Both Jesus and
Paul were radically counter-cultural when it came to women. Indeed, some have
described their teaching as proto-feminist. Within Judaism women were
considered spiritually second class and so not worth teaching or talking to on
spiritual matters. Moreover, they were not considered reliable witnesses in
law. Yet Jesus commended Mary for sitting at his feet as a disciple to her
Rabbi and chose her to be the first witness to his resurrection. Paul also
spoke of there being neither male or female in the
These men were
not therefore prone to accepting the status quo. Given that, it is surprising
and noteworthy that, as we will see, Jesus did not choose any women to be apostolic witnesses of the resurrection
and that Paul persistently reserved the role of authoritative leadership in the
home and church for men. The question before us is whether this was a temporary
necessity because of the situation then, or a more timeless principle to be upheld
today. Some, however, sidestep these questions altogether. They assume that Jesus,
Paul, and the writers of the Bible, were unable to see past the cultural
presuppositions of the first century, and so cannot be relied upon in this
matter at all.
Cultural conditioning?
It is true that
we should ask whether scripture itself acknowledges a particular teaching is
just for a particular culture. But it is quite another thing to suggest that what
it portrays as applying to every age, was actually the wrong and even
oppressive view of its day.
We must realize
how serious this suggestion is. You see, if that was the case on the subject of
women, how do we know that scripture is not in error on other subjects, such as
the nature of God or the way of salvation? If Jesus cannot be trusted in his
own teaching and in his affirmation of the Old Testament and apostles as
Spirit-inspired and reliable, then Christianity really does implode, and our
faith has no warrant at all. Moreover, these assertions implicitly question the
integrity and power of God, for they suggest that having so affirmed the
centrality of scripture and the apostolic teachings through Jesus, he has not
ensured that they are reliable in what they assert. We must recognize that such
a suggestion also removes any grounds for appealing to the Bible’s radical
challenge to the inferiority and abuse of women in the first century too.
In truth, it is
the scriptures that are intended to correct our cultural assumptions and
preferred ideas, challenging those who “to suit their own desires,” will
“gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching
ears want to hear” (2 Tim 3v16-4v4). So it is, that we must honestly
consider whether our current views on this question are justified from
scripture or driven by the assertions of absolute equality and rights that mark
contemporary society and that have inevitably shaped our instincts.
Here I would add that my own convictions are not held to out of a desire to assert myself as a man, nor because of feeling threatened by women in ministry, as some who write on the matter suggest is the case with men who hold what’s called a “complementarian” position. I am a creature of my culture just as we all are, and so would find the “egalitarian” approach a much more comfortable one personally. But I am just not convinced by it. And as a Christian, I am called to trust God by holding to his word, even when that may grate, just as Christians have always done.
Two views
As we begin, it
is worth clarifying what these two positions on women and ministry are: The egalitarian view is that “there are no biblically mandated timeless
distinctions between men and women in the church.” They stress “the
equality of men and women, not merely for salvation or in essential personhood,
but in opportunities to hold every office and play every role that exists in
church life.” By contrast, the complementarian
view favours “certain timeless
restrictions on women’s roles in the church.” They stress that “in certain
contexts there are relationships of
authority and submission in which gender roles may not be reversed,” and within
which the two genders compliment one-another.[1]
We should note as
we come to assess these views, that neither denies that men and women are
created equal or have an equal place in God’s family. So, the fact that Paul
writes: “there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”
does not settle the matter (Gal 3v28). His concern is with equality of status
as God’s children (see v26), not the different roles different children of God might
be given. All are members of the priesthood of all believers, but each are
given different tasks. And in understanding this difference, three substantial
arguments need consideration: those from the sweep of scripture, the model of
Christ and the teaching of the apostles.
(1) The sweep of
scripture
Throughout, scripture affirms a principle of what’s termed “male
headship” (I prefer “male oversight”), in which a particular authority and
responsibility is ascribed to men and applied both in the home and in the
religious life of God’s people. I would suggest that the evidence for this
really is undeniable. Consider just a selection:
1.
