A large amount of the debate about women’s ministry results
from the fact that we do not always distinguish things that
differ. There are two areas in particular of potential confusion
in our thinking about the question of the role of women in the
church. I want to start by drawing attention to these two areas.
The first area is our frequent failure to distinguish between
authority and structure in the church on the one hand, as
distinct from gifts and ministry.
In the New Testament the church of God is not a
disorganized mob. It has form. It has structure. It has
hierarchy. It has differentiated roles. And this goes back to
the One who said, “I will build MY church.” It is Christ’s
church. He appointed and trained the first leaders in the church
- the twelve Apostles. And here is the point to which I
specifically want to draw your attention: they were all men.
Now there are some people in the churches today who say, “Of
course they were all men. In the culture of the day Jesus
couldn’t have six women apostles running around with six men.
But today is different, and today in
our country we are not bound by such cultural factors. We can
and should have women in leadership roles in our church.”
In my view, those who say such things are talking rubbish.
Jesus was building his church. He is our example. He was giving
us a pattern. It could be anything he chose. And he chose only
men as apostles. As for the argument that he was constrained by
the society, by the culture, by the religious outlook of his
times: these things never stopped him in any other way. Look at
the way he bucked the food regulations of the day; and the
ceremonial washing before a meal; and the eating with outcasts
and tax collectors and sinners, and the taboo on talking with
women; and his attitude to teaching women as equals; and fifty
other such things, and one in particular: their rigid
interpretation of the Sabbath. The Gospels tell us that this was
one of the main reasons why the Pharisees determined to have
Jesus put to death - he defied their understanding of the
Sabbath. Because they had it wrong. And if people now tell us
that the reason that Jesus only appointed male apostles was
because women were not highly regarded in the culture of that
day, and their society would not have accepted women apostles,
this is to say that Jesus established the pattern for the church
on the basis of what people might think.
And I say to you: this is so much rubbish. The Jesus I find in
Scripture is the Jesus who does what is right, whether people
find it congenial or no.
Jesus appointed only male apostles. And the early church
followed his pattern, and appointed only male elders to have
authority in the structure of the church. There are no “apostlettes” in the NT.
But when it comes to ministry in the NT, we find something
completely different: women minister alongside men, exercising
whatever gifts they have been given.
There is a second area of potential confusion in our thinking:
we mix up what Scripture says about the relationship between
husband and wife in marriage with the question of the
relationships between men and women in the church.
The teaching of Scripture is clear about this, but often we are
not: we fail to distinguish things that differ.
Let me spell this out clearly. The basic Scriptural passage is
Ephesians 5:21-33E. In this passage we see the Bible’s teaching
about male headship: it exists within the marriage relationship:
the husband is the head, and the wife is to submit to her
husband who is to love her and treat her as he treats himself,
as in fact an extension of his own body. This is an outworking
(Paul says) of their one-flesh relationship, as Genesis teaches.
But the headship of the man and the submission of the woman is only said of marriage - the woman is
not told to be in submission to any other male, but only to her
own husband.
The biggest place of confusion is regarding 1 Timothy 2:8-15E,
which is usually taken as referring to church - though there is
nothing in the passage about “in church”, and everything
mentioned relates to marriage, home and family.
The problem arises in fact because of a male wish to dominate,
which biases our thinking. And because of a
factor in the Greek language in which the NT is written.
In this passage Paul writes about a gune,
a word which can be translated woman but which is also
the word for wife, and indeed the only word in the NT
for wife. He also uses here the word aner, which can be translated man
but which is also the word for husband, and indeed the
only word in the NT for husband.
So how do you know when a writer is talking about a wife and a
husband, or a woman - any woman - and a man - any man? Or men and women in general. You should
look at the context. So let’s look at this whole passage 1 Timothy 2:8-15E.
First comes - verse 8 - the reference to men praying. Looks
like in church, doesn’t it? Well, not especially. It says it is
referring to “everywhere”. This would certainly include in
church, but as head of the household, men were charged with the
responsibility of teaching and praying in and with their family.
