|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Women and church leadership, part 2...
Why would God establish hierarchy? In a culture that values achievement on the basis of merit, it's a good question.
In our human understanding, we cry that it "isn't fair" for God to permanently keep all women from exercising a specific leadership role if some of them could be as capable as some men. We then make all kinds of provisions to work around Scripture. Even some church leaders give in to these human arguments.
There are claims that the Bible didn't intend these passages to extend beyond a single generation (though when these rules were supposed to end nobody can say). There are claims that they were merely "Paul's own views" and not those of God (denying the divine authorship of Scripture). There are claims that Paul was reacting to women abusing their freedoms by humiliating men in church, so these rules were only given as solutions to a temporary problem. There are claims that in our modern culture, issues like these that can be divisive should simply be ignored -- that grace should rule.
Have you ever noticed that when people make these dismissive arguments, they almost never attach Scripture to them? They argue on this point or that based on logical reasoning or human arguments, rather than on what the Bible says. The Bible is authored by the Holy Spirit. If a command is in Scripture, it's there for a reason; we can't just dismiss it as an accident of writing. When it comes to difficult passages, the only valid approach is to look at Scripture as a whole so that we can better understand their purpose in the Bible.
What did God, speaking to us through the apostle Paul, mean when He made statements keeping women from serving in church leadership? To keep this study fair, we can consider those cases where a woman is very capable as a leader. Let's explore what the Bible has to say.
Hierarchy seldom based on ability
Let's keep in mind that there are areas where God established a hierarchy of leadership which had nothing to do with capability.
In a few cases, such as the building of the temple, God selected specific individuals to take on certain tasks because He had blessed them with unique skills. But this is rare. Most of the time there was nothing special about the people God chose to put in charge over others.
For example, only sons of Aaron could serve as priests. Does that mean the other 11 tribes of Israel were less holy or less capable than Levites? No! They were no different from any of the other tribes. Were sons of Aaron more "worthy" than other Levites? No! They were men like all the others, with no natural skill or knowledge to set them apart. It was just the way God wanted things done. Our job is not to question His decisions but to obey them joyfully.
A Levite named Korah and a group of 250 followers thought it was wrong that only sons of Aaron could serve in the tabernacle. "Unfair!" they cried. They knew that there was nothing unique, humanly speaking, about the sons of Aaron. They publicly challenged Moses and Aaron, claiming that this rule had no basis in logic and therefore these leaders had every right to serve as well.
Korah son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, and certain Reubenites -- Dathan and Abiram, sons of Eliab, and On son of Peleth -- became insolent and rose up against Moses. With them were 250 Israelite men, well-known community leaders who had been appointed members of the council. They came as a group to oppose Moses and Aaron and said to them, "You have gone too far! The whole community is holy, every one of them, and the LORD is with them. Why then do you set yourselves above the LORD's assembly?"
--Numbers 16:1-3
Korah's question sounds very much like the outcry we hear against today's churches that choose to follow biblical models of leadership. In the case of Korah, God proceeded to open the ground, swallowing him and all his followers alive for their arrogance in challenging a rule He had made (see Numbers 16 for the complete story).
The book of 2 Chronicles 13 describes the efforts of Judah's king Abijah to bring the Northern Kingdom to repentance for moving away from God's commands. One of their sins had been allow anyone to serve as a priest:
And you have chased away the priests of the LORD and the Levites and have appointed your own priests, just like the pagan nations. You let anyone become a priest these days!
--2 Chronicles 13:9 (NLT)
When Israel refused to turn away from its sin, God routed Jeroboam's army before Abijah, inflicting half a million casualties.
Whether we like it or not, God is allowed to set any rule He wants. It's His church, not ours! We need to recognize that He sets rules not because one person or group is better than another, but because He is God and has wisdom far beyond ours to make all decisions concerning us. Claiming that something God commanded is "unfair" is a form of unbelief, a lack of faith that He does what is best for us.
Were God's rules designed to change over time?
Some people argue that God's rules were not meant for all time, that they are only intended to apply to a specific culture or situation. This is true of those parts of the Law that applied to salvation through direct obedience of the Law, which was never intended to be a permanent condition. When those laws were given, the context of the laws and scriptural references to the Messiah made it quite clear that when the Messiah appeared, He would bring about a different way to be saved. They were never meant to be for all time. But the Ten Commandments and other rules for holy living, rules that involved our obedience in spirit before a holy and perfect God, were never intended to change.
