"One of the reasons I'm at seminary is to write these papers. They require me to find the Bible's answer to questions we're facing in the church and in the culture," my friend
Trent keeps saying. Trent's right. Though these papers cost us lots of sleep, they are some of the sweetest fruit of our semesters.
In Systematic Theology II this semester, we discussed the doctrine of humanity, what the Bible says about how men and women relate to God and each other. God's intention for male headship in the home and in the church was covered. And in light of the importance of this issue in our culture. In light of the feminist movement, which no doubt at least partially was born out of female frustration after centuries of male mistreatment. In light of the growing numbers of women appointed to top positions in the church, including pastor. I wanted to discover how we are to think Biblically about the issue. After all, in the end, our expectations, feelings, and thoughts about a given topic mean nothing if they are at odds with God's Word. A believer must base his beliefs about this
and everything not on the culture's persuading, but on God's sufficient Word.
So, I asked, "Does the Bible have anything to say about how men and women are to relate in the church?" It does. And, in this paper, I recorded the answers I found in my prayerful, Spirit-dependent study of the Bible. I discovered that what history has shown us--in man's wrongful domineering of woman and in woman's wrongful attempts to supplant man as leader--is explained in the curse of the Fall (specifically in Gen 3.16). For men and women to relate to one another the way God intends, men must exhibit loving leadership over women, ever affirming their value as God's imagebearers and co-heirs of the grace of life. And women must lovingly submit to male leadership, in fear of the Lord. In no way does this deny the spiritual gifting of women, nor does it contradict the Biblical fact that the body of Christ
needs women to serve the church (1 Cor 12). For more, please read my paper below. I welcome your comments. (If you'd like a PDF version, with footnotes and bibliography, let me know.)
But first, let me be clear. By no stretch do I believe this is the final word on the matter (I've already said that's in the Bible). Nor do I think my position is above error. Far greater men and women have weighed in on the subject. I commend to you the sources I used for the paper, primarily, for the Complementarian side,
Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem; and, for the Egalitarian side,
Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy edited by Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothius. (In fact, because of the importance the Bible seems to place on the issue, and because of the seeming lack of Biblical teaching on the matter in the average church, I became convinced that
every man and woman (especially every husband and wife) should read
Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. I also point you to
The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, and to the thoughts and articles of
Jim Hamilton.
___
WOMEN IN MINISTRY:
EFFECTS OF THE FALL’S SIN AND THE GLORY AND GOOD
OF EQUALITY AND DISTINCTIONThe aim of this paper is to discover how men and women should properly relate to one another, in particular in the church. Two groups—Egalitarians and Complementarians—take opposing sides on the issue, and both parties claim Scripture as the authority for their positions. So the side to be preferred is the one that does justice to all the Biblical data.
Views on Women in MinistryEgalitarianEgalitarians, sometimes called “Evangelical Feminists,” believe equality in essence or being requires equality in function. Because distinction in function necessarily means inferiority in essence, it would be a contradiction to say that men and women are equal in essence yet distinct in function.
Genesis 1 and 2 portray men and women as made in God’s image and as “one flesh,” so men and women indeed were created, by God, equal in essence. No role distinctions are given in Creation. Adam and Eve sinned by disobeying God’s command not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Hierarchy is introduced as a result of the Fall, so male headship and female subordination comes from sin. For this reason, patriarchy reigned in the Old Testament after the Fall, which is why most of Israel’s leaders are men. However, God still raised up women to lead significantly; take Miriam, Deborah, and Esther, for example. On the cross, Jesus defeated the works of Satan and the effects of sin. With redemption, hierarchy is removed, and functional equality is restored.
Women played significant roles in the early church. Women, just like men, were bestowed supernatural gifts at Pentecost (Acts 2:17-18), and all female believers since have been given spiritual gifts (1 Cor 12:7). Since the Spirit gives gifts—including teaching and prophesying—without regard for gender, women have the God-given right and responsibility to exercise their gifts without restriction. Luke affirms this when he records that Priscilla taught Apollos, a man who also had the gift of teaching (Acts 18:25-27). 1 Timothy 3:11 gives qualifications for women deacons, and Phoebe is identified as a deacon in Romans 16:1.