The
structure of Genesis 2 as understood in Hebrew culture affirms the primacy of
Adam by order of birth, by the naming of the animals and by the presentation of
Eve to him.
2.
In
particular, it is Adam that is tasked with working the garden and Eve created
as his helper (Gen 2v15-18). The word for “helper” is used elsewhere for the
LORD. But the context must govern the sense of it here, and it is one that
portrays Adam as in some sense the lead in the couple’s God-given responsibilities,
as they combine their gender-differences as a team of two, in filling and
subduing the earth (Gen 1v26-28).
3.
This
is confirmed by the fact that although Adam and Eve both sin, Adam is primarily
held to be responsible (Gen 3v9-12, Rom 5v11-32). Indeed, many note his sin was
one of abrogating his responsibility to lead by standing by silently while Eve
ate the fruit (Gen 3v6).
4.
It is
also confirmed by God consistently using the image of husband and wife, groom,
and bride, to describe his leadership and care of his people (Isaiah 54v5). The
image implies that he exercises a loving authority like that of the perfect
husband.
5.
Throughout
Israel’s history, a principle of primogeniture was also affirmed by God, in which
inheritance would usually go to the
firstborn male and they would hold the ultimate authority for the family (Deut
21v16-17).
6.
Furthermore,
Israel’s history is marked by the principle of the household headed up by the
father. We see this with Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the nation from that
point on.
7.
Because
the nation is a family of families, leadership develops from household heads.
So, the heads of twelve tribes are Jacob’s twelve sons.
8.
For
this reason, elders in Israel were only male as they were the more prominent
household heads (Ex 18v25, Num 11v16).
9.
The
Priesthood within Israel was also reserved for men only, and from one family
and one tribe, despite the history of Israel showing that there were often more
godly and gifted men and women in other families and tribes (Ex 28v1).
10. Priests and those who served as elders in
the synagogues of Jesus’ day were therefore men too.
11. Commentators agree that the structure of
the early churches was based on the synagogue with elders taking the equivalent
role of the Jewish elders.
12. Whatever its application might be today,
the principle of the firstborn son being given authority is reaffirmed in the
NT by speaking of Christ as the firstborn over creation (Col 1v15).
13. The principle of headship is also
reaffirmed in speaking of Christ as head of his bride and family, the church (John
3v29, Rev 21v2-4).
14. The apostles therefore affirm the headship
of husbands on the grounds of creation and the pattern of Christ’s relationship
with the church. Both grounds transcend culture and so teach that the principle
of headship does too. It is portrayed as bound up with God’s order of things (1
Corinthians 11v2-16, Ephesians 5v22-33, 1 Peter 3v1-7).
15. As the church is also to a large extent a
family of families meeting in family homes, it is natural for the principle of
headship that applies to biological families to be reflected in the church (1
Tim 2v12-15, 3v1-5, 1 Cor 14v31-40).
We see here
that there is a link between the idea of headship within the home and the role
of elder or overseer as church leader. As
Challenges to complementarianism.
A common counter
is to say that male headship is a result of the fall, that the NT writers taught
it simply because an equality of gender roles in marriage and church leadership
would have had no traction in their day, and that the trajectory of the Bible
is towards there being no distinction in role. However, the bullet points above
enable us to say two key things by way of response.
First, the idea of headship is grounded in Genesis 2, before the fall, which
is just where the NT goes to support its teaching on the issue – hard as these
texts are to read in our day (Eph 5v31, 1 Tim 2v13, 1 Cor 11v8-9). However, the
“desire” and “rule” of Genesis 3v16 is certainly negative and a result of the
fall. In Genesis 4v7 the exact phrase is used to describe the controlling
desire of sin and the firm rule necessary to suppress it. But such “desire” and
“rule” is not a reflection on the idea of headship in marriage as it should be.
