“That is not an argument; it is a prejudice.” An Interview with Vern Poythress.

What Poythress asks the reader to do

The questions below can receive fuller answers by consulting sources where the topics receive extended treatment. I do not agree with absolutely everything in my recommended resources, but I recommend them for their fuller presentation of the theology of man and woman. Here are some, in alphabetical order of author.

Because the resources above are available, my answers below will be succinct and summarizing only. I encourage inquirers to consult the resources.

The resources he names

• Clark, Stephen B. Man and Woman in Christ: An Examination of the Roles of Men and Women in Light of Scripture and the Social Sciences. Reprint. Warhorn Media, 2021.
• Grudem, Wayne. Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth: An Analysis of More Than 100 Disputed Questions. Crossway, 2012.
• Köstenberger, Andreas J., and Thomas R. Schreiner. Eds. Women in the Church: An Interpretation and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15. 3d ed. Crossway, 2016.
• Piper, John, and Wayne Grudem. Eds. Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism. Rev. ed. Crossway, 2021.
• Poythress, Vern S. Making Sense of Man: Using Biblical Perspectives to Develop a Theology of Humanity. P&R Publishing, 2024. (See especially chapters 27-28.)
• Poythress, Vern S. “The Church as Family: Why Male Leadership in the Family Requires Male Leadership in the Church As Well,” 1991. [also found as one chapter in Piper and Grudem, eds., Recovering.]
• Poythress, Vern S. “Two Hermeneutical Tensions in Evangelical Feminism”, Verbum Christi 6/2 (2019): 147-58, https://doi.org/10.51688/vc6.2.2019.art4.

---

QUESTION 1: Foundational Passages: Which Scriptures settle the pastoral office for you? What makes them binding today while commands like head coverings (1 Cor 11) are treated as time-bound? How do you distinguish a creation principle from a cultural application?

Genesis 1-3 is foundational, even though it does not directly address the issue of pastoral office. It is the foundational passage undergirding principles of impartiality before the law as well as principles differentiating distinctive creational features of men and women. Without the distinctives, which belong to a worldview and a fabric of theological teaching widely different from modernity, later biblical instructions assigning distinct roles to men and women make little sense to modern readers.

On the pastoral office, note 1 Tim. 2:9-15; 3:2, 4; Tit. 1:6; 2:3-5. First Tim. 3:15, concerning the church as household, provides an opening into a larger framework of analogy between the church and the family, which I expound in “The Church as Family: Why Male Leadership in the Family Requires Male Leadership in the Church As Well,” 1991, https://frame-poythress.org/the-church-as-family-why-male-leadership-in-the-family-requires-male-leadership-in-the-church-as-well/. Because of this connection, passages about marriage are also pertinent: Eph. 5:22-33; Col. 3:18-19; 1 Pet. 3:1-7. Also indirectly pertinent are the passages using marriage in analogical relation to Christ’s relation to the church: Eph. 5:22-33; Rev. 19:7-9; 21:9; 22:17; Hosea; Isa. 54:1-3; Gal. 4:26-27. The modern ideological principle of interchangeability of roles of men and women is at odds with the biblical passages about marriage.

As for the question of “creation principle” and “cultural application,” two core passages in the Bible cite creation texts: 1 Tim. 2:13 and 1 Cor. 11:8-10. The passages also reason from them. The conclusions therefore have backing in creation order, not merely in the temporary exigencies of one culture. In addition, Eph. 5:31 cites a creation text. The New Testament gospel goes to all nations (Matt. 28:18-20; Acts 1:8; Col. 1:23). It calls people out of all cultures and languages (Rev. 7:9). The result is that people are called on to apply the Bible to their circumstances in every culture. For example, one may see that what exactly counts as ostentatious dress according to 1 Tim. 2:9 will vary with cultural standards for ostentation. But the reasoning in 1 Tim. 2:9 remains valid. Likewise, 1 Cor. 11:8-10 needs to be taken seriously (an open engagement with the text does not immediately decide the precise specifications of the form of obedience in a particular culture). The reason why 1 Cor. 11:8-10 is easily set aside, rather than engaged, is that it makes no sense to modern people in the West, given the cultural practices around them. But that is not an argument; it is a prejudice common to the culture.