Such family prayers are standard for godly families from ‘way
back in Old Testament times. I doubt I need to quote examples.
Next it speaks about when women get dressed. They got dressed
at home, not in church.
Next come verses 11 and 12, about a woman learning is quietness
and submission, and not usurping the authority of the man -
where we have these crucial words gune
and aner. Next, Paul
attaches this teaching to the relationship of Adam and Eve. But
Adam and Eve were husband and wife, not a church: if in verses
11 and 12 Paul was referring to a church assembly, he would need
a different illustration and a different basis for what he has
said. Finally he refers (verse 15) to a woman giving birth. But
women gave birth to their children at home - not in the aisle at
church.
There is NO reference in this passage which ties it
specifically to what is done at church. Rather, the setting is
marriage, home, and family. So, in context, gune and aner
in verses 11 and 12 should be seen as referring to husband and
wife. What is at issue in these verses is NOT whether women
(plural) should preach, or teach men, or pray in church, but
whether a wife (singular) should seek to challenge the headship
and leadership of her husband (singular) in the marriage
relationship.
Now turn to a parallel passage: 1 Peter 3:1-7. You will note
many parallels in the points mentioned. Peter uses the same two
words gune and aner as Paul does, but the
translators here render them as “husband” and “wife”. Why? Good
question. I can only assume, from bias. Peter is known as a
married man - he would write (they think) about husband and
wife. But Paul was not married at the time he wrote 1 Timothy
and he would write about the church not marriage (they think),
and so they read in a reference to “church” that is not there in
what Paul actually wrote, and they ignore the context and
translate as “man” and “woman” instead of “husband” and “wife” -
and then interpreters take it as forbidding women in general to
minister in church, instead of seeing what it is actually
saying, that a wife should not take over the headship role in
marriage.
Then there is 1 Corinthians 14:33-35. Let me tell you a little
more about Greek. There are more than a dozen words in the Greek
NT with the meaning of “conveying information”: words for
announcing, informing, teaching, preaching, and words for just
“saying” in the sense of telling someone something. And then
there is a word for “speaking” in the sense of “making noises
with your mouth”. It is laleo,
and it means to babble or chat or chatter, or converse. Whether
you are conveying information is irrelevant.
When Jesus healed a dumb man, and he spoke, what he said when
he spoke was irrelevant - it was the fact that he spoke that
mattered. And the word used for the dumb man speaking is: laleo. Every
time, without exception.
When Paul refers to women speaking in 1 Corinthians 14:33-35,
what is the word that he uses? One of the
dozen or more that mean to announce, or inform, or teach, or
preach, etc.? Or laleo,
the one word which means to chat or chatter, or converse? If any
of you know Greek, look it up for yourselves, and see. But I
will tell you anyway: he uses laleo.
What else should we do in clarifying the meaning of a passage?
That’s right - we take a careful look at the context.
First, what is it that Paul tells these women to do instead of
laleo-ing? (See verse 35.) It
is to ask their own husbands at
home. This is the right alternative to whatever it is that they
are doing. But asking your husband something at home is not an
alternative to teaching or preaching in church, if that is what
you are doing. It is an alternative, though, to asking the woman
next to you in church - or your husband on the other side of the
building - if that is what you are doing.
Secondly, regarding context, look at what Paul is dealing with
in this section of 1 Corinthians. Look at the beginning of our
passage, verse 33: “God is not a God of disorder but of peace.”
Now look at the final verse of the chapter, verse 40: “But
everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.”
What Paul says he is talking about, is: appropriate behaviour in the Assembly. He is saying:
“No chattering amongst yourselves, ladies” - even if something
is being said or done that they do not understand. If they want
to enquire about something, they should ask their own husbands
at home.
Paul is not in this passage discussing ministering in church.
He IS discussing chattering and conversing, and thus disturbing
the peace and good order of the Assembly.
