That requires more compromises, more listening, more slowing down, more empathy, more kindness.

And like one of the things that I was considering, think about parenting a two to three year old. I don’t know if you have any kids, but in that timeframe, I can remember we lived in New England, that there were times when we were getting ready to go outside in the snow. And it was excruciating for me, who tends to move quickly, to wait for them to put their own boots and coats and mittens and hat on. Like I wanted to just do it. I wanted to force them into it so that we could get outside more quickly.

And I think that that’s just like a picture of how we often look at the American church. Like we’re so driven by particular metrics and the metrics. are all connected to the size, how many people are sitting in the church, what is the collection, what’s happening with the collection, how many people raised their hand to get saved.

And those sort of things, I’m not saying that they’re unimportant, but if we rush into what it means to be a Christian, if we imagine that the only thing that matters is how many people come to church or how much money is being given, then we’re not necessarily focusing on what does it mean to mature? What does it mean to become Christ-like? What does it mean to really love each other like Paul wrote about in 1 Corinthians 13?

Like all those things should be every bit as important, if not more important than how big the church is getting. So there’s that. And then there’s also the church systems, denominations, individual pastors who function as if what the Bible is saying is that men are supposed to be the leaders and women are supposed to submit. And it’s all flattened out into that, you know, sort of sound bite.

Then, you know, the Mark Driscoll’s, the Joel Webbins, the Doug Wilsons, et cetera, who believe that women, their primary goal is to support their men and to have babies. Then that really reduces and shrinks what women’s lives are to be all about. And what about the single women?

You know, what about the women who are divorced or the women who have lost their husbands? Like there’s not even an option of how they’re supposed to live their life. And then layer on top of that, the fact that scripture does talk about dying to self and being sacrificial. So if you have a, if you have men who were entitled and then a system that’s both patriarchal and misogynistic, and then teaching that elevates being sacrificial and dying to yourself, I think it’s just a fertile environment for the abuse of women and children. And so women who don’t have confidence in their own understanding of scripture, women who were raised in a high authoritarian church culture and believe that it is their role to submit, then wow, I mean, that is just a total setup for an abusive system. And that’s what we’ve seen again and again and again.

Ruth Perry (19:46)
I’m reminded, I was just recently having coffee with a friend who’s a woman evangelist and someone that she knew sat down next to us but they didn’t know each other in church relationship and so my friend said she was an evangelist but she wasn’t a feminist. She wanted to clarify that she wasn’t a feminist. She felt like God called her to that but that’s not the kind of woman she was.

And then the woman that she was speaking with started talking about how much damage militant feminists have done, really turning off men towards wanting have equal rights with women. And she was saying, that’s why men were further behind. And I just interjected, but it is a problem that the most dangerous place for a woman is in her home.

Dorothy Greco (20:29)
Yeah.

Ruth Perry (20:29)
And she was like, well, I can’t even talk about that because I have personal experience, so don’t mention that, please. And I was like, where’s the disconnect where we’d be more angry about feminists than we would be about the abuse that occurs?

Dorothy Greco (20:41)
Right, right. And that is exactly how things played out like in the Southern Baptists, where when the women started to come forward and to say, this is what happened to us, they were vilified. I mean, the people who were the men who were the head of the Southern Baptists, the things that they said about those women, they called them demonic, they called them satanic, as opposed to being horrified about what happened to them, as opposed to saying, my gosh, I’m so terribly grieved that you had that experience in our church denomination. Like that wasn’t happening. And to me, that is really telling because that’s about entitlement, that’s about worldly power, that’s about men somehow believing that their sexual needs are greater than a woman’s autonomy and a woman’s right to an existence. Like it’s so warped from what the scripture really says.

Ruth Perry (21:33)
Yeah, it seems like once you see it, it’s hard to not see it, but it’s really hard to your brain around not seeing it. Although I was there myself, so I get it. What are some misogyny waste messages that women absorb when they’re in Christian spaces?

Dorothy Greco (21:47)
Mmm, there’s a lot. So where to start?

That you don’t belong here. I think that gets communicated both verbally and non-verbally. When it’s all male-led and there’s no seats at the table for any women, that’s a pretty clear communication. That your needs don’t matter, that your gifts don’t matter, that you don’t belong here, that in God’s created order, you’re not as important, you’re secondary, and that if you want to lead or if you have an opinion that’s different from your husband or from the male pastor that you’re in sin, like all of those kind of things are so wrong, but also they so mess with women, particularly those who have callings where they should be teaching and they should be preaching and they should be leading. Yeah, it’s very damaging.

Ruth Perry (22:39)
How have patriarchal church structures impacted not just women but men and then the broader body of Christ as well?

Dorothy Greco (22:46)
Well, I think the sense that when there’s so much control and there’s so much hierarchy and there is the message that women are less than, I think that that gives men a buy for growing up. It somehow allows them to feel like, I don’t have to do the hard work of maturing and the hard work of figuring out what does it mean to be a co-equal? How do I really listen to my wife or to my daughter or to my co-leader?

And pay attention to the experiences she’s had and the things that she wants to bring to the table. It’s much easier to just try to control someone, though in the end you will be exhausted and you won’t have the kind of intimacy that I think we were created for. Like I really believe that God wants us to be known. He wants us to be fully known by the people who are trustworthy in our lives. And so if men institute the system where they’re the ones who can call the shots and the women are less than,

And if that carries over into their marriage relationships, they’re going to lose out on what true intimacy really means. You know, the men who feel like they should have the right to be able to have sex whenever they want. I can pretty much guarantee you that at least most of those wives are not enjoying their sexual relationship with their husbands. And if they were willing to give up control and if they were willing to give up entitlement, and they cared about women’s experiences.

I think women would probably enjoy their sexual relationships more, which would benefit the man, but they’re not doing that work to get that far.

Ruth Perry (24:15)
I was also curious if you could distinguish the difference between honoring scripture and weaponizing scripture. Can you talk about how that happens on this issue?

Dorothy Greco (24:24)
Yeah, and I feel like I have to be really careful of this too. You know, anytime I have the opportunity to speak or to teach, I don’t want to use that platform as a bully pulpit. I don’t want to, you know, pluck out certain sections of scripture that support my argument or my beliefs and not pay attention to the other ones.

So for me, if we look at like the full arc of scripture from the beginning in Genesis all the way to the end in Revelation, what it’s talking about is redemption. What it’s talking about is reconciliation. What it’s talking about is us really being able to love again in the way that Paul wrote about in 1 Corinthians 13. That’s what it’s all about. That’s what we’re being called to. We’re not being called to hierarchies. We’re not being called to racism. We’re not being called to Christian nationalism. We’re being called to love passionately, sacrificially in a way that is actually quite difficult.

So whenever I have conflicts with somebody about what scripture is saying, it feels really important to me to be able to be mindful of the whole. Like not just this one particular passage, but what is the whole, what is the redemptive hermeneutic of the entire scripture? And how can I apply that to whatever conversation happening? So when I consider the words of Joel Webbon or Mark Driscoll, those sort of men who I do believe weaponized scripture. I do believe that the folks in the 1800s, the American Christians who were using the scripture to defend racism, I think they were weaponizing scripture. They were taking it out of context. We know that slave owners cut sections of the scripture out so that their slaves would not have any understanding of the ways that the Bible really does speak of freedom.

It speaks of not of slavery, but of freedom and of equality. So I really don’t think that if somebody is serious about their faith, that they can use the Bible to say women are less than, women are not equal to men, or people of color are less than white folks. Like that is weaponizing scripture. And I think they’re gonna have to answer to the Lord for those choices that they’ve made.

Ruth Perry (26:30)
Amen, absolutely. If the church truly embraced the gifts and leadership and wisdom and voices of women, how do you think that it would change our witness in the world?

Dorothy Greco (26:39)
I think we’d be a lot more believable. Yeah, so my husband and I happen to be in relationship with a fair number of people who would not consider themselves to be Christians. And when we’ve had conversations about why my husband and I are, their main complaint is like, if Christianity was real, then more people would act like Christians, to which we would say, yeah, we feel the same way. So I think it’s when people take the scripture seriously, take Jesus’ call seriously, take it seriously to really be changed people, to be transformed people, to be transformed into the image of Christ. That’s when the gospel gains traction in the world.

It’s not simply the talk, it’s not simply what kind of worship you have on Sunday morning, it’s how radically are you loving people. Our little church is very connected to the local government’s foster care system. So we have an unusually high number of families who foster in our church. And to me, I don’t think I could ever do that. I don’t. I have too many control issues and not enough empathy at this point in my life. Cause it is hard.

Like we have walked with these folks and to say that is really hard work, but that’s just one of the ways that they’re seeing. I have this capacity. We have space in our house. I have space in my heart. I see that the Lord cares about these children, so what can we do? And those kind of witnesses to the truth of the gospel, to me, are very impactful.

Ruth Perry (28:09)
Well, what I really appreciate about your book is that you don’t stop at just naming the problem. You also talk about healing. What does healing from misogyny actually look like for individuals and for communities?

Dorothy Greco (28:21)
Yeah, first I think it is individual in terms of what we as women have to deal with, have to walk through if we have been harmed by misogyny. And most of us have, and there’s a spectrum from those who have been raped or repeatedly faced abuse within the context of their marriage versus other women who maybe have just had a boss who was verbally abusive or have been catcalled as they’re walking down the street.

But I think first we have to name it. We have to be willing to say this happened and then to call it for what it is rather than dismissing it or rather than simply saying, you know, that happened a long time ago, so it’s not a factor for me. As they do research, you know, we’re learning how much our bodies carry the traumas in them. It may have happened a long time ago, but our bodies still remember and our bodies know what happened to us and they carry it until we’re able to process it and it’s not move beyond it, but move through it, I guess is the best way to talk about it.

So first is reckoning with what happened, talking about what happened with trusted people, whether that’s a professional therapist or friends who have been through the similar situations who can really listen and who can be empathetic witnesses. It’s grieving. There’s a lot of grief involved. When I was writing this book, I did a lot of grieving both for myself and the ways that I’ve suffered from misogyny, but corporately as a whole, the way women have been so deeply, deeply wounded by misogyny. Paying attention to our anger.

For women in the church settings in particular, people don’t like it when we get angry. We are silenced and shushed and criticize when we express anger, but anger is really important to this process. We have to really understand what is the anger trying to teach us. So I think that that’s an important component for healing and then being willing to move towards forgiveness and that is a very organic process for each one of us.

And I don’t think it’s ever one and done. I really believe that the seven times 70 that Jesus talked about is true for all of us, that we forgive, we make the conscious choice to forgive, but then there are so many different layers that come up as we’re triggered or as we remember things that happened. And we have to then just revisit and say, okay, I guess that I have more work to do here.

And then for men, for those of us have perpetuated misogyny, it’s different for them. I think it’s really important that they acknowledge the ways that they have harmed women. And I think that that acknowledgement should be both to the woman, if it’s an individual woman, and also corporate. I really would like to see more pastors from the front saying, I have been thinking about the ways that we as a church have been maybe a little bit misogynistic and here I’m gonna name them and I want to take responsibility for that. That would really go a long way, I think, for women to feel seen and heard and for the experiences that they’ve had to be named because so often it’s denied and we then have to just think like, did that really happen? Is that what happened in that situation? But when somebody can name it and own it, I think that that really is very useful to us.

And then men being willing to say, I am going to do whatever it takes to make sure that the women in my congregation are thriving. And I want to have a conversation. I’m going to invite you women to come and have lunch with me after church for the next four weeks. And I want to hear what you have to say about the ways that you have been shut down or the ways that you have not been invited in. I’ve been going to church for 45 years and nobody has ever done that, ever, and I would love to see it. All you pastors out there, I’d love to see that.

