To the naked eye, this post will appear quite lengthy. It’s actually two posts of extra sermon study materials. The first is a critique of an article by the late Ray Stedman entitled “Should a Woman Teach in the Church?” We think the title is a little misleading because Titus 2:2-5 in the Pastoral Epistles clearly answers in the affirmative. Women have taught in the church for almost 2,000 years. We believe Stedman is attempting to answer the question “should women teach men?”
Pastor Paul Brown and Pastor Roberto Munguia provide a thoughtful critique of Ray Stedman’s article from 1976. We included it because Stedman wielded a great deal of influence as an excellent Bible teacher. Oddly, in this article, he appears to fall into a confirmation bias trap. He makes a case that women cannot be limited from ministry roles due to gender distinctions and then concludes that they must be excluded from the role of elder because they are women. Roberto and Paul provide many helpful insights by highlighting logical leaps and inconsistencies throughout his article. I appreciate their grace and gentleness. Stedman’s article appears in non-bolded fonts while our commentary is labeled “commentary” and appears in bolded letters.
Pastor Christopher Gee authored the second critique of an article published last October in Relevant Magazine. This article takes a someone less careful approach than Stedman but we thought to include and critique it because of the popularity of the magazine with young adults.
Keith Crosby (Lead Pastor)
Should a Woman Teach in Church?
The social movements of every age seem to be used by God to force Christians to re-examine (and clarify) their understanding of what the Scriptures teach. Painful as they may be, every such re-examination results ultimately in stronger and clearer statements on the subjects in question than the church has ever had before. This is certainly the case in the matter of the woman's role in the church. The secular Women's Liberation movement is forcing church leaders everywhere to distinguish carefully between attitudes toward women derived from customs and traditions of the past (often strongly macho-dominated) and what the Bible actually teaches and what the early church actually did.
Commentary
It is sad to know so little has changed in 44 years since the writing of this article. The situation has become even worse today, since what Stedman calls “the secular Women’s Liberation movement” has gained a strong foothold in the church. It appears, in many cases, the church has forgotten the study of the Bible in lieu of political correctness and “moving along with the times”.
In the scope of this brief article it is not possible to answer all the questions which are being raised today. But we would like to examine the specific question being asked by many Christians today: Should a woman teach the Scriptures, and especially, should she teach men or when men are present?
We can say at once that the New Testament clearly indicates that both men and women receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit without distinction in regard to sex. Included among these is the gift of teaching, and other related gifts, such as prophesying (basically, preaching), exhortation, and the word of wisdom and of knowledge. Women prophets are referred to both in the Old and New Testaments, and older women are instructed by the Apostle Paul to teach the younger women.
Commentary
It should be immediately noted that we have no disagreement that both men and women are equally gifted, and that some women are gifted to teach the Scriptures. The only question we are addressing is whether or not the New Testament prohibits women from teaching men in the context of Church gatherings.
A somewhat oblique reference in First Corinthians 11:4-5 suggests that both men and women were free to pray or prophesy in the open meeting of the church, though the woman must do it in such a way as to indicate that she recognizes the headship role of her husband. If she does so, there seems to be no objection to the fact that men would be present in the congregation, or any limitation placed on her for that reason. From the viewpoint of spiritual gifts, it seems clear that "in Christ there is neither male nor female" (Galatians 3:28c) and God expects every woman to have a ministry as much as he expects every male to have one.
Commentary
While 1 Corinthians 11 does clearly indicate that both men and women were free to pray and prophesy, there are two considerations in order to understand this correctly. First, Stedman equates the gift of prophesying to “basically, preaching”. Prophecy, however, is not limited to preaching, as we understand it today. Paul defines the gift of prophecy as follows: “But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation.” (1 Corinthians 14:3). In this passage, the word for men is ἄνθρωπος which refers to a human being, a person of either sex, (i.e. “mankind”). What Paul is saying then, in 1 Corinthians 11, is that both men and women can bring some word of edification, exhortation or consolation, to the church. This does not necessarily refer to teaching, as Paul uses that word in 1 Timothy 2.
