Friday, 24 July 2009
-
Women Pastors: Yay or Nay? A Response
I've decided to write a response to this recent Revelife post: Women Pastors: Yay or Nay? The answer of course, in Scripture, is pretty simple, but I was interested to note how the author of the blog summed up the arguments for and against (he did not say whether he was for or against.)
The Basics of the Issue:The Nays- Women are not to preach and teach according to 1 Timothy 2:11-14.- 1 Timothy 3:2 says "husband of one wife."
The Yays
- Women today are more educated than those in Paul's day.- It was a cultural custom which no longer applies today.- There are plenty of examples of women in authority in the Bible.- First century churches met in the homes of women, which means they lead the church.- There are many gifted women who might very well do a better job at preaching and teaching than many men.
- We are all one in Christ.If that isn't a gross oversimplification of the issue! All of the yays, of course, can be very easily answered on their own grounds, except for the second.
- Men are more educated too.
- Name a few. The women who were in authority were (in the Old Testament) usually called in to shame the men for shirking their authority. I don't recall many women in authority in the New Testament, so I'd have to hear some specifics.
- Someone meeting in your home makes you a host or hostess, not necessarily a leader.
- The question is not at all about who would do a better job, but about who God has picked to do that job.
- Romans 12:4-8: "Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man's gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith. If it is serving, let him serve; if it is teaching, let him teach; if it is encouraging, let him encourage; if it is contributing to the needs of others, let him give generously; if it is leadership, let him govern diligently; if it is showing mercy, let him do it cheerfully."
The crux of the matter, however, is whether or not 1 Timothy 2:11-12 is speaking in terms of a specific culture or not. To answer that, we must read a little bit further on to the reason Paul gives. "For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children if she continues in faith and love and holiness with modesty." 1 Timothy 2:13-15
Actually, I have spent the last three months studying exactly this issue (though not this particular verse) and I think I've come to understand something of it. It is immediately obvious that Paul is not putting this forth for cultural reasons, but is instead appealing to the beginning, to the original order established in Genesis. In this he is following Jesus, who when asked about divorce, also appealed to the beginning (Matthew 19:3-9). He is very clearly saying that the reason why women are not to lead the Church transcends the narrow perspective of any one culture or time. There is no other interpretation of that passage that makes sense.
But what exactly is he saying, that because woman ate the apple first, she is now punished by always being second? No, not at all. He appeals to the order of creation before he talks about the fall, citing that Adam was formed first, and Eve was formed second. Inspired by the Holy Spirit, Paul declared that the order of creation was a statement of leadership and submission (try to think in terms of biblical leadership and submission [Ephesians 5] when you hear those words, not the perversions our culture tries to substitute.) The man was created first to lead, the woman second to follow. Paul is revisiting the assertion from 1 Corinthians 11, that the woman was made for the man, and therefore he is in authority over her.
It is in this context of the original order of creation that Paul then cites the fall of man. Notice he didn't say that Adam didn't sin, but only that Adam wasn't deceived. The woman was deceived precisely because she took the lead and did not rely on Adam's leadership and protection. Adam, for his part, was not deceived. He, apparently, knew precisely what was at stake and was a coward. (Genesis 3:17, "And to Adam He said, 'Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree..."). In this light the admonition against women in leadership is not a result of the fall, but rather is inherent in the nature of man and woman from the beginning. Instead, Saint Paul is using the breakdown of that divinely ordained order that caused Adam and Eve to sin as an example of why women should not lead. He is supporting the conclusion that he had already established.
Then comes the strange statement that "woman will be saved through childbearing" which causes shivers to run up and down feminist spines all throughout history. That's the "women are for making babies" verse! But that interpretation ignores the beauty and completeness of Saint Paul's theology, and also his (also much hated) statements about men and women remaining celibate for the kingdom, which would kind of preclude the whole making babies thing (1 Corinthians 7:34).