The whole wider passage from Gen 3v14-19 is about the impact of sin on God’s
good order in creation. So, verse 16 is a comment on how sin so often distorts headship
– the very thing the NT seeks to counter by its assertion it should be modelled
on Christ.
Second, to suggest the Bible writers were temporarily accommodating their
teaching to their culture is not so straightforward in either Testament. Female
gods and priestesses were quite common in the Ancient Near East of OT Israel (consider
the goddess Asherah, 1 Kgs 15v13), and the Hellenistic world in which the NT was
written (consider the goddess Artemis, Acts 19v27). And so, by revealing
himself as Father, and requiring male priests, God was, in some senses at
least, being counter-cultural in the time of Moses. Moreover, the principle of
male-headship within the church that was inherited from Judaism and reasserted
by Jesus and the apostles, was not so obviously an accommodation to culture when
maintained in the Greco-Roman world. Indeed, the New Testament teaching on complementarity
in marriage was itself radically counter-cultural. It was intended to counter
the male abuse of women that was common in first century marriages, commanding Christian
husbands to reflect Christ’s love for the church in a self-sacrificial “care”
of their wives and “consideration” of their needs (Eph 5v25-33, 1 Pet 3v7).
A further
argument often heard is that the idea of “head” is simply that of source. There
is truth here. Christ is the source of gifts and life for his church, and this
reminds us of the idea of headship should enable wives to flourish rather than in
any sense oppress them. However, a closer consideration shows that this does
not exclude ideas of authority. Husbands, fathers, and heirs throughout the OT
held an authority that was to be willingly submitted to by adults and obeyed by
children. This was also the case with priests and elders. Moreover, both Paul
and Peter explicitly pick up ideas of authority and submission (1 Cor 11v2-16,
Eph 5v22-33, 1 Pet 3v1-7). Most especially, Christ bears an authority as head of
all things, and of his church as his body (Col 1v15-18). And as head, he dies
for his body, and from heaven oversees all things for it’s good, so causing it to
grow and flourish in him. In the same way, husbands are to sacrifice themselves
for the good of their wives, overseeing all things in a way that causes them to
flourish too (Eph 1v22-23 with 4v15-16 and 5v28-31).
Reasons for complementarianism.
All this highlights two
reasons for God ordaining this dynamic for male-female relations, and for us to
uphold rather than challenge it. In being rooted in creation, we see that (when
rightly understood) it must reflect how he has designed men and women to best
relate as the team they are to be in marriage. And in being patterned on Christ
and the church, we see that it is especially important in picturing to us, our
children, and others, the relationship the gospel brings us into with him.
To my mind, it is
extremely difficult to dismiss this God-given order as portrayed throughout the
sweep of scripture. At the very least it means that the onus is on those who would
say that the idea of male headship (or oversight) has been abrogated, to prove
their point with clear NT texts. But a closer consideration of the teaching of
Christ and the apostles only affirms it.
(2) The model of Christ
Jesus does not
teach explicitly on our subject because the point was assumed by those around
him. But, given that he was so ready to challenge prevailing views in other
areas, the fact that he doesn’t challenge this one, is a teaching point in itself.
For example, he
affirms Mary’s studiousness over Martha’s domesticity, making her equal to men in
matters of discipleship and the use of her intellectual gifts – both of which
would have shocked fellow Jews. Nevertheless, despite this, he does not commission
any women as his apostles.[2]
Moreover in Matthew 19v1-12 he grounds his sexual ethics in the narrative of
Genesis 2 which he states is “the Creator” speaking. By doing so, he affirms
the principle of headship bound up with that narrative that is stated above and
was assumed by his hearers.
(3) The teaching of
the apostles
It is Paul who
tackles our subject when it does begin to be challenged. However, it is
significant that the wider NT writings assume male leadership of the home and
church, and they are absolutely free from any encouragement for women to take on
these roles. Because of the high religious status Jesus gave women and the fact
that there is evidence women were seeking to take a lead in churches (1 Timothy
2v11-15), once again, this assumption itself teaches something.
