This past summer I was invited to speak at a friend’s Baptist church, filling in for the pastor while he was on vacation. It was not my first time substituting there. Still, it is always an honor to ‘fill the pulpit’ under these circumstances because it infers that the shepherd has confidence in my ability to steer clear of theological/doctrinal controversy in their absence, while feeding the sheep in his care. I am happy to report a 100% success rate to date!
Many weeks later, the pastor phoned to express his appreciation ... and ask a favor! There was lingering, ‘will-not-go-away’ tension within the church and among the board about the role of women in the church and he was looking for direction that might help him navigate the shark-infested theological waters of Baptist theology with regards to women in leadership roles.
My first thought was: “I’m sure glad I’m not Baptist.”
My second thought was: “You poor soul; you’re pooched!”
Any finally, after some thought, 2 Timothy 2:23 came to mind: “Stay away from stupid and senseless arguments. These only lead to trouble.”
Still, my pastor friend was reaching out – and who was I to not try and keep him from becoming shark bait?
If you follow the largest Protestant denomination in the United States, the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), you will know that the struggle (I want to say ‘fight’) over the role of women in ministry remains a lingering conundrum among them. Perhaps the most recent example of this struggle was on public display this past summer (June, 2023) in New Orleans, when Baptist delegates gathered for their annual convention. 1
With growing anxiety among evangelicals over changing social norms, like those who say, without laughing, that gender is ‘fluid,’ a uniquely cultural trait ... and faced with supposedly intelligent people who can no longer define a simple, yet profound question: “What is a woman?” ... surprisingly, the tempest among Baptist over women and whether God can call them to pastoral ministry, took center stage at the convention, with ultra-liberals pitted against ultra-conservatives and complementarians versus egalitarians – even though none of these words are found in the Bible.
Neither complementarians or egalitarians are living out their theology sinlessly, I suspect, so perhaps both sides could let go of “every weight and sin which clings so closely,” and just run the race set before them.
Now, to be fair, the southern Baptists have preserved a ban on women pastors in their theological documents for some time. Nothing new there. Still, some might recall that the SBC made international news last June (2023) when it dis-fellowshipped Saddleback Church, their denomination’s largest church, because the Southern California congregation had a female teaching pastor and had ordained three women pastors. The vote was 9,432 (88.46 percent) “for” and 1,212 (11.36 percent) “against” expulsion. Clearly, the ‘women-in-narrow-ministry-thing’ is deeply entrenched.
The moment we begin to read our Bibles, we are forced to make key decisions about what a text means. Who decides that meaning? After all a text has no rights except those allowed by the interpreter – you and me. So ...
How many levels of meaning are in the Bible? Does every text have a singular meaning or are there several fuller meanings possible?
How important is the world behind the Biblical text?
When I was a young theology student, I quickly learned that the Protestant Reformation encouraged me to ask 3 things of a text: What did it mean then? What does it always mean? What does it mean today? I still support Reformation tradition – though I am sure that while doing my spadework in the Bible I have failed at times in all 3 areas. Still, I continue to ask those questions of any Bible passage I read.
When we come to a discussion about women in ministry, I confess again that I am not going to be able to offer a pure and prophetic word that will satisfy everyone’s theological bent or comply with everyone’s approach to interpreting the Bible. That said, I do not mean to infer that I have any theological doubts/reservations about my understanding of scripture or the way in which I handle it. Furthermore, I do know that the one criterion for exercising any function in the church is that the person has the gift to do it. Romans 12:6 ...
“Since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us exercise them” (New American Bible)
Nowhere in the New Testament does it say that God gives
gifts according to gender. Nowhere. Rats!
Given that (a) delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention’s annual meeting in New Orleans did approve a qualification to Article III of their constitution that their churches must have “only men as any kind of pastor or elder as qualified by Scripture” ... and given that (b) their constitution requires a two-thirds majority, in two consecutive conventions ... preparing the way therefore for yet another exchange of theological views this coming June (9-10) 2024, in Indiana, Illinois – the timing seems appropriate to take a fresh look at two passages that bear on the subject of women in leadership.
Should Women Keep Silent? (1 Corinthians 14:26-40)
Most of us know that a ‘sound bite’ in film and broadcasting is a very short piece of footage taken from a longer speech or an interview in which someone says something which is considered by those who edit the speech or interview to be the most important point. Still, because the context of what is being said is missing, the insertion of sound bites into news broadcasts or documentaries is wide open to manipulation and requires a high degree of journalistic ethics – something sadly missing these days I confess.