God doesn't change, and His guidelines for living do not change either. He cannot change His mind (a detailed article on passages like Exodus 32:14 is available here) and He does not change what He says He will do or what we must do. His unchanging character is the reason we can fully trust in God at all times!
God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?
--Numbers 23:19
I the LORD do not change.
--Malachi 3:6
When King Uzziah, who was generally a godly king, became powerful, he decided that the rules God had established were flexible. After all, he was the king, had done right, and had been blessed by God. Many hundreds of years had passed since God had established guidelines for priesthood. Uzziah entered the temple to burn incense. But God was not pleased. His rules still applied. The priests confronted Uzziah:
They confronted him and said, "It is not right for you, Uzziah, to burn incense to the LORD. That is for the priests, the descendants of Aaron, who have been consecrated to burn incense. Leave the sanctuary, for you have been unfaithful; and you will not be honored by the LORD God."
--2 Chronicles 26:18
It would seem that this was a small indiscretion. Yet God took it seriously. When Uzziah resisted, God struck him with leprosy right there in the temple, a disease from which he would never recover.
Isn't change a good thing?
Recently, when discussing the issue of women in church leadership, someone argued that "change is good." Who says? The Bible has never implied that change is good, except when our hearts change to turn back to God after sin. That 'change is good' is strictly a human argument.
Change can be very good when it comes to imperfect things like man-made objects or human attitudes. But change can't be good when it comes to things designed by God because they are perfect. How could change possibly be "good" for something that is perfect? To say that something in Scripture needs to be changed is to say that it isn't perfect the way it is. This is a form of unbelief. If we accept that argument, then all of Scripture becomes suspect. Each individual would argue independently on specific points that they feel are imperfect. Our faith is dependent on our acceptance that Scripture is indeed "God-breathed" and that God doesn't change. The Bible is our source of comfort for both of these conditions.
God's rules don't change over time, because God doesn't change. His unchanging nature is the reason we can rely on Him unquestionably at all times! Instead of finding human arguments to refute what God's Word says, let's look at Scripture to see what else it says about the role of men and women.
The marriage model
Throughout Scripture, God presents an interesting model of His love for us: the institution of marriage. The marriage covenant reflects the unbreakable covenant of love between God and Israel, between Christ and His church. It stands in many parts of Scripture as a metaphor for our relationship with God.
The Old Testament uses this metaphor as a symbol of God's unbreakable covenant with Israel:
Go and proclaim in the hearing of Jerusalem: "I remember the devotion of your youth, how as a bride you loved me and followed me through the desert, through a land not sown."
--Jeremiah 2:2 (God speaking of Israel as His bride)
You adulterous wife! You prefer strangers to your own husband!
--Ezekiel 16:32 (God speaking of Israel's idolatry)
I will make you my wife forever, showing you righteousness and justice, unfailing love and compassion.
--Hosea 2:19 NLT (God speaking of Israel's ultimate destiny)
Even the Jewish wedding ceremony was a symbol of this relationship between Messiah and His people, reflecting the way He would bring His bride into a new eternal Kingdom at the end of time. The groom would assign a "helper" to prepare his bride while he went away for a while to prepare her new home. Then, suddenly, he would appear at an unexpected time to call his new bride to himself. The groom would wear a white robe, known as a kittel, to indicate that for the bride and groom, life is starting anew with a clean white slate, since they are uniting to become a new entity, without past sins. The bride would circle the groom seven times while the groom prays. The number seven parallels the seven days of creation, and symbolizes the fact that the bride and groom are about to create their own "new world" together. The wedding would be a joyful gathering time followed by a great feast.
The marriage symbolism extends into the New Testament.
The bride belongs to the bridegroom. The friend who attends the bridegroom waits and listens for him, and is full of joy when he hears the bridegroom's voice. That joy is mine, and it is now complete.
--John 3:29 (John the Baptist speaking)
Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory! For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready.
--Revelation 19:7
Paul used the marriage metaphor when he wrote to the church at Corinth:
I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him.
--2 Corinthians 11:2
In this context, the relationship between Christ and the church is an unbreakable marriage covenant. The institution of marriage was expressly designed to represent this relationship between us and God, as a permanent reminder. It is consistent with Paul's character to extend this symbolism as a qualification for Elder or Pastor.
The marriage relationship is meant as an earthly reflection of that between Christ and His body, the church. In this symbol, the man represents the "head" or Christ, while the woman represents the church. Scripture talks about this in detail:
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. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.