Ruth Perry (31:59)
I think it was 12 years ago my husband and I went through a church planting assessment with Converge. And I was the only female candidate. Everyone else there was just the male was going to be the pastor and then the wife was there to support. And
Converge at the time was, you know, women could be pastors too, but they were partnering with Acts 29. And so the experience of that weekend was like, I’m the odd duck around here.

And I remember them asking me if women using their gifts in ministry was a hill that I wanted to die on. And I said no at the time. It wasn’t. That was 12 years ago. But as I’ve experienced these obstacles in me fulfilling my calling, I’ve come to realize that it absolutely is abuse when you don’t let women use their gifts, and be who they are and who God made them to be. If you’re trying to stuff them into boxes that fit your norms for your community and that’s all they can be, that is abuse as well, I believe.

Dorothy Greco (32:55)
Yes, and it can lead to religious trauma.

Ruth Perry (32:58)
Yeah, yeah. I did get some EMDR therapy recently and I realized I have religious trauma. It hadn’t occurred to me, but it was really helpful to go through that therapy.

Dorothy Greco (33:08)
Yeah, yeah, I did some EMDR last summer too as I was writing the book because there were so many things coming up for me.

Ruth Perry (33:15)
For women who have experienced harm and trauma in the church because of misogyny, what would you want them to hear the most?

Dorothy Greco (33:21)
Hmm. I think that healing is possible. It’s totally a journey and it’s gonna take work, but healing is possible and Maybe more importantly that God loves women like I believe that with all of my heart that the Lord loves women I think when we look at the ways that Jesus treated women the ways he listened to women the way he respected women the way he invited women in. The ways that he healed women. I can’t come to any other conclusion other than the fact that you know he was portraying God’s heart to women. And I really believe that if the church and if the culture treated women in those ways, that there would be just an incredible amount of healing and an incredible amount of joy that we could experience as a culture if that was in fact how we were treating women.

Ruth Perry (34:10)
How can women begin reclaiming their voices and gifts after years of being told to stay small?

Dorothy Greco (34:15)
Yeah, that’s hard work, isn’t it?

Ruth Perry (34:17)
Yeah.

Dorothy Greco (34:17)
I think that that is part of the healing journey and then being willing to start to take risks, you know, to start to push back. I think a number of years ago when our senior pastor was preaching a sermon about David and the way he phrased it was that David and Bathsheba’s affair. And I remember just in that moment thinking like, whoa, that was not an affair. An affair is consensual, an affair is mutual. And so rather than just sit on those feelings, you know, I had a conversation with him. Didn’t do it right after the sermon, because I understand how vulnerable people are when they preach, but waited a couple days and then just wrote a very thoughtful email to say, here’s some research, here’s some things that I’ve learned over the years, and I don’t think it’s really fair to call it an affair. I think that it was rape. It seems pretty clear to me that it was rape.

So taking, like finding the courage in those moments, to do just little pushbacks I think makes a difference. It gives us a sense of empowerment and voice, which is not to say that all of those conversations will go well or will be heard. But then really I think reckoning with am I in a space that is going to allow me to thrive and to flourish? And if not, is it time to think about finding a different church? Obviously that’s a much more complicated question when it’s marriage, right?

But for some women that is the story that if their partner is unwilling to listen, he’s unwilling to hear, if he’s unwilling to value, if there’s ongoing abuse, then I think that that is a question that’s worth asking is do I need to leave in order to be able to speak and in order to be able to find my voice. think Tia Leving’s book, The Well-Trained Wife and her new book as well, which is I Belong to Me, I haven’t finished that one yet, but she talks a lot about what what it’s like as a woman who is clearly super smart, very articulate, to be in a system that routinely shut her down, that routinely said she had no right to speak. And so both of her books talk about what it’s been like for her to find her voice and to journey out of those oppressive systems.

Ruth Perry (36:20)
Let me just ask a couple more questions before we close. What does the phrase, For the love of women, mean to you now, after writing and discussing this book with readers?

Dorothy Greco (36:28)
Yeah, originally the title was Love the Women. And then as we were working on both title and subtitle, was about a year and a half ago now, my main editor, Kyle, said, you know, I think that a more invitational title is for the love of women.

And I agreed with them. I thought yes, you’re right. I think that that that is a better title So I think when we consider what are the things that need to happen in order for women to feel valued respected loved in order to thrive I think it it really is about for the love of women like what can we do for the love of women? How can we change systems and cultures and churches for the love of women? So it is an invitation and I think that

This is only going to change if a lot of people are willing to come alongside of those who have these feelings and who have the level of conviction so that we can move forward. When you think back to the ways that racism had one of its falls, certainly it’s still there and we’re seeing that a lot within the Christian nationalist movement.

There was some real clear movement that happened in the 1960s. And I think that there was just like a groundswell of people who said enough, like I am just so tired of seeing this, of experiencing this. And then that collaborative effort, and there was a lot of prayer. I mean, there was a lot of prayer that happened during that time. So it has to come through a desire for transformation, both personally and corporately and there has to be a sense of it’s time. It’s time for us as a culture to stop oppressing women and to figure out what it looks like to really love them so that they can thrive and flourish.

Ruth Perry (38:13)
Yeah, I just think that’s such a profound and simple thing. But as Christians, we’re called to love God and love our neighbor as ourselves. And are you truly loving someone if you’re controlling them and dominating them and having expectations for them? Yeah. And then I think of all the one another commands throughout the New Testament. If we applied that to our relationships with women in the church, would we treat them the way that we’re treating them now?

Dorothy Greco (38:37)
Right? Right?

Ruth Perry (38:38)
If readers walk away remembering only one thing from this book, what do you hope that it is?

Dorothy Greco (38:43)
I think it just goes back to that last question is that God loves them and they are worthy of being loved. There is nothing faulty about them because they’re women. We have gotten that message again and again and again that we’re less than, that we should be smaller, that we should be quiet, that we shouldn’t get in the way. And I don’t think that that’s truthful. think honestly, if I’m really being honest, I would say that’s a lie from the pit of hell.

That’s exactly what the enemy would want. The enemy would want us to make women subservient, to make them less than, to keep them down because if women are fully themselves and fully thriving, watch out.

Ruth Perry (39:20)
Well, thank you so much. Your book is For the Love of Women by Dorothy Littell Greco. Your website is DorothyGreco.com, and where else can people find you?

Dorothy Greco (39:29)
Yeah, so Substack is a great place and I’m under What’s Faith Got to do With It. I don’t post a ton, like maybe twice a month, but really solid articles in there, sometimes excerpts, and then I’m also on Instagram.

Ruth Perry (39:43)
You have two marriage books as well, right?

Dorothy Greco (39:45)
Yeah. The first one is Making Marriage Beautiful and that was published in 2017 by David C. Cook and then Marriage in the Middle, which is really about marriage in the years of between like 40 to 70 in terms of our age, not the number of years married. And that one, I really love that book. There’s nothing like it out there. It really talks very honestly about the challenges that we face in midlife as we’re married.

Ruth Perry (40:09)
Well, I’m 45 so I’m gonna pick it up. Thank you so much for being here today talking with me, Dorothy. Let me give you the last word before we sign off.

Dorothy Greco (40:18)
Yeah, just am appreciative that you care about this and my hope is that more and more people will read the book and will share it with other folks and the conversations will snowball so that we can really make some progress on figuring out what it looks like to love women.

Ruth Perry (40:33)
It’s a really amazing book. I highly recommend it. Thank you so much. God bless.

Dorothy Greco (40:37)
Thank you.


Did you enjoy this episode? Please subscribe, rate or review us on YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, Substack, and more! Your support means the world. God bless!

021 I Jenna Dunn on Seven Scriptures to Prove Complementarianism is Wrong

In this episode, Jenna Dunn of Ezer Bible returns to the podcast to revisit her journey from complementarianism to egalitarianism, exploring key Biblical passages and challenging traditional interpretations of gender roles in the Church. This episode offers deep insights into how we read Scripture, translation issues, and the theological basis for gender equality in Christian ministry.

You can read the Bible passages we discuss here: Romans 16, Genesis 2, and Genesis 3:16, 1 Corinthians 11, 1 Corinthians 14, 1 Timothy 2:12, and 1 Timothy 3.

Here are links to where you can follow Jenna Dunn and her Ezer Bible ministry:
Jenna’s Website: Ezer Bible
Ezer Bible on Facebook
Ezer Bible on Instagram
Ezer Bible on YouTube

Please enjoy this episode of The Beautiful Kingdom Builders podcast on YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, Substack, and more! 

TRANSCRIPT:

Ruth Perry (00:15)
My guest today is Jenna Dunn from Ezer Bible. You were my very first interview when I started this podcast. Even though I released our conversation as my third were my very first. When I listened to our episode back, I was like, Oh, I should have asked her so many other questions. And I just really appreciate you being my guinea pig. And I appreciate you coming back on and being gracious enough to do that again. So thank you, Jenna.

Jenna (00:38)
Thank you, Ruth. I’m really happy to be here. It’s been really amazing to get to see all the people you’ve interviewed. loved our conversation last time, but yeah, I’m excited to talk seven passages that I mentioned before.

I remember telling you the backstory about how I had these seven passages bookmarked in a Bible that I always carried with me. And I put together an online guide that’s a video, but I’m always thinking that maybe it’s better to just talk to people who want to know the Bible for themselves and they’re already curious. Maybe other women or couples who are in a complementarian church and they’re like well, I want to know how to explain what’s wrong with that position or what the Bible really says because I noticed if you try to talk directly to somebody who’s really invested in complementarianism or if you’re going to a church and that’s part of their doctrinal statement, you can’t really change people’s minds easily and maybe you shouldn’t. Maybe you should find a different place to fellowship.

I think for myself it was really destructive in my life to think that you can convince somebody and it’s tempting too because you’re like, well we all believe in the Bible. Just show them what it says in the Bible and that was definitely my mindset. I had these seven passages bookmarked and I’ll just show them, this is what it says. It’ll be so easy. They’ll just agree. But there’s almost like a spiritual resistance to people who are upholding that worldview, right? It’s not even just, Oh, the Bible says men need to do this and women need to do this. It’s so much beyond that. It’s their political framework. It’s how they’re interpreting scripture, it’s a whole framework that’s imposed onto the Bible. It’s how they’re doing relationships.

Ruth Perry (02:18)
I think it’s like the parable of the soils; some soil is receptive and some is really hard. And the people who are most considering that maybe complementarianism isn’t the way is the person who has had a bad experience and they’ve realized that the fruit of complementarianism isn’t good. And so they’re experiencing some cognitive dissonance. And that could have been either in their relationship at church or in the home.

Or perhaps they’ve felt a call from God. And so now they’re trying make sense of that because they’re a woman. That can’t be right. And so it seems like the people who are the receptive hearers of egalitarianism, if they’re coming from a complementarian background, they’re in a spiritual season of, that’s not working, I need to find a better way. But if it is working for them, they’re just gonna ignore you. They’re gonna cast you out as heretical. They’re gonna warn themselves about you and others.

Jenna (03:13)
Yeah, and I have to say too, when you’re in a complimentarian church and you haven’t really questioned that mindset or that framework at all, it seems like it’s not that big of a deal. So some women feel called to teach or pastor. What’s the big deal? They can teach and pastor women and children. There’s plenty of opportunities. Nobody should be feeling bad. And it really just doesn’t seem like it’s that important.

And it isn’t, you can still do a lot. I would have been perfectly happy just doing children’s ministry. I was writing Sunday school curriculum and I loved it. I never wanted to teach men. So the only reason why it was an issue is that what was being taught to everybody was not what the Bible said. So that’s the issue is that you have a framework people who are different in some way, like they’re female, they bring truth to the light. They can’t call somebody into repentance. They can’t even make positive change in their marriage, right? It’s the whole framework where only men the leadership capabilities and the ability to tell everybody this is why you need to repent. This is what the Bible actually says. So that’s the issue is that women can’t come against that framework. They can’t question that doctrine. They have to go along with it.