Incidently, those of you who can
read Greek should check and see that the words in 1 Corinthians
14 here for “husband” and “wife” are gune
and aner, the very words we
were discussing for 1 Timothy 2.
But what does Paul say about women speaking in church, in the
sense of participating and ministering? We see in 1 Corinthians
11:5 he recognizes the role of a women
in praying and prophesying (or preaching). Then in 1 Corinthians
12 he shows how God’s gifts of ministry are distributed by the
Spirit to all members of the people of God, without regard to
gender. This was made totally explicit by Peter in Acts 2, in
announcing the fulfilment of Joel’s
prophecy. The criterion for preaching, teaching, and ministering
generally, is not whether you are male or female, but whether -
male or female - you have been given such and such a gift by the
Lord. If you have, then it is the role and responsibility of the
church to give you the opportunity of training and then using
that gift.
The crucial verse in this regard for Paul’s teaching is 2
Timothy 2:2. Do you know this verse? I am astonished at how many
men engage in a consideration of Paul’s teaching about women’s
ministry and ignore the most important verse of them all, as if
it simply wasn’t there.
Let us read it: “The things you have heard me say in the
presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also
be qualified to teach others.” That settles it: Paul gives
Timothy instructions as to how Christian teaching is to be
passed on. It is to be taught to reliable men, who in turn will
teach it to others. No room here for women teachers, is there? -
just men.
But there’s a problem: that’s NOT what Paul wrote. If this was
his thinking, if this was his teaching, if this was his meaning
- that only men were to pass on the Christian teaching - then
all he had to do here was use the word aner,
which would have made it clear that this was a male-only thing.
But the fact is, that he did not say
aner. He uses instead the
word anthropoi, which means
“human beings”, both men and women. [READ the NRSV.] Note:
faithful people, reliable people. Timothy is to teach reliable
people, both men and women, who in turn will teach others, both
men and women. NOT women teaching only women, and men teaching
everybody. But both men and women being taught, and then
teaching others.
I have examined all these passage in detail in my book The
Ministry of Women in the Church - copies are available here today for those interested.
The criterion, as Paul has made clear in 1 Corinthians and his
epistles to Timothy, is not whether you are male or female, but
whether you have been given by the Lord the gift of leading in
worship, or teaching or preaching or whatever. If so, we as the
church
of God
are to help you foster and develop that gift, and then provide
opportunities for you to use it.
The e-book has just been released and is available initially at
US$2.99 from Smashwords,
and is available from major e-tailers (e.g. Amazon/Kindle and
Apple/iBook). Hardcopy is available from most booksellers or
direct from the author below.
Note: A flat rate
Packing and Handling fee of $10 per order is
charged, irrespective of the number of books ordered. This
includes surface mail postage from Sydney,
Australia
(which usually takes about two months to Europe or North America). If you wish the
book(s) to be sent by International Airmail.(one to two weeks delivery) please
also add the +Air fee shown below.
Item
AUD
USD
+Air
GBP
+Air
The Ministry of Women in the Church
$33
$35
$8
₤16
₤5
Ordering
Options
Orders can be placed through any bookshop or through IMPACT
via Papyal (or credit card) at powers@computer.org
We have
reached today a point in the history of the church when new and
unparalleled opportunities for ministry are being opened up to
women. In an increasing number of countries the decision has
been taken to extend the full ministry of the church to women on
a par in every way with men. And many denominations and dioceses
have already begun to act upon this.
Therefore
in the minds of many people the issue has been decided. The
umpire has given his decision and the players must accept it.
The battle has been fought and lost and won, and now the
soldiers can leave the field. The matter has been decided, and a
policy of ordaining women adopted and implemented, and one
cannot put back the clock. Whatever one thinks about the rights
and wrongs of the issue, it is impossible to go back to the way
it was before — you can’t unscramble scrambled eggs. And similar clichéd comments.