QUESTION 2: Spiritual Gifts (1 Cor 12): The Spirit gives teaching and leadership gifts without regard to sex. Opponents ask: When Paul affirms women prophesying, how can he bar those same women from the pastoral office without contradicting himself?

As D. A. Carson and Wayne Grudem and others have argued concerning prophesying, prophetic utterances have to be sifted (1 Cor. 14:29). The prophetic utterance is not an exercise of the personal authority of the prophet over his or her hearers, but a passing on of a message claimed to be from God. The authority of the message belongs to God alone. This kind of passing on is distinct from the authority in ruling given to the elders (1 Pet. 5:1-5). What the Bible calls “elders” in the church include what we call “pastors.” First Pet. 5:1-5 says that they “shepherd the flock.” The fourth expression in the list in Eph. 4:11 means “shepherds,” linking it with 1 Pet. 5:2.

QUESTION 3: The Jerusalem Council (Acts 10 & 15): The early Church changed settled practice when the Spirit fell on Gentiles. Why does that precedent not apply to women’s ordination when churches see the same spiritual fruit?

The most direct parallel would be to say that if the Spirit comes upon a woman, it signifies that she should be included in the church. Office, involving formal appointment to public responsibility, has to be distinguished from gifts, which people are free to exercise as soon as they have them. Only some gifts–in particular the gift of ruling–need public recognition for their proper exercise. 1 Pet. 5:1-5; Acts 14:23; 15:6; 20:28-31. The kind of rule–in particular whether it includes rule over men, not just children–depends on biblical church order, not just on gifting.

QUESTION 4: New Covenant Ministry: A Norwegian priest argues Christ abolished the Old Testament priesthood to establish diverse, collaborative ministries. What scriptural basis remains for reserving the pastoral office for men?

The scriptural basis is 1 Tim. 2:9-15, and other passages already cited. The New Testament indeed involves a transition from the Old Testament, because Christ brings fulfillment. But it is the New Testament that specifies that men are to hold ruling office.

QUESTION 5: Setting Rules Aside: Citing Jesus on the Sabbath and Paul on idol food, critics argue Scripture models setting rules aside for people without losing divine authority. Where does this fail?

God’s rules are for the good of people, for their spiritual health. It is a major mistake to polarize between God’s rules and love for people. Love is the fulfilling of the law (Gal. 5:14). In no tension with this principle, love leads to keeping the law (John 14:15; 2 John 6). The person who polarizes shows that he does not understand properly either love or the commandments. Each side aids us and deepens our understanding of the other. With respect to the Sabbath, one of the implications is that Jesus’ opponents did not properly understand the OT rule in its context (see, for example, Luke 14:1-6).

QUESTION 6: “God is Greater than the Bible”: How do you answer two direct charges: “What if you put the letter of the text above the living God?” and “I will not believe the Bible is right when it harms people”?

Jesus endorses the divine authority of the Old Testament in Matt. 4:4; 5:17-20; 19:3-9; 26:54; John 10:35; and other passages. A person who does not think so needs to consult books that defend the divine authority of the Bible. The Ten Commandments were written on stone; the New Testament books were written on physical media. But the message communicated is God speaking. The phrasing in question 6 above that depreciates “the letter of the text” is not actually focusing on the mere fact of physical media. It is attacking the message, because it judges that the message is unacceptable. The message is therefore allegedly to be displaced by “the living God,” which has a sound of piety and honor. Polarizing between the message and “the living God” is itself resistance to what God, the living God, says to us in the Bible (John 12:48-50).

One may also query what is the source of a person’s opposition to the teaching of the Bible. He alleges that “it harms people.” But how does he know what harms people? By what standard does he measure harm? In complex situations, assessing potential harm takes wisdom. From where does wisdom come, if not from God instructing us in wisdom in the Bible (Prov. 1:7; Ps. 94:10-11)? If the Bible is not his supreme standard, then something else is, perhaps his own internal sense of approval and offense. In that case, he has made himself a little god, whose ideas he imposes on the world and on God himself. He is not genuinely following Christ, but is someone who is using pious language in order to promote his own views and his own sense of right and wrong and harm. And by what means does he prevent himself from using a strawman argument (“look what happened in this case of egregious oppressive exploitation”) to dismiss the Bible? Abuse of biblical standards does not imply the illegitimacy of proper use.