Secondly, there is no mention of in what context this is to take place. Stedman (and others) assume that the women here would be praying and prophesying in the public worship service where men would be present. However, this is not stated in the text. These women could have been doing these things in the context of other women or children. When the context is the public worship gathering, Paul exhorts women to ‘stay silent in the churches’ (1 Cor. 14:34). We will further explain what Paul means later in this article.
In addition, Stedman, in the paragraph above, uses Galatians 3 to demonstrate equality of ministry between the sexes. However, Paul’s argument has nothing to do with ministry or giftedness. Paul is making the point that “you are all sons of God, through faith” (Gal. 3:26). The argument is one about being accepted into God’s family by faith, not one of serving God through the exercise of gifts in ministry.
Though the ministry of women in the New Testament churches is not prominent in the record, nevertheless, there are certain references which indicate they were frequently and widely used in various capacities. Almost all commentators agree that Priscilla and her husband Aquila were side-by-side companions of the Apostle Paul in his work both in Corinth and in Ephesus, and that of the two, Priscilla was the more gifted and capable teacher, since her name is most often listed first. (The statement that Priscilla was the more gifted teacher based on the order of reference, seems trite. Since Paul greets her first in Romans 16:3, are we to assume that he liked her better?) They were, together, the instructors of the mighty Apollos in his early preaching efforts. Here is a clear-cut case of a knowledgeable woman being used in the teaching of a man with no hint of an objection from Paul.
Commentary
In Acts 18:24ff we meet Apollos, a Jew from Alexandria who was “competent in the Scriptures.” Apollos was teaching throughout Ephesus and on one occasion Priscilla and Aquila heard him speak. Upon hearing him they recognized some deficiency in his teaching, so the passage tells us, “they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.” From this passage the argument is made that since the Scripture speaks of both
Priscilla and Aquila explaining the Scriptures, there is implied approval of a woman (Priscilla) teaching a man (Apollos).
There are two difficulties with this reasoning. The couple is said to have explained the way of God to Apollos. This could very simply mean that as a couple they heard him speak, asked to meet with him afterward, and jointly met with him while Aquila instructed him. Priscilla may or may not have verbally participated. Secondly, even if we allow that Priscilla participated in the instruction, we have to recognize that this is a very different context than a woman teaching a man in a public setting, which is what Paul prohibits in 1 Timothy 2:12, where he is instructing Timothy about “how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God.”
Further, in Paul's letter to the church in Philippi he urges an unnamed fellow-worker (probably Epaphroditus) to "help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel," (Philippians 4:3 NIV).
In the letter to the Romans, he mentions other women who labored with him "in the Lord," (Romans 16:1-2, et al.).
Commentary
It would appear that Stedman introduces ideas into the text. There is no disagreement among evangelicals (or anyone else) that women participated in ministry. This is true of the Apostles as well of Jesus, himself. However, participating in ministry says nothing of what their role in that ministry was. Stedman makes the assumption that their participation must have included teaching. No such conclusion can be asserted from the text. To assume they taught is to go beyond what the text says.
Perhaps no question would ever have arisen about the propriety of women's ministry were it not for two passages from Paul's hand which seem to lay severe restriction upon them. In First Corinthians 14 he says,
As in all the congregations of the saints, 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 inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. (1 Corinthians 14:33b-35 NIV)
Again, in First Timothy 2 he says,
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. (1 Timothy 2:11-12 NIV)
Taken by themselves, apart from their contexts, these two passages do seem to prohibit any kind of teaching ministry for women, especially in any public way, within the church. But let us look at some guidelines of interpretation which will help us in understanding just what the apostle means:
Nothing in the above quoted passages can be taken in such a way as to contradict what the apostle himself permitted, or referred to with approval, in the practice of the church. He surely did not teach one thing and practice another. If, in First Corinthians 11, he speaks with approval of a woman praying or prophesying in public, as he does, then, surely, in First Corinthians 14 he does not contradict himself by forbidding women even to open their mouths in any circumstance in the public meeting of the church. We must, therefore, read the prohibition of Chapter 14 as applying to something other than the ministry of women permitted in Chapter 11.