Women should not be restricted from any church position men may hold. In light of the Egalitarian interpretation of Creation, Fall, and redemption, to deny women full participation in all ministries without qualification is to deny Jesus’ work, and the Holy Spirit’s gifting.
ComplementarianComplementarians, also known as “Evangelical Patriarchists,” believe the Bible shows that God created man, as male and female, equal in essence yet distinct in function. Men and women are complementary in that they were created in relation to one another.
Genesis 1 establishes equality for male and female as God’s image-bearers. Genesis 2 shows that man was created with authority over woman, and woman was created for the purpose of helping man. When the serpent approached Eve, he was rebelling against God’s created order of male headship. Adam and Eve sinned when they violated God’s good establishment of male headship (Gen 3:17). As a result of the Fall, male headship and female submission are retained, but the roles are distorted. Woman would desire to displace her husband as leader, and the man would rule over his wife harshly (Gen 3:16).
Because man never lost his rightful position as leader, the Biblical leaders are primarily men. Women have made significant contributions to God’s purposes; however, where women leaders are found, they are typically not in the highest level of human religious authority. Women prophets are seen throughout the Bible, but there are no proper examples of women priests, tribal heads, kings, or elders. The only exception is Israel’s one-time judge and prophet, Deborah (Judg 4-5). Likely meant to call attention to Israel’s disobedience, Deborah’s story is not prescriptive. Jesus’ work in redemption frees men and women to obey God’s purpose for gender equality with distinction.
As the Holy Spirit gifts every believer for service, men and women are expected to use their gifts appropriately. God has arranged the church with men in authority and women in submission.
The Complementarian View of Women in Ministry is BiblicalBecause the Complementarian view does justice to all the Biblical data, it is the proper view on women in ministry. In the rest of the paper, I will examine relevant passages.
Genesis 1-3: Creation and the FallGenesis 1:26-28: Biblical Equality of Man and Woman. God’s climactic conclusion to Creation is making men and women, whose supreme value and ontological equality are found in being created in God’s image (1:26-27). In ancient Near East culture, a king created an image to represent his rule while the sovereign was not present. As God’s image-bearers, man and woman are God’s vice-regents, exercising dominion over the rest of creation (1:28). Being made in God’s image means man and woman are to resemble God in righteousness and to represent God in the world. Neither gender is more valuable to God.
Genesis 2: Ontological Equality with Functional Distinction. In Genesis 2, we see God’s design for male headship and female submission in at least four details. First, Adam is created before Eve (2:7). “The creation of Adam first is consistent with the Old Testament pattern of ‘primogeniture,’ the idea that the firstborn in any generation in a human family has leadership in the family for that generation.” Paul also affirms the authority of man over woman because Adam was formed first (1 Tim 2:13).
Second, giving Adam the responsibility of authority, God issued his command to Adam not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:16-17). Just like God was exercising authority over Adam by giving him a command, Adam too was exercising authority over Eve when he communicated the command to her (which he clearly did, judging from her response to the serpent in 3:2-3).
Third, Eve was made for Adam (2:18-22). Because no other creature was a fitting helper for Adam, Eve was created. Egalitarians suggest that God, as man’s helper (e.g., Ps 10:14, 30:10), cannot be said to be subordinate to his creatures, and, therefore, woman being man’s helper does not entail subordination. However, it is not untoward to say that God, in a sense, subordinates himself when he helps man. That is, God’s deity and matchless value are not jeopardized just because he stoops down to serve man. Indeed, that God humbles himself to help man proves that the helper role is a glorious one.
Fourth, Adam named Eve. In the ancient Near East, name-giving was primarily an exercise of sovereignty. God was exercising authority over creation when he named the light “day” (1:5), as well as when he named Abram “Abraham” and Sarai “Sarah” (17:5, 17:15). Likewise, Adam was exercising authority over Eve when he named her “Woman” (2:23 and “Eve” in 3:20). Ontological equality and functional distinction are seen beautifully together in 2:23. Adam lovingly affirms Eve’s equal essence, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh,” and also her distinction because “she was taken out of man.”
