According to one of the fundamental tenets of Protestantism, the priesthood of all believers (hereafter, PAB):

(1) All baptized believers are ordained by God as priests.

From here the rest of the argument quickly follows:

(2) Some women are baptized believers.

Therefore,

(3) Some women are ordained by God as priests.

We might thus simply ask our complementarian friends the following: If God has ordained someone as a priest, who are we to deny her ordination?

I suppose one might reply that PAB is purely a spiritual matter that does not pertain to our ecclesiological affairs. However, that reply seems to miss the original meaning of the doctrine, not to mention the context in which Luther himself re-discovered it. Whether or not Luther understood the egalitarian implications of the doctrine is another matter, but to the extent he didn’t, we could say that even he wasn’t being a consistent Protestant! (I am not in a position to say what his view on this matter was, so I am not claiming that he was, indeed, inconsistent.) It appears that, while Luther did make a distinction between priests and ministers, he saw the latter not as a God-ordained position, but simply as those whom we Christians choose from among us to do certain tasks. Since the latter is not based on divine ordination, I would assume that we choose people for these tasks based on our discernment of their natural abilities and spiritual gifts related to those various tasks. So, unless we are willing to state categorically that women are physically or spiritually incapable of performing certain tasks (a strong claim indeed!), then I cannot see how a Protestant would in principle be able to hold to strong complementarianism. I suppose one could deny PAB, but in so doing, one would cease to be properly Protestant.

Suffice it to say, this same thing happened when my suspicions were confirmed about God’s love for equality. For many years, I had been so conflicted because of what I thought the Scriptures taught about men and women. I feared that if such a hierarchy were true, then an incongruous nature about God was being revealed, and that greatly troubled me. But it wasn’t true. It really is for freedom that Christ has set us free (Gal 5:1), and the freeing nature of the truth overwhelmed me so much, I wanted to tell everyone about it. What I saw and understood was such great news, I was sure everyone would thank me for it once they really understood what those passages of Scripture really mean and how Jesus really views women. If only I could explain it clearly enough so that they could understand! My persistent excitement and eagerness to bring freedom dribbled down into an excess of obnoxious argumentation. Rather than helping people understand, I found myself offending, instead. I lost a few friends in the process and was so disheartened by it that I was effectually silenced.

Something I learned after I had walked with Jesus for a few years is that if you live out the gospel, then skeptics will eventually inquire about and welcome your good news. The proof is in the pudding.

Recently, I found myself worshiping next to an old friend who grew up in a church with a strong hierarchical stance in the church and in the home. I have never had any biblical or theological debate with him about biblical equality, but I assume that he thinks that the office of the pastor is for men and not women and that the head of the household is the man. I don’t think these beliefs are based on any conscious biblical investigation but exist simply because these ideas are the bedrock of his church culture. But that day, he chose to be at our church, and, coincidentally, that day, our woman pastor was preaching. Sitting next to him, I heard him laugh at her jokes and could tell that he was listening attentively. Discussion about the sermon later confirmed that he had indeed learned from her — a woman.

This is when I realized something I should’ve known all along. I’ve been saying all these years that it didn’t make sense why revelation from God spoken out of a woman’s mouth would be nullified simply because she was a woman. If children can learn from a woman, and other women can learn from a woman, why couldn’t men? Truth is truth no matter who speaks it. But this time I didn’t have to argue it. It just happened in real time. A man learned from a woman (how revolutionary is that!). And it dawned on me that perhaps that is how this revolution will really take place — not solely and primarily through arguments and debates (although there is a time for explaining and theologizing) but — by living out the gospel of equality. If it is really true, then it will stand the test of time and prevail. It will prevail! And I’m looking forward to that day.

Davis gives three arguments in favor of the ordination of women to office in the church. The first has to do with the nature of ordination as understood in the Reformed tradition. Davis argues that the prohibition of women’s teaching contained here is not normative because of the historical context. In other words, Paul writes as the apostolic age is closing and the church is about to move to a period of time prior to the canonization of Scripture and prior to the classical doctrinal formulations found in the Ecumenical councils. Davis concludes that we should expect Paul’s counsel to err on the side of limitation given that the survival of Orthodoxy was not guaranteed from a human perspective.