Commentary
Here Stedman rightly invokes the principle to let Scripture interpret Scripture and that one Scripture, rightly interpreted, will never contradict another. However, he forgets one principle – we should always interpret the less clear in light of the clearer. In fact, he does just the opposite. While 1 Timothy 2:12 is very clear, 1 Corinthians 11 is less so. Having also shown above that 1 Corinthians 11 does not give clear permission for women to teach men, the force of Stedman’s argument here is lost. We do not understand why but Stedman stretches the meaning of 1 Corinthians 14 to mean that the passages forbids women even to open their mouths in any public meeting—which is an incorrect interpretation and application of what Paul said.
…these two passages do seem to prohibit any kind of teaching ministry for women, especially in any public way, within the church…
Commentary
Stedman appears to overlook that the context (see vv. 29-32) is prophesying in a public church gathering. Verse 30, where the word silent is used, means to refrain from prophesying but cannot be construed as a total prohibition from speaking in any way at a public gathering. For reasons unknown to us it would appear that Stedman is employing some sort of strawman argument.
We must note that the immediate context of both passages quoted above has to do with the problem of disorder, and even some degree of defiance, in the actions of the women involved. In both passages, though widely separated as to recipients and locality, the word submission appears:
In Corinth the problem was one of so conducting the meeting that edification of all present would be central; therefore tongues were to be controlled and limited, and so was the exercise of prophesying. Furthermore, they were to remember that "God is not a God of disorder but of peace," and then follows the warning against women speaking in the church. It is clear from this that the apostle was not concerned about women who properly exercised their gifts in prophesying or in praying but was greatly concerned about women who disrupted the meetings with questions and comments, and perhaps even challenged the teaching of apostolic doctrine with contrary views. This is what he prohibited, as Verse 37 makes crystal clear:
If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. (1 Corinthians 14:37 NIV)
He then closes the whole section with the admonition, "But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way," (1 Corinthians 14:40 NIV).
Commentary
Stedman rightly understands that Paul was instructing the Corinthian Church in proper order for worship. Chapters 12 – 14 primarily speak to the issue of the use of tongues and prophecy in public worship. In chapter 12, Paul begins to answer the question about spiritual gifts, speaking to the value of all gifts. There is no single gift that is more important than another. All are of equal importance to the health of the body. In chapter 13 he speaks to what he calls a “more excellent way.” That is, instead of disputes arising because of one’s giftedness, we should hold high the value of loving one another, and letting that love be our focus rather than our performance. Finally, in 14:1-25 Paul addresses the right and wrong ways to use the gifts of tongues and prophecy.
Having said all that, he then says in 14:26, “What then, brothers?” In other words, “now that I’ve instructed you properly about the uses and abuses of gifts, what does an orderly worship service look like?” It is in this context that Paul states, “As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak…” Paul does not limit this instruction only to Corinth, which Stedman argues had a particular problem with unruly women. Instead, he writes this as a principle “in all the churches.” Are we then to assume that every church had the same problem with unruly women who were speaking out of turn? While this may, or may not, have been the case, Paul does not speak this as a corrective only in situations where women are unruly, but as a rule of proper order in all the churches. This is indicated when he says in verse 36, “Or was it from you that the word of God came: Or are you the only ones it has reached?” In effect he is saying, “Don’t think you can behave differently in worship than all the other churches. The word of God is clear to everyone.”
There is another element in the context that may help us understand Paul’s words in these two verses. For what we read in verse 35, the women referred to here are married women (they are to ask their own husbands at home). So, the issue of submission is clear. With all the freedom women had gained in the church (opposed to the Roman, Greek and Jewish cultures) they must remember that they are commanded by God to submit to their husbands.
