Category Archives: women in ministry

On Man Being Created Before Woman

Posted on by
3

One of the more hotly debated topics within the church today is that of the role of women. Depending on what church background you come from, there are varying views within the discussion. But the two major views are summed up with the words complementarianism and egalitarianism.

I have summarised these 2 views before, but here they are again:

The Complementarian View

In the structure of the home, this theological viewpoint sees a mutual and complementary role existing between husband and wife, but the man still carries the lead, or ‘headship’, role. Within society in general, it is completely acceptable for women to hold jobs outside the home. In regards to roles within the church, women are normally allowed to function in ministry opportunities and other responsibilities. But, with reference to oversight and leadership, women are to be in submission to men. Thus, in this view, women can be given the freedom to lead such things as children’s ministries, women’s ministries, as well as serving in other ministry areas. But, and this is where we have varying views within a major view, it is possible that complementarians will either a) not allow women to teach men nor be in leadership or b) allow women to preach/teach with men in the context, but they are not to exercise authority in any main leadership role.

The Egalitarian View

Advocates of the egalitarian view do not believe men and women are identical in all matters, for there are definitely some differences between the two sexes (hence, why some might argue that they believe in complementary roles). But egalitarians believe that both sexes are capable of equal standing in both the home and the church. Specifically, within the church, women should be given complete freedom in expressing their gifts and callings in God, and this extends into leadership roles, even if that leadership role includes overseeing men.

As a side note, I use the words ‘capable of’ in the egalitarian explanation because I believe no one should inherently argue for leadership (male or female), as this is a God gifting, calling and anointing for service. One who believes leadership is their right will fail miserably (check out John 13:3-5).

If you haven’t guessed, I fall in line more with the egalitarian view, though, as I mentioned above, I could argue for complementarianism because men and women carry distinguishable differences simply through our physical creation, but also as we realise different people are given different callings, giftings and ministries by God. Continue reading →

Changing Our Minds About Women

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday, Scot McKnight posted an interesting article about the release of a book that looks at well-known evangelicals who have changed their minds about the roles of women in the church. The article starts off:

Alan Johnson, well-known and much-loved professor at Wheaton, has edited a collection of stories of well-known evangelicals who have in their own ways changed when it comes to women in ministry. His book has a great title: How I Changed My Mind about Women in Leadership: Compelling Stories from Prominent Evangelicals.

McKnight goes on to say:

Every person who is either “for” or “against” increased roles of women in leadership needs to read these stories.

He, then, specifically looks at how Dallas Willard came to have his mind changed. McKnight shares these 3 summary points about how Willard had his theology reshaped:

1. Those gifted by God for any ministry should serve in the capacity of that gift and churches (“human arrangements”) should facilitate their service. There is no suggestion anywhere in the Bible that gifts are distributed along gender lines. Go ahead and read the gift passages — says 1 Cor 12-14, Eph 5, 1 Pet 4 — and show how gifts are connected to gender.
2. It is misleading to deal with this issue along the lines of rights and equality alone. When it comes to talents and gifts people aren’t “equal” and it’s not about “rights” but about gifts and our obligations.
3. Excluding women leaves women generally with the impression that there is something wrong with them. They may be mistaken in that but Willard makes the important observation that if God excludes them there must be some very good reason — God doesn’t just flip coins. And the so-called complementarians can’t find clear passages where such things are clearly taught.

I can imagine many complementarians not appreciating #3, though I believe I understand where Willard would be coming from. Still, nonetheless, the first 2 points must definitely be grappled with.

I have done an extensive series on the role of women here at my blog (about 15 articles, which you can find a list of them here). I do have a couple more posts I would like to put up in the coming weeks to finish out the series.

In all, I am convinced the church is moving more and more towards egalitarianism (though I think the word complementarianism is a helpful description, but the word is used by those who would not allow women in major leadership roles, hence the use of another word). I don’t believe the church is heading towards ‘egalitarianism’ because it is becoming more and more lukewarm or heretical or ungodly. I think we are realising even more over the past decade or two that, what the previous generation began to realise about the social structure of skin colour, gender also does not determine our roles and giftings in God.

The Role of Women – Head Coverings?

Posted on by
15

After moving through multiple biblical passages while discussing the role of women, as well as two more recent ‘topical’ posts, I take up another commonly discussed issue that arises within the dialogue about the role of women. Such an issue is that of head coverings found in 1 Cor 11:2-16.

Actually, what I notice at times is that, just as many might decide to sidestep discussion about gifts of the Spirit, due to possibly not knowing how to approach the topic today and in light of the full canon of Scripture, so too can people sidestep possible contentious discussion that might arise from the issue of head coverings. There not sure what to do with the passage found in Corinthians.