However, we need to consider Paul’s
teaching in particular, and we can only do so on the grounds that he writes as
an apostle and therefore as one of Christ’s inspired spokesmen to the church.
It is beyond the realm of this paper to fully argue the case for trusting his
writings to therefore be taken as God’s Word, however some reasons are given as
an appendix together with a more in-depth treatment of how to understand these
verses. For now, we’ll consider them in brief. Paul writes:
11) Let a woman learn quietly
with all submissiveness.
12) I do not permit a woman to
teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.[3]
13) For Adam was formed first,
then Eve;
14) and Adam was not deceived,
but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
15) Yet she will be saved through
childbearing--if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with
self-control. (
Egalitarians argue that this prohibition
was not intended for all times and cultures but just for a particular situation
in Ephesus where Timothy ministered. Some say the problem there was with women
considering themselves superior, or being domineering, uneducated, or heretical.
Still others say Paul was just wanting the churches to operate according to the
expected norms of the society. But this lack of consensus itself, shows that it
just isn’t clear that Paul was addressing a localized issue. Moreover, if the problem
was women being superior, domineering, uneducated, or heretical, we would
expect Paul to state that, because in chapter 1 he is very ready state the
problem with the false teachers he does want Timothy to confront (1 Tim 1v3-7),
and he gives no sense at all that these were women. Indeed, when he does name
those who have been a problem, they are men (1 Tim 1v20, cf. 2 Tim 2v17-18, 4v14),
but this doesn’t lead him to keep all men from teaching or exercising
authority. And so, we should also ask if there was a problem with some women, why
he would prohibit all women from these roles rather than just those
unfit to teach, and why he does not prohibit them from teaching women or
children too.
The fact is that when Paul does give his
reasoning in verse 13, he locates it in the order of creation, just as we’ve seen
the wider Bible does with regard to male headship. The next two verses are
harder to understand (and hard to stomach in our day). The point may be that
just as Eve sought a role that wasn’t hers in desiring to be like God, so women
should not seek to teach and exercise authority over men, but express their
faith in accepting their particular role (if able) of childbearing.
As to the role they are not permitted to
engage in: It’s link to remaining quiet implies it is the sort of teaching and
authority that might challenge or correct others speaking in the congregation.
1 Cor 14v29-40 makes the same point when thinking about weighing prophecy. And as
Paul immediately moves to a discussion of eldership, it is likely it is that
sort of elder-like teaching and authority that he has in mind. Regular
preaching in the church was certainly supposed to be authoritative too (Titus
2v15).
This is important to recognize, so that
we don’t be overly limiting as some complementarian churches can be. Anna spoke
to men and women about Christ in the temple (Lk 2v36-38), women prophesied to
both, which involved speaking the gospel and its implications for the church (1
Cor 11v5, Eph 3v4-5), and Priscilla and her husband privately taught Apollos
(Acts 18v26). This would suggest there is no problem with women co-leading mixed
Bible studies with their husband, sharing insights from scripture in groups or gathered
worship, or even occasionally taking a sermon slot where their insights are
especially helpful. The issue is rather than that, whether in groups or
gathered worship, the more authoritative leading and corrective teaching should
be given by me and, because of this, only men should be elders.
We might well wonder why this is so necessary.
And we are not told, other than that it is required by the order of creation. 1
Corinthians 11v2-6 adds that maintaining this order is especially important in gathered
worship because of the presence of angels! We might also recognize that by upholding
this dynamic in the church, husbands, wives, and children, are reminded of its
importance for their families too, both in bringing a God-given harmony and
picturing the gospel.
The
issue of authority
Of course, many of us flinch at these
sorts of teachings. In my experience we do so for three reasons. One is because
they are so counter-cultural. We have cautioned against such instinctive
reaction already. The second is because we think this implies women are
inferior, and the third is because we are aware of how authority can be abused.