Ontological equality with functional distinction shines gloriously through Genesis 2. The reader cannot find even a trace of rivalry between the genders. Before the Fall, to some degree, the equality and distinction of male and female reflect the Trinity. Harmoniously, without competition, all three persons of the Trinity share in one glorious nature, and they relate to one another in distinct roles. For example, the Son willingly and joyfully submits to his Father (John 4:34, 5:30, 6:38, 8:42; 1 Cor 15:28). Genesis 2 and the Trinity prove ontological equality and functional distinction are not contradictory.
Genesis 3: The Fall’s Distortion of Creation Order. Judging from the whole canon’s presentation of Satan as a deceiver and enemy of God and his people, Satan approaches Eve, not Adam, affirming and rebelling against God’s created order of male headship (Luke 4:1-13, 8:12; John 8:44; Eph 4:27; 1 Pet 5:8, 1 John 3:8). Deceived, Eve leads Adam in sin (3:6). When it is time for Adam and Eve to be held accountable—though Eve sinned first—God approaches Adam (3:9). Ultimately, it was Adam’s responsibility to guard the couple from sin. However, abandoning his role as head, Adam stood by passively as the tempter tempted Eve. Proving the Complementarian interpretation of the account, God says Adam is cursed not just because he ate the forbidden fruit, but the first reason God gives is that Adam listened to his wife (3:17). Included in Eve’s curse: “Your desire will be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Gen 3:16). Genesis 4:7 helps us understand the meaning of “desire.” God says to Cain, sin’s “desire is for you,” but Cain instead is supposed to rule over sin. So context requires the reader to take Eve’s “desire” as a sinful desire to rule over Adam. And Adam’s sinful inclination is to rule his wife harshly.
Egalitarians claim that male hierarchy first appears as a result of the Fall (3:16), but we have already seen that male headship was established as part of God’s “very good” creation. The Fall did, however, distort role distinctions. It is significant that the sin that lead to the Fall had subversion of male headship as its context. This explains the history of male harsh domination and female desire to rule.
Male and Female Equality with Distinction in the New TestamentGalatians 3:28: Neither Male nor Female in the Lord. Paul’s denial of distinction between Jew and Greek, slave and free man, male and female does not do what Egalitarians want it to do. Paul is announcing that availability to Christ and the blessings of salvation are not determined by race, social status or gender. It is open to all who believe in Jesus, so all Christians have the same standing with God. That there is neither male nor female in Christ supports equal value and dignity of all believers. Unlike the culture—where women (and Greeks and slaves) were not afforded the same social and religious opportunities as men (and Jews and free men)—the church should not encourage any sense of female inferiority. This new creation passage, though, in no way nullifies male headship and female submission, as instituted in Creation. The Christian Jew must not degrade the Christian Greek, but their ethnicity as Jew and Greek is preserved. In the same way, Christian men should not demean their sisters in Christ, but the differentiation of roles for male and female is preserved. With redemption and reconciliation, the woman’s role is still submission, but this submission does not reduce her “to a secondary, auxiliary status in God’s kingdom, nor are her gifts to be wasted.”
1 Corinthians 11:3-12: Women Praying and Prophesying Under Headship. Paul reports a hierarchy of headship: God is over Christ; Christ is over man; man is over woman (11:3). Not surprisingly, Complementarians and Egalitarians disagree on the meaning of “head.” Gordon Fee suggests that “head” should be taken as source, not authority. Fee makes sense of the passage by reasoning that, in sending the Son in incarnation, God the Father is the source of Christ and—because Eve is formed out of Adam’s rib—man is the source of woman. Though he claims support from Verse 8, Fee’s interpretation leaves the reader wanting clarification of Paul’s point. In light of the context, the whole canon, and Paul’s usage of “head,” it is a Complementarian reading that makes sense of the passage. Wayne Grudem shows that there is not one “unambiguous” usage of “head” for a person as source in all of Greek literature before or during the time of the New Testament. “Head” in the Septuagint and in Paul seemingly always has dominion in view. For example, Paul rightly and gloriously proclaims Christ’s authority over the church (Eph 5:23-24 and Col 1:18), authorities (Eph 1:22), and demonic powers (Col 2:10). As we shall see, taking “head” as authority makes sense of the immediate passage.