Saint Paul was referring to the beginning before, and he is referring to the beginning now. Genesis 3:16 "To the woman He said, 'I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children.'" God was blessing the woman with a curse that would never escape her. Literally speaking, all women have to shed their blood, which according to Deuteronomy 12:23 is the life of the creature, in order to bring life. The cost of love was written into woman's body in the beginning, and they cannot escape it. However, even those women who never have children can still not escape the same gift, for the woman's body mirrors the woman's soul. In order to love she must bleed. In the spiritual sense, women simply cannot love without surrendering parts of themselves, and this is reflected by the rest of the curse/blessing, "Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." She would continue to love, as she was created to love from the beginning, but now this love would involve pain and heartache, partially because of her (your desire shall be for your husband, the tendency to idolize the beloved) and partially because of the ones she loves (he shall rule over you, because of her vulnerability in loving, she will now be easy to take advantage of).
This is reflected throughout the entire Bible, but finds its culmination in Ephesians 5, in which the definitive model of man/woman relationships (all man/woman relationships, not just the romantic ones) is laid down in Christ and the Church.
-
recommend
- recs 1
-
share
-
email
- sent 0
Related Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: P_Obrien@xanga
- Name: Patrick
- About Me: P_Obrien is the pen name of an elusive individual who is a soldier, a self-proclaimed poet, cerebral, and a bit strange. He has also been called: weird, mysterious, large, shut up you talk too much, and once (allegedly) late for dinner. He has sometimes been seen wearing a moustache.
-
True 
Lifetime
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 2 Views: 0 1027 Comments: 0 60 View all posts by P_Obrien@xanga
Comments (42)
Very nice. I like your insight into Paul's comments about Eve being deceived.
Let me say that I understand where you're coming from. There is no shame in being created to follow leadership, and there is no reason why that purpose should exclude women from making a difference or being free to think and act according to their own convictions.
I do think that women pastors are unwise, but not because they belong "in the kitchen". Women belong in all kinds of places, depending on who they are. But pastoring a group of believers is a very specific calling, and I don't believe it is a calling best suited to a woman.
Well anyway, I just wanted to get my voice in early on this, as a woman who embraces the role God planned for her--and as a woman who is far from being a jellyfish. :p
~Victoria
For goodness sake, it's "YEA" not "yay". Didn't you read my last comment?!
"Name a few." Okay, here goes.
When Christians arguing for women in church leadership cite women leaders in the NT church, they generally have in mind Phoebe, who Paul describes as a deacon (diakonos), and a benefactor (prostatis) of the church in Cenchraea.
Prisca and Aquila were a husband/wife teaching team, but since Prisca is always mentioned first, which is highly unusual in the NT context, defenders of women in ministry observe that Paul/Luke held her in high regard as a teacher and leader in the church. Defenders also observe that neither Paul nor Luke seems to assume that Prisca is in subordination to her husband, though that's an argument from silence.
Paul mentions several women as "workers in the Lord," though that could mean leadership or janitorial staff, so it's not worth debating.
Junia is called "prominent among the apostles," which defenders claim must be interpreted "a prominent apostle," whereas detractors claim it must be interpreted, "held in high esteem by the apostles."
The way Paul appeals to Euodia and Syntyche to be of the same mind seems to defenders to show that they were leaders involved in a potentially divisive dispute, whereas detractors claim they were just two women arguing.
It's also worth mentioning that Paul expects women to pray and prophesy, which defenders of womens' ministry observe was a functional church leadership role in the first-century church, whereas today it would not especially be. Also, some defenders of women in ministry point to the strong presence of women as Jesus' disciples, including the feminine use of the term in Acts to describe one.
That's all a response to "name a few." I would argue the rest, but, well, I'm not going to. Suffice it to say that if I find a woman who is clearly being empowered by God's spirit to preach, I'm not going to get in her way (or God's).
-NDSR
@Jazzyful@xanga - It's 'yay' if you're really happy about it!
Isn't God supposed to be fair? Why wouldn't women be allowed to preach? It does not make any sense.
I don't agree with this interpretation, but it's interesting.
