Women in Ministry: Bold or Brazen?
They carry and nurture our children. They both beguile and infuriate. They have stood behind successful men. They both break hearts and build homes. They soothe, cook, clean, plan and instruct. And they put up with men.
One woman was forever memorialized for having a face that “launched a thousand ships and burnt the topless towers of Illium!” The poet was enthralled: “Sweet Helen, make me immortal with a kiss!” (Truthfully, I think she would have been high maintenance!)
The resurrected Jesus entrusted to women the consummate task of relating to His disciples the blessed fact of His resurrection. NT scholar and Bishop N.T. Wright remarks here that “This is of incalculable significance.”
The Christian Church has, for the length and breadth of her history, been confounded by what we might call the feminine question. No one denies their rightful place in God’s Kingdom, but there remains the pronounced question as to their active role in ministry.
Christendom has accorded women both high honor and tawdry debasement. Roman Catholics have elevated Mary to the “Queen of Heaven,” while other assemblies have kept them disenfranchised from even speaking, let alone reigning.
Finer biblical scholars and theologians than I have reviewed the biblical data, deliberated and debated and presented their conclusions. The problem is that they come to differing conclusions. They come away as either egalitarians or complementarians.
An egalitarian is one who believes that God’s Word supports the view that men and women share a comparable role in church governance and ministry. Women, in this view, can be pastors and elders and deacons. They can even preach and teach.
A complementarian is one who believes that God’s Word supports the view that woman have equal status but a differing, even subordinate, function, in the church. Women, in this respect, can neither govern nor preach (though they should teach children).
Are women equal in status and function, or are they equal in status but subordinate in function? Well, what does God’s Word say? It appears that we have an inconsistency of data. I don’t see how any honest student of scripture can deny this.
We have one scripture informing us that there is no distinction between men and women insofar as Christ is concerned (Galatians 3:26f); on the other, that there is a distinction, with women not looking quite so worthy (I Timothy 2:11-15).
We have scripture that seemingly prohibits women from even speaking, let alone teaching or governing; conversely, we have scripture that clearly casts women in leadership roles or through whom the Word of God is articulated.
My reading of the scriptures brings me to the conclusion that women are afforded a place in church leadership. There are ample examples. And, if I am wrong, may it be said of me what Jefferson said of the late Washington – “He erred, but he erred with integrity.”
To the texts of scripture we must turn in order to determine what a woman may do within church precincts. Scripture is our definitive and determinative authority.
I Corinthians 14 As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If 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 (I Corinthians 14:33-35).
It is evident that this was a troubled church. Besetting problems included immorality, disorderly conduct, and (for our purpose) the disruptive behavior of women.
Men and women sat separately in services. The women shouted to their husbands for help if they didn’t understand something. It was quite disruptive. (One sympathizes, though; perhaps the teachers could have been more sympathetic to the frustrated women!)
Paul is quite specific. They should talk with their husbands later at home. It was as simple as that! Paul worked to bring order amidst chaos and confusion.
Women were clearly participating in public worship. I Corinthians 11:3-16 talks about the contributions of prayer and prophecy during worship. Women were taking public and leading roles. The stipulations relate as to how, not whether, women would participate.
Some have suggested that prophecy should be distinguished from teaching, but prophecy is itself a form of instruction; if it is disgraceful for women to speak, however orderly, then it is disgraceful, period. It should be apparent that this is not what Paul meant.
I Timothy 2 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing – if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
The Ephesians church, like the Corinthian, was a deeply troubled church, though for differing reasons. The life of the latter was beset by a lack of constructive control, while the former was assailed by too much destructive control. Paul had his problem children!
Unqualified persons were teaching things that were false and unhelpful, even meaningless in nature. Paul bluntly states that “They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm” (1:7).
Some had abandoned their faith to follow “deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.” Paul called such persons “hypocritical liars” (4:2). They were promoting a legalistic agenda, as well as “godless myths and old wives’ tales” (4:7).