The word to Timothy (who was probably living at Ephesus) is similar in character. The general context in which these words about women appear is concerned with regulating the behavior of Christians at meetings, as 3:14 makes clear:
Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. (1 Timothy 3:14-15 NIV)
In line with this purpose, Paul tells the men how to pray (without anger or disputing), and the women how to adorn themselves (not with fine clothing but with good works), and from this he moves to the words of prohibition against a woman teaching or having authority over a man. These words cannot be taken as an absolute (no woman should ever teach a man) for if that were true Paul should have rebuked Priscilla for having a part in instructing Apollos. The words "have authority over" provide us the key to understanding this passage. Women should not be permitted the role of authoritative definers of doctrine within the church. They must not be permitted to do this, even though they may mean well, for the role of authoritative interpreters is given by the Holy Spirit to the apostles and elders, who, in the New Testament, were invariably men. This is supported by Paul's references to Adam and Eve which follows.
Commentary
The argument that “These words cannot be taken as an absolute…” is proven false since he bases that statement on the assumption that Priscilla was instructing Apollos, which we addressed earlier.
We also have to recognize that the conjunction in 1 Timothy 2:12 is “or”, as Stedman rightly quotes. If the passage said, “I do not permit a woman to teach and to exercise authority…”, there may be reason to consider this a prohibition only against women being “authoritative definers of doctrine.” Since it says, “to teach or exercise authority” we must see these as two separate prohibitions, carrying the meaning, “I do not permit a woman to teach, nor do I permit women to exercise authority over a man.”
We also need to see the emphasis Paul makes in verses 11 and 12:
The fact that Paul is stating the same principle twice in back to back verses should leave clear his intent. (this same parallelism can be made with the 1 Corinthians passage).
From this we are warranted in drawing certain conclusions to guide our conduct today: Women certainly can teach. They are given the gift of teaching as freely as it is given to men, and they must exercise those gifts. Women can teach within the context of church meetings. They are certainly free to teach children and other women without question but are free to teach men as well if what they are teaching is not a challenge to the understanding of doctrine held by the elders of the church. Many godly and instructed women know far more about the Scriptures then many men, and it would be both absurd and unscriptural to forbid such men to learn from such women.
Commentary
We believe that Stedman has not proven this point in his exposition. We firmly agree that God has gifted women for ministry and that all of the gifts the Holy Spirit gives are available to all believers, including women. However, we differ from him in believing that God, in his sovereignty and through His revealed Word, has declared that only men should teach in a public church setting where other men are present.
Even the elders should recognize the often unique and godly insights of gifted women teachers and should seek their input in arriving at an understanding of the Scriptures. It is, however, the duty of elders to make the final decision of what is to be taught. No woman may participate in this.
It is my hope that this brief survey will help many in understanding the difficulties involved in answering the question with which we began. I, personally, thank God for the gifted woman teachers among us at PBC and rejoice that we have little or no problem with the question of proper authority in this matter.
Commentary
While there are a multitude of legitimate, and very valuable, ways that women minister in the context of the church, we have to conclude that teaching publicly where men are present and having authority over men are not included in that list.
God forbid that we should ever limit a woman’s contribution in ministry based on cultural or man-made hierarchy, or ever put limits on women beyond what God Himself establishes. He created two sexes with purpose, as part of His divine plan for mankind. Let us continue to appreciate the value of each, while recognizing and affirming the God-given distinctions.
Note: The next article is found in Relevant Magazine:
Relevant Magazine Article:
YES CHURCHES NEED WOMEN WHO TEACH, LEAD, AND PREACH: A BIBLICAL RESPONSE
The following article was critiqued by Pastor Christopher Gee. This article was apparently written with great emotion and is less measured than the Stedman article. The writer was a student at Fuller Seminary. Despite her shaky approach, we chose her article because “Relevant Magazine” has a young adult/ millennial readership and we thought to include it for that reason. I’m grateful to Chris Gee for his measured and grace-filled approach.