I remember there was another situation where I brought up to leadership that there’s not any women in positions of authority so what if I as a woman was in a dangerous situation like an abusive marriage or I had something very personal and I needed to get counseling or help or advice from a woman they were like well pastors wives, ministry wives, look at all these women and you don’t understand you can’t go to a woman who’s married to one of the leaders and say, I think that the way that Ephesians 5, the way the pastor talked about it, was really bad because there’s women in the church that are in abusive marriages. You can’t question anything, you can’t change anything, and there’s no women that have a rightful authority, right? Following their place in the pyramid structure, right? Trying to keep their position.

That’s not a healthy dynamic, although the issue is not, well, women can’t teach men, and they’re just not happy only teaching other women. It’s really that what’s being taught is not able to be questioned, and men are only called into repentance by other men. So they have a whole blind spot, you know? And they’re only interpreting scripture according to this narrow framework of what other men have said it says, and you can’t question it.

And a lot of times, a Sunday morning teaching will not even have a very healthy perspective, it’s very narrow minded. I remember one example was seeing a male pastor teach about the woman at the well. And it just drove me crazy because his bias was so visible. So there’s all these passages in the Bible that are really about women and they are the words and theology and conversations of women and the stories of women and then only men can teach it and they don’t understand, they don’t see, they don’t ask the right things.

I think it took women to start saying Bathsheba was raped. So many male pastors taught that story. And then it was women that came along and they’re like, was she able to say no? Did she have to if the king comes and says, you have to go with me? Did she have an option? Women think to ask that. And the Bible is not just this rule book and it’s not stories of only men. There’s all these really personal stories of women and it makes sense to have women help with that translation and interpretation.

So it’s not about, well, women want to be able to do all these things that men do because they’re not happy being a woman. No, men aren’t doing things good. And how is that going to get fixed? If you silence the people that are really given by God as gifts to help his body. That is what the leadership positions in the church are supposed to be, is people that are given by Jesus to his bride to teach and to lead and to preach and to evangelize. If you only have men doing those things, it’s not going to be as good as it could be.

Ruth Perry (07:17)
I also think of the value that you bring to this conversation and that I bring to this conversation is that we up complementarian. And so we’ve read the Bible through that lens, and then we’ve rediscovered the Bible through a new lens. And just having that insight of both perspectives, I think, is really valuable. And I know growing up complementarian, the way that complementarians spoke of egalitarians. I would say it was not according to the New Testament one another commands that we’re supposed to love one another and consider others better than ourselves. But rather, there was a lot of demeaning language and writing off and just assuming that egalitarians were playing fast and loose with scripture and that they weren’t taking it seriously and that they were letting their culture influence the way that they read the Bible. And as I’ve met egalitarians and read egalitarians, that couldn’t be further from the truth.

Jenna (08:08)
Yeah. Yeah, who’s doing mental gymnastics? The people trying to make it fit the most common social structure we’ve had throughout the world, throughout time is patriarchy and trying to make the Bible fit that, trying to make the Bible prescribe patriarchy. I think that that’s really pandering to the culture.

Even the name complementarian, I find slightly deceptive because nobody is saying that men and women are the same. Both sides think that male and female were created by God to complement each other so it’s not even being honest about what their position is. Their position is not just that men and women are different and compliment each other, but that there must be this hierarchy between them. But if you say, well, they’re hierarchalists, they don’t love that. And if you say, you’re advocating for patriarchy, they don’t really love that either.

But being complementarian, it’s a weird thing for them to name the movement, but also just the fact that everything came out as a response, right? It was a very reactionary movement. It only makes sense in America and it only makes sense since the 70s and it only makes sense as a reaction to feminism. And so there’s these bigger issues that are hard to bring up and I think one of the strategies is to ask the right questions and to help them bigger ideas in scripture. So one of the first things that I think is really important to bring up is Romans 16.

So the seven passages are Romans 16 and then Genesis 2 and then look at Genesis 3:16 and then you get into the First Corinthians 11, First Corinthians 14 and First Timothy 2. So everybody starts the other way around with first Timothy 2, and I actually think that’s the least relevant passage But I also think it’s important to look at the whole chapter.

So, those seven chapters, I think you can give people an overview of what that passage is talking about and the big picture and it’ll all fit in. And hopefully it illuminates all of scripture and it doesn’t just feel like this disconnected framework. And I think that’s one of the things that really bothered me about complementarianism is that they will make a list of something like, nine proofs of male headship or, the true woman manifesto. There’s also the biblical manhood and womanhood. It’s kind of like a manifesto, but they’ll make 10 points, like 10 sentences, and then they’ll just be like three scriptures to support that statement.

And the scriptures are different genres of the Bible. They’re just a hodgepodge and then the scriptures don’t support the statement, or they’ll be saying something slightly different. They’ll say, well, Paul is quoting the created order. And then you go and you look at where they’re saying Paul’s saying that, but Paul’s never using the phrase created order.

I don’t see egalitarians use the Bible that way, right? There’s more respect. There’s more providing context and explaining who’s saying that and who their audience is and why they might be saying it. There’s a need for that because I think using the Bible like it’s just a rule book or a blueprint for how to have a good family or how to have a good marriage or how everybody should act according to their gender, it’s just a weird way to use scripture.

And so with those seven passages, kind of the crux of the issue is the complementarian idea of created order that they get from Genesis, right? Because the verses that they’re using from Paul, they think that he’s quoting Genesis. So looking at Romans 16 first to say, what did the early church look like? And Romans 16 not only gives you a list men and women working together, it does list one married couple in ministry, Priscilla and Aquila, but it lists a lot of women with no statement about who they’re married to or whose wife they are. It also gives women titles of respect. It shows that they’re set over others. You know, even listing churches that they are set over. You have Phoebe presiding over the Church of Centrea.

So just the amount of women and the way women are listed and then how Paul is commending them. So it doesn’t only just tell you how the church looked and what people were doing, but what Paul thought about it. And everything else that you talk about after that, every other part of the Bible that you read, would Paul really be contradicting himself if he’s commending women for leading? Is he later telling them to be silent?

If he’s calling them coworkers and partnering with them and even having women over him as a man, is he later going to say, yeah, I don’t want any women to exercise authority over men? The conversation has to start with that. You get this picture of the early church as being very diverse the women that are commended are not all somebody’s wife and somebody’s mother. It’s not like when you are at a pastor’s conference by The Resurgence or by The Gospel Coalition and the only mention of women is so-and-so’s wife. It’s a very different feel.

The early church movement had a lot of women and maybe their husbands weren’t saved. Maybe their husbands weren’t with them and maybe they weren’t married and there was a lot of householders that were women. And they impose this 1950s Leave it to Beaver family model onto the text and it’s just not in the text.

And also, a lot of these things that they think Paul is saying are much worse. He’s not just saying women ask your husbands at home and be respectful and show deference to male leadership. He’s not saying that. He’s saying the voice of a woman shameful or filthy. So you either think he’s quoting a different idea or that he believes that and that somehow makes sense when you see Romans 16 and it doesn’t make sense, right?

So I think starting with Romans 16, that’s the biggest thing. If you have two seconds to talk to a complementarian, ask them if they read Romans 16 what they think about it. If you’re reading the ESV, some of these passages are interpreted in such a way, like it’ll say, well known to the apostles, right?

Ruth Perry (14:09)
Hmm. Yeah, I was going to ask you about how can away from Junia?

Jenna (14:13)
Yeah, well, it was Junius for a while and then they realized there’s no way it was a man’s name. And so then they changed the other words in the sentence. So you see, not only is the actual scripture important to look at, but that history of how we’ve translated it. Also, it reveals that there’s been a historic bias against female leadership.

And so I think that’s important to recognize because it’s not just people being difficult or politically correct because of feminism now. It’s not just our modern culture. Women have always been discriminated against and they’ve always been trying to serve the Lord. They’ve always been full of the Holy Spirit and trying to do what they’re called to do and there’s always been a historic bias there in translation and we have a history of how it’s been translated. The end result is nobody thinks that it could possibly be Junius. Everybody knows it’s Junia.

And so that should cause you to also doubt the other things that the ESV tries to get away with in modern times. Like they still try to, say, not deacon to say servant. None of the other places where men are called deacons do they try to say servant. And you actually have the church that she’s presiding over listed. So yeah, I think that that is an obstacle, the translation issues. And unfortunately, that is one of the reasons why people continue to be complementarian is just cause they’re reading the ESV. And so they’re not seeing what scripture really says. And that’s too bad. ⁓

Ruth Perry (15:37)
It’s interesting how people say, well, there’s no women pastors in the Bible, but there’s no one in the Bible that has the title pastor. It is deacon or servant or shepherd or some other term.

Jenna (15:41)
No pastors. Yeah, and the bigger picture of that though is that there aren’t offices. There’s not these elite titles, right? The fact that Paul is like, I’m going to call the people that are in charge servants. It’s so Jesus-like. It backs up the whole ethic of Jesus, to say, don’t be like the Gentiles who lord it over one another.

Whoever is going to be the greatest among you is going to be your servant. So to not try to seek to be the greatest. I love all of the stories where the male disciples are arguing about who’s greatest among them. There’s one where they’re like outside arguing and they come into the house and Jesus knows what they were arguing about, and he’s like, what were you talking about back there? You know? I see that feeling in the whole nine proofs of male headship that they get from Genesis, right? Like the whole concept of created order. This is their whole argument in those bullet point checklists.

The man was created first, the woman sinned first. And it’s just this childish, immature framework of who did what first, who is greatest, who’s not greatest. It’s just a weird way to look at the Bible and it goes against the bigger picture of everything Jesus said. And then you see Paul really running with the exact same ethic, setting up churches and just saying, we’re gonna call everybody who leads a servant.

And even the five-fold ministry titles, those are all things you’re doing. You’re a teacher, you’re an evangelist, you’re a shepherd. It’s not about this official title.

Ruth Perry (17:24)
I think it is a little bit of projection, the way they talk about women who are trying to follow their callings in the church. They’re like, well, you just want power. But I feel that reveals what their perspective is, that those positions are power. And it’s about authority and lording over others rather than service and servanthood.

Jenna (17:37)
Yeah. Yeah, I do see the projection too. It’s really interesting being told that you just want attention when you’re a woman in the church, that was really odd for me. It’s so not my personality and I can’t think of anything I’ve done that would warrant somebody saying, well, you just want attention. Their view of womanhood and what I should want and what I should be is so narrow and small that it’s like anything outside of that is oh, you want all these things.

Yeah, it takes empathy, I think, for somebody coming from that framework to imagine what that must feel like. You get saved and you get baptized and you start learning about the Bible and then you get filled with the Holy Spirit. And for some people, they really feel called to teach or to lead or to even preach, to call people into repentance. And then if you’re a woman, you’re supposed to show this special respect. You can’t be in any sort of authority position where you’re telling a man what to do or criticize him. You can’t tell him that he’s teaching the Bible wrong or that he’s not seeing things. I’m not saying that you would ever do it in a disrespectful way, but it’s just not allowed in any way.

And so what do you do if you really want to build community and be a part of a community? There’s just not a way do it in a healthy way, I don’t think. And it also is really destructive for a lot of marriages. If you are married and you’re in leadership in that type of environment, there’s just a lot of ways that your marriage is going to be attacked because especially if you’re the woman thinking that the Bible is freeing towards women and opens the mouths of women and is empowering for women and then you’re in a complementarian culture, it’s going to be hard not only socially, it’s going to be hard to actually to be honest with people and to be in community. And then if you’re in a marriage that’s disjointed that way, it’s really hard.