I sometimes think that in the believing church, we are also guilty of manipulating ‘sound bites’ to fit a particular theological point-of-view. I Corinthians 14:26-40 might well be one of those sound bites.
The Corinthian church had a problem - or three. No faithful exegete doubts it. Pride and jealousy concerning the gift of tongues was occurring and they were exercising this gift in a disorderly way. So, Paul lays out in I Corinthians 14 limits and regulations for the use of spiritual gifts in the church.
The limit of Interpretation: At most, only three people should speak in tongues at any
given worship service. (14:27, 29)
The limit of Priorities: No more than one person should speak in tongues at one time. (14:27)
The limit of Order: There must be an interpretation and one speaker should not
monopolize the time, but give way to the other prophets. (14:28, 30-31)
It is into this context then that verses 34-35 appear:
“Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission as the Law says. If they want to enquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.”
Is there evidence of women teaching men in the N.T.? Yup!
The Bible is not detached from the world to which it came, so if in fact, women are to remain silent in the church, then these questions need a legitimate answer ...
Why did Joel say (2:28) “In the last days, God says, I will pour out my spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy”?
Why does Peter stand up at Pentecost (Acts 2:14ff) and agree with Joel, declaring further: “Even on my servants, both men and women; I will pour out my spirit in those days and they will prophesy”?
Why does Paul, in I Corinthians 11:5, establish a dress-code for women worship-leaders, saying: “Every woman who prays or prophesies ...” should cover her head?
Why is it that in the first century apostolic church, ministries were according to giftedness, rather than ‘office’? “Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good .... All these are the work of one and the same Spirit and He gives them [gifts] to each one, just as He determines.” (I Cor. 12: 7, 11
If, as Paul says, prophecy is among the highest of spiritual gifts (I Cor. 14:1, 39), then how come women are not excluded?
Interestingly, when Paul tells women to be “silent,” he uses the same word in verses 28 and 30 to tell tongue-talkers and prophets to also be silent when others speak – something we seem to conveniently ignore. It seems that Paul is calling for temporary silence, not a permanent prohibition.
I will not bore us with all the tedious exegetical possibilities ... but a couple of things should be noted from I Corinthians 14:34-35.
First, the “speaking” (v. 34) — is of a special kind. There is no command here in these verses to absolute silence on the part of women, because we know from I Corinthians 11:5 that they were allowed to pray and prophesy in their turn, just like the men did. In other words, women were not just permitted to sing in the service if they wanted to (no silence there), but ultimately were also permitted a slot in the worship service. It is rather a silence dictated by circumstances.
We can exegete well, translate from the Greek, even reference world-class scholars and there will still be people permanently ‘set’ in their own theological cement – unwilling to ‘see’ the witness of Eunice, Lydia, Junia, Priscilla, Phoebe, Deborah or Huldah.
Second, when Paul says: “as the Law says” (v. 34), what Law was he referring to? Was it Jewish law ... Roman law ... general laws governing decency? We do not know ... and anyone who tries is ultimately guessing. What can be said is that there is not a single Old Testament text that clearly supports this ban on women.
If Paul is therefore talking about general Jewish/Gentile laws that restricted the participation of women in the first century, then this passage is culturally conditioned and has little, if any, authority in our modern world. After all, we do not practice foot-washing even though Jesus said it (Jn. 13:14) ... and except for a few dear old church saints, women seldom cover their heads with hats these days, though Paul uses fairly strong language to say they should (I Cor. 11:5).
If Paul is referring to “Law” (v. 34) here as a general understanding in Old Testament times that women should not usurp male authority, then to my knowledge nowhere else in the New Testament is that word “Law” (nomos) ever used in that kind of specific, selective way.
Third, I notice that if women wish to enquire about something, they are to “ask their own husbands at home” (14:35) — potentially then allowing single women to speak if they wish.
Fourth, I find it interesting that when Paul wraps up I Corinthians 14 and summarizes in verse 39 — only two topics are mentioned: prophesying and tongues. Whoa! What happened to women being silent in the church? Just maybe the topic is not as major as we think it to be. Likewise, have a look at Paul’s admonition in v. 40 ... “But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.” Sounds more like a social suggestion than a doctrinal requirement.
