The CBE Scroll

One of the instruments God used to convince me that holding office in the church ought to follow calling rather than gender was an article written when I was four years old. I’m grateful for the pastor who gave me a copy of John Jefferson Davis’s insightful piece entitled, “Ordination of Women Reconsidered: Discussion of 1 Timothy 2:8-15.”

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.

Like a swimmer gripped by an undertow, the following words in the Bible when taken out of context and misinterpreted can pull women down spiritually.

“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

---

[1] Katharine Bushnell, God’s Word to Women (Minneapolis, Christians for Biblical Equality, 2003) p. 94.  “As a scholar of Hebrew and Greek, she studies the passages in their original languages and in their historical context, discovering insights sometimes obscured by Bible translators.” (quote from back cover of book)

We have a situation where recently, at the church where one of our sons and his family attend, the senior minister felt called to resign and accept a teaching position at a Theological college. Some years previously this same Baptist Church had agreed to inviting persons to become a part of the Pastoral team on the basis of giftedness, regardless of gender. This openness led them to appoint a male senior Pastor and a female Associate. The team worked very successfully with each bringing their unique contribution to the ministry and the church flourished in every area of its life. So much so that in time the Associate title was dropped in favor of both being recognized as Pastors.

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.

I was shocked. I remembered the old Bryan*, the Bryan that put on the brakes during a discussion of Large Group speakers at our Coordinating Team planning retreat. “Why is it suddenly illegal to bring in white men?” he asked, frustrated. As Multi-Ethnicity Team Leader on our exec, I was pushing hard for more female and ethnic minority speakers during our weekly InterVarsity chapter meetings. Some of the other C-Team members were fairly supportive; Bryan was making it an uphill battle.

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.