In response we must note that even within
the trinity there is a difference of structure in the relations. The titles of
Father and Son are framed to teach the primacy of the Father and the obedience
of the Son. Moreover, as the Nicene Creed states, the Spirit proceeds from (i.e.
is sent by) both Father and Son. Yet none of us would say that the Son and
Spirit are inferior to the Father. They are absolutely equal in that they share
the divine essence, but different (or ‘unequal’) when it comes to their particular
roles. In the same way there is no sense of inferiority to say that men and
women are equal in sharing human nature but different (or ‘unequal’) when it
comes to the roles ascribed to each. Otherwise, we must say that the employee is
inferior to their boss, for there is an inequality of authority there too.
Discussion of issues of equality requires much more subtlety and nuance than is
given by our government or media today.
We should note also that Jesus demonstrated
how true authority is to be expressed. It is not an excuse for abuse, but
rather a protection against it. It is only to take the lead in areas prescribed
by God. So, it should not produce the equivalent of legalism where those led
must adhere to the leader’s every whim. It is to lead with a concern to love and
serve others. It does not therefore “Lord it over” them, but gives
sacrificially for their good, encouraging them, helping them to flourish, and
only ever being firm or confrontational when it is essential to protecting or
promoting their good. This sort of authority is something to thank God for and
encourage both in the church and the home. It would ideally be consultative,
and rather than micro-managing, would then free church members (or wives) to
get on with their own responsibilities and decision making, knowing they will
do so in consistency with what they know of their elder’s (or husband’s) will.
The
issue of calling
How then are we to view a woman who has a
sense of being called to overall church leadership and seems to have gifts in
leading and teaching? Any sense of calling is by its nature uncertain and
subject to testing. In testing such a calling by scripture we must discern that
it has to some extent been misunderstood. This is not to mean that the gifts have
not been given; rather, that they are for expression elsewhere – perhaps by running
some work within a church, leading and teaching in a less regular and non-authoritative
manner, being a women’s minister or teacher, or other such thing. 1 Kings 12v31
has challenged me here. No doubt, there were gifted people throughout Israel
who could have been better priests than the Levites. Nevertheless, one of
Jeroboam’s sins was that he “appointed priests from among all the people,
who were not of the Levites.” In other words, whatever the Lord’s reasons
for reserving a particular role for a particular people, gifting is not an adequate
reason to go against it.
The
issue of fairness
This is a final objection. When all is
done, many simply feel it is unfair for there to be a role that women are not
allowed to engage in. In the parlance of modern society, we are told that this
is discriminatory and to make women second class. So, the whole issue is said
to be one of justice. However, this is still to think according to the world’s
ideas of authority rather than Christ’s. It is to see the issue as one of
greatness and superiority rather than of order and responsibility.
Moreover, the text we have looked at ends
with an affirmation that there is actually a noble role for women that men are
excluded from – that of childbearing. The meaning of verse 15 is much debated,
but it is probably an affirmation that the particular role God has given women
is this one, and that true faith will be shown in women embracing and devoting
themselves to it. If we are to use the language, we must therefore say that here
it is men who are unjustly discriminated against and made second class.
Of course, we do not say this, and the
reason is that it is obvious that God has given men and women different roles
with respect to childbearing. However, the principle of complimentarily is the
same. Yet the sad fact is that suggesting this applies to the issue of church
leadership immediately raises our heckles. But why? It may be because not all
women are able to bear children. But neither are all men able by their gifts to
be church leaders. Or we may be tempted to say that men have the better deal because
childbearing is so hard. If so, we should pause to reflect on what a privilege
childbearing is and on how church leadership should also mean constant
sacrifice for one’s spiritual children - even martyrdom in some countries.
Conclusion
We have established then that God has
ordered the creation so that there are particular roles for men and women. He
created them equal but different, to complement rather than compete with
one-another, and one aspect of this is that he has reserved the role of head or
leader in the church and home for men.
It is significant that our culture’s
recent assumption that both genders are essentially the same has already to
some degree passed. Now there seems to be far more recognition of some degree of
complimentarily. In an age when men are increasingly unsure of their role,
gender is being blurred and marriages breaking down due to a lack of responsibility
in husbands, in its wider sense this teaching could not be more relevant or
important to uphold.