The ensuing corruption was rampant. Love of money, sensuality, arrogance and unfulfilled responsibility appear to have been rampant. But the critical core was clearly false and unhealthy teaching, as Paul makes plain:
“If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between men of corrupt mind who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain”
(6:6-10).
Some young widows broke their pledge to serve Christ, getting “into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying things they ought not to” (5:11-15).
The bad behavior extended to the wives of deacons. Paul teaches that “their wives are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything” (3:11). Some wives are and some aren’t; nothing has changed.
But it is interesting and instructive to learn that the word gynaikas translated “wives” might be better translated “deacons.” There is the very clear possibility that women were acknowledged as leaders in the church, their bad behavior notwithstanding.
NT scholar Dr. Gordon Fee offers a fair assessment of both sides of the ledger:
“In favor of ‘wives’ is that the deacons are addressed on either side of this verse. It is also argued that one might have expected more detail if a third category were envisioned. In favor of ‘deaconesses’ is the structure of the sentence itself, which is the exact equivalent of verse 8, both of which in turn are dependent on the verb ‘must’ in verse 2 (thus implying three categories). It is further argued that had the wives of deacons been in view, Paul might have been expected to say their wives (as the NIV does without any warrant whatsoever). Since there was no word in Greek for ‘deaconess’ (better, woman helper’ as in GNB), it is likely that ‘women’ here would have been understood to mean women who served the church in some capacity.”
It is obvious that one must study the text to follow the flow of Dr. Fee’s exposition, but it is fair to assume that we are doing just that! Conclusions may differ, but the text abides.
The cultural milieu in which the church at Ephesus existed is significant. Ephesus was the center of the ancient religious cult of Diana. Women dominated and men submitted to their control. The Church would no doubt have been affected.
Women, whether they were holding positions of formal leadership, were exercising an unhealthy influence on the life of the church. It appears to be the contextual reason why Paul was issuing an injunction against female leadership, at least here.
NT scholar Donald Guthrie agrees, having suggested that “the prohibition (2:12) may have been due to the greater facility with which contemporary women were falling under the influence of imposters.” Such a case is given credence by the text. Paul had to act.
First, he exercises personal authority in prohibiting women from teaching or exercising authority.
He says “I do not permit …” My study of Paul’s letters suggests that such application of personal authority is done for particular purpose. Particularity is at issue, not universality. Paul is speaking within a context rather than establishing one.
He makes the noteworthy distinction between an authoritatively-divine pronouncement and his own apostolic counsel when he writes to the Corinthian believers concerning marriage, a distinction of which we must be comparably aware in our own ministries:
“To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife” (I Corinthians 7:10, 11).
Next, he shifts gears: “To the rest (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him” (vv. 12, 13).
He follows by speaking of life’s circumstances when he says, “Each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches” (v. 17).
Does this mean, for instance, that a man cannot take a promotion? That he cannot go from living in an impoverished condition to a more comfortable one? I don’t think so.
But it is better to say that we should find contentment wherever we are in life and not be motivated by ambition rather than the Holy Spirit. God always wants to live and work where and with whom we find ourselves. He will do the moving, we should rest content.
Further: “Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are” (vv. 25, 26).
What crisis? We don’t know, but we know that we can trust Paul as one worthy of God. Paul isn’t shy! He declares, “And I think that I too have the Spirit of God” (v. 40). Nothing at issue here!
His is application of “I” in I Timothy is illustrative of this same reality. It is entirely reasonable to suppose that Paul is applying his apostolic authority to specific issues in this particular church for the sake of the Gospel and the welfare of the Ephesians church.
Second, he says that he does not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. And yet it would appear that she has already been teaching! Is the problem the fact that she is teaching or that she is teaching badly?
The issue of authority is enlightening. The word that Paul uses defies mere “authority.” It speaks more to dominance or domination that authority. Anyone who has known the one and the other will instinctively recognize the difference between the two.
(I have seen women exercising authority and other women endeavoring to dominate and the difference is stark; for that matter, I have borne witness to men doing the same!)
Paul uses the word authentin. The preponderant use of this word both prior to and during Paul’s day did not mean the traditional “to exercise authority” so much as more destructive applications such as murder, to have one’s way, to usurp or to domineer.