I mean, really, how do we approach this topic? It’s quite clear that 1 Corinthians 11 teaches such a practise should be done. But much of the church today does not hold to this particular practise. What to do?

I am also quite aware that, at least within some Pentecostal and charismatic churches, some teach this specific practise should be done in an attempt to provide for possible greater experiences during the church’s gathered worship. This is centred around the end phrase of vs10 – ‘because of the angels’. Thus, with an attempt to be obedient to the plain reading of the text and to encourage greater worship gatherings, it has been required that women wear head coverings when praying or prophesying in the public gatherings of the church.

But, as with all doctrinal and practical issues, there are a few points that need to be carefully considered from this passage and the greater context before jumping to any foregone conclusions.

1) Not Dealing with Submission to Husband

Unfortunately, many have seen vs10 teaching that a head covering is a sign, or symbol, to show that the wife is under the authority of and submitted to her husband. But is this what head coverings is about? Let’s look at the rendering of vs10 in the ESV:

That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

First of all, I believe that, if we say this verse teaches male authority over female, then we are imposing something upon the text.

Why do I say such?

In an earlier post on 1 Corinthians 11, I tried to show how some have mistakenly concluded that 1 Cor 11:3 teaches about the authority of man over woman (I suggest reading my article). With such a view concerning vs3, it also makes it quite easy to read such ‘submission theology’ into vs10 with regards to the role of head coverings. But, as I have tried to show, Paul is not emphasising male headship over women in the context of 1 Corinthians 11. Thus, I believe we must also guard against reading such a theological viewpoint into the role of head coverings in vs10. Even if we determine that head coverings must be worn today, such instruction was not given to show that a wife is submitted to her husband, since the larger context is not addressing such.

So what was the purpose of head coverings? Let’s move on to find out.

2) A Sign of Differentiation

Now, what many don’t realise from the reading of the text is that the phrase, ‘a sign of’, is not actually found in the original Greek of vs10 (as the NIV shows).

That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

Now it is possible that such a phrase is implied. But I’m not sure this has much of an effect on our understanding of the passage either way. Thus, I maintain the case that the passage is not teaching about a wife’s submission to her husband

But how could the phrase ‘a sign of’ be implied in vs10?

It is obvious that the greater context of vs4-15 does speak of the proper etiquette for women in wearing head coverings, while it is also improper for men to wear such. They are obviously signs, or physical symbols, of what is appropriate for these Corinthian believers.

Consequently, though Paul is not addressing the issue of male authority and women subordination, he does seem to be addressing the reality of gender differentiations. Within the Corinthian culture, the women were to wear head coverings and have longer hair while the men were not to wear head coverings and have shorter hair. It was customary practise of their society.

Now, let me again emphasise that gender differentiations never point to who has authority. The fact that women have been designed to bear children is another gender differentiation, but that does not point to subordination to men. As scholar-theologian, Gordon Fee, says:

‘In the same way Paul argues in 11:2-16 that wives continue to wear the head-covering because it served as a symbol of differentiation between men and women. Although it is often suggested otherwise, this passage has nothing to do with subordination of women to men – a view arrived at by making verse 10 say the opposite of what Paul in fact asserts.’ (Listening to the Spirit in the Text, pp62-63)

But the passage so clearly seems to teach about authority through the head covering, right?

That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

She is to wear [the sign of] authority over her head. But the literal rendition of the Greek would be, ‘a wife ought to have authority over her head’. From this rendering, we see that this does not have to speak about male authority over women. It is hard to determine every minute detail from such passages, but some suggest that the head covering could be a sign of the woman’s authority to prophesy in church (since Paul instructed the women to wear it when they did so, i.e., vs5), or to participate generally in the church assembly.

Thus, what we do know is that the role of head coverings within the context of the Corinthian church was to distinguish gender differences, as well as act as some kind of sign for the woman herself within the gathered church. But it was never to teach who had authority over the other. To suggest such is pushing too much into the context of this Scripture passage.

3) A Cultural Symbol

The final thing to think about is whether head coverings are 1) a cultural command within a specific cultural context or 2) a command for all time for all cultures and peoples. Or, as I shared in a previous post, we need to determine whether this particular instruction falls under our discussion of trajectory theology. No doubt, there will be much disagreement concerning such a discussion, but such must be taken into account.