I wish it was just a matter of saying, well, we all have the same Lord. We read the same Bible. We have the same Spirit. Let’s just open up the Bible and just see what it says. But unfortunately, there’s a lot more to it. But yeah, Romans 16 is good. I think the next thing to focus on is the whole creation account, mainly Genesis two, because everything in complementarian theology hinges on them establishing male headship before the fall.

Everybody agrees as soon as the fall happens and he’s gonna rule over her, that’s Bad. It’s, you know, what do you think before that, you think God instituted a form of patriarchy or a good male headship hierarchy, right? That’s the crux of the issue and I think the fact that you have new language to prove that is a good indicator that it’s not just obvious in scripture. Phrases like, God’s design, created order, order of creation.

Even male headship is kind of a questionable phrase. The Bible definitely talks about men being the head of their wife, but I see all the time people are reading a scripture and every place that says head, they say headship and sometimes they’ll even just say authority. I’m like wow, that’s a crazy metaphor, authority in a body. That’s not even a metaphor anymore, right? You’ve just completely changed a word. But yeah, people will say Paul said and then say something that’s not even in the Bible and not what he said.

And this idea equal, but different roles, even the idea of roles or gender roles, that’s all really modern stuff. It like the sixties? They started talking about gender roles. That’s a social construct. It’s a weird thing to impose onto the Bible.

Once you see how weird it is, once you start questioning it, you’re like, this is really a whole way of looking at things and actually taking a story and saying, God instituted a certain design or order and then the sin in the Garden of Eden is a reversal of that. At that point you’re redefining sin as not acting like your gender or not following your role. Try to find another story in the Bible where that’s what the sin is. Not following, not staying in your place.

That really struck me the other day, how it’s all hinging on a really modern idea. And now you’re taking a story in the Bible that is foundational to understanding the rest of scripture and you’re saying, it’s about not staying in your place. Have you seen what I’m talking about where the chain of command is supposed to be, God, Jesus, man, woman, and then the reversal is the serpent, woman, man, God, you know what I mean? But that idea is sticky.

Ruth Perry (22:05)
This is really where we read our culture into the Bible because we are conditioned in a patriarchal culture where there are roles, and we call them traditional values. So it feels old, just using that language of this is the traditional view. It feels like this is the right way to view things, but it really is the culture of the world and we’re supposed to be renewed and not conform to the culture of the world, but conform to the values of the kingdom of God, which I feel like Genesis 1 and 2 really lays out a beautiful vision of partnership between men and women in having dominion. They were both given the same job description to have dominion and care for God’s beautiful creation, and they were connected with God and they were connected with each other. And the sin creates disconnection and harm between our relationship with each other and with God.

But your ministry is called Ezer Bible. So I’m obviously wanting to hear from you about how you understand that word helpmeet because that sounds, in the King James Version that people love to read, it says that the woman is a helpmeet or in the ESV helper. And we just read that through our modern English lens as subordinate and that there’s hierarchy inherent in that. That that’s what God’s created order is. That we’re assisting the man in his calling and his dominion. So can you explain how to better understand that word helper?

Jenna (23:21)
Yeah, that was actually world-changing for me. I think that that was the thing that caused me to leave complementarian theology. And I’ve noticed that some of the different well-known complementarian bloggers or authors, they’ve changed that list. It used to be like the second point was that the woman’s called ezer was actually one of their proofs of male headship. Which is crazy because you know if it was the other way around where God created the man to rescue the woman from being alone, that God calls himself ezer. And it would be a proof of male headship.

And then, to even have it say, equal to or facing him, like on his level. So she’s a rescue, a deliverer, but on his level. I think it’s really difficult to get subservience out of that word and when I really looked up that word and I saw the other places it was used I actually felt it elevated, I mean, I know it’s equal to but I was thinking wow, that’s really an elevating title for the first woman to be called, and the fact that God’s like, I’m gonna make an ezer like this..

I think that the takeaway that complementarians get about like, he was created first, she sinned first. It’s a really weird takeaway when you see the story as it is, how everything is done in such a way that they can’t not be interdependent. She’s built from his body. So, can you say that he existed first if, the materials that she’s built with are his body? It’s done in such a way that I think what you’re supposed to take away is wow, they’re really interconnected.

That’s the idea that eventually leads to marriage is that she’s taken out of him, so then he’s going to leave his family and cleave to her because he’s seeking that wholeness. That seems like the bigger thing to take away from that story but also isn’t that story all about Jesus? There are so many things in that story that go against the natural world that we know. We all know that every human came out of the body of a woman. This is the natural order of things and this story is flipping a lot of that on its head and Paul uses all of that in the New Testament to show interdependence and connection, not to show a hierarchy.

I think that another huge thing to point out is that Paul doesn’t say that the man is created first so to stop putting words in his mouth, to stop misquoting him is huge. Because then you have to be thinking, what is Paul saying? He’s not saying that the man was created first. It literally doesn’t say that word in there. And take the phrase created order and to start imposing that onto how you’re interpreting the Bible. Paul says the man is formed first. And then you have to look at the formation going on.

That there’s a completely different word for the idea of taking something that already existed in chapter one and molding it like clay and then breathing life into it and then taking part of the bone and the flesh off and building a woman. I don’t know if you’ve heard something that was kind of new to me that I heard from Tim Mackey was that the word ezer is just one little dot different from the word city.

So like this idea of building an ezer, it’s like an architecture word. It’s like how you’d build an altar, or you’d build a house, or you’d build a city. You look in the New Testament and you have the New City that’s prepared like a bride. There’s some really interesting spiritual stuff going on in this story, right? The natural order shows us that we all got our life from a woman. And so maybe there’s some respect and honor due to women that we all are born of a woman and then this story maybe gives men this idea well everything came from a man, he was first and I think that they really glom onto that as sort of a projection of male superiority but I don’t think that that’s why God gave us that story.

And I actually think the entire creation account is about the Creator. I see Jesus in every in every part of that and Paul does too. In fact, most of what Paul is talking about whenever he’s quoting the creation account, he’s talking about that interconnection. He’s talking about two become one, a head and a body, make He’s talking about the fact that the woman is made, is built from his body and just the same thing with Jesus and his church. The church is being built from the broken body of Jesus and the church is a bride and the church is like a city.

But the big thing to make complementarians, look at it different, it’s just to make them look at what it actually says. You can see that these phrases their framework is dependent on don’t exist in Scripture. I think too it’s important to not misquote Paul. There’s a lot of things that they say Paul is saying and then you look at it and that’s not what he’s saying.

You know, like I talked about the quote, that’s called like the quote refutation view where he’s quoting, I think, the Jewish oral law. But when you look at what he’s actually quoting, if you want to try to make that his actual opinion, it’s pretty extreme. It’s actually a really mean thing to say. I actually just walked away from Christianity when I did a word search I think it’s verse 34, it says something like, the voice of a woman is shameful. And I was like, I’m sure it doesn’t say shameful. Like, I don’t recommend looking up that word, It says the voice of a woman is filthy.

It’s not just saying, women maybe aren’t educated at this time in history and they just need to hush down a little bit and just ask their husbands at home and stay in their place. It’s saying something about the quality of her voice, no matter what she’s saying.

Ruth Perry (29:08)
It’s deragatory.

Jenna (29:09)
Yeah, and to say something’s filthy or shameful is hinting at the idea which was prevalent in the first century, that the voice of a woman is sensual, which you know you still see that in other cultures today. Some of the Muslim majority countries have laws against women speaking in public, because they think it’s immodest. The idea that that’s representative of Paul, I think just doesn’t fit with the rest of his story.

It does fit with who he was before he encountered Christ on the road to Damascus. So you see him confronting his past worldview. You’ve seen Galatians 3.28, he says that there’s neither slave or free, or male or female, or Jew or Gentile. That is almost verbatim a prayer. So he’s refuting what he probably used to pray when he was a Pharisee. So you see him come against the world view that he used to hold to. I think it’s very unlikely that he’s out of nowhere just going back to being a Pharisee.

But I think that sometimes people who don’t power of the gospel, they just kind of synchronize everything in his life. They’re like, oh, well, he was a Pharisee. So he believed that. And they sync that together with who he was as a Christian in Christ. No, he did a 180. Before he was rounding up all the Jesus followers and locking them up and killing them.

You can’t synchronize that with who he is in Christ. He had a conversion experience. Whereas he used to follow those ideas, now he’s partnering with women. Now he’s learning for women. And I think the idea that he’s saying that is just, I think it’s so out of line with everything else that his ministry is about. And I think it’s perfectly in line that he would say that and refute it. There is a quote Rabbi Eliezer that says the voice of a woman is filthy nakedness, and there is also the quote that says little woman know nothing but the use of her distaff like her spitting, so there’s things that are really similar to that idea in the Talmud, but at that time they could have just been Jewish oral laws or slogans and I think it’s very likely that he’s, quoting them and saying, what? Did the Word of God come from you or did it come to you only?

I think that with that passage, just getting people to really look at what it says and to not say that it says something it doesn’t. That was the way it was presented to me. This is about headship. Same with 1st Timothy 2. It’s about headship. It’s about the created order. Paul’s quoting the created order. Well, he’s not. That phrase isn’t being used. And what he’s saying, that the voice of a woman is filthy is nothing to do with the created order. you know? And that’s actually not one of them that he’s quoting the creation account. It’s the 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 11 where Paul, specifically quotes the creation account.

So, you you’ve got like this circle where how they’re interpreting the creation account is influencing their view of these two verses and then how they’re interpreting those two verses is influencing their creation account idea. And so it’s like, how do you break that loop? It’s a negative feedback loop. How do you get them to see both sections correctly? You can’t just fix one, right? But the crux of the issue is they don’t see the creation account accurately. They’re convinced that it’s about something different than it’s about, they don’t read that story and think, this is about how men and women were rule together. They were created in a way that they’re interdependent on each other.

Ruth Perry (32:42)
This might be a tangent, but I also think Calvinists don’t start in Genesis 1 and 2. They like to start in Genesis 3 at the fall where we are, you know, original sin, that we are filthy and just totally unworthy of anything from God. Everything is a free gift, which Armenians would agree. Everything is a free gift from God.

But Armenians would start with Genesis 1 and 2 about common grace and the creation of God and the dignity and value of every human life, the very goodness of human beings. But there could be patriarchal Armenians too. And they might allow women to use their gifts in the church, but then they’ll still want that order in the home of male headship and women’s submission.

Jenna (33:21)
Yeah, I’ve seen that. Yeah, I’ve been really intrigued by that. I came across that pretty recently where I was listening to somebody who said, yeah, I believe in male headship in the home, but not in the church. And I had to think about that for a second because that means that you still hold to the idea of the created order in Genesis. But that means it’s only applicable to a man and a woman in marriage. I think a lot of that has to do with how you’re interpreting all the head-body metaphor.

You’re either reading the head-body metaphor as a metaphor about connection and interdependence, or you’re breaking that metaphor and replacing that word with a different word. Headship and authority, those are the same thing, but the metaphor is not a headship and a body. That’s like saying, let’s hike up this trail, meet me at the authority of the river. You’d be like, no, that doesn’t even make sense. So there’s no other place where we use words that way, you know?

And actually, the word in Greek, we have the perfect match in English, the word head in English. It has the same meanings. It can mean your literal head. It can mean authority, like a CEO. And it could mean source, like the head of a river. So it really is like the perfect English word. Usually you don’t have an exact match, it really is head is head. If I’m saying to you, take that hat off your head, I’m not saying take the hat off your authority.

I just don’t understand how people break that metaphor and then think that they’re reading the Bible correctly. I mean, I know what happens is they’re like, well, Jesus is the head of the church. And those are similar things, but can’t you see you can use the same word in different contexts. You can say that Jesus is head over the church, because that’s also true. But that doesn’t mean that men take on every single thing that’s true about Jesus. It’s only in the context of a marriage that a man is a head of a body.