QUESTION 7: Christ as Scripture’s Center: A Lutheran priest argues reading Scripture through Christ and the Law/Gospel distinction demands opening the office. Does that principle carry his conclusion?

No. The Gospel itself contains commandments, as the New Testament shows. Christ in the gospel delivers us from the curse of the Law (Gal. 3:13-14), and God justifies us by faith (Gal. 2:16). That is so that we can do good works (Eph. 2:10; Gal. 5:14, 16; 6:8-10), following the commands of the Bible.

QUESTION 8: “Helper” and the Fall: Critics argue that ezer (Hebrew, “helper,” in Gen. 2:18) does not imply subordination, that hierarchy enters only after the Fall, and that Paul today would write “respect” instead of “submit.” What remains binding from creation?

I discuss “helper” and Genesis 2 in Making Sense of Man, chap. 28, especially pp. 488-90. The short answer is that “helper” as a word in and of itself implies neither subordination nor superordination in rank. What it does indicate is that the task is the task of the one who is helped. There is an irreversible orientation. To see its consequences, one has to take into account not just a word, but the entire passage, and then that passage in the light of further teaching given later in Scripture.

QUESTION 9: The Slavery Parallel: Critics argue the Church once defended slavery from Scripture using the same hermeneutic now used to defend a male-only pastorate. What separates the two cases?

Eph. 5:22-6:9 implies that as long as there are wives and husbands, wives submit to their husbands; as long as there are children, children submit to their parents; as long as there are slaves, they submit to their masters. None of the verses except 5:31 comment on whether the institution in question is in itself good or bad. In fact, two out of the three are based on creation, and therefore are good. The third is based on the realities of the fall, including “enslavers,” condemned in 1 Tim. 1:10. (ESV footnote explains, “That is, those who take someone captive in order to sell him into slavery.”) The on-going practice of slavery in Europe and the New World depended on enslavers, and so is condemned clearly in the New Testament.

QUESTION 10: Children and the Mission Field: Churches entrust women to lead mission stations abroad and teach youth, but bar them from preaching to adult men at home. Critics cite Maria Monsen, who led revivals in China but was barred from speaking in Bergen. How do you answer that inconsistency?

There are complex issues here as to what kinds of roles women should play in society as a whole, as well as roles in a mission organization, which is not itself the church. Questions also arise because in an unusual or stressed missionary situation, one may in expedience ask someone to bridge over a gap temporarily and irregularly. Citing inconsistencies proves nothing in and of itself, except that everyone everywhere needs to be consistent by following the commandments of God in the Bible, including the commandments for church order. I address the issue of flexibility within the bounds of principle in “The Church as Family.”

QUESTION 11: Cost in Ministry: What does holding this confessional line cost in isolation, institutional pressure, and daily pastoral care?

It depends on the situation. Jesus Christ requires us to follow him in all circumstances (Luke 14:25-35). He laid down his life for us. We are to follow him in good times and bad (Phil. 4:12). We are to pray for those who persecute us (Matt. 5:44).

QUESTION 12: Overlooked Aspects: What vital truth does the modern debate ignore?

Some people are not ignoring vital truth. But let me mention one truth that needs more attention than it gets. It concerns the tacit influence of cultural assumptions. We are all influenced by an environment in culture that is massively confused and massively corrupted in sexuality. The quantity and range of sexual immorality, and the cultural voices approving or winking at it, make for a poor environment for us to be able to read the Bible soberly. We come to the Bible rather with massive prejudices ingrained in us by culture. Moreover, egalitarian ideology corrupts the biblical idea of impartiality in judges and equality before courts of law. Ideology turns it into a faceless principle of interchangeability of any person for another. It produces envy for everyone who has more than I do, whether wealth, social status, power, authority, honor, beauty, or gifts. Ex. 20:17 is relevant, as is Ex. 4:11.

I also have an observation about the influence of culture on Bible reading: “Two Hermeneutical Tensions in Evangelical Feminism,” 2019.