Respectable women in Paul’s time wore a shawl-like head covering in public to keep their long hair from hanging loosely on their backs, which was a sign of sexual immorality. Paul mentions proper adorning in the worship service—men appearing masculine by not wearing a head covering and women appearing feminine by wearing a head covering—because he wants men and women not to disgrace their head (1 Cor 11:4-7). Verse 3 identifies the “heads” in danger of disgrace. If men represent themselves as feminine, they disgrace Christ. Likewise, if women appear masculine, they disgrace men. But why? Verses 8 and 9 recall Creation, where woman was created out of man, for the sake of man. Paul is appealing to God’s created order for male headship. This fits the context well. Paul wants to be sure that men and women serve the church in a manner that honors male headship. Were a woman to present herself as a man—by not wearing a head covering—while she prays or prophesies, the congregation may interpret the woman’s behavior as an attempt to supplant male headship. This passage shows that God desires his Creation order for male headship to stand in the church.
Back to head coverings. While, in Paul’s day, women were considered respectable and feminine if they wore head coverings, today, at least in the Western church, it would be very unusual to see women wearing a head covering. Thus, wearing a head covering today does not mean the same thing as it did in Paul’s day. Women wearing head coverings need not be applied today, but Paul’s principle—for men and women to serve in a way that does not violate God’s intention for male headship and female submission—must be upheld. While Fee claims nothing in this passage has to do with authority structure, authority is Paul’s point. And to establish this trans-cultural principle, Paul appeals to Creation (pre-Fall) and to the eternal authority and submission relationships found in the Trinity.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35: Prophesying “women should be silent in the churches.” Just after encouraging all believers—men and women—that they are all spiritually gifted and needed for ministry (1 Cor 12), and just after affirming the woman’s gift and public exercise of prayer and prophecy, Paul says women should be silent in church. Is Paul confused? Or do we find harmony in the context?
In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul gives instruction on how the gifts of prophecy and tongues are to be exercised. And the church is to receive Paul’s instruction as from the Lord (14:37). Prophets are to prophesy one-by-one in church, and the prophets are to judge the prophecies (14:29-32 and 1 Thess 5:20-22). Then Paul says women are to be silent. In the context of Chapter 14—and Paul’s appeal to male headship in Chapter 11—while women are to use their gift of prophecy, Paul wants women to be silent during the portion of the service when prophecies are evaluated, or else they would impugn God’s design for male leadership in the church. Consider 14:27-40, where only two, at most three, are to speak in tongues. “If there is no one to interpret, those gifted with tongues are not to exercise their gift (14:27-28). This indicates that the possession of a gift does not mandate the use of that gift in every circumstance.” The believer is reminded that the one who gives the gift has the sole prerogative to determine how the gift is to be used.
1 Timothy 2:11-14: Women are not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men. In Verse 12, within Paul’s pastoral instructions to Timothy, he gives two restrictions: (1) Women are not to teach men, and (2) women are not to exercise authority over men. We know this is two restrictions, not one, because the two infinitives are joined by the coordinating conjunction “oujde;,” which usually joins two closely related, but not identical items. “The activity of teaching, precisely because it does come to God’s people with the authority of God and His Word, is authoritative.” Teaching is not, however, the only way women may disobediently exercise authority over men (consider the governing implications in 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9; 1 Pet 5:1-4). Surrounding Paul’s restriction are his call for the women to be submissive (2:11) and his appeal to male headship in the created order (2:13-15). While some understand Verse 14’s comment about Eve being deceived to mean that women are more gullible than men, the context does not require that. Most likely, Paul is calling attention to Eve being deceived to remind readers of the serpent’s rebellion against male headship and that the human race fell when man and woman abandoned their God-given roles.