You can’t have more than one of each for that metaphor to work. If you’ve ever seen the umbrellas, the umbrellas are crazy. You can have five umbrellas under one umbrella. If it’s just about authority, there’s not one of each, right? You can’t have two becomes one. It like completely breaks the metaphor.

Ruth Perry (35:14)
That’s not how umbrellas work. You only need one. Yeah.

Jenna (35:26)
Maybe that’s even just like a language issue that people don’t understand where the Bible is using a metaphor. You know, maybe people wanting to be very literal with the way they read the Bible. They’re trying to be literal with the metaphor. But yeah.

Ruth Perry (35:38)
You would also think, if Jesus is head of the church in the way that they want to be head of their church or their wife, then we wouldn’t have 40 something thousand different denominations. We would all be submitted to Christ and look the same, right?

Jenna (35:52)
Yeah, I actually think that the complementarian position’s a little bit more about the unwillingness to let something be less structured than we would like. The unwillingness to sort of hold things with an open hand and say, we are all submitted to Jesus. Jesus is the head of his church. Jesus is building his church. But instead we want to create a structure that looks like the world. We want something hierarchal so that everybody knows what they’re supposed to do. We want to be able to follow rank and have this certain structure that makes sense to us.

And I think, the Bible just doesn’t really give us that. I don’t think that what you see in Romans 16 shows that that’s what there was, at that time. the fact is not even after a lot of persecution that you get a really structured church. And even at that point, you still see women doing that complementarians say that women can’t do today. That’s another thing that’s crazy to me. Just if you look at the history of the church, women have always been trying to do stuff. So this idea that it’s just only women today because of feminism. It’s only women now that are trying to do things that they shouldn’t do. Like throughout history women have just been completely satisfied serving men.

Yeah, there’s there’s so many different aspects that go into it that show it’s not just about what does the bible say because if we could all just like read the same bible and say well you know it says this it doesn’t say this that would be simple right but yeah people are bringing a lot of baggage into the whole discussion

Ruth Perry (37:04)
Yeah. So back to your seven passages, then you move to Genesis 3:16 and you talk about the fall. What do you say about that?

Jenna (37:25)
Yeah, so I think that the major thing to take away from Genesis is just the idea of created versus formed, and to see that the phrase created order needs to be examined, to see what’s actually there. But the Genesis 3:16, it’s crazy how one verse has so much baggage.

But the quickest, easiest thing to take away from that verse without going into the whole history of how it’s been mistranslated is that Paul read it a certain way. It’s different than what you see in most translations today. For the vast majority of church history, I think like for 1500 years, it said turning. It didn’t say, it didn’t even say desire.

Ruth Perry (38:08)
This is where it says your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you.

Jenna (38:12)
Yeah, and also if you look at a Septuagint it says, she will be turning towards her husband. He will rule over her. And it’s a prediction, It’s just saying this is what’s going to happen. It’s not saying that he has to rule over her. I think the 2016 ESV actually changed it to your desire will be to control your husband or something like that. And then in the more recent, I think it’s 2025 or 2026, they updated it and went back to desire.

So I think almost every translation today says your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you. And I think that’s fine, but you miss out on the parallelism. if you notice, if you leave it as turning, which is how Paul read it, there’s a reciprocal thing going on where he’s returning to the ground, which is where he came from. That’s what he was formed from. And she is turning towards where she came from.

So you get this idea of repentance almost. Now that there’s sin in the world, now there’s sin and death, the temptation for men and women is to turn back to where they came from, which is turning away from God. And the idea of repentance, at least in the Old Testament, the Hebrew shove, is like you’re turning. You turn to God and you turn away from sin. So, I’m a huge advocate for the idea that that should say turning. I was really moved when I realized that that’s definitely what Paul was looking at. And for most of church history, it has said that. But even if we leave it as desire, that is a crucial verse because complementarians are using that to say that he needs to rule over her. Prescriptive, not in a descriptive way.

And so you have to point that out that God’s not prescribing men to rule over women. That’s the product of the fall. That’s a negative thing. And the other reason why that verse is really important, I have a gigantic ESV study Bible and so it has a lot more footnotes than most Bibles do. But when I was reading the whole passage in First Corinthians 14 and it says, as the law says, my footnote in my ESV had reference to Genesis 3:16. So that means they were interpreting that passage as Paul quoting Genesis 3:16 to silence women.

I don’t know how prevalent that idea is among other complementarians, but it’s something to point out. Really, you think Paul’s quoting Genesis 3:16 and telling women to be silent or to be subject to men? I don’t know. I think that’s a crazy cross-reference.

Ruth Perry (40:37)
Yeah, on this side of the resurrection, we’re supposed to be living a new life and in a new kingdom. And, all of the results of the fall have been defeated.

Jenna (40:40)
Yeah. Yeah, my feeling is that that’s not that common of a view. I think most complementarians, would say, well, there’s headship before, but now it’s a distortion. He’s ruling over her and that’s a negative thing, not a positive thing. I mean there’s so many things that the ESV translation team did that were really a stretch, but to me that, to think that Paul’s quoting that, which means you’re making Genesis 3:16 a law.

And I think it is worthwhile to start with Romans 16, to see this is a really good representation of what was happening, what women did. Like we’re going to talk about women in ministry, let’s look at the passage that has a bunch of women doing ministry and then see what Paul is saying about it and how he seems to feel about it. And then to look at some of these other verses, that are quoting the creation account where they’re getting the idea of created order. Because if you go to interpret 1st Corinthians 11 or 1st Timothy 2, but you think that there was headship before the fall, you’re not gonna see what Paul’s saying, right?

Both of those passages tend to be the only ones that people talk about when they talk about women in ministry. And so many times that you’ll have a woman teaching or preaching or a video explaining the egalitarian position and there’ll just be a comment that is, say first Timothy 2:12. It’s basically like saying, shut up, but it’s a Bible verse reference used like a slap in the face, like a weapon to silence a woman. I don’t think you can really make headway with somebody that has that mentality, but it shows how contagious that idea was, is that Paul basically said women can’t exercise authority over a man. That idea became very contagious.

So I think the most succinct thing to bring up is does that word say exercise authority? And you can actually go to some of the older translations. So the King James version says usurp authority. I think there’s a translation that says domineer. So that’s the crux of the issue is was the woman doing a positive or a negative, because exercise authority is a positive thing throughout. That’s what you’re saying is men exercise authority if they’re a pastor or a leader in the church or exercising authority over men and women. So that’s a positive, but you’re just saying a woman’s not allowed to do that.

So you’re assuming authentein is positive. It’s not used anywhere else in the Bible, first of all, but I think to think that it’s a positive word, of course the ESV needed to translate it “exercise authority” in order to uphold their position. But the fact that they are not able to uphold their position using the older Bible translations should make you wonder. You couldn’t argue for a complementarian worldview just using the King James Version, at least not with this passage, because you’re like, yeah, of course a woman can’t usurp authority. Of course a woman shouldn’t domineer. Of course, nobody should authentein anybody.

Ruth Perry (43:36)
There’s a hermeneutical rule where you don’t make a blanket rule for the church from one verse or from one word like that. You should be able to verify it through the whole testimony of scripture.

Jenna (43:44)
Right, yeah, I have a list that’s like the 10 rules of Bible interpretation and I think I can’t remember the first name, but Gundry, or, there’s a list of scholars that put together a list and that sounds like one of the main points, but yeah, basically you’re not gonna argue for something using something obscure. And so just the simple fact that that word is not used anywhere else in the Bible noteworthy. I’ve never really heard complementarians give a good response to that.

Ruth Perry (44:18)
Or they’ll turn that into a rule for all times and all places, but then say, well, we don’t have to greet each other with a kiss for all times and all places though. Yeah.

Jenna (44:24)
Right? Right, yeah, Paul is giving a lot of personal advice, like bring my cloak back and drink a little wine for your stomach. And there’s all these like personal things and we don’t make doctrine out of it. But also the bigger picture of why is Paul writing to Timothy? What’s going on in Ephesus? Why does he feel the need to make sure this young pastor what these men and women need to be doing in worship because there’s directions for men and there’s directions for women and why in the world would you need to tell women that they’re going to be safe during childbirth? Like in Ephesus in the first century what could he possibly be talking about?

I think that the complementarian position is just so unsatisfactory for interpreting the entire passage because they give you no context. You know, why does Paul feel the need to point out that Adam’s formed first and it was the woman who was deceived. Why is he pointing that out? Is he talking about some women who are deceived? Is he talking about this idea that there’s somebody who’s superior because they were first, they were born first? So it’s like, what’s going on in Ephesus in the first century?

That verse needs to be in context of the whole thing about how the women are dressing and how they’re worried about dying and childbirth. And so, yeah, I think the way complementarians pluck it out and put it in this bullet point list of the nine proofs that men are in charge and to just lump it together with their statement about Paul says that the man was created first, which is them saying that he said something he didn’t. And it is mental gymnastics. It’s also just a really disrespectful way to use scripture.

Ruth Perry (46:05)
So we’ve talked about Romans 16, Genesis 2, and 316. We’ve talked about 1 Corinthians 11, 1 Corinthians 14, 1 Timothy 2:12. That’s six passages. That’s all I wrote down. What was the seventh passage?

Jenna (46:19)
This is probably the hardest one and it’s usually the one that I would bring up last, but you have to get into the whole one woman man thing. It’s in Titus, but I just focus on 1 Timothy 3. You’re already talking about Paul giving advice to Timothy, but there’s a whole section that usually has the chapter heading qualifications for leaders or qualifications for elders or overseers.

And you got this whole list of character qualities. And you have the sentence structure saying, whosoever. And then you’ve got all these male pronouns added in. And the only reason why they add the he’s in there is because they translate the idiom “one woman man” to “husband of one wife.” And that’s a terrible translation because those are different things, right? An idiom, an expression, like a one-horse town is an idiom.

If you told me you know that such and such town is a one horse town and I went there and I came back and I said there’s no horses there. You’d be like, we’re just saying it’s a small town. It’s the same idea. A one woman man is somebody who’s faithful, it’s a character quality and it fits in with that list that’s all character qualities.

And so because they translate that to one woman man, then they start adding in the male pronouns and make that entire passage about men when it’s whosoever. If anyone desires the office of bishop, if anybody stretches out their hand be a leader, that’s a good thing to desire. That is actually the Holy Spirit in you calling you to ministry. And so that passage is for men and women. A one woman man is a woman. So there is another scripture that talks about women like widows or single women. Sometimes I think in the New Testament, widow is not literally to mean that your husband’s dead. It can just mean that you are a single woman.

But there’s a passage that talks about the women who are one men women. So that would be useful to use that phrase, that idiom, if you were only referring to a group of women. But as soon as you’re referring to a group that’s men and women, you have to say a one woman man. That includes everybody. So part of the problem with interpreting this wrong, is not only does it disqualify a lot of people in the New Testament who were not married, and it makes Paul contradict himself, right? Because he actually has a few statements where, especially for women, he’s like, it might be better for you to stay single because you can serve the Lord with your whole heart. You won’t be having to take care of your husband.

I think in some ways, Paul encourages celibacy, especially for ministry, and ministry during persecution. this to like, now you have to be married. And then the idea that people were actually practicing polygamy, you have this culture in Rome where men were having sex with a lot of different people but they only had one wife. He’s not trying to say in order to be a leader you have to not be a polygamist. He’s not saying you have to be married, he’s saying you have to be faithful. And when you look at like the modern church in America there’s a lot of men who are in ministry and, look at the scandals that are coming out weekly, right? So-and-so cheated on their wife. So-and-so was, you involved in some kind of assault situation. According to the ESV’s interpretation of this passage none of these men are one woman man, but they’re all husbands of one wife. They’re all just married to one woman. So they’re qualified for ministry. You know, they’re not.