I am of the view that Paul’s major concern is not the behavior of women ... and their required silence in I Corinthians 14. His words were intended to protect the Christian community from being mistaken for the perversions, religious madness, and sordid pagan excesses common to the Greek-Roman world. In an effort to avoid shaming or hindering the acceptance of the gospel, Paul is teaching the Corinthians how to apply Biblical principles to social perceptions and relationships.
The application that can be made from a study of I Corinthians 14:34-35 seems clear: that as long as the participation of women in leadership roles does not (1) create a demonstrable social offense to their husbands, or (2) impede the acceptance of the gospel by those who live in our communities/cities ... then we cannot deny women full participation in any form of ministry or leadership.
Empowered women, using their spiritual gifts in the local
church is an awesome thing to experience.
Should Women Teach? (I Timothy 2:1-15)
When a pastor comes to a passage like this (vv. 11-12), I suppose discretion says, “Start looking for a way out” since after all the passage is potentially an explosive one – depending on your theological point of view.
Some have used I Timothy 2 to suggest that . . .
(a) Women are more easily deceived than men, therefore excluded from leadership
Ralph Earle, Expositor’s Bible Commentary, I Timothy, p. 362 ... responding to I Timothy 2:13-14, writes: “Paul makes one further point. It was the woman who was deceived by Satan and disobeyed God. Since she was so easily deceived, she should not be trusted as a teacher.”
Earle appears to be saying that women are flawed because of Eve’s frailty. Fair enough, but we still need to ask ... that since Adam’s disobedience also made him guilty, blameworthy, liable, why would women be disqualified from leadership and not men as well? Put another way, why does the sacrifice of Christ only fully restore disobedient men, but not deceived women?
Others have used 1 Timothy 2 to suggest that ...
(b) Women are not equipped to assume a leadership role in the church
Douglas Moo, a reputable scholar and a former teacher of mine when I was doing my doctoral work at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (TEDS) – when appealing to I Timothy 2:15 writes in “Meaning and Significance,” The Trinity Journal (Spring, 198, 71):
”It is not through active teaching and ruling activities that Christian women will be saved, but through faithfulness to their proper role, exemplified in motherhood.”
Moo appears to be saying that because of this flaw women need to work out their salvation through a certain role. Fair enough, but we might want to ask my teacher how this position then touches on the lives of women who are single or childless and ... how it is that a ‘biological’ function is necessary to ‘complete’ the salvation process. I understand women to already be fully redeemed by the work of Christ on the cross, and not in their biological ability to bear children.
When Paul wrote this first letter to Timothy in Ephesus, “my true son in the faith” (1:2), the year was 66 A.D. The Jewish Wars with Rome had just begun. The subject under discussion here in I Timothy 2 is the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles (2:7). Paul writes to remind Timothy that all Christians (men and women) should pray for kings and all that are in authority, to the end that the gospel might be preached in a setting of peace and tranquility, for God, he says in 2:1-4 would ... "have all men saved, and ... come unto the knowledge of the truth."
So Paul begins chapter two by moving deliberately and methodically through his letter. First, he addresses everyone in the church (vv. 1-7). Some translations, like the NIV, use the English word ‘men’ (vv. 4-6), but we need to be cautious here.
In Hebrew, you say שיא “ish” for man and השא “isha” for woman. In Greek, we use anthropos for human being (gender neutral) and andros for man (gender specific). Here in verses 1-7 Paul uses the gender neutral -- “anthropos’. But watch what happens:
Next, he speaks to men in the church (v. 8). Now for the first time Paul speaks to ‘males’ using the word ‘aner’ (an adult male human being).
Then, he speaks to women in the church (vv. 9-10) ... gunaikas (gune – wife)
And finally, he speaks to a specific woman in the church (11-15a). I say this because the plural pronouns (everyone v. 4; men v. 8; women v. 9) change to singular pronouns: ... a woman (v. 12) ... she (v. 12) ... the woman (v. 14).
Can it be here that the gospel is struggling in Ephesus because of a heresy-influenced (Gnosticism) woman trumpeting a feminist re-interpretation of Adam and Eve and using it as an example, a standard for their own spiritual primacy and authority? Not only is it absolutely possible, but the clear switch to singular pronouns by Paul can well be suggesting this. Women are not the only ones susceptible to heresy, of course.
I sometimes think our model of Biblical womanhood is more an expression of a patriarchal culture and history than from the Scriptures themselves ... with women spending their time being anxious, rather than thriving.
