how literal is literal?

It is currently the hottest story in the blogosphere: The First Baptist Church of Watertown, New York has dismissed 81-year-old Mary Lambert -- who has taught Sunday School for more than half a century -- from her teaching duties. The church's new pastor does not believe women should be allowed to teach men, and Ms. Lambert was leading an adult class.

There's more to the story than that. Obviously, if it were only a matter of women not teaching men, Ms. Lambert could have been moved to a women-only class, or to a children's class. But according to a statement released last Saturday by the church's pastor, this appears to be part of an ongoing power struggle between some long-time church members and the new church leadership. Last May, Ms. Lambert and other church members publicly aired their grievances in an article in the local newspaper. Among other things, Rev. LaBouf has removed crosses and other religious items from the sanctuary, stopped the recitation of the Lord's Prayer, and forbidden lay members to read the weekly Scriptures during worship.

Because the controversy has spilled over into the Waterton community, where Rev. LaBouf also serves on the City Council, he has clarified in a written statement that he believes "the qualifications for both men and women teaching spiritual matters in a church setting end at the church door, period." LaBouf adds that he was educated in a Catholic school, where he was taught by nuns, so he evidently does not have a problem with women teaching male children.

So there's more at issue than simply forbidding a woman to teach men in church.

And yet, there is the issue of forbidding a woman to teach men in church.

The church's policy is based on instructions found in 1 Timothy 2:12.

I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent.

This is being interpreted according to the "Golden Rule of [Literal] Hermeneutics", which Tim LaHaye of the Left Behind novels defines as, "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense, but take every word at its primary, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context clearly indicate otherwise."

There are several problems with such a hermeneutic. First of all is the fact that immediate context is not always adequate. Here's the immediate context (1 Timothy 2:8-15) for the passage above:

I desire, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument; also that the women should dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing, not with their hair braided, or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes, but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God. Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

On the surface it looks clear. A women cannot teach or have authority over a man. Men should pray and women should keep quiet and raise the children.

But how does that square with biblical mentions elsewhere of women in authority? Romans 16:1 speaks of a woman named Phoebe who was a minister or a deacon. In verse 7 of the same chapter, Paul mentions a (married?) couple, Andronicus and Junia, who were both apostles. And in verse 3 of the same chapter Paul mentions another married couple Priscilla and Aquila, whom he refers to as co-workers. This couple is said to have taught Apollos (Acts 18:26). If women worked alongside their husbands in ministry in the early church, how could Paul say he forbade them?

Was 1 Timothy really written by the same Paul who not only allowed women to have positions of authority, but personally worked with women in ministry? Is this the same Paul who said in Galatians 3:28, "There is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus"?

If 1 Timothy was written by someone else, should it have the same authority? And even if it was written by Paul, should his words be taken as an absolute rule? Are Paul's words as authoritative as Jesus's? Didn't Jesus commission Mary Magdalene to share the good news of his resurrection (John 20:17) with his disciples?

Elsewhere (1 Corinthians 7:10, 12), Paul draws a distinction between the words of the Lord and Paul's own advice. Is it possible that the "I" of 1 Timothy 2:8-15 is meant to indicate that this passage is a matter of opinion, or is advice from a mentor to a protege and not applicable everywhere?

Or if it really is from the hand of Paul, and he really does mean "every place" in verse 8, he evidently doesn't mean at all times, since Paul had worked with women teachers in the past. Or did Paul change his mind? And if so, what else might have changed in the past 2000 years?

A simplistic hermeneutic that looks strictly at immediate context and ignores the larger biblical context (and the even larger context of church tradition) won't wrestle with these questions, but they are essential if we are to understand the passage in question. No Bible verse was written in a vacuum. Building a doctrine on a single sentence is not a solid hermeneutical principle. The "plain sense" of a passage doesn't always give us the big picture.

The Bible is not always an easy book to understand. Sometimes it takes a lot of wrestling to get to the heart of the matter. I can understand why some people might be tempted to take comfort by oversimplifying isolated passages to promote an underlying agenda. But it seems to me that God expects better from us.