We should, as a church, interpret this correctly and understand that there is a character that is demanded of people who say, hey, I want to be set over others. I want to be in charge. I want to lead others. Like there needs to be a certain level of character that’s proven there and it’s not about gender.

Ruth Perry (49:57)
Yeah, I mean, it’s really weird just if you think about it, it’s really weird that people would be eligible for leadership because of their body and their equipment. That’s the least of our concerns. It is character and maturity and a life that displays the fruit of the Spirit. And that can be a man or a woman. We all have the Holy Spirit. We’ve all been given gifts. Your sons and your daughters will prophesy.

So if you’re a woman who’s grown up with this complimentarian point of view, but God has called you to something different, I just encourage you to explore more and read more and start at Jenna’s ministry, Ezer Bible. What is your website, Jenna?

Jenna (50:36)
It’s ezerbible.com and there’s a bunch of video courses that I’m putting together. I’m putting together basically guides that you can just print and use on your own, but you can also come into the community and go through a video course that has worksheets and printables and different resources. And the idea is that you would learn and then talk to other people.

I really wanted to learn from other people that are called to be teachers, but also people who are prophetic or evangelists or people who are pastoring. I guess I really view the people in the church as being the gifts, and so I want to be able connected with other people and community. So yeah, I really would like people to come and either follow me on social media or sign up for the free community and just get to know me better and get to learn the Bible better.

One of the things with the New Testament that I’ve put together over the years is that there’s all these things that women are, and they’re not things that women are really told. So like women are one woman men. Women are sons in the New Testament. And this gets into translation stuff, but I actually think you should leave it as sons and not make it sons and daughters. But the idea of sonship is is a huge principle in the New Testament. But women are men of God in the New Testament too, because the word men is anthropoid, it’s human of God. Women are fishers of men. There’s all these things.

I made a list one time of all the things women are in the New Testament. And it’s unfortunate that the way Christianity is presented to so many women is leaving out all these very deep theological concepts, even just the concept of where we have brothers, like the word Adelphoi in the New Testament. There’s some translations that just translate it to brothers and then some say brothers and sisters, but that Greek basically means, from the same womb. You have Christians who are all part of the community all born-again believers, they’re all of the same Spirit, they’re all following the same God. There is this word of unity that is used and I think that that’s been the biggest thing for me as a woman is just seeing all the things that the New Testament calls me that I normally would have excluded myself from.

Ruth Perry (52:42)
That’s awesome. That’s a great place to end for today, Jenna. Thank you so much for all your hard work and sharing your wisdom and your resources with us. And God bless.

Jenna (52:52)
God bless, thank you.


Did you enjoy this episode? Please subscribe, rate or review us on YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, Substack, and more! Your support means the world. God bless!

005 I Dr. Roy Ciampa on Paul’s Household Instructions in Ephesians 5

My guest this week is my former Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary professor, Dr. Roy Ciampa, whose transformative class, Ephesians in Depth, has stayed with me over the years as my faith has grown and changed. In this conversation, we discuss the theological implications of Paul’s writings, the cultural context of the Greco-Roman world, and the significance of mutual submission in relationships. Dr. Ciampa shares insights from his academic background and teaching experiences, emphasizing the importance of understanding scripture in its historical context. The dialogue highlights the beauty of God’s love and grace, encouraging listeners to reflect on their own faith journeys and the role of women in ministry.

I think my favorite thing Dr. Ciampa said to me, was that Ephesians was “written in the key of worship.”

Dr. Ciampa mentions a document he compiled to help students understand first century Greco-Roman views of women and marriage, beginning with Old Testament and Classical Greek texts up through the time of the New Testament, so that NT texts might be better understood in light of the developing contexts. You can read that insightful document here. And find more of Dr. Ciampa’s scholarly writings on his website, viceregency.com.

You can watch our conversation on YouTube, or stream it on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, and more–find all those links on Podlink! Please like, subscribe, rate and share with a friend if you found this interview helpful!

Transcript:

Ruth Perry (00:16)
This is a new thing for me and I appreciate you being one of my very first guests, Dr. Ciampa.

Roy Ciampa (00:22)
Well, I’m honored to be invited and hope this will be helpful to people.

Ruth Perry (00:26)
What I’m hoping to share on my podcast for my first season is I’m going to go back and have conversations with people who helped me as my faith has shifted and changed over the last 20 years. Because my background is very conservative, complementarian, traditional, But it’s changed a lot over the years through crises of faith and through cognitive dissonance that’s happened and different things that have gone on. And I’m just really grateful that my faith has remained strong because I’ve encountered people like you who’ve helped me to reimagine my faith and think about things differently.

Roy Ciampa (01:04)
That’s nice to hear.

Ruth Perry (01:04)
And so at the time that I had you as a professor, I was a complementarian student, pretty committed to that perspective. And I was an educational ministries student at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. And I think that I took Ephesians as one of my core theology classes. And it’s the only class that I encountered you as a professor. But looking back on my seminary experience, I really loved that class so much and the book of Ephesians has just remained my favorite book of the Bible.

And I’m really grateful that I had that experience because I didn’t have to learn Greek or Hebrew in seminary as an education student. And this was the only class where we really went through word by word and you taught how to parse Paul’s Greek into English and how to make sense of his run on sentences and you taught the importance of understanding the context of the passage. And I just learned so much from you. And so I’m really excited to talk about that with you today. But I thought before we get into that, I would like to know more about you. I don’t really know what your faith formation was like, your background, where you’re coming from. If you’d like to just go back and tell us a little bit about your own spiritual journey.

Roy Ciampa (02:15)
Sure, I’d be happy to. I grew up in an nominal Christian family. We went to church about once a year because my grandmother wanted us to. I was confirmed in a Congregational church when I was, I suppose, a young teenager. But it didn’t really mean much. I never really understood anything about the Bible.

I came to faith when I was in my first year of college, I owe it, a large part of it, I owe, I think, to next door neighbors who moved in when I was in middle school. Wonderful, dedicated Christians, the Monk family, and they had two sons, one a year older than me and one a year younger, Robert and Stuart. And the whole family just modeled for me, a wonderful Christian faith and love. And so they took me to evangelistic events.

But I didn’t think that I thought I was a Christian. I remember sitting during one, in a roller skating rink while somebody was speaking and we had our heads down and I’m saying that this isn’t for me. I’m already Christian. They’re not talking about me. I’m a Christian. Anyway, it was my first year of college. Some guys shared the gospel with me and I realized that this was the message that had transformed their lives and their family and I realized it was true and I was in need of it and so I trusted in the Lord and I was baptized, came to faith, I was discipled.

But I was in a very conservative context. I was listening to the guys that discipled me had me listening to some fundamentalist preachers. John R. Rice wrote a book I Am a Fundamentalist and after a year I felt like God was calling me into ministry and I went to Jerry Falwell’s school at the time was called Liberty Baptist College for a year. And then after a year there I transferred to Gordon College where I did my undergraduate degree.

By the time I graduated from Gordon College, well certainly I was no longer a fundamentalist, was I would say mainstream evangelical and probably still conservative on women’s issues but very open to other ways of understanding that issue.

I don’t really remember at what point, if it was near the end of my college experience or beginning of my seminary experience, I went to Denver Seminary, had some great mentors there. And I know while I was at Denver Seminary, I became a convinced egalitarian.

And that came out of various kinds of experiences. Part of it was coming to have a much better understanding of the world in which the New Testament was written, and especially Paul, in the context of his letters and the things that he says about women, among other things. And part of it was just understanding more broadly what theology would say about how I should relate to my own wife and other women as well.

But maybe we’ll get around to that later. After seminary, my wife and I were appointed to go overseas and we had two kids by then and we took our kids and we went to Portugal where I trained pastors. And overall, our time in Portugal span about 12 years, and in the middle of that, I spent a couple of years in Scotland doing my PhD.

I had wonderful time training pastors and Christian leaders in Portugal, worked with the Bible Society there to help with their contemporary Portuguese translation of the Bible. And then I was invited to go teach at Gordon-Conwell in 2001. So I taught the New Testament studies at Gordon-Conwell from 2001 to 2014. At a certain point became the Chair of the Division of Biblical Studies there.

And then after or 13 years there, I went and worked for four years for American Bible Society, training Bible translators and Bible translation consultants around the world. I still taught for Gordon Conwell on weekends while I was doing that, but my main gig was training Bible translators and Bible translation consultants. So that was a great experience, but I missed the full-time academic community.

So in 2018 I accepted the invitation to take on the role of Chair of the Religion Department which soon became the Department of Biblical and Religious Studies at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama. But.

In 2024, I retired and moved back to New Hampshire, which is where my wife and I had had a place for a while, and it’s our happy place. And so I’m now a professor emeritus at Stanford University, and I teach a course a semester for Gordon Conwell. I’m teaching Interpreting the New Testament for Gordon Conwell on Thursdays right now. So I mean, that’s that’s more than you wanted, probably, but that’s kind of the overview.

Ruth Perry (06:38)
No, that’s great. Congratulations on retiring and then continuing your work.

Roy Ciampa (06:44)
Thank you. Well, there’s lots of what I’ve done that I love. I’m still writing books and articles and teaching one day a week scratches that itch. so it’s fun.

Ruth Perry (06:53)
I’m a Gordon College graduate myself. I was a music major there and the reason why I decided to study music was because I loved the church and I wanted to be in ministry and that’s where I saw women serving in the church. So I studied music and then I decided to go to Gordon Conwell in 2003 when I graduated from Gordon College because I still loved learning so much and I wanted to continue learning and in my conception of my ministry life, I always conceived myself as just being in volunteer ministry in the church. And that I would be a pastor’s wife, likely, or a missionary’s wife. I really wanted to live overseas. I went backpacking through Europe while I was in college, and Portugal was my favorite. I loved Portugal.

Roy Ciampa (07:41)
It’s a great country.

Ruth Perry (07:41)
And so I would have liked to have been a missionary or a musician, but those were really the only two ideas that I had in my brain that a woman could do in the church. I knew that I loved the church more than anything and I really wanted to serve the church. So that’s what brought me to Gordon-Conwell and brought me to your classroom. And it sounds like it was early on in your teaching there.

Roy Ciampa (08:00)
Yeah, it was early on at Gordon-Conwell. I taught for a number of years in Portugal, but that was in my early years at Gordon-Conwell, yes. And I remember that course called Ephesians in Depth, as I recall.

Ruth Perry (08:09)
It was in depth for sure. Yes. I remember we went word by word and we would, I can’t even remember how to explain what you did with us in the class. I was trying to find my class notes because I know that they’re in my basement somewhere. But I remember we parsed every sentence and figured out what the structure was. And you really brought it.

Roy Ciampa (08:29)
Ha

Ruth Perry (08:37)
It was hard work and it brought the book to life for me.

Roy Ciampa (08:41)
That’s so kind of you to say. I’m grateful to hear that.

Ruth Perry (08:43)
And it’s such a beautiful book. Ephesians, it just, the words that come to mind when I think about Ephesians is, Paul keeps talking about peace and love and unity and the power of the Holy Spirit and all the blessings that we’ve received from God. And it’s just such a beautiful theological grounding of then why we should follow Christ and live in a way worthy of the calling we’ve received.

And so I don’t know how much you want to talk about Ephesians itself before we get to the household codes in Ephesians 5. But what I really want to talk with you too for my Beautiful Kingdom Builders audience is the context of the book of Ephesians and what was going on in the cultural world at that time that would have helped the people who are hearing Paul’s message in that day understand it maybe differently than we understand it today.

Roy Ciampa (09:35)
Well, yeah, there’s a lot to talk about. So many different aspects of it. And I think one of the things, actually in our church, we’re in a small group right now that’s going through Ephesians. And so it’s been kind of fun to do that in a church Bible study again. But one of the things I think that’s key to Ephesians, you just have this joyful, kind of, I would say worshipful kind of tone to the whole thing.