The second has to do with Paul’s usage of creation narratives. Davis argues that Paul uses a single Old Testament passage to arrive at a variety of theological conclusions. He uses texts to arrive at applications that are church-specific. For example, in writing Romans Paul singles out Adam as the representative figure who brought sin upon humanity in the Fall (Romans 5:12-20). He also applies the creational-grounding of the headship principle as recognition of the mutual-dependence of men and women (I Corinthians 11:2-16). The deception of Eve is applied to all believers in the context of II Corinthians 11:3ff. These examples, claims Davis, show that Paul used the creation narratives in a context-specific rather than an absolutist way.

Paul’s hermeneutical approach is, Davis claims, analogous to his teaching on eating food sacrificed to idols. He writes, “While in principle the Gentile brethren could insist on their ‘creational rights’ to eat meat, Paul urges them to forebear in Christian love out of regard for the consciences of their Jewish brethren” (Davis, 3). Consequently we can determine that a creational right does not result in a blanket permission, and that a creationally endorsed prohibition does not necessarily imply prohibition under different circumstances: “…creational principles are to be applied in such a way as to further the redemptive ends of the unity of the church and growth in Christian maturity” (Davis, 3).

The third is Paul’s root concerns for the health of the churches. Davis summarizes these root concerns as follows: (1) the preservation of sound doctrine; (2) the unity and good order of the church; (3) the solidarity of the Christian family. In the context of I Timothy, Davis outlines examples of problems in all three of these areas. He concludes therefore, “If this reading of the historical circumstances surrounding the pastoral epistles is valid, then it could be argued that, given different conditions, Paul’s ‘root concerns’ could be maintained with polity forms differing from the one’s envisioned [in 1 Timothy]” (Davis, 3). As a result, each candidate for ordination, whether male or female, ought to be considered in light of these three root concerns. Quite simply, candidates should not be barred from ordination simply because of their gender as male or female.

Is Davis compelling to you?

Bibliographical information: Davis, John Jefferson. “Ordination of Women Reconsidered: Discussion of I Timothy 2:8-15.” Presbyterian Communiqué. November/December 1979.

“Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says… it is disgraceful for a women to speak in the church.” (1 Corinthians 14:34, 35b TNIV)

Feel the strong undercurrents “disgraceful” carries. To be disgraced is to have brought shame upon one’s self and to have lost favor and respect. So when the above verses are isolated, they appear to tell all women that if they do not silence their voices and become mute within the church, then they will be viewed with shame and dishonor. Words from their mouths are unwelcome.

These verses seem to denounce women believers and condemn them to a permanently lower spiritual level than men. Taken at face value, these words contradict the equality and mutuality between male and female expressed in Galatians 3:28. Spiritual maturity becomes irrelevant where gender is concerned. Gender restrictions overrule and prohibit women from exercising certain spiritual gifts. Women are still viewed as being spiritually inferior and under a form of condemnation because God created them female instead of male. Ultimately, these isolated verses even infer that God created women’s voices to be contemptible and unredeemable.

The misuse of these verses to restrict women also attempts to keep them under the law. No wonder women can feel dragged down and stifled. So how do these detached verses make sense within the greater context of scripture? Since no written law is found anywhere in the Old Testament that fits the description in verse 34, Paul seems to be referring to the misogynistic oral law of the Judaizers. Rather than agreeing with this oral law, many believe that Paul was offering a rebuttal in the verses immediately following after it.

“(What!) did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? If any think they are prophets or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. Those who ignore this will themselves be ignored. Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.” (1 Corinthians 14:36-40 TNIV)

In commenting on this section of scripture, Katharine Bushnell wrote:

“Paul’s contention is, that since the spirit of prophecy, which is “the word of God,” did not, as its very terms imply, come forth from anyone but God, to attempt to control prophecy by restrictions as to who may utter it, means a dictating to God as to what instruments He may employ.” [1]

If you are a woman who has felt weighted down and condemned by Bible verses misused to entangle you and to keep you under the law, grab hold of the following life preserving words:

“Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death.” (Romans 8:1, 2 TNIV)

Christian women have also been released from all guilt and shame through their Savior and Redeemer. They are no longer under any condemnation. At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit was poured out on both sexes. Women filled with the Holy Spirit were not silent but spoke out the words given to them by God.