As I have shared recently (again, read this article for more), many times Paul does address situations within a particular cultural-historical framework, thus leaving us with something that is not to be seen as a command for all time. He spoke into the slavery structure in Eph 6:5-9 without condemning such a practise. He also spoke into the household structure without condemning such in Eph 5:22-24. In both situations, Paul recognised what was set up within the framework of that society and he was not looking to tear it down. Rather, his instructions were how followers of Christ in that day could live faithfully within those prescribed societal structures. But I have concluded that neither slavery nor male ‘headship’ were actually to be commands for all time. Neither is strict adherence to the Sabbath law, literal foot washing, tithing, rules for specific clothing, etc. One more time, I suggest you read this post.

In a patriarchal society of the New Testament era, which is what Paul addressed, it is very obvious that gender distinctions were of great importance. Now, of course, gender distinctions will remain a reality throughout time. We are not called to be androgynous beings. Women give birth, men do not. Women breast-feed their children, men do not. Men can grow out their facial hair to form beards, women cannot. But, again, physical distinctions do not give precedence for the subordination of women to men.

Within the patriarchal culture of Paul’s world, and maybe more specifically in Corinth, women wore head coverings and had long hair to distinguish themselves from their husbands. And the men were not to wear head coverings and were to have shorter hair. This is a very reasonable understanding of the context.

It is also ironic that, though some churches can emphasise the need for head coverings for women, some have never really laid great importance upon the length of one’s hair (for both men and women). And there need be no such overdone weight given to hair length. I believe we would be stepping beyond the constructs of what was intended in the writing of these words of the apostle, Paul.

So, in conclusion, though head coverings pointed to gender differentiation in those days, it did not point to male authority over women (nor does it do so today). Nor should head coverings be viewed as one of the keys to a great worship gathering. To do so is putting a lot of emphasis on one phrase in the Bible – ‘because of the angels’.

If a culture still requires women to wear head coverings as a gender distinction, then it’s perfectly fine for the women to wear such. But this should not be seen as a mandate for all cultures of all times.

Gordon Fee summarises things quite well:

‘Thus, the thrust of this argument is twofold: that the woman should continue with the cultural symbol of differentiation because of the issue of shame – but that this should not be understood to mean subordination, but mutual interdependence in the Lord. The new creation has not removed mutuality and differentiation, but has restored it. In the Lord male and female are both one and different. Thus men and women equally pray and prophesy, the two basic forms of worship in the Christian assembly…but do so as male and female, not as androgynous beings.’ (Listening to the Spirit in the Text, pp64-65)

The Role of Women – Examples in Scripture

Posted on by
1

For those who have been following my series on the role of women and were not able to check out my previous article, I do highly recommend doing so. It deals with very important aspects of how we approach the Scripture text theologically and within the historical setting.

In this specific post, though I will not go into great detail on all women in Scripture, I wanted to give a decent overview of how God has used women within the setting of Scripture. Some of these accounts are quite amazing.

Miriam – She was a prophetess who led a song of victory after the Israelites redemption from Egypt (Ex 15:20-21).

Deborah – Though many people only recognise Deborah’s civil role in leading the army of Israel, thus, trying to prove that her role gives no precedence for leadership within the church, it is interesting to note that she was called a prophetess as well (Judg 4:4). Not only that, if we read her story in the full context of Judgges 4-5, we can assume she had more than just a civil or military role, although that gave her enough authority. She was the leader of the Israelites. She was not an exception when we consider the Scriptures we have and how God has used women regularly throughout Scripture and history.

Huldah – Not a well-known name, but she, too, was a prophetess and we see her activity in 2 Kgs 22:14-20. She prophesied with some authority!

Mary – Though I don’t want to necessarily form a sense of veneration towards Mary that I believe is over the top amongst Roman Catholics, we must note her role in the Saviour’s life. God could have worked this out in many other ways. But He chose to use a young woman (despised in that culture) to bring His Son into the world. We see her prophetic song in Luke 1:46-55.

Anna – We read about her in Luke 2:36-38. She was a prophetess and vs38 makes a reference to her speech activity, which we can only assume included prophecy.

Luke’s emphasis of women involved in Jesus’ ministry – see Luke 8:13; 23:49; 24:10.

Mary Magdalene and other women – We have a group of women who were the first to see the resurrected Christ. They were sent to the eleven (minus Judas Iscariot) to tell them He had risen (Luke 24:10). Thus, they were, in a sense, the first apostles (‘sent ones’). Imagine this happening within some circles today! It was scandalous then and now.

Priscilla/Prisca – Priscilla had a very significant teaching role, especially in the Ephesian church. We see Paul’s greeting to the couple in 2 Tim 4:19, showing their role in the church in Ephesus. We also read in 1 Cor 16:19 that the church met in their home, which likely meant that they were the leaders of that church. Finally, we see how they both took aside Apollos and explained to him the things of God more accurately (Acts 18:24-28). Thus, they would have both been teaching and instructing Apollos, who himself became a great leader in the early church. And it is interesting to note that, in the six times the couple are mentioned together, four of the times mention Priscilla first. This probably points to her stronger measure of gifting, maybe even referring to her strong teaching role.