The issue is not whether a woman can wield authority as it is that she should not “have mastery over” or “lord over” men. The Greek word translated as “authority” is much stronger in the original and speaks more to dominance rather than equality.
Systematic theologian Dr. John Jefferson Davis offers his scholarly two cents:
“It should also be observed that Paul, had he the ordinary exercise of ecclesiastical leadership and authority in mind, had at his disposal a number of words that could have served this sense, notably proisteimi. This latter word, occurring eight times in the NT, and used six times by Paul in reference to church leaders (I Timothy 3:4, 5, 12; I Timothy 5:17; I Thessalonians 5:12; Romans 12:8), can have the senses of ‘manage, conduct, rule, direct, be concerned about’, and connotes the type of ‘normal’ and ‘expected’ type of leadership that should be exhibited by those selected to lead. The fact that a highly unusual and ambiguous word is chosen in 2:12 would be consistent with an unusual set of circumstances in the context to which the text is addressed. It will be argued … that these circumstances, as indicated by clear references in the Pastoral Epistles themselves, involve women who are being deceived by false teachers, and as such are not suitable for the exercise of teaching or ruling authority in Ephesus.”
Third, he says that women must be silent. He has already said that she “should learn in quietness and full submission.” It is perhaps better to understand this in the sense that a woman should be of a quiet and orderly, rather than an aggressive and noisy, disposition.
The issue of silence is found elsewhere in the NT. Paul commands idle men to “settle down” (NIV) or are enjoined to “quietness” (KJV) or “silence” (2 Thessalonians 3:12); further, men are urged to live quiet (or silent) and peaceful lives (I Timothy 2:2).
No one would walk away from these texts thinking that men were to be silent at all times, as the command given is germane to the existent problem. Why would we conclude otherwise concerning the contributions of women to the life of the church?
The Apostle Peter taught that women will win their husbands to Christ by virtue of their behavior and inner beauty, not their words; for this reason, they are to be submissive to their husbands (I Peter 3:1-6). Translation: Don’t shove the Gospel down their throats!
There is a similar argument put forth to the women at Ephesus. Paul specifically mentions the qualities of “faith, love and holiness with propriety,” just as Peter cites “the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit.” Translation: Aggressiveness not allowed!
These spiritual femme fatales were flamboyant and lascivious in their deportment. Paul even had to instruct them how to dress (I Timothy 2:9, 10). They were influencing and being influenced by the surrounding culture; instead, they could have been learning.
I very much appreciate how Bishop Wright interprets this verse. He says of women that “They must be allowed to study undisturbed, in full submission to God. I’m not saying that women should teach men, or try to dictate to them; they should be left undisturbed.”
There is an interesting and ostensible parallel that is found elsewhere in Paul’s writings. The one (Galatians 3) categorically posits equality while the other (Ephesians 5) would suggest subordination. It may be that the truth is deeper than either suggestion.
Galatians 3:26-29 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
The Church at Galatia was beset by the burden of legalism. He even challenges them when he says, “You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?” (Galatians 3:1). They had placed themselves under a bondage from which God had already liberated them.
Paul herewith issues one of the great pronouncements concerning Christian life in all of scripture amidst this serious breach of God’s operative grace in the lives of His people. This “Magna Carta” of Christian liberty denies any qualifying distinction amongst them.
OT teaching always fostered better treatment for slaves and, while the New Testament acknowledged the existence of slavery, the Apostle Paul certainly encouraged slaves to take their freedom if they were granted it by their masters.
God chose the Jews to be His people, but they were, by that very fact, meant to be a light to the Gentiles; instead, they chose to despise them. The ancient Jews held to an elitism that defied OT teaching.
The Gospel was directed outward to the Gentiles in the wake of Jewish rejection of Jesus. The Gentiles have been grafted onto the branch of Israel via their reception of the Gospel. Jew and Gentile are now spiritual cousins. There is no longer any distinction.
