Are We Missing Something?

In all of the interpretation and re-interpretation and critique and sermonizing and judgment and re-re-re-re-interpretation that happens around the New Testament instructions to women, I have begun to wonder if we may have missed something very important. If maybe we skipped over a couple of steps, put the cart before the horse, and ended up assuming a meaning that may not have been the original intent. I don't know if that's the case (obviously), but I'm wondering, and I want to share my wonderings and scout out some opinions.
First question: have we used words without considering what we mean by them, or if our assumptions of their meanings are accurate? Many people point to Proverbs 31:27 to back up the belief that a woman's place is in the home, because it says "She [the excellent wife] looks well to the ways of her household". Is this any different from the command to the male overseers in 1 Timothy 3 to "manage his household well"? What does the phrase "looks well after" really mean? What about the word "manage"? Are those different? Or have we interpreted each phrase, and thus each verse, through a cultural lens and read into the text a bias of social gender roles?
Second question: do we unthinkingly assume we know where the emphasis lies in the instruction? In Titus 2:5, Paul instructs older women to teach the younger women to be "sensible, pure, workers at home, kind" etc., etc. For most of the characteristics he describes, we know what he's going for: be sensible, as opposed to being an idiot; be pure, as opposed to being corrupt; be kind, as opposed to be a jerk. But what about for "workers at home"? Is he telling women to be workers at home as opposed to workers outside the home, or as opposed to lazy bums at home? In other words, is the emphasis "be workers at home" or "be workers at home"? My guess is that Paul was going for the latter emphasis, and I think this largely because two of the prominent female church leaders with Paul were successful business owners (Lydia & Priscilla) and because the Proverbs 31 woman was praised not for her work in the home, but because of her lack of idleness. In this light, Paul was expounding on a "whatever you do, do it for the Lord" sort of idea: as long as you're at home (which most women were in that day), do quality work, don't just be a lazy bum. That's a very different reading than the traditional "women must be stay-at-home homemakers" reading, but I can't see a good argument for choosing the latter.
Third question: are we reading too much importance into what the text does not say? This is somewhat related to the second question, but broader. One of the most hotly contested texts in this whole role-of-women debate is Ephesians 5:22: "Wives, submit to your husbands as unto the Lord." What this doesn't say is "Husbands, you don't have to submit to your wives because you're above them." That sentiment is decidedly absent from the text, especially because the previous verse instructs all believers (which presumably includes wives and husbands) to "submit to one another out of reverence for Christ". Yet that is precisely the sentiment we always read into that verse: not only that the man has no obligation to submit to the woman, but that the man should not submit to the woman and if he does it is sin and a disruption of the God-given order of things. But the text never ever says that the man shouldn't submit to the woman! In fact, it says the opposite: that all believers, men included, should submit to each other, women included. I think when we read this text we look for x statement that's not explicit in the text, amplify the importance of x, and then use the absence of x to re-interpret what the text actually says.
Let's say I used this method in another domain of life. Let's say I'm teaching my ESL class, and the students are working in small groups on a review worksheet that includes a number of different topics. Let's say I tell students in group A, "I think you should work a little more on the past tense verbs", and I tell students in group B, "I think you should focus on understanding gerunds". Now, if we interpreted these statements to my students the same way we interpret Ephesians 5:22, we would come out with this sort of meaning:
Group A students are born needing to work on past tense, and will always need to work on past tense verbs. Group B students are born needing to work on gerunds, and will always need to work on gerunds. This is the Way Things Are In The World, so it's not okay for Group B students work on past tense verbs instead of gerunds or vice-versa.
Is this reasonable at all? Absolutely not! No one would ever interpret my instructions to my students this way; why do we insist on interpreting the Bible this way?
Now, I know there are more texts (like 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 11) that have a bearing on the interpretation of the passages I mentioned here. I know I gave an incomplete picture of the Scripture's portrayal of women. I'm not saying the traditional interpretation is wrong, and I'm not saying my interpretation is right--in some cases, I'm not even sure what my interpretation is. All I'm saying is that we need to take a closer look at how we come to our conclusions about what the texts mean, and question every interpretive step we take along the way: meanings of words, where the emphasis lies in the statement, the importance of what isn't explicitly stated. We need to question our assumptions, because we all know what happens when you assume, and making an ass out of God's word or God's people is not a good idea.