Philip’s four daughters – Philip, who was one of the seven appointed in Acts 6:1-6, had four daughters who were prophetesses (Acts 21:9).

Phoebe – She had a special role in the church in Cenchreae (Rom 16:1). It was probably more than leading the children’s ministry, hence Paul mentioning her.

Nympha – A church met in her home (Col 4:15). In those days, the church would probably gather in someone’s home if they were the leader.

Euodia and Syntyche – Though these two women seemed to be having some kind of disagreement, Paul says that they both had ‘laboured side by side’ with him (Col 4:15). It’s doubtless that this points to some significant ministry role.

Junia – Though much debate exists around her name (should it be Junias, a male version of the name) and whether or not she was actually an apostle, it seems most likely that she and her husband, Andronicus, had a significant apostolic ministry together (Rom 16:7).

As you can see, even in this brief overview, there were women used in major ministry roles amongst God’s people – prophetic, teaching, leading, and possibly even apostolic. This was not only about leading other women or children, though that is a worthy ministry. This included some roles with a strong sense of ministry amongst the body of Christ and the world.

Shall we give the same opportunities today?

The Role of Women – A Side Excursus

Posted on by
3

For those who visit this blog somewhat regularly, you will probably have noticed that I have been posting a longer, detailed series on the role of women. To see all 12 articles, you can click on the Categories drop down menu on the right side bar of the blog and scroll down to women. That should lead you to the links to all articles.

But, in this article, I want to take a short detour before heading back into my regularly scheduled postings on this ever-debated topic.

For those who have been following along closely, what might have noticed that I have tried to both 1) deal with specific passages in the Scripture and 2) consider what theologians call trajectory theology.

The first needs no explanation, but the second does. What is trajectory theology? It is basically a hermeneutical approach to understanding Scripture, but with the recognition that certain details, commands and teachings of Scripture were not to be binding on God’s people for all time’s sake.

Now, some might hold up a hand very quickly and charge me with a dangerous practise. And such could be the case. Thankfully I am not a lone ranger Christian, I believe in relational accountability, and hold the Scripture as being the primary place for formation of our beliefs and practises of the faith.

But one book that might be helpful in understanding the practise of trajectory hermeneutics is Scot McKnight’s The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible (you can also visit his blog here). McKnight is one of the leading authorities of today on the New Testament, early Christianity, and the historical Jesus. And he is evangelical through and through.

In his book, The Blue Parakeet, he has some interesting words right from the beginning in his introductory chapter:

Throughout this process of conversion and reading the Bible, I made discoveries that created a question that disturbed me and still does. Many of my fine Christian friends, pastors, and teachers routinely made the claim that they were Bible-believing Christians, and they were committed to the whole Bible and that – and this was one of the favorite lines – “God said it, I believe it, that settles it for me!” They were saying two things and I add my response (which expresses my disturbance):

One: We believe everything the Bible says, therefore…
Two: We practice whatever the Bible says.
Three: Hogwash!

Why say “hogwash,” a tasty, salty word I learned from my father? Because I was reading the same Bible they were reading, and I observed that, in fact – emphasize that word “fact” – whatever they were claiming was not in “fact” what they were doing (Nor was I.) What I discovered is that we all pick and choose. I must confess this discovery did not discourage me as much as it disturbed me, and then it made me intensely curious (and it is why I wrote this book). The discoveries and disturbances converged onto one big question:

How, then, are we to live out the Bible today?

Whether or not we want to admit it, we, as Christians of all types, undertake this practise. Some do it from a more negative perspective to deconstruct the text completely and make it worth nothing in their lives. But, the normal, Bible-believing, evangelical does this just as much.

I will give you some examples:

The Sabbath

If you really want to obey the Sabbath, in accordance with the original teaching of the Mosaic Law, then one must observe such from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown. The Sabbath is not Sunday. Now Christians began to gather together on Sunday’s, recognising it as the Lord’s day because our Lord Jesus arose on the third day, a Sunday. But, strictly speaking, the Sabbath is Friday sundown to Saturday sundown. Still, within the new covenant, I believe it has become clear that Christ himself is the true Sabbath rest of God into which the people of God are to enter. I share more here.

Foot washing

How many people practice this today? Now some, like the Primitive Baptists, see it as something that must be literally carried out in this age. And while I have washed people’s feet before as an act of service, and I have received such a beautiful expression of serving as well, I don’t believe this is a binding command for all time. In Jesus’ teaching in John 13, I believe it ultimately refers to the act of serving and laying down one’s life for another.