--Ephesians 5:23-25
Note how Paul clearly associates the model of Christ and the church with the marriage roles. The husband is to love his wife "as Christ loved the church." He is to give up everything for her. The wife is to reverence her husband "as the church submits to Christ." These are tall orders, especially in a culture that places great emphasis on female independence.
A small group of scholars are trying to argue that the Greek word Kephale means "source" rather than "head," in an effort to distance biblical teaching from this symbolic marriage model. This interpretation is based primarily on two uses in ancient literature, both dating 400 years before the New Testament. In contrast, 2,336 uses in ancient literature apply Kephale as meaning "head" or "person of authority" so it is the accepted biblical meaning. When discussing the components of the church, Paul often referred to parts of the human body, which is also the context of this passage. However, even if you take "source" to be the proper meaning, the biblical model established by God within the marriage covenant remains unchanged. It applies regardless of which meaning you apply to Kephale.
There is so much beauty in this scriptural model of the relationship our loving heavenly Father desires for us. When we live out that model we continually remind ourselves of His love for us and our submission to His will.
However, let each man of you [without exception] love his wife as [being in a sense] his very own self; and let the wife see that she respects and reverences her husband [that she notices him, regards him, honors him, prefers him, venerates, and esteems him; and that she defers to him, praises him, and loves and admires him exceedingly].
--Ephesians 5:33 (AMP)
Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.
--Colossians 3:18-19
With this model so clearly established, is it any wonder that God would extend the model into the leadership of the church?
When Paul instructs Timothy on the role of women in the church, he immediately takes his instruction back to a scriptural principle:
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.
--1 Timothy 2:12-14
Paul's instruction is not something meant to be a quick, off-the-cuff solution to a temporary problem such as women humiliating men in the church, as Tony Campolo theorizes. Paul uses Scripture to define his position. He says that God chose women to have this submissive role not only because man was formed first, but because Eve was the first one to sin. This does not reduce her skill, intelligence, or other capability in the eyes of God; it merely establishes a structure God wants us to honor. Does the church have less intelligence or ability to excel because it submits to Christ? Hardly. As a church, we accept submission to another authority joyfully as part of God's design. The same is true in marriage.
Paul also refers to Scriptural principles in his other teachings on the subject, taking his instructions all the way back to the Law of Moses:
The women should keep quiet in the churches, for they are not authorized to speak, but should take a secondary and subordinate place, just as the Law also says.
--1 Corinthians 14:34 (AMP)
Note his reference to the Law of Moses. Why would Paul refer to the Law when he worked so hard to convince people that that the Law represented the old covenant? Because it represents our desire for obedience to God! Paul understood both the biblical model God had established and the desire of genuine Christians to obey God. Paul uses these realities as the foundation for his teachings about women in church leadership.
Would it make sense to let the church teach or have authority over Christ? That would be absurd! Would it make sense to let the nation of Israel teach or have authority over God? Of course not!
To place a woman, who plays the role of the church in God's metaphor, in a position of having authority over men is to reverse the roles God designed. Men, who represent the role of Christ in the metaphor, would then fall under the authority of the one who represents the church. The metaphor falls apart.
Imperfect application does not disqualify the message
There are those who will argue that because many men fail to apply God's metaphor in their lives or even abuse it, then it should be disqualified. There is no place in Scripture where God's rules are disqualified just because we don't apply them! Yes, it is true that men don't always understand the metaphor, don't take it seriously, or even abuse it as a way of controlling their wives. In no way does disobedience by some mean we get to ignore the Bible's teaching on such matters.
Men have an awesome responsibility. In taking the symbolic role of Christ in their family, they need to exude incredible love and grace. They need to set aside their own needs and their self will to give up everything for their wife and family, under the authority of Christ, regardless of whether or not that love is returned or recognized. Just as Christ forgives us when we are disobedient, men need to forgive as well. But even if Christian men don't always to live up to these standards, the metaphor remains valid. God knew when He wove it into the thread of our lives that we are imperfect.
Women are to submit to their husbands "as to the Lord" (Ephesians 5:22). But this doesn't mean they are to follow their husbands into sin. The apostle Peter addressed this very fact when he told women how they are to deal with husbands who do not follow Christ. They were still to have a submissive heart, even though they were not to be obedient to sinful demands.
Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives.
--1 Peter 3:1
Peter understood the metaphor just as well as Paul did. Through their submissive attitude, wives would carry a much stronger witness than by butting heads with their husbands over things of faith. Their witness for Christ is a testament that their actions were to remain pure, that submission didn't mean blind obedience. This is another reflection of the position of authority spoken of by Paul.