@xjadersx@xanga - I agree. There are other valid interpretations taking into account the original text.
@SirNickDon@xanga - Yep.
As always, I highly recommend reading God's Women then and Now by Deborah Gill, who is a Greek scholar and PhD seminary professor. She explores the biblical texts in their original translation and comes to very different conclusions about women and leadership.
Even if you disagree with her, she's worth reading. She knows her stuff.
Many of the texts concerning women in the church have been poorly translated throughout history. I would also bring into the discussion the fact that preceding the verse on wives submitting to husbands is the verse about everyone in the body of Christ submitting to everyone else in it. Also, according to Dr. Gill, the verse about male headship did not mean the man is "in charge"in the original. That meaning did not exist for the word "head" at that time. The word has to mean something else there, and Dr. GIll believes it most likely refers to the husband being like headwaters-the source of the wife becoming all she can be.
Dr. Gill's conclusion is that part of the gospel is about bringing men and women back to the perfect equality they had at creation through Christ. Again, even if you disagree, the book is well worth reading.
I agree with the majority of what was written. My only "hold-up" would be with the interpretation of the verse "your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you". I can see a bit of what you are saying but I dont see it as the full picture. What happened in the fall was not a replacement of the created order or establishment of the leadership/submission order but rather a perversion of it. I know you would agree. Primarily though, a perversion of submission would be a certain rebellion to submission just like a man's perversion of leadership is to "rule-over" or be flat out lazy. I dont see the woman's "loving to the point of being hurt" as a natural outcome of sin...how could sin produce such an outcome like unconditional love? Before the fall, it was joyous for the woman to be submissive and acknowledge his leadership and support it to where now, she desires to be the leader. Is this not apparent with all the feminist movements and such. Believe me, I am not against female equality. It was never an issue of equality (Scriptually). For example, what was fulfilling to obey God now became a burden after the fall. Sin takes what was established as right and good and perverts it to the point where the task is no longer joyful but loathsome. This is mirrored often times in marriages across the board. The woman has a tendancy to "wear the pants" as it were and the man is either lazy or overbearing. Neither one is comfortable with the original created purpose.
Voddie
Baucham has a good sermon on this where he really explores the issue.
@Pickwick12@xanga - By writing that book isn't she disobeying the fact that she shouldn't be teaching? Seriously though, it might be interesting to see her perspective, although I do agree with the post.
@MagisterTom@xanga - I assume you're being sarcastic :) I think Priscilla would have been surprised to learn that she wasn't supposed to teach. Dr. Gill brings up an interesting point, which is that Paul almost always refers to them as Priscilla and Aquila when it would have been much more common to list his name first at that time. She believes that the extreme unusualness of this suggests that Priscilla was the more prominent minister of the two of them.
I really do recommend the book.
@xjadersx@xanga - Hi :) Not to offend or anything...but this was never a question of fairness. Perhaps you are even assuming that this fairness relates somehow to ability. People often think because the Bible clearly teaches this that it means woman are not able/capable. This is not the case. Woman are seriously gifted in these areas as well but the gifts need to be exercised in different manners. As a man, I will never know the joys or pains of childbearing...is this fair? You see it has nothing to do with fairness but rather service. The problem is that we see our culture evaluate such statements from the Bible as "unfair" and we assume that preaching and teaching assumes a greater worth, gifting or status. It is not a question of status but of service. Woman are called to serve in methods that a man could never fulfill for a woman was gifted in such a special manner as she could only fill the void. Likewise, men being reserved to preach rather than men and woman is not something of status or ability but rather a calling of service. Jesus Christ is equal to God the Father and yet it was the Father who sent the Son. Both are equally God but the Son is submissive to the will of the Father. Men and woman are both equal in dignity, honor and as created beings. Both are equal as beings but each has been given a specific role to fulfill. This does not affect the previous qualities but rather serves to accent the specific qualities of each sex.
Can I also mention that I LOVE that Revelife used the same picture for both posts?
@Pickwick12@xanga - Yeah, was meant as a joke.