Tithing

Obviously there are varying opinions on this one, some seeing it still as a ‘command’ of God today. But, suffice it to say, I do not believe 10% is the God-ordained amount one must drop in the offering basket on a Sunday morning. Now, I think it is a good place to start in our regular and faithful giving into the local church body and its work. But I would argue that the new covenant (or the whole of Scripture) makes clear that all belongs to God, and so it might just be that we are called to give above that 10%. Actually, I would challenge all followers of Christ to be stretched in this on a regular basis. Yet, if someone gave 6%, I don’t think God is necessarily peeved at that person, especially noting the varying cultural norms throughout history and current nations, i.e., come live in Belgium and you will find out through the lovely tax system here. Not to mention that the tithe was set up within a social-theocratic nation. The body of Christ is not such.

Clothing

How many of us obey the last words of Leviticus 19:19 – nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material? Why not? Or how many women obey the words of Paul embedded within the highly debated passage of 1 Timothy 2:8-15?

9 likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, 10 but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. (1 Tim 2:9-10)

In the end, I believe Paul is asking women to dress modestly, as women who profess godliness. There is no binding command for all-time in this passage with regards to braided hair, gold, pearls and costly attire.

And you know, I could go on and on with slavery, head coverings, eating food that has been strangled (see Acts 15:29), etc. Even if one doesn’t agree with my every thought on these aforementioned topics, we all do this with some regard. Even though I am a continuationist that believes all gifts of the Spirit are for today, a cessationist would easily argue that such is not for today. They have biblical and theological reasons to justify such. I am not trying to argue for or against continuationism or cessationism in this article. I am simply noting it is another case in which we bring in trajectory hermeneutics to the text.

I have taken the time to look at these things because I believe it relates into the discussion surrounding the role of women. As I said at the beginning, on the topic of women, I look to both 1) deal with specific passages in the Scripture and 2) deal with what theologians call trajectory theology.

Now, it might seem like I want to ‘have my cake and eat it too’, as we say in America. So, the charge could come to me that, I deal with the passage in Scripture, but if it doesn’t fit my theology, then I revert to trajectory theology.

Well, this could be the case of me moulding the text into my framework rather than allowing God to mould me by the text of Scripture. But I believe the first thing we must always do is deal with the text that is right in front of us. What does it say within its context? And that is what I have done for the major part with my articles.

But I believe we are also to ask some questions like these:

  • What does this mean in light of the full reality of Christ and the new covenant?
  • Is this a particular command within a particular historical and cultural framework?

We can get scared of the second question, but we need to ask it. And whether or not we ask it, we still practice trajectory hermeneutics in many ways as we approach the Scripture. I am not just talking about with Old Testament passages, but also with New Testament passages – clothing to wear, what kind of food to eat, slavery, head coverings, possibly spiritual gifts, etc.

And there is nothing inherently wrong with this practise.

Now, as I have already noted, it can be used dangerously, all to set aside the text as having no authority in the life of the believer. A case and point I believe is found with the practise of same-sex relations. Well, from the start, I think Christians have not always had a great testimony in interacting with those who identify themselves as gay. Some of the stories you read are appalling. But, nonetheless, I do not believe trajectory hermeneutics applies to same-sex behaviour. I believe both Scripture (special revelation from God) and nature (general revelation from God) attest to God’s plan for male and female sexual intimacy amongst married people, rather than sexual intimacy and marriage amongst same-sex partners.

So, the question comes – Well, why do you choose to bypass trajectory hermeneutics with same-sex relationships but not for women in leadership?

There is no easy, packaged answer, though we always desire such. I will still get challenged and labelled as wanting to set aside the authoritative teaching of Scripture because of my view on women. But in my study of the role of women, I have come to a clear conscience and conclusion that 1) the text doesn’t hinder women from leadership roles as much as we think it does and 2) where it possibly does, these words were given within a social, cultural and historical framework of which women had little standing and rights, and thus they are not to be recognised as binding upon the body of Christ for all time.

In the end, I don’t suppose all will agree with me. That is each person’s prerogative before God and the Scripture. But what I do suggest is that when complementarians engage with egalitarians, that they not regularly pull out the card that says egalitarians are more of the progressive-liberal type cutting out portions of God’s authoritative word for their own agenda. In all reality, we all practice trajectory hermeneutics. And the church will continue to grapple with such a hermeneutical principle as it studies and wrestles with the awesome, God-breathed, faithful text of the Scripture, the primary place for the church to form their beliefs and practises of the faith.