In an ongoing effort to cause people to think differently I am now going to talk about something that has always been a personal struggle for me, women in ministry. And when I say personal struggle I mean that I was raised in a church setting that was/is more traditional and often viewed as backwards when it comes to women in ministry, and I always struggled with that. Part of the reason I struggled so mightily with it was because I had had great Sunday School teachers or other leaders who were women, but we couldn’t have a woman pastor? As well I heard some persuasive arguments for why a woman couldn’t be a pastor.
I recognize for some churches this is a non-issue, but for a lot it is still a big stumbling block. I also see woman as marginalized even in the marriage setting and I think how the church treats its woman is how the husbands in the church treat their wives.
This whole argument can really be broken down into two sides which are, complimentarian and egalitarian. People on the extremes will tell you that these two sides have nothing in common, don’t believe them. Being someone who was raised one way and sought another I see that each side has merit and flaws. If you have never heard these terms before, I’m sorry for making your life a little more complicated.
Let’s start with complimentarian. I want to highlight some notable figures that sit in these camps, and I believe this will help you discern which is best for you. Famous complimentarians include D.A. Carson, Wayne Grudem, Tim Keller, C.S. Lewis, John Piper, and John MacArthur to name drop a few. There are people out there that give this view point a bad rap, so I excluded them from my list. What does it mean to be a complimentarian? Well it’s all in the name. Men and women compliment each other, there are specific roles for each and never should the roles meet. Men are dads and women are moms for a basic example. The main problem I have with this is that it seems the restrictions are only on women. This view also holds to the classic ideas of marriage in that a women submit to her husband as per the teachings of Paul. Submission though is a tricky term, and has earned a bad reputation among even some evangelicals. I will talk about the idea of submission more later on. For now, let’s generalize and say complimentarians hold to a more strict man is the head ideal. This translates into the church as well, men should be the head of the church and women are submissive to that.It can be said that this view in its most basic form holds to traditional hierarchy. They would say scripture holds to this, and that it is also quite clear on the distinction between men and women. The nice thing about these people is they believe in order and tradition, they believe in a place for everything and everything has a place.
Egalitarians on the other hand believe in a level playing field. It comes from the French word Egal which means level. This view believes men and women are equal, that whatever men can do women can do and vice versa, except for that which biologically divides us. Some famous egalitarians are Shane Claiborne, Gordon Fee, Greg Boyd, Martin Luther King Jr., N.T. Wright, and Rachel Held Evans. This view does not seek to destroy distinction between gender, but rather to view gender as distinct from traditional gender roles. In the church setting these folks would be okay with a woman as the head of the church. They do not view men as the head of a family in the traditional sense but view marriage as a 50/50 relationship where each partner has equal say. Submission is viewed completely different, in that it should be mutual. They assert that scripture that refers to women is bound by society and culture. They would insist you examine the heart of the issue, not the words themselves. They suffer from a tendency to go to far I think, becoming almost too feminist and holding women in higher regard than men, and that’s not the point, it is about equality.
I do not think these ideas are mutually exclusive, you can easily blur the lines between them and pick and choose if you so desire. My descriptions are also basic and general, so please don’t think this sums up what either side thinks, if you are interested in more info on complimentarians consult this book, and egalitarians consult this book.
When I approach any issue like this these days I have to ask myself a few things. First, when I approach God one day and he asks me to recount what I have done what will I be proud to say, and what will shame me? Secondly, if scripture says one thing but culture has shifted, can or should scripture shift as well? And thirdly, what will help the Kingdom most?
First, I want to be able to tell God I did my best. I don’t think my best includes prohibiting women from speaking, teaching and leading people.
Second, and probably most controversially, I think scripture needs to shift with culture.This does not mean questioning the authority of scripture. All of us would be ready to admit that women don’t need to wear head coverings in church anymore, but think how dare she lead the congregation. It is a pick and choose theology, and is unacceptable. But if you examine the heart of scripture we begin to hear a different story. Women shouldn’t wear beads in their hair because that’s what prostitutes did. Essentially Paul is asking women to respect themselves and dress appropriately, don’t dress for guys, don’t dress for the occasion, dress for yourself and respect your body and image. When it comes to teaching and leading we again run into cultural issues. Then it was not okay for women to hold authority over men by cultural standards. Paul pushed the bounds by having them as deacons and coworkers and prophetesses. Jesus also was first revealed to women and was anointed king by a woman, so we can’t say the New Testament wasn’t progressive for its time. But this is a new time, and our faith is always calling us to be progressive, not regressive. Putting women back into the kitchen and out of the pulpit is regressive.
Third, the most good for the Kingdom includes every member of the body serving with their gifts. If a woman is a gifted speaker, give her a stage, if she is a gifted teacher, give her a classroom.
Now that I have said all that, there are some areas still that are tough to think about and that I think every church needs to reconcile. What does it mean to submit? Should women be the only submitters? Men are called to love their wives as Christ loved the church, what does that mean? True submission and love in marriage must be on some sort of mutual, and beneficial level. Woman are more than wives for our husbands, they are partners in a life long process of love and growth together in God. I think we need to begin to explore the idea of marriage, teaching and leading through the lenses of a progressive forward thinking church. One that loves scripture and holds it in the highest regard, but also understands its fluidity and context. I think every church has the potential to be advancing how culture and society treats the marginalized and outcast. Every husband and wife needs to discuss how they will run their house. Every church needs to admit we live in a world where women are respected as more than property, but as beautiful creations of God who have more to offer than motherhood. They have thoughts, ideas, and ways to take the church forward in the 21st century. These two sides need to realize neither is reading scripture wrong, they are reading it differently, and sometimes that’s okay.