And a
huge number of people would be relieved to leave behind them a
debate which has proven emotionally draining and extraordinarily
time-consuming. The matter is closed — let it lie. Why continue
to examine this issue?
For several reasons.
Firstly,
because what we do as the people of God must always be kept
under the rigorous scrutiny of Scripture. When we embark upon
new journeys along untried paths (as many churches are now
doing), we do not abandon the use of our map because we have
made a decision about where we want to go.
Secondly, because many denominations (and many
dioceses of my own Anglican denomination) are still agonizing
over how to act in this area. I am acutely aware of the
numbers of people — especially including “ordinary” Christians
in the pews — who are asking, “What are we to think of what our
leaders are reported to be saying and doing?Especially
when they differ with each other so strongly.”There are a great
number of people who still have not come to terms with the
issues, and who want to do so.
Thirdly, because for many denominations and
dioceses the debate about the role of women in the church is
still in progress or has barely begun. These Christians
look with surprise at what their cousins have chosen to do, and
wonder about — or vigorously deny — its implications for themselves. They will welcome the
opportunity for further assessment of the issues at this time.
Fourthly,
in those churches where a decision has been made about the
ordination of women in the face of strong opposition, there is
now a very real danger of extreme polarization, with the two
sides taking up positions as far from each other as they can
get. Of all the unfortunate consequences of recent developments,
this one is the saddest, and most dangerous.
POLARIZING OPINIONS
What is
the ministry which women can and should exercise in the church of God, for which the
church should prepare them, and to which the church should call
and appoint them?
The
widespread and long-running dispute concerning the nature and
extent of the ministry which women can exercise in the church of God takes different
forms from one denomination to another, but the basic issues are
the same.
In the
Anglican/Episcopalian communion the question at the centre of
recent debate has been whether women can be ordained as priests
and consecrated as bishops. Many dioceses in parts of the
worldwide Anglican communion have
now moved to answer “yes” to that question, while the issue is
still a matter of hot debate in others.
These
matters have been settled for some years in numerous churches
around the world in the Baptist, Churches of Christ,
Congregational, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian and Reformed
traditions - they accept women as elders and ordain them as
parish ministers on the same basis as men. But, as Grenz and Kjesbo
26 note,“Other denominations [in these same and other
traditions], in contrast, have staunchly rejected the idea of
ordaining women. And still others have been unable to come to
agreement on the question.”[1]
Some denominations have accepted the ordination of women, and
then reversed this decision.[2]
In
other Christian groups the question takes the form of asking
what kind of spiritual ministry within the church is open to
women. Some Brethren Assemblies, for example, are now
considering whether women can participate in the Sunday evening
meeting, while others, having accepted that level of
participation for women, have gone on to ask if it is equally
acceptable for women to contribute to the Sunday morning meeting
and if not, on what valid grounds a distinction can be made
between the two meetings.
Other
Christian organizations face the same issue in different forms.
Can a Bible or TheologicalCollege
appoint a woman to lecture to the students, men and women?Can such a female
lecturer then preach in the College chapel services?Is there any ministry
that a man could exercise at such a College that a women must not?What is to be the
attitude to those students who may enrol
at such a College and who for reasons of Christian conscience
feel unable to sit under the lectures and/or the preaching of
such a female member of faculty?
Again,
what duties and ministries can a missionary organization
allocate to its women missionaries overseas?Do these differ from
what it would be legitimate for that same person to exercise in
the church in the homeland?(Some women missionaries will contrast scathingly what
ministry they perform when representing their home church
overseas and what they are permitted to do in their home church
on furlough, or after returning from the mission field and
seeking a ministry within their home church.)Similarly, what
ministry by women is acceptable in parachurch
organizations?
In
relation to all these questions, the answers of Christian
leaders and scholars differ very widely.