Appendix A: The authority of Paul
In John 14-16 Jesus promised the Holy
Spirit would lead his apostles into “all truth.” But does this apply to Paul?
- There is no way of explaining Paul’s radical conversion and
service of Christ to the point of death, other than that the risen Christ
did appear to and commission him as an apostle. People will die for what
they believe to be true but not for what they know to be false. And Paul
claimed to have been personally made an apostle by the risen Jesus himself.
- The apostles commissioned during Jesus’ lifetime themselves
affirmed Paul’s apostleship so that it was accepted throughout the early
church (Gal 3:1-10).
- 2 Peter reflects an acceptance of Paul’s writings as “scripture”
within the early church (2 Pet
Appendix B:
Understanding and applying 1 Timothy 2v11-15
Does the prohibition still apply?
Given Paul’s apostleship and so
inspiration, the argument given against the application of these verses today
is that Paul was writing just for the particular situation in
- Under the influence of the Ephesian cult of Artemis,
women were considering themselves superior to men.[4]
- They were teaching in a domineering manner.[5]
- They were simply uneducated.[6]
4.
They
were influenced by the heretical teachers Paul mentions in the letter.[7]
- Women were not permitted to teach or
exercise authority over men in the Greco-Roman culture, and so Paul
temporarily limited the freedom of women in order for there to be no
barrier to the gospel.[8]
This lack of consensus should make us
cautious of assuming that there was an obvious local problem. There are actually
substantial reasons for holding that Paul is here voicing a more general prohibition.
1. The idea that the source of the problem lay
in the cult of Artemis is one of pure speculation. We must ask if this was so, why
Paul nowhere even mentions it, why he addresses issues of authority and submission
rather than superiority and inferiority, and why he doesn’t stress that there
is no superiority either way with men or women, as he does elsewhere (1 Cor
11:11-12, Gal 3:27-29)?
2.
Contrary
to what some claim, the Greek word translated “exercise authority” has “no
inherent negative sense of grasping or usurping authority or of exercising it
in a harsh or authoritative way.”[9]
This is confirmed by the fact that if the problem were domineering, uneducated
or heretical women, we must ask why Paul prohibits all women from teaching or exercising authority, and why just with
respect to men? We know for a fact that Priscilla was in the church, and she is
well proved to be godly, educated and sound (2 Tim
3. In terms of uneducated or heretical
teaching, Paul has already charged Timothy to stop the teaching of “false doctrines”
(1 Tim 1:3). So, if error in whatever form was his concern, it would have been
covered in this instruction anyway, making the prohibition of 1 Timothy 2:11-15
unnecessary. Furthermore, if he had wanted to, Paul could have said “I do not
permit a woman to teach false doctrines” (cf. 1 Tim 6:3), but instead simply
uses the positive “teach” – a word he always qualifies in context if he intends
it to be read as erroneous teaching.
4. We have already seen that some form of
submission of women to men is affirmed throughout scripture as an abiding
principle, not as something temporarily instituted to rectify local problems or
facilitate evangelism.
5. In 1 Timothy 2:13, Paul actually gives a
reason for his prohibition. And he does not cite any of the suggested reasons
tackled above, but the transcultural truth of man’s primacy (though not
superiority) over woman in creation. Paul assumes his point to be self-evident
here, though it is less so to minds not so absorbed in the Jewish mindset. The
concept is that of primogeniture mentioned above.[10]
6.
Verse
14 may give a second transcultural reason behind the prohibition. The exactly
meaning of the verse is unclear. Paul would never suggest that only Eve was
guilty of the first sin, he is simply stating that there is something about her
deception that justifies women being kept from teaching and exercising
authority. It cannot be one of gullibility for the reasons outlined under point
2 above. Most likely Paul’s point is that just as Eve was deceived into
grasping after the role of being “like God” in Genesis 3, so the women in this
church should not be deceived into seeking after another role that is not by
nature theirs.
