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 and I believe they point to the fact of God’s ultimate new creation intention of mutual-shared ministry relationships amongst both men and women. Continue reading
A painstakingly difficult topic within the church today, and maybe for all time, has been that of the role of women. Here at my blog, I have probably made it clear where I stand – in the more egalitarian camp. Egalitarianism does not advocate that 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. And this is all based upon the calling and gifting of God, not one’s gender.
I’m not going to spell out all my biblical and theological reasons. Rather I’ll point you to my plethora of posts here.
Still, even within both the egalitarian and the complementarian perspectives, there are differing views (as with every theological approach). Continue reading
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
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.
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 ofauthority 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 ofauthority 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)