Titus: Sound Doctrine

Paul starts chapter 2 with a general exhortation to Titus: in contrast to the false, corrupt teachers of chapter 1, he says, "You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine." We might expect Paul to elaborate on this point by discussing some of the finer points of theology or explaining issues such as sovereignty vs. free will or mode of baptism; we spend much of our energy in churches and seminaries wrestling over these topics, and they are what come to mind when someone mentions "doctrine".
But Paul subverts our expectations: instead of telling Titus how to teach the concept of the Trinity, he instructs Titus to teach various groups of people how to behave in relationships with one another. Here, and throughout the Bible, it is clear that "sound doctrine" does not mean simply dry, academic theories and propositions. Sound doctrine is a life lived in the righteousness of Jesus by the power of the Spirit. Sound doctrine is relationships that reflect the limitless generosity and love of God. Sound doctrine is when we participate in His Kingdom by loving, forgiving, and communing with one another, thereby showing the world the One to whom we belong. In the Bible, sound doctrine is always inextricably linked to sound relationships and a sound life.
More to the point, it is not enough to mentally assent to a set of propositions that state facts about the world--we must live out the doctrine we say we believe. I had a professor once who was fond of saying, "What you believe determines how you behave--and, ultimately, who you become." If I say I believe that I should forgive my husband when he is rude to me, but when he offends me I sulk over it and hold it against him later, do I really believe in forgiving? Of course not! My behavior comes out of my true beliefs about how the world works, and my belief on this matter is that I have a right to be treated well and, if that doesn't happen, I have a right to punish the offender as I see fit. Only when my beliefs have truly changed can my behavior genuinely begin to reflect Jesus. This is why Paul says in Romans that we must allow God to transform us through a process of mental renewal. And as our minds are renewed, awakened to God's truth, our sound doctrine will show up in how we relate to others and how we live our lives.

Titus: The Corrupt

In the last section of chapter 1, Paul moves away from describing the blameless, trustworthy, honest church leader to warn Titus against the rebellious factions that stir up dissension for their own profit. These people propagate Jewish myths, such as the idea that one must be circumcised or follow the Mosaic Law to be saved. They draw the boundaries of salvation according to their own rules and pride, rather than according to the bountiful grace of God, who saves us by grace, not by anything we could do to earn it. Furthermore, these people deceive in order to profit from young believers' doubts about the incredible mercy afforded to us through Jesus. Paul points out that the errors in these teachers' doctrine means they ruin entire households--they tear apart families and set friends against one another, all for the sake of transient earthly gain and selfish pride. According to Paul, they are liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons, corrupted, detestable, disobedient, and unfit for doing anything good. The ultimate blow comes in verse 16: these teachers claim to know God and to be teaching His truth, but their actions call them out. No teacher of God's truth rips apart families and destroys relationships within the church. Their deeds speak a stronger denial of God's sovereignty and goodness than words ever could.
After all this, you might expect Paul to finish by commanding Titus to kick these men and women out of the church and have nothing to do with them. Instead, his instruction is to rebuke them--not to humiliate them, but so that they might come back to a healthy view of God's grace and an accurate understanding of the gospel. Despite the utterly despicable behavior of these teachers, the goal is still for them to come to a saving knowledge of God's mercy through Jesus. God will save anyone, and wants to save everyone. He wants to save us from a state of corruption, in which nothing is pure and we are constantly striving to live up to standards we can never achieve. He wants to save us to a state of purification, in which our right standing before God purifies and makes holy all our dealings in the world. And this is the essence of the gospel: no matter how much evil we do, no matter how evil we are, God wants to save us from corruption to purification, from darkness to light.