Further, though I agree that I Timothy has imposed a ban on women that forbids them to teach or to have authority – do not celebrate too soon, for it seems prudent ... even required, to ask the obvious: Was this a local ban (rule), or a universal norm imposed under inspiration for all time to come? Consider …
As best I can determine, every time the verb “permit” (v. 12) [epitrepsein – from epitrepo] is used in the New Testament, it refers to a specific permission in a specific context ----- never as a general law. (Matthew 8,21; Mark 5,13; John 19,38; Acts 21,39-40; 26,1; 27,3; 28,16; 1 Corinthians 14:34; 16,7; etc.)
Further, we know that (i) women did speak prophetically (I Cor. 11:5); (ii) that women, like Phoebe (Rom. 16:1), were deaconesses, certainly implying therefore that they would speak, if not teach, and (iii) that I Timothy (AD 66; including 2:12) chronologically comes after Paul wrote to the Corinthians (AD 55).
For the record, I am aware that some egalitarians like to take the Greek phrase οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω, “I do not permit,” (1 Tim. 2:12) and argue that the use of the present tense here implies that the statement should be relegated only to the present – and cannot be true in the future. To be fair, the present tense here does not implicitly teach that there is an end to an action. From the speaker’s point of view, the present tense sees an action from within the action – with no beginning or end in view. Therefore, the statement may or may not be true in the future. Still, there is no requirement either way.
In I Timothy 4: 6, Paul talks about “good teaching” and says: “Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives tales” (v. 7). Later in 2 Timothy 3:6, Paul talks about those who “worm their way into homes and gain control over weak-willed women.” My point is, there appears to have been a specific problem at Ephesus, a problem which therefore called for the ban on women teaching — but concluding that somehow this ban is universal in its scope and for all time is highly suspect.
I Timothy 2 is hardly calling for the absolute, total refraining of women from teaching. Besides, in Titus 2:3-5, the older women are encouraged to teach the younger women, so what shall we say about that? If we really believe the ban is absolute and that women should not teach (and especially not teach males) — then we need to bring our missionaries back home because most are in clear violation of this passage. Likewise, if women are not to teach, then we should be consistent: neither should they braid their hair, wear gold, pearls or expensive clothes (2:9-10). Tell that to your wife ... and let me know how it goes! We cannot have it both ways.
We all want to know with certainty what God expects of us. When we come to a sure understanding of what the Scriptures say, we must declare and obey that truth. However, we also need to exercise caution in giving authoritative importance to interpretations that do not have indisputable support from the whole of Scripture. For although the Holy Spirit can be active in the hard work of translation and interpretation, we could never claim that authority. Men and women are different, and that's exactly why they should be involved in all areas of life.
The debate is sufficiently wearying as to drive
even an ultra-orthodox rabbi to mainline
shellfish and chow down on bacon grease.
And if he did – he should be forgiven!
We need to rise above ... and go beyond any talk that demands rights ... and place our emphasis on exercising gifts. From observation I have noticed that when a church is enjoying a post-Pentecost revival ... pre-Pentecost anxiety about the role of sexes appears to recede and evaporate – as it should.
In 2019, an investigation by The Houston Chronicle and The San Antonio Express-News revealed that hundreds of Southern Baptist leaders had pleaded guilty or had been convicted of sex crimes in recent decades. On May 26, 2022, under pressure from its membership, the SBC released a secretly maintained 205–page list of leaders who have been “credibly accused.” No wonder I was left speechless then when I discovered that the most enthusiastic arguments made at the 2023 SBC in New Orleans were reserved for women as pastors and a recommitment to male eldership ... not sexual abuse among its leadership. Wow!
Though good Christians are not supposed to admit this in public, it can be difficult to understand the Bible. Still, I offer my energies to the discussion and ask that God use them to His Glory and for His purpose ... while sadly, closer to home, my Baptist minister friend continues to ‘fight’ congregants steeped in a mind-set that most cannot cogently articulate Biblically, nor seem inclined to even try. “OnlySaying...”
For much of the 20th century, Methodism was America’s largest Protestant institution, but since 1924 it has been on a downward spiral. In 2023 alone more than 7,660 congregations quit the United Methodist Church over its liberalizing policies on sex and marriage. Today over 4300 have joined the new Global Methodist Church (GMC).
Comments