Not a New Testament idea
Most people use the teachings of the apostle Paul, as has been done here, to better understand the scriptural basis on which God has placed men in the position of church leadership. However, there is a clear precedent in the Old Testament as well.
The prophet Isaiah was charged with writing down God's words of lament over the deplorable spiritual condition of Israel and Judah shortly before the Assyrian invasion. Among the sinful conditions God described was the fact that men were being ruled by women.
Youths oppress my people,
women rule over them.
O my people, your guides lead you astray;
they turn you from the path.
-- Isaiah 3:12
God did not consider "women in charge" to be part of His perfect design for the nation. It was as undesirable in His eyes as children oppressing adults. His plan was the model illustrated in marriage: men in charge with women providing valuable support roles. It cannot be argued that this was a New Testament idea introduced by Paul.
If you feel uncomfortable because this conflicts with your liberated modern worldview, you aren't alone. Our culture has infused even faithful Christians with a worldly attitude towards these issues rather than a spiritual focus on what God has designed. We may be scorned or ridiculed for following Scripture, but any genuine believer has no choice but to throw aside the teachings of the world and embrace what the Bible teaches.
What about women as Elders?
In the New Testament there was no mention of the position of Pastor. Elders are equivalent to Pastors, and biblical churches still hold to that structure today. With identical qualifying rules, the same principles apply.
In his instructions to Timothy and Titus (see this article for details), Paul doesn't mention women, but he implies that only men are to be considered. There are those who argue that the first-century culture was patriarchal and thus Paul simply didn't mention women to avoid complications. This is not true. Paul was writing on this subject to Romans, not Jews. While the Jewish culture was still patriarchal, the Roman culture was not nearly as rigid. Women held many independent roles in Roman society. They were businesspeople and even lawyers. Roman matrons were held in very high esteem. According to Roman Life by Mary Johnston (Scott Foresman and Company),
Men made way for her in the street; she had a place at public games, at theaters, and at great religious ceremonies of state. She could testify in court and until late in the Republic, might even defend a case. Often she managed her own property. The first book of Varro's work on farming -- dedicated to his wife -- was intended to guide her in managing her own land.
The Bible records that many influential and successful women were part of Paul's own entourage. Women like Lydia, who was a successful businesswoman, were close friends of Paul. He publicly affirmed women who worked with him in ministry.
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
Greet Tryphena and Tryphosa, those women who work hard in the Lord. Greet my dear friend Persis, another woman who has worked very hard in the Lord.
--Romans 16:12
If Paul intended to include women in the role of church leadership, there was nothing in the Roman culture that kept him from doing so.
What about other leadership roles?
These Bible passages deal with positions of spiritual authority over men, primarily in the church. They do not affect roles in which women hold other leadership positions. Women can serve as administrators or similar positions in church. It appears likely that they could be ministry directors (under the authority of a pastor and Elder board) without contravening these scriptural instructions, although some churches may want to avoid this because it is potentially a slippery slope of compromise.
While some Bible scholars will argue this point, it does seem that "preaching" a message from a modern church pulpit may not automatically break these Bible passages about the role of women. It might, but not necessarily. That's because today's preaching is often much closer in style to the street ministry that women conducted alongside the apostles in Paul's day.
It is true that Paul said a woman should be silent in church. But this referred to teaching Scripture to men as an authority over them. In Paul's day, there was no topical preaching so common in our culture; "speaking" in church always meant teaching from Scripture. Teaching Scripture is a role reserved for men. There are cases where a woman could present a message about certain aspects of the Christian life without breaking the biblical model God established. It would depend on the subject and how it is presented. For example, a woman could share a message about the importance of fathers on Father's Day and certainly not contravene God's standards. She could share a woman's viewpoint on an issue to better help men understand a woman's needs. Or a husband and wife team could present a message on marriage communications, showing the two sides in an interesting way.
It would not be appropriate for a woman to teach men in a church setting through something like an expository Bible study, because this would be placing her in the biblical metaphor in the position of the bride teaching the husband.
The same principle is true for women who facilitate previously published lesson material such as the Alpha Program. As facilitators, they are not seen as the spiritual authority figure, especially if video or a male teacher actually takes care of the instruction. Scripture makes it clear that women were very active in ministry in the time of Paul, so this indicates that they can serve as evangelists and ministry workers to bring the Gospel message to the world.