If you would like to read a more in-depth explanation on “Shall Women Keep Silence?” click on the following link to an online copy of Katharine Bushnell’s book God’s Word to Women (first published in 1921) and read lessons 25 through 28.  http://www.godswordtowomen.org/gwtw.htm

If anyone would like to purchase a copy of Katharine Bushnells’ book, please go to the CBE online bookstore
http://www.equalitydepot.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=5592

The resignation of the Team leader placed the Board of Elders (which includes a woman) in an unforeseen dilemma because the female Pastor strongly feels the call of God to step up into the vacated position of Team leader. The ministry Team had discussed and prayed over this possible outcome and could readily affirm this could well be  what God has in mind for the church’s future. What needed to happen next was that the Board of Elders should be convinced of this possibility too and make a recommendation to the church membership in order to ratify such a decision.

Interestingly, initially, two members of the Elder Board could not see, from the Scriptures, that a woman could/should be placed in the position of Team leader. The sticking point for them was the issue of headship. One of the men felt really exercised, after a restless night, to have another, Spirit prompted look at Galatians 3:28 in the early hours of the morning. As a consequence he felt God was encouraging him to concede that gender should not be a reason for any person to be disqualified from holding a senior leadership responsibility within the church. When the Elders conferred again he shared his experience and declared his modified position.

Meanwhile, the other dissenting Elder felt, after much prayer and an expression of willingness to change his view if God so instructed him, to hold firm because he remained unconvinced even after reviewing the various arguments. He then offered to resign rather than be in disagreement with the other Elders. While this was admirable it was unacceptable because, up to this point, everything had been accomplished at Elder Board level by total unanimity. So he agreed to stay on and support the recommendation that the rest of the Board were wanting to put before the church membership.

It needs to be said in all of this that the female Pastor had exceeded all expectations in terms of ministry giftedness and performance and no one doubted her ability, under God, to lead the ministry Team and the Church into the future. As mentioned earlier, the sticking point for this one Elder, was the matter of headship even though, in every other way he conceded that she was, without doubt,  gifted and capable. It’s as if his heart said one thing and his head another.

For him the contentious passage is 1 Corinthians 11:3 where it states categorically, as expressed in the NLT (New Living Translation), “… A man is responsible to Christ, a woman is responsible to her husband, and Christ is responsible to God.” No amount of persuasive argument could help this Elder to see that this verse could be interpreted any differently than what it literally appears to say. For the present time he cannot get around his personal conviction that for some reason God has invested in men the responsibility to lead.

Which leads to the question for you our bloggers. In what ways have you been convinced from Scripture, or has God shown you, that male “headship”, or leadership, both in the Church and the home, is not what He had in mind at all?

The ‘priesthood of all believers doctrine’ is well stated on the Southern Baptist Convention’s website: “We affirm the priesthood of all believers. Laypersons have the same right as ordained ministers to communicate with God, interpret Scripture, and minister in Christ’s name. That is why the Convention requires strong lay involvement on its boards. This doctrine is first and foremost a matter of responsibility and servanthood, not privilege and license.” (http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/pspriesthood.asp)

 The clearest Scriptural statement about this is in I Peter 2: 5,9 “…you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. …But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.” (NIV)

To me, this doctrine teaches that Christian women are priests. If they are priests, why can’t they preach? I suggest that women in the ministry fulfils the doctrine. Ministers “declare the praises of him,” as do all true Christians. Paul talks about specific gifts people have, and so specific people have specific tasks in the church, but this priesthood is not a gift, it is a calling given to all Christians. To say that a priest cannot fulfill a leadership function because of gender says to me that the “priesthood of all believers”  is only completely given to men, which seems to pervert Peter’s teaching here.

Does my interpretation make sense? I am not a Biblical languages scholar. Does the “declare” in I Peter indicate the ability to preach? The word is exaggello (Strong’s #1804), the base word of which means messenger or angel (Strong’s #32That seems to me to cover preaching.  I’m aware of at least one denomination that disagrees with my interpretation.