What exactly is prohibited?
It seems that Paul therefore sees his
prohibition as something that should apply in some way to all churches for all
time. We must ask next what exactly the prohibition entailed. Much could be
said here. Many see it as prohibiting women from exercising all forms of authority
or teaching with respect to men in the church. I am not convinced by this
because elsewhere women are commended for teaching in some sense (Luke 2v36-38,
Acts 18v26) and encouraged to prophesy, which was to declare a revelation from
God with authority, and included the very truths the church was founded on
(Ephesians 2v20, 4v11). Moreover, women’s role in managing larger households (as
in Proverbs 31) would have inevitably entailed some exercising of authority over
men when churches were hosted in their homes.
The context suggests that what is actually
being prohibited is the exercising of elder-like authority, i.e. that of church
leaders who were called to oversee the churches, challenge or correct wrong
teaching or living, and in their own teaching, teach with authority in affirming
truth and rebuking error (Titus 2v15, 2 Timothy 4v1-5). This is confirmed
firstly by the rare Greek word translated “exercise authority.” It is one that
has particular force. This reading is also confirmed by the fact that Paul
immediately moves to the subject of elders or overseers, assuming they are men
and “able to teach” (1 Tim 3v1-7), and later describes their role as ruling and
teaching (1 Tim 5v17
How should
the prohibition apply today?
We can now ponder the
applicability of the prohibition today. Yet as we do, we must keep one final
question in mind: To what extent are teaching and eldership still to be authoritative?[11]
In Paul’s day women were
commonly forbidden from teaching in public meetings, which would probably mean
that their teaching men in church would have automatically been seen as a
usurping of male headship. Yet this would only be the case today if teaching
was still to be regarded as an exercising of authority. If it was not, there
would be no reason for women to be prohibited in this way in order to uphold
the order of creation.
As we proceed then, we must
consider the extent to which the first century application of the submission
principle to teaching and exercising authority is trans-cultural.
(1) We have
seen that the role of the elder in every age is intended to be one of “ruling”
over the entire congregation and, where necessary, authoritatively challenging
and correcting false belief and behaviour corporately and individually. This suggests
quite clearly that elders (or their equivalent) must still be male.[12]
(2) We should note
that the word “leadership” may have fewer connotations of authority today than
in the first century where even the servant leadership commanded by Christ was
intrinsically tied to governing (Rom 12:8). It would not therefore seem
inappropriate for a woman to exercise some form of church leadership over men
in less authoritative ways, as long as the manner in which this is done
respects the order of creation and the woman is accountable to male eldership. As
with the wife of noble character managing her household or the house-church
host wife taking a role in organisation, she might therefore lead in the church
by coordinating a team in some ministry, setting an example in modelling to
others how something could be done, or leading worship. Moreover, as with
Deborah judging
(3) The first century
house-church is probably more akin to a large homegroup than a medium to large
sized church today. It must therefore be asked whether it is wise to have a faithful
man or even elder in overall charge of any mixed homegroup, who would be seen as
the group’s primary authority and teacher, and who could question or challenge
wrong belief or behaviour in men - if it necessitated doing in the homegroup
rather than being referred to the eldership. However, because Priscilla and
Aquila instructed Apollos, there would seem no reason why a woman could not
co-lead a Bible study with a man – ideally her husband. Certainly, women should
not refrain from sharing insights in the context of Bible study.