Keith C.
RELEVANT
Yes, Churches Need Women Who Teach, Lead and Preach
· POSTED ONOCTOBER 21, 2019
· 5 MINUTE READ
· KAT ARMAS
There’s been a lot of buzz surrounding women lately. From Hollywood and #MeToo to Christians and #ChurchToo, women are demanding their voices be heard … and many are listening. Women everywhere are echoing Oprah’s famous line—“A new day is on the horizon!”—from her empowerment speech during Golden Globes.
But naturally, just like everything else in culture, not everyone agrees—particularly when it comes to women’s role in the Church. After John Piper came out with a response stating women should not pastor (or teach), Twitter users took it as an opportunity to promote, encourage and affirm the women who have impacted them in their faith and in their theology. Names of women rolled in for hours and with reason. Historically, women have been crucial aspects of the Church’s growth and spiritual formation. It’s apparent women belong in leadership.
Here are five reasons why:
1) WOMEN WERE FOUNDATIONAL TO THE SPREADING OF JESUS’ MESSAGE.
Not only was “the woman at the well” the first evangelist to Samaria, and the women at the tomb the first witnesses and proclaimers of Jesus’s resurrection, but Mary of Bethany was affirmed by Jesus as “doing the right thing” in “sitting at Jesus’ feet.” In antiquity, “sitting at the feet” literally meant “being a disciple.” Even Paul, during his ministry made mention of several leading women in his salutation to the Roman Church (Romans 16). Among these were Junia the apostle and Phoebe, Paul’s emissary and the translator of the letter. We also know of several house-church leaders like Chloe and Nympha (1 Corinthians 1:11, Colossians 4:15), and Priscilla, who also taught Apollos “the more accurate way” about Jesus.
If women were crucial in leading Jesus’s movement in the very beginning, why wouldn’t they be as crucial in doing so now?
Scripture teaches that women are permitted to preach the Gospel to both men and women (Matt. 28:16-20), so there is no problem with the woman at the well being an evangelist.
We will make a few observations about curious examples given statement 1:
1) WOMEN WERE FOUNDATIONAL TO THE SPREADING OF JESUS’ MESSAGE.
Comment:
We don’t know of anyone who would differ with this observation. Nevertheless, we do find the writer’s subsequent argumentation inaccurate or confusing. We will examine it and explain why using the following examples:
“but Mary of Bethany was affirmed by Jesus as “doing the right thing” in “sitting at Jesus’ feet.” In antiquity, “sitting at the feet” literally meant “being a disciple.”
Comment:
Mary sitting at the feet of Jesus has nothing to do with leadership or teaching. No one has suggested that women are excluded from following Jesus. However, the point of the passage is not that Mary was a disciple, per se; that is a given throughout all Gospel accounts. The point of the passage is priority. Mary had the right priorities. Martha did not. Mary’s priority in this vignette is one of eternal consequence while Martha is distracted by the cares of the world (Luke 10:38-42). The passage has nothing to do with leadership or preaching.
“Among these were Junia the apostle and Phoebe, Paul’s emissary and the translator of the letter.”
Comment:
Nowhere in Scripture is Junia described as an apostle. It is not correct to say that Junia was an apostle. Romans 16:7 reads, “Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles.” This verse does not imply that Junia was an apostle; rather, it simply states that she, probably because of her ministry, was “well known” to the actual apostles.
In regard to Phoebe, it is clear she delivered the letter of Romans, but it is difficult to determine how or where the author gets that she was also the translator of the letter. We searched a 2017 blog post by the same author on Phoebe but found nothing to indicate how she drew this conclusion. Perhaps it was an extrabiblical account. Either way, neither delivering the letter or translating it implies teaching or having authority over a man (2 Timothy 2:12-13).