What do other denominations teach concerning this doctrine of the priesthood of all believers and women in the ministry? I’d love to know.

Does anyone have any other verses that give strong direction concerning this that they would like to share?

I’m looking forward to hearing from you all.

How did that same Bryan end up sitting next to me on a flight home to North Carolina, rattling on excitedly about speaker Brenda Salter-McNeill and other highlights of Urbana 06? I had noticed how carefully InterVarsity had crafted its triennial missions conference, putting women in the pulpit and using the gender-accurate TNIV, among other things. Nevertheless, I hadn’t imagined its potential effect on Bryan’s support for women in ministry. But he could not deny the voice of the Holy Spirit through these female speakers—who was he to silence God?

As I prepare to graduate, I realize the stark contrast between InterVarsity and much of the evangelical world—my female friends and I will no longer find widespread acceptance as leaders. However, regardless of our personal beliefs, when women are suddenly barred from such roles, we might actually miss them. Women like me have had invaluable experience leading in mission on campus, and men like Bryan have served alongside women, being blessed by their leadership.

Across a fairly wide spectrum of parachurch organizations, opportunities abound for the reconsideration of limiting views of women. Women lead in many mainstream evangelical ministries, large and small, and God’s work through them is not unnoticed. Christianity Today features articles by authors like Lauren Winner, and Joan Mussa and Julie Regnier serve as Senior Vice Presidents for World Vision. Women even teach future pastors at Fuller, Gordon-Conwell, and Trinity, three of the largest non-denominational evangelical seminaries. A female student leader from Campus Crusade organized UNC’s 24/7 Prayer week this year, and countless other local ministries depend on the time, vision, skills, and prayers of women who love Jesus. While varying in their official positions on women in ministry, each of these more missionally driven organizations senses a practical need for women’s participation.

Yes, it may seem contradictory at first: despite affirming women in their specific ministries, many parachurch organizations like InterVarsity remain silent about female deacons, elders, and pastors/priests in the local church. (Some organizations would say they oppose it, in fact!) I myself used to feel abandoned by this silence, but now I celebrate it. While I question the validity of this sharp church/parachurch distinction and would appreciate InterVarsity’s eventual allegiance to CBE’s egalitarian cause, I have begun to rejoice in the quietly strategic—even inadvertent—role of other parachurch organizations in advancing gender reconciliation and justice.

Especially among university students and other young adults, the parachurch, with its focused yet flexible structures, is often uniquely suited to interact with diverse constituencies otherwise lacking exposure to women in ministry. Indeed, perhaps one of the most significant things we can do to support gender equality is to remain invested in the parachurch organizations that are already informally, sometimes accidentally, changing minds and hearts about women. Regardless of what is or isn’t said about the issue, the mere presence of women in leadership transforms lives. By donating to humanitarian organizations, encouraging college-bound high schoolers to join a campus ministry, volunteering at a local level, or simply connecting others to a female author who has mentored us from a distance, we may be doing more than we realize to advance women’s ministry. Of course, I look forward to finding clearer allies to CBE’s mission. But I’m excited to see the Lord is already at work, sometimes in the places I least expect.

My interest in women and missions of the 1800s is reinvigorated, of late, by a number of experiences I’ve had lecturing at Christian colleges and seminaries around the county. When invited to speak for chapel services, I make an effort to learn something about the school, particularly the achievements of the founders and their graduates. In doing so, I have discovered the vast number of women alumni, who were also leaders on the mission field in the United States and abroad. And, they had the full support of the school’s founders. As I include these findings when I lecture, I am often surprised at the responses I receive… some of these Christian colleges appear almost embarrassed to learn of the number of women who held positions of significant leadership and who were trained in this capacity by their institution.

Most of our evangelical colleges and seminaries initially began as Bible institutes – and nearly all Bible institutes had many more women enrolled than men. Why? Because Christians in the 1800s, influenced by premillenialism, believed that Christ’s return was imminent – and therefore, they were far more concerned about the Great Commission than they were with gender or ethnicity. As a result of placing less emphasis on gender, women outnumbered men on the mission field, two to one. This led to one of the largest expanses of Christian faith in history – during what has been called the ‘Golden Era of Missions’ – which began in the early 1800s, in which women were the driving force.