Women were considered an inferior sex according to Jewish law and custom, as well as throughout the Greco-Roman world. This is what makes the Gospel so revolutionary, a fact that is lost on our culture, especially those who have promoted women’s liberation.
Jesus, our paramount NT example, treated women with great respect and affection. A wonderful woman had raised Him. A prophetess named Anna had prophesied in the temple when He was a baby. He ministered to scorned women, even defended them.
And He first appeared in His resurrected body to women. He gave them the commission of telling His disciples that He was alive; again, the shock-value is lost on us, but shocking (and liberating!) it was to the Jews of that day.
Bishop Wright adds fuel to the equation of female equality by suggesting that that the passage properly translated is “neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female,” as that it should say, “neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, no male or female.”
The distinction that was first established in Genesis 1 has been obliterated in the sense of a new race of humanity that has been established through the 2nd Adam, who is Jesus. Women now stand shoulder-to-shoulder with men within the Christian framework.
The prophet Joel envisioned a world in which men and women ministered side-by-side. His prophecy came to pass on the Day of Pentecost, as was acknowledged by Luke in his narrative of apostolic labors and love:
“In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophecy, your young men will see visions, and your old men will dream dreams. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those says and they will prophesy” (Acts 2:17, 18; Joel 2:28f).
Many argue that this text applies to status but not to role or function. It is an honest perception, but I can’t see the logic in saying that inequality of function does not parley into inequality of status. Perhaps NT teaching on marriage will clarify.
Ephesians 5:22-24 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, His body, of which He is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
First, we must be mindful of the fact that Paul precedes this dictum by putting forth the notion of mutual submission on several strata of relationship, most notably that between husband and wife. He says “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (5:21).
Submission works both ways. A husband actually submits to his wife as he lays down his life for her, just as Jesus died for us. The NIV Application Commentary makes this helpful observation:
“This text does not ask that some Christians submit to other Christians. It asks all Christians to submit to each other. No privileged group is in view. Such submission is a strong and free act of the will based on real love of the other person. In the end, submission is nothing more than a decision about the relative worth of another person, a manner of dying and rising with Christ, and a way to respect and love other people. In fact, for Christians, authority and submission is the same thing.”
God has called His people to honor one another, even to express the greatest form of love there is, i.e. agape, or sacrificial, love, on behalf of one another. We are called to die to ourselves and live in loving service to one another. Marriage is no exception to the rule.
Second, the issue begs the question of what to do with unmarried women, whether virgins, widows or the divorced. Scripture has nothing here to say with specificity. We are left to our own inferences which, however logical, lack the authority of inspired Writ.
I Timothy 3:1-7 Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect … He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.
Paul does, unquestionably, use masculine language here. He speaks of the overseer as a “husband of but one wife.” There is a question of intent.
Is he definitively excluding women, or is he simply referring to men who are or who have been married? Remember that polygamy was prevalent in the prevailing culture, so that a man could have more than one wife. It might also be that a widower is excluded.
It has already been observed that unruly women were trying to have control over the church. I have been in churches where a coterie of women has sought dominance and it isn’t pretty; so, again, it may simply be an application to the issue at hand.
It should also be noted that the qualifications for eldership defy merely the issue of gender. The other qualifications are quite specific and, if as readily applied as the gender issue, would require the removal of a great many men from positions of leadership.
I simply contend that, given all of the other data, the husbandly reference is case-specific; still, this is interpretative and, therefore, dogmatic pronouncements are inappropriate, as we are dealing with a plethora of data that must be sifted and weighed.
Women in Leadership in the Bible Women appear in the Bible in ways that are telling. OT and NT narrative accounts are of comparable worth to the propositional portions, as are the brief snippets of epistolary portraiture (I couldn’t resist the phrase!).
There is Priscilla, along with her husband Aquila. Paul stayed with them when in Corinth and we know, too, that they were partners with Paul in his travels and ministry. There is much that is noteworthy about them, especially Priscilla.
Priscilla is mentioned first, then Aquila. Modern sexual civility was not then normative; in any other account Priscilla would not have been mentioned. This is instructive.