(4) We must also
conclude that, as long as it is done without asserting elder-like authority, it
is appropriate for women to instruct men publicly in other contexts, that are
equivalent to that of first century prophecy, such as in a worship service or
prayer meeting. Furthermore, Anna’s example (Luke 2v36-38) suggests that there
is no reason why women might not occasionally teach in a more extended way if
that would be particularly useful, and is done in a manner of instruction, encouragement,
and admonition rather than a more assertive, correcting, rebuking and
commanding. Having said this, we have been reminded that the primary teaching in
the church should be authoritative (even though it often isn’t today), and so
given by the elders. It would therefore seem that preaching should normally be
given by men who can teach in this way. Otherwise, the church will lack the
weight and direct challenge of false belief and behaviour that it requires in
what it is to hear.[13]
(5) Some would
argue that the principles we have examined prohibit women from leading church
services or presiding at the Lord’s Supper. Now there is something symbolic
about those doing so being the ultimate overseers of the church, just as the
head of the household would have led the family worship and the Passover meal
(although women apparently played their part in this too). Nevertheless, it is
difficult to see grounds for concluding that a mature female Christian must
never do these things. The Lord’s Supper especially, is to be linked to the preaching
of the word. But we have already established that women can teach on occasion.
The only exception to such presidency might be where excommunication is used as
a form of church discipline and could require a man to be refused bread and
wine. In such instances it would seem important that a male elder presides,
both for the sake of church order and the exercising of authority.
(6) Finally, our
study engages the recent issue within Anglicanism of women bishops. As bishops are
first presbyters (elders), as they inherently hold an authority that male
pastors under them vow to submit to, and as they have a responsibility to
exercise that authority primarily in ensuring correct belief and behaviour in
those pastors and their churches, one cannot see how women bishops can ever be
consistent with the teaching of scripture.
[1] These definitions are
taken from Beck, James R and Blomberg, Craig L. “Introduction” in Two views on women in ministry, (Grand
Rapids, Zondervan, 2001), p.16-17. If you want to read further on these issues,
this is a good place to start.
[2] When Junia is said to
be “outstanding amongst the apostles” in Romans 16v7, this should not be assumed
to mean she was one of the founding leaders of the church. The Greek
“apostolos” means “sent one” and could describe a simple emissary or missionary.
Alternatively, it could be meant that Junia had a high reputation amongst the
apostles.
[3] Although the Greek
for “woman” and “man” can refer to “wife” and “husband,” as Bible translations
show, there is general agreement that they do not in this context, as women and
men more generally are in mind in Paul’s train of thought (v8-9).
[4] Belville, “Women in
ministry” in Two views on women in
ministry, (
[5] Ibid, p.126
[6] Keener, Craig L. “Women
in ministry” in Two views on women in
ministry, (
[7] Fee, Gordon D. New International Biblical Commentary: 1 and
2 Timothy, Titus, (Peabody, Hendrickson, 1984), p.73
[8] Another possibility
suggested by Keener, Op Cit, p.57
[9] Knight, George W. The New International Greek Testament Commentary
on the Pastoral Epistles, (Carlisle, Paternoster, 1999), p.141
[10] Gen
19:30ff, 27:1ff, 29:26f, 35:23, 36:15, 43:33, 48:14f, 49:3, Ex 4:22, 13:2, Jer
31:9, Rom 8:29, Col 1:15, 18, Heb 1:6, Rev 1:5
[11] This question is key, for although we have established that the
submission principle is transcultural, we might still wonder whether the prohibition
itself is too. Or are the actions of “teaching” and “exercising authority” akin
to “lifting holy hands” (1 Tim 2v8) and not wearing “braided hair” or “costly attire”
(v9) – applications of the principle to first century ideas of what this should
mean, just as these examples apply the principles of prayerfulness and modesty
to first century ideas about how they should be expressed? Stott, J. The Bible speaks today: The message of 1
Timothy and Titus, (Leicester, IVP, 1996), p.78-79
[12] Yet we must add that
we would not be pedantic about terms if a female elder was appointed on a team
headed up by a man and sought only to exercise “ruling” authority over women
and children. This would however be unwise, as she would inevitably be regarded
as a normal elder. To save confusion it would be better to give her another
title.
[13] It might be pointed
out that preaching today isn’t so authoritative, and so women should not be kept
from it. I agree that this is so in many churches. Nevertheless, because scripture
suggests that preaching should be authoritative, we should encourage our
pastors/elders to preach in this way. This would by consequence entail women preaching
less because this is the very preaching they are prohibited from engaging in.