We also know of several house-church leaders like Chloe and Nympha (1 Corinthians 1:11, Colossians 4:15)…
Comment:
This is another puzzling interpretive choice. It seems a bit of a stretch to say that Chole and Nympha were “house-church leaders.” For example, Colossians 4:15 only states that the church met in Nympha’s house. People today host small groups in their homes but do not necessarily lead or facilitate. Nympha may have simply hosted the church in her home. There is an absence of evidence that she preached, taught, or exercised any authority in this church. The temptation to read one’s bias into the text must be resisted. We are reminded that the Mormon Church practices proxy baptism based upon the inconclusive and vague statement in 1 Corinthians 15:29.
and Priscilla, who also taught Apollos “the more accurate way” about Jesus.
Comment:
Even today in churches where women do not teach mixed gender groups, it is not uncommon for a couple to co-facilitate a small group, disciple another couple, or evangelize an individual in their own residence. The writer oddly omits reference to, or fails to make mention of, Aquilla. Why do we mention this? Priscilla is always listed with her husband, and in Acts 18:26, the couple took Apollos aside “and explained to him the way of God more accurately.” Apollos “knew only the baptism of John” (v. 25) and had some significant gaps in his knowledge. Thus, Priscilla and Aquilla stepped in to fill in those gaps and strengthen his foundation in the Christian faith.
It is possible that Apollos was not yet a true Christian, but fell into the category of an Old Testament “God-fearer,” one who worshiped the one true God but did not have a complete knowledge of the Gospel. In this case, Priscilla and Aquilla’s teaching would be more akin to evangelism, explaining fully the person and work of Christ. This could potentially be the case since before meeting Priscilla and Aquilla, Apollos “taught accurately the things concerning Jesus” (v. 25), but only after their instruction/evangelism does Luke say Apollos was explicitly “showing by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus” (v. 28).
It is interesting to note that Priscilla played a part in equipping Apollos, but she herself did not participate in Apollos’ ministry in which he “spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus” (v. 25) and “powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus” (v. 28). Priscilla apparently knew more than Apollos, but she left the public preaching and teaching to him.
2) WOMEN ARE GIFTED FOR MINISTRY IN THE CHURCH.
Nowhere in the New Testament are the Spirit’s gifts gender-specific. In fact, Joel the Prophet spoke concerning Pentecost, “In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy … Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.” Since we are living post-Pentecost, we can be sure God has poured out His Spirit on all flesh—both men and women. This also includes young, old and people in every ethnic group. The Holy Spirit has gifted the Church with the ministries and offices that it needs for its mission, as well as for the purpose of building one another up.
In 1 Corinthians, Paul addresses both “brothers and sisters” when speaking of the gifts, claiming some will perform miracles, some will prophesy, some will be teachers, others evangelists and even others pastors. These are gifts distributed by the Spirit to both men and women, as God sees fit.
Shouldn’t women use the gifts given to them by God to lead the Church, for its uplifting and edification?
Comment:
We completely agree that women are gifted for ministry in the church and that they should use their gifts to uplift and edify. However, while it is true that “nowhere in the New Testament are the Spirit’s gifts gender-specific,” there are several places in which an office is gender-specific. Elders must be “the husband of one wife” (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:6). Paul assumes that elders are men only. While women can and should use their gifts to serve the Lord, Scripture reserves the office of an elder for men.
The author says, “In 1 Corinthians, Paul addresses both “brothers and sisters” when speaking of the gifts, claiming some will perform miracles, some will prophesy, some will be teachers, others evangelists and even others pastors.” We believe the author is referencing 1 Corinthians 12:27-28, which reads “Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues.” Brothers and sisters is not found in the original language; however, it is found in some new gender neutral translations.
That said, while it is true that there is no reference to gender here, it also does not preclude that some of these gifts could have been reserved for men only. In fact, the most natural reading would assume that “apostles” would be all male, since indeed, all twelve apostles were men. Our concern, as it was in the discussion of Mary and Martha is that the author misses the point of the passage. The point of this passage, which follows the body metaphor of the church, is not that every gift is given to both genders, but that believers possess various gifts and each serves a unique role in the body of Christ.