Some have suggested that Priscilla came from a higher social ranking, others that she actually held the lead place in their ministry. This, too, is inference, but it is arguably inference based upon sound thinking, given the norms of the day.
They invited Apollos into their home “and explained to him the way of God more adequately,” meaning that Priscilla is offering instruction to a man.
We read of them further in Paul’s final greetings to the Corinthians: “The churches in the province of Asia send you greetings. Aquila and Priscilla greet you warmly in the Lord, and so does the church that meets at their house” (I Corinthians 16:19).
Two things are apparent. It was a shared greeting, suggestive of Priscilla’s honored status. And their home was a house church wherein Priscilla gave instruction,
Again: “Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus. They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them. Greet also the church that meets at their house” (Romans 16:3-5); further, “Greet Priscilla and Aquila” (2 Timothy 3:19).
Note once again that Priscilla is cited first, a thing unusual in itself, suggesting to some that she had the lead. Paul recognizes them as his “fellow workers,” (in teaching in the very least). They risked their lives for Paul and God’s people were grateful to them.
Priscilla was, in any case and whatever the circumstances, a remarkable woman who dedicated herself to God’s service. She is worthy of all respect and esteem
There is Phoebe. “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been a great help to many people, including me” (Romans 16:1, 2).
Phoebe is commended for being greatly influential to the church’s welfare. She is nobly described – “a servant of the church.” “Servant” is diakonos, meaning “deaconess” (RSV) or “a fellow-Christian who holds office in the congregation at Cenchreae” (NEB).
Another is that she is to be received “in a way worthy of the saints,” not least because she has been a “great help” to many, the Apostle amongst them.
There is also Junia. Her case is exceptional. Paul writes, “Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was” (Romans 16:7).
The fact that “They are outstanding among the apostles” means that they were themselves apostles; that much should be clear; what remains unclear is whether the text should read Junias (which is improper; the masculine should be Junius) or Junia.
The NIV offers the masculine, Junias, but the KJV applies the feminine, Junia; indeed, “The evidence that this name should be read as feminine is overwhelming,” for “No example of this name in the masculine has ever been attested” (ISBE, Vol. 4).
This quite simply means that scripture gives authorization for a woman to serve the church as an apostle, an office given special mention in Ephesians 4 for the instruction and preparation of the Church for service and maturity. Imagine that – a female apostle!
There are Euodia and Syntyche. They are women “who have contented at my side in the cause of the Gospel” and who are given comparable status in ministry to Clement (Philippians 4:2, 3). Paul obviously holds them in high regard.
Lois and Eunice are recognized by Paul. They were Timothy’s mother and grandmother and are accorded the respect of the living faith that adorned their lives (II Timothy 1).
Several women are cited by Paul in snippets, notably in Romans 16. Paul speaks of them synergos, or “fellow workers,” a term used for men and women:
• Mary – “who worked very hard for you”;
• Tryphena and Tryphosa – “those women who work hard in the Lord”;
• Persis – “another woman who has worked very hard in the Lord”;
• The mother of Rufus – “who has been a mother to me too”;
• Julia and the sister of Nereus – “and all the saints with them;”
• Nympha – “and the church that meets in her house” (Colossians 4:15);
• Claudia – offers greetings (2 Timothy 3:21).
There were also the prophetesses: Miriam, the sister of Moses; Anna, who inhabited the temple when Jesus was a baby (Luke 2); and the daughters of Philip the Evangelist (Acts 21:7-9). They were definitely not silent.
Then there is Deborah. She was a prophetess entrusted to lead Israel (Judges 4:4), through whom God spoke (4:6), and by whom scripture (Judges 5) was written.
I have never found an adequate explanation for Deborah from those who disagree with female leadership. Sincere interpretations have been put forth, but the fact remains that she Deborah was a woman, she was in leadership over men and God spoke through her.
Jesus I culminate with Jesus Christ. We could just as easily have begun with Him. He is the Beginning and the End, in all things, including the female roles in the Church.