Here’s how I have come to deal with this one James — and I have had several female friends struggle with this one.
1) If we go to the fall we see that Eve was the first to reach for the goal of becoming independent from God … scripture tells us that Adam followed for love of his wife. In the curse, woman was to ‘desire after her husband’ — which I have coe to understand as meaning that women will have to live with the curse of desiring power over men while being denied that power through the law.
2) We see in Proverbs 31 a description of the woman having duties that included buying and selling property, running the family business, and running the household so that the man could sit in the city gate (ie: be a part of running the local government.) Women are not marginalised other than when they try to grasp for the one thing they are denied … power over men.
3) This desire finds many outlets. Some men are hen-pecked at home. Where the man doesn’t stand for that, the woman finds another outlet. It is a general statement that people without power in their lives will find someplace to exercise their power …and that place is often within the church. This is why there is a prohibition on women being in spiritual authority over men within the church. Its a part of the curse.
I was asked by a pastor’s wife once what I thought of this subject, because she felt she had a calling to ministry. My response was:
a) Wonderful … you have great opportunities to minister to other women. Go for it!
b) As to ministry over men … prohibited in scripture for good reason. If that stos you from ministering … if you only want to minister if it can be over men … then what are you really after?
Women are not hindered from very much when in comes to the church … one has to wonder why this particular point rubs the wrong way so much.
As to submission both views are correct I think. The family is built like an iron frame with the cold structure being clearly given in scripture. That frame however is fleshed out with love. We are commanded to submit one to another … that’s the love part. But when a final decision has to be made, and someone is responsible, it falls to the man. That’s God’s word.
There is no such thing as a 50/50 relationship. Talk to a lawyer about his advice to partners forming a company in this respect. Someone has to hold ultimate authority. And by the way … the man has shown not to really want that authority. That’s his curse.
So the reality is then, women are delegated to be under the authority of man, much to their chagrin, and men are expected to carry the authority, much to theirs.
^ Was that a serious response?
If the question of why this point in scripture ‘rubs the wrong way’ is still a question for you, I propose spending more time with women who have been mistreated, oppressed, and undervalued because of it. This scripture has been taken out of context and misused many many times, like many parts of scripture. Paul writes that wives are supposed to submit to their husbands, but their husbands are supposed to love their wives the way Christ loved the church… Christ died for the church. He isn’t talking about only not lording power and authority, he is talking about giving his life in sacrifice to the church, his bride, your bride. In my experience of the North American church, I have heard so much more about what it means to ‘submit’ to my husband than what it means to see a husband living ready to die for his bride. I believe incorporating the husband laying his life down for his wife element of the story will introduce a much richer discussion than the black and white, living in the 50′s family structure offers, man brings home bread and woman minds the children. I’m not saying it’s bad, I’m saying we are lacking important scripture elements in the discussion, and that it’s not the only way.
Further, the writings of Paul and the teachings of Jesus are also quite different. Paul is speaking to specific churches, in specific contexts. Paul is a man. Jesus is the Son of God. Jesus actually repeatedly gave women authority over men. Like James said, a woman was the first to call Jesus King, was the first to see Jesus and tell others about his resurrection. That is a lot of power to have been given a woman, in the early church days, for a God who doesn’t believe women shouldn’t have authority… or maybe… maybe there’s a different story happening here that we haven’t uncovered in this discussion.
James. Where on earth do you find such narrow minded people? (see entire comment above) Welcome to 2012, it is no longer the 1950s. Sorry to dissapoint.
Men and women are absolutely equal. You nailed it in saying that putting women back in the kitchen and off the pulpit is regressive.
It is male insecurity that is afraid of a woman in power. Some women are natural born leaders and to put women in a box of only being able to lead women and children is ridiculous.
I guess the question to you two ladies would be … where in scripture do you see the equality you speak of? Keep in mind that we all stand equal as persons before God, but we are called to different responsibilities. Our ‘job’ if you like is different.
And yah know what, in many ways I wish it were like the 50′s … when a kid came home to school not to an empty house, but to a loving environment. Where a kid could play anywhere in the neighbourhood after school without concern for where he was, because you knew he was at a friends hous under the supervision of their mother.
An era when there was much less stress, where life was much simpler for everyone concerned.
Does that mean the 50′s were all glamor? Of course not, people are people. But when a functional family behaves in accordance with scripture. When the husband loves his wife and does not lord it over her .. then we have well adjusted children that understand respect and proper social manners.
Does this mean women are not competent. By no means. Does this mean all men are competent? Of course not. Many churches would be better off without the men they have in charge. People in general all strive for power in one form or another. Only under God’s Holy Spirit and our submission to Him does any of this work.
My question is: Given the great opportunities to furhter the Kingdom in women’s ministry … why is it such a thorn in the side of some women that they are prohibited in scripture from having spiritual authority over men?
If you hold a different view, and can back it up from scripture, I am all ears.
1 Timothy 2:11-15 says:
11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
Paul’s teaching on women in positions of authority in the church and over man are clear in verses 11 and 12. His reasoning is clearly stated in verses 13 and 14. His reasoning has absolutely nothing to do with being chauvinistic, prejudice, or sexist. I don’t see any reference to any cultural reasoning here either. It goes directly straight back to God’s original design of creation.
This does not mean that women are of lesser value or not as important in the church and in the family as men are. Not at all. God has specific roles for both genders in His creation. God gave women the ability to do pretty much anything men can do as well as bare children! That blows my mind and makes me think how incredible our creator really is. I don’t think there should be any reason for anyone (man or woman) to have a problem with this scripture. It’s purpose is not meant to “drag women down” or “box” them in.