The
debate has become completely polarized in the treatment of most
writers, for whom there are just two sides: those who oppose the
participation of women in ministry, and those who support it.[3]
There is no ground “in between”. This came home to me with
special impact when I recently found myself mentioned by David Scholer in his essay “1 Timothy
2:9-15 and The Place of Women in the Church’s Ministry” (in Mickelsen, Women, Authority and the
Bible p.194). Scholer is
listing “evangelical articles” about the issue, placing them
into two groups, “those who oppose or limit the participation of
women in ministry” and “those who support full participation of
women in ministry”. My Interchange
article on this passage earned me my inclusion in Scholer’s first list, cheek by jowl with
the writers affirming the very interpretation of the passage
with which I am strongly disagreeing in my article. The reason?Because I do not “support full participation of women in
ministry”, by which Scholer means,
without any distinction between the ministry of a man and a
woman.[4]
Writing
in a recent book (Nichols, The Bible and Women’s Ministry), Kevin Giles
identifies the question on which “Everything in this critical
debate stands or falls” (77), examines the issues, and then says
(83), “When these opposing points of view, both arising out of
the creation order, are set out like this we can see there is no middle ground.
Each Christian must choose the side on which he or she will
stand.”(Giles’s italics.)
This is
where I beg to differ. We cannot bring the whole debate down to
one single factor, and then declare there is no middle ground.
As those who hold opposing positions grow in understanding of
each other’s views, they are finding they can agree in a number
of areas. And as for the serious differences that still do
remain: these are the reasons for exploring the middle ground.
THE MIDDLE GROUND
As in
all controversies of this kind, we must face the question, How
can godly students of the Bible reach such opposite conclusions
concerning what Scripture says, and what it means by what it
says, and how it is to be applied today?
These
are the issues which this book seeks to examine.
I do
not align myself with one or other of the polarized sides in the
controversy. I reject the view that the extremes are the only
alternatives available. I reject the assertion that we must
choose the one or the other. My own researches over many years
have led me to the conclusion that there is considerable force
in many of the arguments put forward by both sides, especially
where they relate to or are based upon the plain teaching of
Scripture. Neither side is wholly wrong. Therefore I am able to
quote with approval from writers on both sides of this debate.
But
again, neither side (it is my contention) is wholly right. Some
authors and teachers have erred in drawing invalid conclusions
from the biblical passages upon which they rely; some have been
misled by the English translation of a key passage, where the
wording of that translation is itself “reading in” the opinion
of the translators, so that the conclusion reached is at
variance with the meaning which the biblical author’s first
readers would have understood him to be conveying. It is my hope
that by drawing attention to some of these factors, it may be
possible to reduce the spread of differences between the two
extreme positions.
This
whole question is not just an academic issue — How do we think the Bible should be
interpreted on this point or that?It is also an extremely emotive issue — Am I, as a woman,
to be allowed to function as a full equal human being in the
Church?How am I,
as a man, to respond to women taking over roles in the church
which traditionally have been exclusively male?
From
one point of view the issue is indeed a matter of biblical
interpretation — what we understand this Scripture and that to
be saying. From another point of view, it is a question of how
we live and function together in Christian community — a
question of our worship and work as the body of Christ. These
matters are not separate and distinct, of course. To the
contrary: they continuously interact.
This
book is written primarily for those who occupy the middle
ground, to help them towards a more fully thought-out basis for
their views, to give them a better awareness of the
ramifications of their position, and to further clarify their
understanding of numbers of key issues.
All
writers agree that the initial aim must be to examine exactly
what the original biblical author said in the relevant passages,
paying particular attention to the meaning which would have been
conveyed to the first readers of each such passage. Further, I
affirm, we must examine what light is thrown upon each of these
key passages by other parts of Scripture, and we must be
suspicious of interpretations of any given passage which give it
a meaning at variance with what we read elsewhere (especially in
other teachings of the same biblical author). Some writers put
before us the view that a biblical author may be inconsistent,
or may change his mind or outlook over time. Certainly we need
to examine whether the evidence indicates that this indeed is
so: but we do not start from the assumption that this is the
case, before examining the evidence.