Jesus is the hermeneutical key to all of scripture. There is a tendency and a temptation to place a particular doctrine or tradition or experience as our key, but it is, in truth, Jesus.
Hermeneutics is “the science of the interpretative process which begins with determination of the original meaning of the text and leads to an elucidation of its sense for modern readers” (Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology).
Our determination starts and finishes with Jesus. All roads of biblical query go through Him and lead to Him. Doctrine finds its clarity in Him.
Jesus is THE hermeneutic by which to study and understand all of Christianity. His Person and work are the measure by which all things are to be tested and understood.
It is obvious to any casual reader of the Gospels that Jesus treated women as equals, not as inferiors. This alone would have shocked the ancient peoples, both Jews and Gentiles. His encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well was downright revolutionary!
His defense of the adulterous woman was downright explosive. Many of those who were condemning her had undoubtedly slept with her. Jesus, who hadn’t slept with her, stood by her as He confronted and convicted them. It was downright explosive!
“Go, and sin no more” were words never before heard by the lady in question. Jesus accorded her a respect that she hadn’t known from any other man. They lusted but He loved. He was concerned with her soul’s welfare, while they merely coveted her body.
His friendship with Martha and Mary was telling. They were of comparable worth to Jesus as was their brother Lazarus. Luke narrates:
As Jesus and His disciples were on their way He came to a village where a woman named Martha opened her home to Him. She had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet listening to what He said. But Martha was distracted by all the preparations that had to be made. She came to Him and asked, ‘Lord, don’t you care that my sister has left me to do the work by myself? Tell her to help me!’ ‘Martha, Martha,’ the Lord answered, ‘you are worried and upset about many things, but only one thing is needed. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her’ (Luke 10:38-41).
It would appear that many would wish to take it from her; that Mary was sitting at our Lord’s feet is extraordinary. There is more than meets the eye to a modern reader.
Bishop Wright suggests that by sitting at Jesus’ feet Mary would be learning, not simply out of adoration, but for the sake of one’s future vocation – namely, that of teacher!
Mary’s contemporaries would have grasped this. We must read the text contextually, even if it disconcerts modern sensibilities, including those of contemporary evangelicals.
Conclusion Christians have wrestled with the role of women in the Church for centuries. The church has not known unity on the issue.
Complementarians include Pastors John Macarthur and John Piper, as well as Philadelphia’s 10th Presbyterian Church and the Southern Baptist Convention.
Egalitarians include Reformed theologian Roger Nicole, NT scholar Gordon Fee, mega-church pastor Bill Hybels, Boston’s Park Street Church and the American Baptist Churches U.S.A..
Anglican expositor John Stott believed in a kind of qualified egalitarianism. He thought that Scripture allowed for women leadership, though under male authority.
I believe that the Bible affords leadership roles to women in the church. There are too many examples of women actually doing what the regulations ostensibly prohibit.
A proper scriptural understanding requires more than a surface reading of many a passage. Scripture interprets Scripture. We must compare one portion with another.
Gospel and epistle must be held in balance, as must OT and NT, as must theological truth with theological truth, else there is a skewering of scripture. It isn’t always easy.
I contend that women do have a biblical license to teach and lead if it is recognized that they are called, if it is evident that they are gifted and if such calling and giftedness do not prompt a woman to dominate men. The question is: Do they love the people of God?
I have full respect for those who think otherwise; I simply recognize that Christians adhere to two schools of thought. These thoughts present the egalitarian view.
I close with two thoughts. Some denominations show respect for both sides of the ledger. The Conservative Christian Congregational Conference offers recognition and respect by leaving the decision regarding a woman’s role to the individual church; fair enough.
What is not fair is what was done at the Church of St. Praxida in Rome. There is a 5th Century mosaic in the chapel that is dedicated to St. Zeno. It features four women, three of whom are saints with the other representing Episcopa Theodora – a female bishop!
We know this, not from the defaced writing inside the chapel, but from the column outside incorporating her name. Someone tried to tamper with her name and with history and, it might be argued, with sound theology. The latter is debatable, but it is debatable.
Bradley E. Lacey
August 5, 2011