Many people have pointed out that the letter has a different style than most of Paul’s letters. It has these kind of run-on sentences and these kind of complicated sentences. There’s lots of what we call pleonasms where you could say something simply, but in a pleonasm you could put up two or three different ways of saying it within the same sentence. So over and over again Paul will say we have kind of this blessing of redemption, the forgiveness of our sins. And it’s like, well, those are two different ways of talking about the same thing, or he’ll talk about within one line, he does this a couple of times in the opening part of Ephesians, that everything’s happened according to God’s purpose and his will and his choice. It’s like, well, those are just three different ways of saying God did what he wanted to do.

And I’m reminded that, We find examples of this in various contexts. We find it in poetry and we find it in worship music. An example I typically use is the song Majesty, Worship His Majesty. And if you go through that song over and over again, it finds different ways to say the same thing in new words. Kingdom authority, majesty, kingdom authority, so exalt, lift up on high. Those are two different things, they’re not. Exalt, lift up on high, the name of Jesus. Magnify, come glorify. What’s the difference between magnifying, it’s all the same thing.

Singing this is just a worshipful, excited, rich, different way of expressing yourself. And Paul begins the letter with what’s called a Jewish Baruchah, which in Hebrew would be blessed, be like Baruch HaTah, Adonai Eloheinu, blessed as the Lord our God. he starts out, blessed is the…

God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every blessing in Christ. And so I think the style is different and I think it’s different for a purpose because Paul’s wanting to express his theology in a very worshipful almost liturgical kind of way.

And it’s remarkable that he’s doing that while he’s under arrest. He says he’s in chains, which reminds us of Acts of course, when they’re imprisoned in Philippi and they end up singing songs and praising God in prison. And here Paul is, he’s in prison and he writes a letter and he writes it in the key of worship. And partly that’s because just who Paul is and partly because he’s writing to readers who are Gentiles, who are so far away from where Christianity began in Jerusalem and Judea. And they’ve got to be thinking as Gentiles, like their spiritual leader is now in prison and could lose his life.

What does this mean? Have they gotten themselves messed up with something they shouldn’t have? Has a train gone off the rails and they’ve got to be concerned about Paul. They’ve got to be concerned about what all this means. And here’s Paul, he writes from prison, he’s like, God’s plan is working itself out in this wonderful way and it’s such a blessing to me to be a part of this. let’s praise God for all the blessings that we have. And let me just list off some of these blessings for you.

And it really is, I think, meant to reassure the readers that… the train hasn’t gone off the rails, that God is in charge, that everything that they’ve experienced is part of God’s plan of redemption and of reconciling Jews and Gentiles together and to God, and that Paul is not at all, know, fretting or depressed or himself concerned that something’s gone wrong because he’s in prison, but he sees God’s hand in all of this. So I think that’s a, for me, that’s a very important part of the background.

And then you have to be careful because I’m tempted to try and lecture my way through a whole semester’s worth of stuff on Ephesians in one little conversation. But I do think, you know, that most people recognize that two halves of the letter have different tones and sometimes they describe the first half as doctrine and the second as practical teaching.

But an important key is that it’s not just that Paul decided to talk and discuss theology for a while and then look at his watch and said, well, that’s maybe enough theology for them. Maybe I should give them some practical stuff. And so let me talk practical stuff for a while. But the theology underwrites the practical part. That is, the theology, the first part is there to support everything he’s going to tell the church that they ought to be doing.

And the second part, they are organized organically related to each other. And the whole first part is about God’s grace, his mercy, his love, how he hasn’t treated us the way we deserve when we were, you know, children of wrath by nature. He hasn’t treated us that way, but he’s shown us love and mercy and grace and blessing upon blessing upon blessing. And then we get in the second half of the letter. And in my understanding, the second half of letter is primarily all about imitating God.

And so we get that theme early on how we should be imitators of God. We shouldn’t live like the Gentiles live. That’s one of the themes. But we should be imitators of God. And then he talks about how God has shown his love to us in Jesus Christ who gave himself for us and his love for us. And so we have sections that talk about how we should be one, united together as one body.

And then we have material talking about how we should and love and we should walk in the light and then later how we should walk in wisdom and then finally the last part is where we should put on the full armor of God and we look at those things they come what do these things have in common being one walking in love and light and wisdom well love and light are two main attributes of God God is love God is light

And then wisdom is another very well-known attribute of God, the all-wise one. And there’s large sections of scripture dedicated to wisdom and Proverbs 8 and elsewhere. And that’s understood to be an attribute of God. And then you think,

When we walk in love, we’re imitating God. When we walk in light, we’re imitating God. When we walk in wisdom, we’re imitating God and His wisdom. And then you realize that the full armor of God we’re supposed to put on is not just armor that God gives us, but the Old Testament background tells us this is the armor that God puts on. He puts on a helmet of salvation. He puts on a breastplate of righteousness. When he goes and he fights spiritual battles for his people. So even when we put on our spiritual armor, we’re still imitating God.

That earlier part about being one, it’s like, that’s right, God is one. So when we’re one, you there’s one God, one Lord, one baptism, and when we act as one, we’re also imitating God. So one of the greatest ways we imitate God then, when you understand the relationship between the first half of the letter and the second half, is by treating other people the way he’s treated us.

He hasn’t treated us as he could have, but he treated us with love, with mercy, with grace, over and over again. And this ends up becoming very important for, as you referred to, the household codes, because they’re a main theme is about how people in charge with authority treat people that in that culture were under them, wives were under their husbands and children under the parents and slaves under their masters. And so one of the main themes that comes out there is, again, the emphasis tends to be on the person with power, treating the one with less power with grace and mercy and not being harsh with them. But I mean, that raises all kinds of other questions about why do we have household codes and what’s this about?

We’re talking about household codes, we’re talking about slaves and masters. And we don’t have slaves and masters in our household. We think of those as something outside the family. You get your family, and then you get your employees or other people. But of course, that was part of the family. But hey, I’ve been going on for a while now, Ruth, so maybe feel free.

Ruth Perry (18:02)
No, you’re cooking. I’m enjoying it immensely. I was thinking about back to your class, I remember that before we got into the household codes, you started that passage in Ephesians 5.18, be filled with the Holy Spirit, singing songs and hymns and spiritual songs to each other, making music in your heart to the Lord and always giving thanks to God the Father for everything in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and submitting to each other out of reverence for Christ. That all of those things were under that same heading of be filled with the Holy Spirit.

Roy Ciampa (18:42)
Yes, it is. And being filled with the Holy Spirit is under the heading of walking in wisdom. So, because it’s one of the things is if you look for the term walking, which is often translated as live, like live in love or live according to light. The metaphor is walking in the light and walking in love and walking in children of light or walk wisely. And then the wisdom part underneath that is all the stuff about being filled with the spirit and submitting to one another.

And then so all that stuff about husbands and wives and parents and children and masters and slaves comes under the submitting to one another part, which comes under the being filled with the Holy Spirit part, which comes under the walking in wisdom part.

And it’s Paul providing his readers with wisdom about how to live in family in the first century Ephesian or, you know, Greco-Roman context. And of course, it’s important that context is radically different from ours.

Ruth Perry (19:44)
Can you describe that context for us.

Roy Ciampa (19:47)
Sure. Well, in a few different ways. Maybe one way to start is by, just as we were already kind of hinting at…

that when we talk about a household code, we do talk about husbands and wives and parents and children and masters and slaves because the household was very differently structured than we think of it today. That many households, they had slaves within the household and they’d have also freed men and free women in some cases in the household as well. And so we think of a household typically as, you know, parents and their children and nuclear family.

And sometimes we think of the extended family as well. Maybe there are grandparents around or something. But we don’t think of parents and children and slaves and freed men and women as part of a household. But that is a part of what a fairly well-to-do or a somewhat well-to-do household would have all those components. And then, you know, we realize

When people preach through Ephesians, when they get to the stuff about slaves and masters, they realize what we don’t approve of masters and slaves today. And so if they’re to preach on that, they kind of adapt it and say, well, this might apply to like employees and employers and that sort of thing. And so here we can get some wisdom for how we can relate to each other as employees and employers. And maybe there’s it’s OK. But it’s really important to point out that employees are not slaves and employers are not masters. And so you have to make adaptations.

You can’t just say all the employers shouldn’t treat the employees the way Paul thought, you know, masters should treat slaves. And we have to be reminded that Paul’s not endorsing slavery, but early Christians were living in a world where this is just part of the social fabric. They weren’t put in charge. They weren’t asked to take over the social fabric and restructure it. They had to learn how can they live as Christians within that social fabric and within these institutions. And so Paul provides wisdom for those who are in these situations.

But as I was saying, when we get to that stuff about masters and slaves, people say, we have to make adjustments. We can’t just apply that to employees and employers because that’s not the same thing. But when we preach about husbands and wives, people look around and say, I know husbands and wives, and many of us will say, well, I’m a husband or I’m a wife and I have a wife or a husband. And so they’re all around us. So when he starts talking about husbands and wives, we’re like, okay, we know what he’s talking about.

This is something very familiar to all of us, except that it isn’t because marriage has evolved in many ways. And so to go back and realize that in the Greco-Roman world, Men didn’t typically marry until they were 28 to 30 years old. And partly because there was no expectation with the double standard that’s typical in all of history, the double standard with regard to sex is that men weren’t expected to remain pure or virgins until marriage. They had access to prostitutes and household slaves and other sexual outlets and that wasn’t considered a problem by most people in the Greco-Roman world. Whereas women were expected to be married shortly after going through puberty.

When I was in class, I have like a 40 page document, you may or may not recall of this kind of material from the Old Testament and quotes from the Greco-Roman world and different sources where people are talking about husbands and wives and it talks about age at marriage and it talks about, you know, the understanding that it’s good if a woman or girl can know how to carry on a conversation and maybe do a little bit of sewing, a little bit of cooking, but that’s about it because she’s supposed to learn everything she learns from her husband that she’s supposed to be like a tabla rasa, she’s supposed to be like a blank slate on whom the husband can leave his impressions.

I was just reading, reviewing again because something came up on social media. I don’t remember what it was anymore, but it was about, that’s what it was, this woman’s book recently. A woman wrote a book on misogyny in America and the publisher accidentally put out an ad or an email inviting people to submit for exam copies. whoever prepared the text for that forgot to replace the name of the author from a previous book they must have worked on. And so they had the title of the book in the book cover, but the author’s name was a man who hadn’t written anything like this, who writes in very different subjects.

So here’s a book on misogyny in the church, and the publisher puts out something that attributes it to a man instead of the woman who wrote it, and reminded me of this ancient… thing about somebody who’s talking about some man’s wife who’s a man who’s great at poetry and he’s presented some poetry from his wife and he claims that his wife wrote this wonderful poetry and this person’s saying it’s great poetry but you know I’m not sure if his wife really wrote it but either way the husband deserves the credit because either he’s the one who really wrote it or He’s the one that taught her.

So whatever the woman produces, it’s always back to the man. Because again, she’s expected to have learned whatever she knows through her husband, a woman getting married right after puberty and a man not marrying until he’s 28 or 30 years old. There’s a huge difference, not only in age, but maturity, knowledge of the world and in the Greco-Roman world, the extent to which women were expected to be more or less confined to the home, whereas men could go anywhere and could have a greater education so their knowledge of the world is different. Their human development at marriage and then throughout marriage. You might say, 10 years later it’ll be different. Well, 10 years later they still, they would have already formed a kind of relationship where he’s practically like a parent.

The husband’s practically a parent or Ben Witherington describes it as almost an uncle-niece relationship between a husband and wife at that time. And that changes a lot. I mean, that helps you understand all kinds of things in the New Testament when people are talking about how husbands and wives should relate to each other. It’s a significant thing in terms of submission if the wife has always only been kind of tutored by her husband and taught by him and mentored by him.