While mentiong her is out of the ordinary, and especially so to mention her first I don't think that is enough to negate Paul saying women shouldn't be permitted to teach, especially as this post says when he compared it to the first sin and to the order of creation.
Another big issue is that Adam named Eve. Just like a parent naming a kid, or a kid naming a pet. It's a sign that you are the leader to it, or in this case Adam was leader for Eve.
@Pickwick12@xanga - It seems that Dr. Gill is fishing for something that 2000 years of Spirit filled leadership and teaching in the Church has not revealed. If she is to assume such matters, she must first answer some very practical questions from the Bible like...
1. Christ had 12 male deciples...not one woman.
2. God calls Adam to account for the fall...Eve's story is not even considered.
3. Paul's explicit teaching (as well as Genesis) that the woman was created...in essence "for the man". Obviously not in some perverted sense but in the order of a help mate...without which the man would not be whole. It was the one thing in creation that was "not good"...the fact that the man was alone so God made him (Adam) a helper suitable for him.
4. Male-Female relationships as reflected through the relationship of Christ and the Church. There is such thing as mutual submission but it looks different for each party. Christ's submission to the Church was in justifying and sanctifying His bride while the Church submits to His leadership and authority.
@MagisterTom@xanga - In the case of women not teaching, that's why I recommend the book. If I remember right, Dr. Gill says that it's mistranslated all the time. If I remember right, the actual original sounds like it's addressed to one certain woman who was a problem in that church...I believe in the Greek she said it actually says "a woman" shouldn't teach and pretty clearly indicates that it means a certain one, who is referenced in other places. I am not putting money on that, though, since it's been a while since I read it. But this is the kind of thing I'm talking about.
As far as the naming thing...ok.Pretty certainly not going to marry someone who looks at it that way, but good for you. As Paul said, I believe all in the body of Christ are called to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives are to submit to their husbands, and husbands are to give themselves for their wives. I'm all for that.
@jordandotson@xanga - I'm fine with you believing that. I am not trying to argue and convince people, just present another side. If you are convinced in your own mind, then by all means believe what your conscience dictates.
Also, as far as Spirit-filled teaching goes, Pentecostal denominations are much more likely to have female pastors than others, and God uses those women for His work.
@Pickwick12@xanga - That verse, about a woman submitting to her husband, and for the man to love her like Christ loves the church. If that is followed she would be submitting to him, as he leads. But, his leadership is to love her and even to die for her.
@MagisterTom@xanga - I agree....totally
@Pickwick12@xanga - Pentecostal is another "can of beans" if you will :). Not to press the issue, but it does not matter what I think in my mind...this does not serve to rest on the Truth of established Scriptures. What I think is silly in comparison to the objective truth of Scripture. My only problem with the author....not you :)...is that there were many other greek/hebrew scholars throughout the Church's history who can support the current translations and what Scripture reveals. I have read and studied the other side but it just does not jive with the vast examples of Scripture. No offense to you at all...really!
@jordandotson@xanga - No offense to you, either. I was referring to the fact that when Paul addressed disputable matters he said "each one should be fully convinced in his own mind" and that's what I'm saying. We can love God and be fully convinced in opposite directions.
@jordandotson@xanga - It's kind of a necessity for one sex to give birth. I just think it is kind of silly for people to only accept men as preachers. Men are now able to be the main caregiver to the children. We're in a modern time, and women do almost everything men do and vice versa. So why not? It doesn't seem like that big of deal. It's not like God is going to be angry for people allowing women to preach. If we can evolve with our ways of thinking then God should be able to as well.
Nature shouldn't be brought into this, because we cannot help it. It is how we're born. Just because women can give birth, doesn't mean we shouldn't be allowed to preach. We're all about equality now.
I don't see anything wrong with a woman preacher.
@SirNickDon@xanga - But are all those verses merely "implicit" and take a bit of stretching to make it reach the conclusion that a female pastor is ok while the verses sited in this post are "explicit" and need to be passed over or ignored completely to make the implicit verses hold water?