There does not seem to be any scriptural basis for excluding women from positions of executive (not the same as spiritual) authority in para-church ministries, so there would usually be nothing wrong with a woman starting or heading up a ministry that operates outside of the church. Sharing the Gospel or even some aspects of discipleship are quite different from roles of direct spiritual authority such as the priesthood, Elder or Pastor. There are no scriptural limitations on ministry activities that do not involve direct spiritual authority over men.
The Bible instructs women to be involved in teaching other women, so it would seem that these verses provide authorization for women in pastoral-type roles in which they would lead women's ministries. There is even a command for older women to teach the younger ones what it means to submit to their husband's authority:
Similarly, teach the older women to live in a way that is appropriate for someone serving the Lord. They must not go around speaking evil of others and must not be heavy drinkers. Instead, they should teach others what is good. These older women must train the younger women to love their husbands and their children, to live wisely and be pure, to take care of their homes, to do good, and to be submissive to their husbands. Then they will not bring shame on the word of God.
--Titus 2:3-5 (NLT)
I would argue that this verse authorizes modern churches to create a positon of women's ministry leader! Besides teaching women, one can also theorize that women's leadership is quite acceptable in the area of children's ministries as well, because these roles do not involve spiritual authority over men. These teaching situations can be used to help children better understand the importance and form of biblical submission.
What about Euodia and Syntyche?
Paul writes to the Philippian church about two women who were having some kind of disagreement. We don't know the nature of their argument. If it had been scriptural, Paul would have set one of them straight, but he doesn't get specific so we have to assume they were both right -- they were just wrong to fight over it.
And now I want to plead with those two women, Euodia and Syntyche. Please, because you belong to the Lord, settle your disagreement. And I ask you, my true teammate, to help these women, for they worked hard with me in telling others the Good News. And they worked with Clement and the rest of my co-workers, whose names are written in the Book of Life.
--Philippians 4:2-3
Paul instructs the church at Philippi to work with these women to settle their disagreement. Some people attempt to use this passage to "prove" that there were female church leaders in Paul's time. There is nothing in the passage to indicate that they were leaders! Paul explains that they were hard workers in evangelism. It says that they were co-laborers with him in his work. It says nothing about their role as church leaders! To take this passage to make them out to be Pastors is extending Scripture into places it doesn't go. When you consider Paul's teachings on women in church leadership, it would be extremely unlikely that they were part of the church leadership. However, we can read into Paul's instructions that they were prominent members of the church and had some kind of influence. If anything, this is an affirmation that women had a role to play in the church (just not as Pastors or Elders because of Paul's other teachings).
The church vs. the world
There are some liberal theologians who say that obedience to these rules has a negative effect on unbelievers' perception of the Gospel, and therefore what worked in the first century can and ought to be set aside in this century. They claim that following these rules about women in church leadership creates a negative barrier for non-Christians who would otherwise come to faith.
There is no evidence whatsoever that churches which follow these teachings are having a negative impact on acceptance of the Gospel message. In fact, there is evidence that the opposite is true.
While there are no precise statistics on this issue, we can look at two distinctly different denominations to draw some meaningful conclusions. The Methodist church is considered the most liberal in the US in terms of ordination of women, while the Southern Baptist Convention is considered the most scriptural in this regard. If holding to scriptural teaching about women in church leadership is indeed having a negative impact, we would see more people becoming members in the Methodist church than in Southern Baptist congregations. Is this actually happening?
A report from July 2005 by the Methodist church said that membership declined by 8% in 2004. The report stated, "that figure reflected a continuing decline in US membership that has been ongoing for at least three decades." In sharp contrast, a report by The Christian Index magazine in July 2004 showed that the Southern Baptist Convention's membership grew by .41 percent between 2002 and 2003. Lifeway reported in April 2005 that SBC membership grew a further 3.8% in 2004. Though the growth is slight, it is direct evidence that obeying scriptural teaching on the ordination of women is not having a negative impact on people coming to faith.
Conclusion
God established a model to represent His unbreakable, eternal covenant with mankind. That model extends into the church and the home, into the relationships between men and women and parents and children. God's rule against women serving as Pastors and Elders has nothing to do with their ability. It would be inappropriate for a woman to teach or have authority over men in the church because it turns the model God established upside down. This doesn't make women less valuable or less important in any way. This doesn't mean women can't serve in countless other leadership areas. But it certainly extends into Eldership or pastoral roles where a woman would have spiritual authority over men.