You know, three stages of human development behind him, then it’s natural that the man’s going to be treated as though he’s more knowledgeable, wiser, more experienced, better able to provide any kind of leadership needed, and that that’s the role that he should have. Which brings us back to that whole thing about love and mercy.

One of things that I realized when I started looking through these texts and thinking about it more was if one of the main themes of the letter is that we should treat each other as Christ and God has treated us, if my wife is my peer, which is something that just was not normally ever the case in the Greco-Roman world, right? We were just talking about that. But my wife is more or less my age. She has the same experience of the world. She hasn’t been cooped up at home. She’s got college education. She has, a master’s degree. She’s wiser than I am on many things and just as intelligent as I am. If she’s my peer in every way, does Jesus, does God really want us to pretend as though I’m much wiser and more knowledgeable than she is and better able to lead in every situation than she is?

Because that was the traditional slot of a wife in first century Ephesus and the slot of a husband in first century Ephesus or should I actually treat her for who she really is? And to recognize her strengths and her knowledge and her wisdom and her abilities. And this relates to something I’ve sometimes referred to as the mapping of identities. That is, we look at women today and we map onto them the identity we find of a wife in the first century Ephesus. We look at a husband today and we map onto them the identity of a husband in first century Ephesus. And we do that in other ways as well. I have an whole article about ways in which this mapping of identities can create real problems.

But I don’t think I should ask my wife to try and fill a slot from a different culture and time, asks her to treat me and asks me to treat her as though we are so different, as though we are as different as the first century Greco-Roman husband and wife, when in fact we’re actually peers. And then I’d go back and realize that if this whole second part is about learning how to treat other people…as God has treated us, and I realize, well, even if you look at the household code, the instructions to husbands and wives aren’t exactly the same as the husbands to parents and children, and neither of those are the same as the instructions to slaves and masters. So Paul recognized that although we’re all supposed to be Christ-like and treat others in Christ-like ways, the nature of the relationship is going to impact what that looks like.

And so the first century Greco-Roman husband-wife relationship is different from the parent-child relationship is different from the slave-master relationship. So Paul provides different instructions. So then I begin to think and realize, well, then we can treat this as a case study.

We have at least three case studies and what it means to apply Christ-like, God-like love and mercy and grace to other people. And it’s one thing in the marriage, one thing with the children, another thing with masters and slaves. Maybe it would be something else if it was with a spouse who is my peer and who is as intelligent and wise and able to lead and do other things as I am, as my same age, same experience of the world, what would it then mean for me to treat her in a Christ-like way and for her to treat me in a Christ-like way and not try to fit them into some…

You know, I’m reminded we have a two and a half year old granddaughter, you know, those cubes you get that have the different shapes, there’s the triangle and there’s the square and the rectangle and the star and you have the blocks, you’re trying to fit them through the right shapes, you know, and I feel like lots of times they’re taking, you know, modern men and women who are very different shapes and we’re trying to fit them into the shapes of the first century husband and wife, male and female.

And those pieces just don’t fit. And the key question still comes back to, if I’m looking at the second half of Ephesians, I’m learning how to walk wisely in acting in Christ-like ways towards people around me.

And so there lots of different relationships. There’s the student athlete relationship. There’s the police officer citizen relationship. There’s the teacher student relationship. There’s the husband wife relationship. There’s the employee employee employee relationship. And all of these we learn how to treat each other in loving ways. But we don’t have to find some first century Greco-Roman slot to fit people into to make that relationship match the one we have.

Ruth Perry (31:02)
I feel like the way my brain works is that I have a sieve inside my brain and when I go to class I learn the information and it all goes away. But for some reason I really latched on to all of that that you taught 20 years ago and then I went off and I got married the next year and it just fell completely into traditional rules because that’s what I grown up with and that’s what had been modeled to me and same for my husband. And so it was just natural to not even think about how we’re going to relate to each other. We just fell into the traditional rules that we had been taught through example and direct teaching. And almost immediately for me as the woman, I could recognize that my voice was diminished, my importance was diminished, and it created some cognitive dissonance for me. But I didn’t, I just tolerated it. I didn’t really rock the boat any.

And then we had another experience early on in our marriage. I’m thinking maybe three or four years after we got married, our church had a really terrible conflict and split. My dad was a pastor and so it was deeply personal. And you’re teaching again on the book of Ephesians. I looked at that experience and it was a traditional church structure with men in leadership. And it was clear as day to me that if the women had a voice and a place at the table in that conflict, things wouldn’t have been as ugly as they were and as destructive and terrible. And so those two things, like my early marriage years and walking through that church conflict,

The importance of your teaching on the book of Ephesians really snapped into place for me crystal clear that if we are walking in a manner worthy of the calling we’ve received, we’re going to submit to one another, male, female, slave, free, Gentile. Like there’s no distinctions that if we’re truly living in the way that God has called us to live, that we’re going to love each other. And that means we’re going to listen to each other’s voices, that every voice has a place and has value.

And we’re going to submit the mutual submission piece that we often gloss straight over and go into, OK, but wives, you’re submitting, and then the husband is the head.

Roy Ciampa (33:12)
Mm-hmm. Right, yes. No, it really, it ends up being, and I hate to say it, but in many cases, not a loving sort of thing, but a very obedience, command-centered sort of thing, which kind of is pushing them back against the grain of the letter as a whole, and the way I understand the theology of the letter as a whole.

By the way, one of the key texts that I think is helpful for thinking about this is in 1 Corinthians chapter 14, where Paul has that part that says, and some people think that this doesn’t belong in the Bible, and I don’t know what you think, but I think verses 34 and 35 are supposed to be there. But it’s the part that says women should remain silent in the churches, they’re not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.

They want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. Now Paul had already taught that both men and women could pray and prophesy, right, back in chapter 11. And that’s remarkable in itself because a lot of people look at 1 Corinthians 11, they think, because it starts off about who’s the head of who, who’s the head you know, God is the head of Christ, who’s the head of the man, who’s head of the woman. it sounds like, okay, yeah, very much what sort of subordination here and all this sort of thing.

But when he actually gets into it, he talks about ministry in just two terms, prayer and prophecy. Gordon Fee has suggested, and I think he’s probably right, that those are like big terms for discourse directed to God. That’s prayer and discourse directed at the congregation, which is prophecy. But in any case, those are the only two things he talks about. And he says both men and women can do it. They just have to dress appropriately when they’re doing it. So there’s nothing in there about any kinds of ministries that men can do that women can’t.

But anyway, so he’s already said that they can pray and prophesy. So what’s this all about? They should remain silent. And so obviously he’s not speaking about speaking in general. He has certain kinds of speaking. And in that very passage, he says, if they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home. Well, that may be the hint that what he’s talking about is women who don’t understand something that’s going on.

Again, remember the women would have less education, less experience of the world, less knowledge of what’s going on around them. And if they don’t know what’s going on and they’re asking questions that are interrupting them in the church, and in that culture, for a woman to ask another man, somebody else’s husband their question, would be really offensive and would raise all kinds of concerns. Anyway, so.

If that’s what’s going on, Paul says if they have things they should inquire of their own husbands at home. Now, you know, I may have said this when I taught you in class, but I mean, I’ve been teaching since, you know, a full-time teacher since I suppose I started in 1991. And I don’t know how many times I could have said, having both a husband and a wife in my class, I could have said to the husband, if you’re not getting all this, you might ask your wife to explain it to you when you get home.

I’ve very often had husbands and wives in the class and it’s not unusual for the wife to understand things better than to be more academically strong than the husband is. I could never say, you know, if any of the women here don’t understand what I’m talking about, why don’t you ask your own husband at home? not that I couldn’t just say it because it wouldn’t be politically correct, but it would just be stupid.

And I’m not saying Paul’s stupid, The expression assumes a culture and a context where the husband can be virtually guaranteed to know more and understand things better than their wife, which is perfectly reasonable for the Greco-Roman context of Corinth that Paul’s speaking to, not Corinth and Ephesus and the whole world in which Paul’s speaking because of this age and education and experience gap that we talked about at the beginning of our conversation. So a verse like that makes perfectly good sense in that context, but would make absolutely no sense in a world where men and women can both be educated and experienced And so again, I think it really is a problem of, I think, very harmful biblical interpretation when

We end up trying to act as though we are living in roles that were filled by first century people. And we’re gonna figure out how to treat each other in those roles as opposed to treating people for who they actually are. And that’s at the core of love, isn’t it? To know someone, to respect them for who they are, for what they bring to the table, and to learn from each other and to submit to each other.

And that’s really a large part of what effusions is about.

Ruth Perry (38:10)
I think from my background being very conservative, there was a lot of warning against listening to people who didn’t share traditional values because they were being influenced by the culture around them or they were playing fast and loose with scripture and they weren’t taking the word of God seriously or this or that. Like there were so many warnings against listening to someone who might suggest mutual submission or sharing authority between men and women in ministry and in the home.

And in my experience, just with my encounter of you, Dr. Ciampa and since you, many other egalitarian scholars and pastors, they’ve all taken the word of God seriously, and their life has shown the fruit of the Spirit in ways that isn’t always readily witnessed in other people’s lives who are really clinging to the authority structures and having power over others. And so I’m really grateful that I took this Ephesians class with you 20 something years ago and that I remembered all the information even though I compartmentalized it at the time and filed it away and went on with my traditional ways. I’m grateful that it was accessible when I needed it and when things started falling apart. And so then I didn’t just say Well, if this is what Christianity is, I don’t want it. But I could imagine a more beautiful Christianity because of what you had taught me.

Roy Ciampa (39:42)
That’s very kind, but I think that it is very sad to see people turning away from Christianity because the presentation they’ve received is not wholesome, it’s not healthy, it’s not edifying. And too often it is, as you said, very much about power and who can have power. And so it’s very sad to see large parts of a whole generation are more that are turning away from the church because of the way the church in Christianity has been presented, which is sad. And we do think it’s such a beautiful thing. The truth of God’s grace and the grace that he teaches us to live by ought to be something that ought to attract people from all over the globe to this great God of love and grace and mercy who’s worthy of all our praise.

Ruth Perry (40:30)
the message of Ephesians is speaking to us today. And I pray we all have ears to hear.

Where can we find your papers and your writing? Dr. Ciampa, do you have a website or do you have the online presence?

Roy Ciampa (40:43)
I have a website. Yeah, actually, but it’s not it’s just a purely pedagogical sort of thing. And I, and I’ve spent hundreds of hours, if not thousands, thousands in the heyday of my career. So I have a I have a website called viceregency.com And the.com is a joke, because I’ve never done any commercial stuff with it. should be a.org. But I have vice regency.com. And then it’s it’s all links to different things you can learn from and

Maybe I’ll go there and add a link to this paper. I’ll tell you what, I’ll send it to you in case there’s some place you want to post it on, on anything you’re doing.

Ruth Perry (41:20)
I have a Facebook page called the Beautiful Kingdom Builders. I will put it there and I want to give you the last word before we sign off.

Roy Ciampa (41:31)
Well, thank you for having me. It’s been a blessing to be with you and it is anything I can do to help people see how great and marvelous, as Paul was trying to say in Ephesians, how beyond anything we can imagine is the love of God, how deep and high and wide, and in every dimension you can imagine this love of God that we find in Jesus Christ and the mercy and love that it teaches us to express towards others.

May God advance that through the knowledge of Jesus Christ. So thanks for having me.

Ruth Perry (42:02)
Thank you so much. Amen. Have a great time in your retirement and as you continue to teach. Thank you so much. Bye.

Roy Ciampa (42:08)
Thank you very much. Bye bye.


Thanks for visiting The Beautiful Kingdom Builders and listening to this podcast episode. You can subscribe by email here up on the far right of this blog, and find TBKB on all your favorite podcasting and social media platforms. God bless!