The author also fails to take into account the wider context of 1 Corinthians. In 1 Corinthians 14:
“What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.” (1 Corinthians 14:26–33)
Why is this passage of importance? Ignoring for the moment the use of the term “brothers,” the Holy Spirit, speaking through the pen of the Apostle, makes it clear that possessing a gift does not include using it how one pleases or outside the prescriptions of Scripture. There are what one could call “designer specifications” limiting or restricting the use of one’s gifts. The Designer is God and His specifications are found in His Word. Those who spoke in tongues were restricted in their use. Those who prophesied were restricted in their use. Similarly, regardless of one’s gift set, they may not exercise those gifts beyond the specifications of God’s word, regardless of the culture or one’s ideology.
2) WOMEN BEAR GOD’S IMAGE, TOO.
In the creation narrative, men and women were both given an equal responsibility to bear God’s image, have dominion/”rule” over creation, and be fruitful. In both genders being “made in the image of God,” we understand that the fullness of God’s personhood is expressed in not only in masculinity, but also in femininity. We were created to be reflections of God—to speak and act for Him in our distinctions.
God affirms this when He uses female-specific imagery when relating to His people—like a bear to her cubs (Hosea 13:8), an eagle hovering over her young (Deuteronomy 32:11), a mother comforting and weaning her child (Isaiah 66:13, Psalm 131:2), a nursing woman (Isaiah 49:15) and a woman in labor (Psalm 131:2). Even Jesus compares Himself to a mother hen (Matthew 23:37).
If God is reflected in both masculine and feminine terms when nurturing His people, shouldn’t both genders be reflected in leadership—when nurturing members of the Church?
This leads to the next point:
Comment:
We agree that women, along with men, bear the image of God (Gen. 1:27). Men and women have equal value and equal standing before God, and both were given the responsibility to rule over creation. However, we do not follow the author’s logic when she says, “If God is reflected in both masculine and feminine terms when nurturing His people, shouldn’t both genders be reflected in leadership—when nurturing members of the Church?” Just because women are made in God’s image and God uses feminine illustrations to describe aspects of His love does not mean that He has ordained women to be leaders, elders, or preachers in the church (1 Tim. 2:12-13; 1 Tim. 3:1; Titus 1:5-6). That is quite a logical leap.
4) WOMEN NEED WOMEN ADVOCATES.
It’s no surprise that men and women are different—each having different experiences and different needs. Because of this, we need a diversity of voices in leadership who can guide and pastor men and women and speak to their particular situations. Diversity in leadership is tantamount to authentic discipleship and foundational for healthy relationships and growth within a community of people.
When making important decisions in the Church, female perspectives are necessary to speak into issues that men cannot relate to and don’t have firsthand experience in. No one knows the needs of women better than women. Shouldn’t leadership in the Church reflect the diversity of its members?
Particularly in our current culture, with sexual abuse stories being exposed within the Church, it’s more important than ever for women to be represented when it comes to making decisions in leadership on behalf of the community.
Comment:
There is no basis in Scripture for this argument. Moreover, this argument appears to be based on the faulty assumption that women in biblical churches are somehow without a voice, without influence, and without any representation whatsoever.
In short, it’s a pragmatic and emotional argument, not a biblical one. However, we do generally agree that there is wisdom in having women in leadership within the bounds that God has set, namely that women should have a specific discipling ministry to other women (Titus 2:3-5). The author’s argument that, “it’s no surprise that men and women are different—each having different experiences and different needs,” actually supports the notion that women should be focusing on ministering to women and men should be focusing on ministering to men since one tends to understand one’s own gender better. Who better to serve and represent women than women (Titus 2:3-5)?