Bible institutes trained men and women for evangelism, in anticipation of Christ’s immediate return. Over time, these institutes became today’s Christians colleges and universities which broadened their curriculum to prepare Christian men and women for professional service in many disciplines. In doing so, some lost touch with their evangelical moorings as it relates to women’s gospel-leadership.

As I celebrate the legacy of their female graduates who preached to men and women all over the world, I am frequently asked two questions:

1. If women were the driving force behind the Golden Era of Missions, what took the church so long to use women in this capacity?

2. What has happened since then? Why has their leadership been lost, and where are women gospel leaders today?

First off, it was during the Golden Era of Missions, with the enormous success God granted the gifts he had given women and slaves that Christians began to question the presumed ontological inferiority of both women and slaves. They did so from a thorough examination of Scripture. Their biblical research was published in more than forty-six biblical treatises between 1808 and 1930, from many branches of the evangelical church, in support of the shared leadership of women. These documents signified the emergence of the first wave of feminists – a deeply biblical movement. The advancement of women’s ontological and functional equality grew out of a commitment to biblical authority, evangelism, and an activism that came to characterize or identify the evangelical movement as a whole, beginning in the 1800s. And, it was the early evangelicals – both men and women, who were among the first to provide both a biblical and social voice for gender and ethnic equality. By doing so, they represented a radical departure from previous generations of Christians whose patriarchal and racist assumptions went unchallenged by Scripture.

Biblicists (those who affirmed the supremacy of Scripture), were early evangelicals who supported the evangelism of women and in doing so they not only challenged higher critical methods that undermined the authority of the Bible, they also resisted the ‘proof text’ method or plain reading of Scripture that gave support not only to slavery, but also to women’s exclusion from public ministry. Rather, evangelical biblicists sought to harmonize those passages that appeared in conflict with the whole of Scripture regarding the equal value (ontology) and service (function) of women and slaves. Thus, the first-wave feminists developed a whole-Bible hermeneutic that addressed gender and ethnic justice and advanced an ontological equality for women and slaves.

This comes to the second question – why Christian colleges (formerly Bible institutes) appear unfamiliar with the legacy of their earliest women students (who outnumbered male students two to one)… The truncation of women students in Bible institutes and leadership was the result of the fundamentalist-modernist controversy. Simply stated, modernists challenged both the inspiration of Scripture and the very miracles of Scripture and created uncertainty surrounding the fundamentals of the Christian faith, like the Virgin birth and the resurrection of Christ. They did so using higher critical methods. In response, some Bible institutes, wishing not to appear sympathetic with Modernists, reshaped their curriculum, omitting classes in Greek and Hebrew, and leaning towards the ‘plain reading of the texts.’ This opened the way to a plain reading of 1 Timothy in isolation to the other places in the New Testament where Paul clearly affirms the authority and leadership of women like Junia, Priscilla, Phoebe, Chloe, etc. Thus, the gains made both biblical and socially by the early evangelicals were stymied and linked to a liberal reading of Scripture. Christians for Biblical Equality has had to pick up the biblical scholarship left off by early evangelicals like A.J. Gordon, Katharine Bushnell, Frances Willard and Catherine Booth. Thankfully, the work begun by the early evangelicals has grown so quickly in the last twenty years that CBE is having a difficult time keeping track of the many Christian groups around the world exploring biblical equality both from a popular and scholarly viewpoint.

• 45% said that it is not unfair discrimination if a male pastor refuses to serve because of his convictions.
• 25% said that it is unfair discrimination if a male pastor is serving in a church that officially ordains women.
• 20% said that it is unfair discrimination, and that it is unacceptable behavior even if it is based on a male pastor’s understanding of Scripture.
• 10% said that it is not unfair discrimination, and that it is okay as long as a male pastor does not stop a female pastor from doing her work.

And finally… what are your thoughts, on the poll itself or its results?