Paul does not deny that women may have the gift of teaching. In fact, Paul tells women they are to teach women (Titus 2:3-5), and Proverbs encourages women to teach children (Prov 1:8). In 2 Timothy 1:5, Paul even goes out of his way to acknowledge the faithfulness of Timothy’s mother and grandmother, who taught Timothy in matters of faith when he was a boy. Acts 18:26 shows Priscilla and Aquila, a wife and her husband, explaining the way of God to Apollos. Therefore, Scripture seems to affirm circumstances where a husband and wife together explain spiritual things to a man. However, an apparently spontaneous, private training session by a husband-wife team to an individual man is far different from a situation where a woman, after preparing a Bible lesson, teaches men in a public setting. This unique and vague example (we do not know the details of Priscilla’s participation) cannot reverse the canon’s unified standard of male headship. In fact, the Priscilla-Aquila episode does not even oppose a Complementarian view.
Paul discusses the qualifications and work of elders, or overseers, in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 (see also Titus 1:5-9 and 1 Pet 5:1-4). Clearly, the primary role of teaching and exercising authority in the church belongs to the elder (also see 1 Tim 4:4-11, 5:17, and 2 Tim 4:1-2). Because a woman is not allowed to teach or to exercise authority over men, women are not to be appointed elders.
Paul does not forbid women to use their teaching gift, nor does he suggest that women are less gifted or useful than men. Paul affirms women’s giftedness to teach, and he expects them to use that gift. However, affirming God’s enduring intention for men to be the primary leaders in the church, Paul expects women to serve in a way that honors male headship, which means they are not to teach men.
1 Timothy 3:11: Qualifications for Women Deacons or a Deacon’s Wife? Just after giving qualifications for elders, Paul tells Timothy requirements for deacons. No teaching or governing expectations are given (3:8-13). These six verses primarily speak of men, but Verse 11 mentions women. Many have wondered if this verse is calling for women deacons or is just describing the qualities of a deacon’s wife. Before taking a side on the debate, consider the role of deacon. Deacons typically performed practical service to meet the needs of the church. In Acts 6:1-6, deacons ministered to widows so that the apostles were free to focus their time on prayer and teaching. Also noteworthy is the description of Phoebe as “diavkonos” (servant) in Romans 16:1. While Paul could simply be calling Phoebe a “servant”—like he would any Christian—Paul clarifies that she is a servant “th:V ejkklhsivaV th:V ejn Kegcreai:V” (of the church at Cenchrea), which probably means she was a deacon of that church.
Because deacons are not expected to teach or to exercise authority, because the New Testament holds elders as the church’s human authority, and because deacons serve so that elders may focus on teaching and governing the church, it would not threaten male headship for a woman to be a deacon. In light of Phoebe, the early church likely selected deacons. For the purpose of our discussion, it is not necessary to decide whether 1 Timothy 3:11 specifically speaks of women deacons or of a deacon’s wife.
ConclusionThe Egalitarian view of women in ministry cannot account for the whole Bible’s direction on male-female relationships. Interpreting difficult passages in light of clear ones, and finding harmony in the Scriptures, the Complementarian view is trustworthy.
Gender roles matter. God built in Creation his good and wise plan for image-bearers to relate in male headship and female submission. The Fall explains why men mistreat women and why women resist male leadership. Women are forbidden from teaching men, from evaluating prophecies, and from exercising authority over men. Therefore, God will not call a woman to pastor. God’s Word places no more limitations on women service, neither should Christian men. Every believing woman is gifted for service in the kingdom, and the church needs every woman to serve (1 Cor 12:7, 22). Whether teaching women or children, prophesying, or serving as a deacon—whatever her call to serve—women should serve with a spirit of submission to male headship. As men lead and teach the church, they should impart high value to all spiritual gifts and ministry service. Moreover, men leaders should make special efforts to recognize the faithful service of women, affirming them as co-heirs (1 Cor 12:21-26). Elders must hold firm to the trustworthy Word, and be able to teach sound doctrine and to rebuke those who contradict it (Titus 1:9). Lest they be disqualified, elders must take seriously the threats to God’s intention for gender roles.
May the church joyfully seek God’s glory
in the way men and women relate in the church.