This, of course, does not preclude fellowship among brothers and sisters in Christ, nor does it preclude the example the author gave that men should listen to women on issues like sexual abuse. There is no need, however, for women to preach and teach on these issues with biblical authority and thus violate 1 Timothy 2:12; rather they can help men understand these issues in personal conversations, by sharing a testimony, doing a Q&A, or sharing their thoughts in a public setting: congregational meetings, committee meetings, fellowship groups, Sunday school classes, counseling, and small groups.
5) WHEN WOMEN ARE EMPOWERED, SOCIETY AS A WHOLE FLOURISHES.
We know that on a global scale, women are among the most oppressed people. In certain countries, many women have no rights in society, are sold like cattle for a bride price, forced into sex slavery and in some places, not even allowed to show their face in public. However, organizations like UN Women and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), among others, have reported on studies that show how much of a vital contribution—and even complete shift in society—women make when they are educated and empowered. UN Women found that increased educational attainment for women and girls accounts for about 50 percent of the economic growth in OECD countries over the past 50 years. Over half of this is due to girls having had access to higher levels of education and achieving greater equality in the number of years spent in education between men and women.
Similarly, a study using data from 219 countries found that, for every additional year of education for women, the child mortality rate decreased by 9.5 percent.
These are only a couple statistics among hundreds that prove that women’s equality is necessary for human flourishing. When women are empowered, everyone wins.
If this is true on a grand and global scale, wouldn’t it be true for the overall health and growth of the Church? If women are celebrated, empowered and given freedom to exercise their gifts in leadership as God intends, imagine what it could do for the global Church—God’s kingdom on Earth as He intended—a glorious, united and beautifully vibrant people.
Comment:
Is anyone in the 21st century church arguing against the education of women within the church, or their participation in church matters? This is not the issue. We agree women play a vital role in society, economics, and culture. The issue is God’s ordained role for women in the church.
A few more thoughts:
The crux of the issue lies in 1 Timothy 2:12–15, which states, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.”
participation in the local church (or the global church, for that matter).
This is not a command that was only relevant for Paul’s culture, for Paul grounds this command in the creation narrative. He argues that Adam being made first and Eve second implies male leadership in the church. He uses the creation order and the “primacy of the first born” to illustrate his point (Christ being the first born of all creation pictures this motif as well—Col. 1:15). Furthermore, the fall reinforces the role of leadership for males. It was when Eve left the protection of Adam’s leadership that she fell, and it was when Adam abdicated his responsibility as leader and followed the voice of Eve that he fell.
It seems God has always chosen to use men to lead His people. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the heads of the 12 tribes, Moses, David, Solomon, Ezra, Nehemiah, the prophets, and all 12 apostles were men. There are extremely rare exceptions (Deborah, Anna the prophetess), but these rare exceptions seem to only prove the rule. Furthermore, these women leaders appear in narrative texts, which are descriptive rather than prescriptive. Passages like 1 Timothy 2:11-15 are prescriptive for how the church must function.
It seems God has always chosen to use men to lead His people. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the heads of the 12 tribes, Moses, David, Solomon, Ezra, Nehemiah, the prophets, and all 12 apostles were men. There are extremely rare exceptions (Deborah, Anna the prophetess), but these rare exceptions seem to only prove the rule. Furthermore, these women leaders appear in narrative texts, which are descriptive rather than prescriptive. Passages like 1 Timothy 2:11-15 are prescriptive for how the church must function.
Women may be highly gifted teachers and leaders, but those gifts are not to be exercised over men in the service of the church. Gifts are given to all regardless of gender but with the distinction that the exercise of gifts is to be according to the prescriptions of Scripture.
KAT ARMAS
Kat Armas is passionate about theology, coffee, and the ways the two intersect. She is currently living in Los Angeles, California, and pursuing a Master of Divinity at Fuller Seminary with a focus on New Testament studies. Kat and her husband own a coffee roasting company (www.therunningover.com). Their goal is to provide the best cup of joe, while building deep and meaningful connections with farms and communities overseas. Besides drinking coffee, Kat enjoys vegan food, books and blogging. You can read more of her work at www.katarmas.com. Find her on Twitter @kat_armas.