The
wisest methodology is to examine first the passages which all wri-ters and teachers acknowledge to be central to the issue, and upon
which the ultimate outcome depends. After seeing what they can
tell us, and to what extent they give a definitive answer to any
of our questions or leave them open,
we will proceed to a consideration of all the other passages
which bear upon the issue. We shall be asking, Is there one unified state-ment of biblical teaching with which all
relevant passages are consistent, and which they set forth, or
do we have inconsistencies between authors or between the one
author at different times and in different writings?
My aim
is to show that when one takes all the relevant Bible passages
into account they do stand together, in harmony with each other,
to provide the basis for a “central position” in this dispute.
That is, a careful exegesis and exposition of Scripture as a
whole brings one (I contend) to a balanced position intermediate
between the other views I have mentioned: a position which can
agree with much that is urged upon us by all those who have
written and taught upon this subject, but which is intermediate
between the positions taken by the more vocal advocates on each
side of us.
The
middle ground is always the most difficult to hold. Initially
you are likely to be overlooked (as if your position does not
exist), as those on each side of you take aim at each other, and
then when you are noticed you are shot at by both sides.
This
book seeks to provide a basis upon which we can say to those on
each side of us, “You are both right, up to a point — but there
are other factors to take into account.”
It is
also my hope that this book will be of interest to those who
take up positions further out on each side of the debate — that
they will find in it reasons, and grounds, for reassessing the
more dogmatic approaches to the issues at stake, and will be
willing to explore the middle ground. I would wish that instead
of those from one camp or the other seeking to be successful in
overwhelming the opposite side (and this metaphor is not too
strong in depicting the vigour with
which the battle is being joined), there can be a less polarized
approach to the debate and a greater openness to rapproachment, or at the very least a
greater awareness that some strongly held and defended positions
for and against wider women’s ministry cannot be sustained from
Scripture.
When we
have considered the question of what the Bible says, there
remains for us the final one: To what extent and in what ways
does this teaching (or do these teachings) of Scripture give
guidelines today for what should be the practice of the church
in the twentieth and the twenty-first centuries?
LEARN TO READ
GREEK from the New Testament itself! Understanding the
Bible's teaching regarding women hangs on understanding the
choices translators make in dealing with the ambiguities that
are inherent in translating between languages and cultures.
[1]For historical details of
churches/denominations which have accepted women’s
ordination, see Beasley-Murray vii; Torjeson
1-3; Harper 7, 55-57, 89, 139-145, 213; Grenz and Kjesbo
19-32.
[2]For example, the
Presbyterian Church of Australia, and the Christian Reformed
Church in USA (see Grenz and Kjesbo
30f.).
[3]The recent (1995) book by
Grenz and Kjesbo,
Women in the Church,
identifies three positions which they designate (18, 33) as
“complementarian” (the gifts and
ministries of men and women complement each other, and women
cannot be ordained or occupy positions or roles in which
they teach men); “egalitarian” (“the full inclusion of women
in ministry”, on an equal basis with men); and “moderate”
(those who hold a position between these two). However, the
“moderates” do not get a listing in the index to the book,
and in fact do not rate any further mention in this 284-page
volume. It is entirely devoted to a comparison of the
“egalitarian” position (which they espouse) with that of the
“complementarians”, primarily
Piper and Grudem. (For lack of
better ones, I make use of their terms “egalitarian” and “complementarian” in this book.)
[4]For example, Scholer groups me with Moo, the
writer who says (82), “The results of the exegetical
investigation carried out in Part I must stand as valid for
the church in every age and place. Women are not to teach
men nor to have authority over men because such activity
would violate the structure of created sexual relationships
and would involve the woman in something for which she is
not suited.” Readers can judge for themselves how valid is Scholer’s polarized division of
writers into these two groups — and his classing me with Moo
— by comparing these conclusions reached by Moo with what I
actually did say about 1 Timothy 2:8-15 (my Interchange article
forms the substance of Chapter Two of this present book).