Titus: Requirements for Church Leaders

Paul mentors Titus in how to set up a successful church. First of all, a church needs leaders. There must be an authority structure, a first among equals, a team of decision-makers, leaders. Paul notes that the churches on Crete that lacked leaders were "unfinished" and that the situation needed to be "straightened out". But the authority structure God has in mind for the church is not some random guy getting to call all the shots, do anything he wants, and control people's lives. The standards for church leaders are very high, since they are entrusted with God's work and God's people.
The church leader must have children who follow Jesus and "are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient". This means that leaders do not have the right to hide their family life from the church--leaders must be holding each other accountable and be in each others' lives to prevent them from putting up a nice mask and pressuring their children into performing for the church so no one will think badly of them. When believers become church leaders, they present themselves as the responsible party of their family, as it were, and Paul tells Titus that if these men have crazy, disobedient, unbelieving kids, there must be something wrong with the way they led their families so they shouldn't be put in charge of the church.
The church leader must not be overbearing. He can't pressure people into doing what he wants; he can't force decisions on people; he can't be dictatorial and tyrannical. Instead, he must be hospitable, inviting input and conversation from others in the church. He must be humble, welcoming, gentle, and doing everything out of love for Christ and His church rather than for "dishonest gain". Church leadership is not a one-way line of communication. Leaders make decisions and parishioners submit to those decisions, certainly. But leaders must be hospitable and accountable to their parishioners, welcoming different opinions, personalities, critiques, and suggestions. Church leadership that is a dictatorship is not Biblical.
The church leader must hold firmly to the gospel, for the gospel is the foundation of his whole job as a leader: encouraging others by sound doctrine and refuting those who oppose the message. Specifically, he must hold firmly to the message as it has been taught (e.g., by Jesus), not as he feels it should be or as others want it to be. The leader must not cater to the whims of human desires, whether his own or others'. If he doesn't agree with the gospel as it has been taught, then he ought not be a leader in the church. If other people don't like hearing the gospel as it has been taught, he has a responsibility to them to continue preaching the truth. The leader must not change the message in order to be more popular, or culturally relevant, or seeker sensitive. God has entrusted the church leader with His message and His people, and it is a weighty responsibility. Those who teach and lead God's people will be judged against higher standards (cf. James 3:1), and that is not something to take lightly.

Titus: Outline and Introduction

Titus is basically Paul's letter explaining how Timothy should preach and lead a church. The basic outline of the book is as follows:

Introduction - 1:1-4
Requirements for church leaders - 1:5-9
Warning about people Titus should watch out for - 1:10-16
How to teach to any demographic - 2:1-15
Older men - 2:1-2
Older women - 2:3
Younger women - 2:4-5
Younger men - 2:6-8
Slaves - 2:9-10
Basic message of any teaching - 2:11-15
What to teach everyone - 3:1-8
What to avoid and tell others to avoid - 3:9-11
Personal business - 3:12-15

In the Introduction, Paul explains his life purpose. He is an apostle of Jesus and a servant of God so that God's people would, through faith, understand the truth. His goal is for people to know truth. The result of people knowing this truth is that they become godly--knowledge of the truth leads to, or is in accord with, godliness. Paul sees it as a natural progression, not a two-step process or unrelated goals. Once believers know the truth about God and Jesus and themselves, a changed heart and a changed life flow naturally from that knowledge.
The faith and knowledge both have the same foundation: hope of eternal life. God promised eternal life "before the beginning of time", and all throughout the Old Testament the Jews' faith and knowledge of the truth rested on this hope. But Paul points out that, for us, this hope is no longer some distant idea hovering somewhere in the future like a desert mirage. Rather, our hope is certain and our faith is sure, because God "manifested [eternal life] in his word". This is somewhat of a double entendre: the Word is John's name for Jesus, God's human manifestation of eternal life; Paul also refers to the word of his (Paul's) preaching about Jesus. Bottom line: our hope is secure because we have seen and heard the manifestation, the very essence, of eternal life, that is, the life and work of Jesus.
Paul points out that God's word, Jesus/the gospel, is manifested by preaching. The job of preaching God's word is not to be treated flippantly; Paul says God has entrusted him with this task and commanded him to carry it out. The preaching is in itself a manifestation of eternal life: it is both the call to and the living out of the abundant, infinite, Kingdom life to which God is calling His people.
Paul then turns to Titus, addressing him as his true child by virtue of their common faith. Paul reminds Titus of his spiritual heritage and calls him to follow in Paul's mission, which was just stated in the previous verses. We would do well to be reminded of this as Titus was. We too have been called to preach the message of eternal life through Jesus. Let us not take our job lightly or lose sight of the goal: that God's people, through faith, will have knowledge of the truth and they will live godly lives as a result.