supporting women in all levels of leadership

Women in all levels of leadership and ministry… Well, I guess this is the serious entry in response to satire entitled - 10 reasons why men should not be ordained for ministry.  And to give you a little context, this is what I wrote in an earlier post about supporting women in ministry:

…we have to ask how are we as revolutionary followers of Jesus - who debunked the systemic structures during his life - are working, living, ministering, writing, speaking and creating to work towards that end.

Power [authority], voice and influence are not easily pursued [and obtained]. It must be distributed and shared from those who have that very power, voice and influence. And because it is so counter-cultural, we have to be that much more intentional.

As a male, I am embarrassed at times at the manner in which we [men] directly, indirectly, or systemically oppress our sisters. While there’s a legitimate female candidate for the president of this country, there are many [in the church] who still wonder if women should be in leadership. I know that [for them] it’s a biblical issue and not intended to be a personal issue but why would women want to subject themselves to these questions again and again and again…

Sadly, this is an issue and conversation that will continue until the Day of the Lord.  Many have already drawn their lines in the sand and others are on the fence.  Regardless, this entry is shared for the purpose of calling each of us to a deeper engagement of the Scriptures since we are called to be women and men not simply propelled by human observations or popular culture but also compelled by biblical revelation and the life of Jesus Christ.

Why do churches, pastors, and Christians believe that women should not be allowed in all levels of leadership and ministry?  The unanimous answer is: 

Because the Bible says so.

Yes, there are places in the New Testament that lend support to that belief.  But the more substantive question we should we asking is, “What do the Scriptures mean?” and “How do we read the Scriptures?”.  I believe in the authority of the Scriptures.  I believe in the Word of God.  But I also believe that the Bible was written in context and culture and subsequently, we must - with deep prayer and discernment- study, interpret, and be guided by the Scriptures.  Let’s be honest:  If the Bible were easy to interpret, we wouldn’t need to study, teach, preach, write, exegete, etc.  

Many will say that reading the Bible in such a way is dangerous because it leads us to a “slippery slope.”  Umm, interpreting the Bible as the Word of God is serious business.  Anytime we attempt to speak on behalf of God is serious.  Period. 

It is for that reason that my support for women in leadership is compelled by the Scriptures - the narrative of God’s creation of mutuality in Genesis, the life of Jesus Christ, the distribution of the spiritual gifts in the Pentecost, and the context of Paul’s instructions to the early Church.

For your reading, examination, and feedback, I’ve copied a lengthy portion from Called & Gifted [pdf] - a publication by Evangelical Covenant Church.  Quest is part of the ECC and I am also ordained through this denomination.  I was writing a long post and just lost steam.  The authors of this publication do a better job articulating a “biblical basis for the full participation of women in the ministries of the church.”

I’ll write Part 2 later this week.   For now, what do you think?  Why do you believe what you believe?  How does the Scriptures inform what you believe?

My sincere hope is that we can respectfully engage in this conversation - regardless where we stand on this “issue.” 

**********************************************************************************

What is the biblical basis for this position?

We believe in the Holy Scriptures, the Old and the New Testaments,

as the word of God and the only perfect rule for faith, doctrine, and conduct.

Our tradition, therefore, has always been to ask, “Where is it written?”

on matters of faith, doctrine, and conduct. Our position on women

in ministry flows from our high view of Scripture and is not derived from

cultural or societal trends. We believe that “women ought to minister not

because society says so but because the Bible leads the Church to such a

conclusion.”

 

There are several interpretive frameworks through which people arrive

at their conclusions about the subject of women in ministry. This document

unpacks the interpretive framework through which the Covenant

arrives at its position. We invite those who are in agreement, those who

are still searching, and those who disagree to look through the same window

with us to see what we see. This document outlines, from creation

through redemption, the biblical basis for our position and reflects our

conviction that the Bible, in its totality, is the liberating word.

 

Creation. From the beginning, the Bible reveals God’s plan for human

beings as one of community, unity, equality, and shared responsibility.

Both men and women were created in God’s image, and God initiated a

relationship with both, without preference for one or the other. In addition,

God charged both women and men equally with the blessings and

responsibilities of childrearing and dominion over the created order

(Genesis 1:26-28; 5:1-2).

 

The fact that both men and women were created in God’s image is

particularly significant. God’s plan for community and unity was based

on the equality of the human beings God had created and on their equal

participation and full partnership. The Hebrew words ‘ezer knegdo are

used as a descriptor for woman in Genesis 2:18. ‘ezer is frequently translated

as “helper,” which some have come to interpret or understand as an

inferior or one in a supporting role. Unlike the English word “helper,”

the Hebrew ‘ezer implies no inferiority; in fact, this word most frequently

refers to God in the Old Testament, meaning protector or rescuer.2

Its modifier, knegdo, means “suitable,” “face to face,” “equivalent to,” or

“visible,” and indicates that God created an equivalent human being to be

a good companion for man. This rules out authority and subordination

for either man or woman.

 

Some would argue that the fact that woman was formed from man

creates both preeminence and authority for the man. There is nothing in

the text that supports this interpretation. Rather, the text emphasizes that

man was incomplete, and God kindly created for him a suitable companion

(Genesis 2:21-23). God’s loving act to alleviate man’s loneliness did

not produce an inferior being; rather God created an equivalent human,

underscoring the unity and equality of all human beings.

Finally, some point out that the Bible frequently refers to God as male.

Four points should be made concerning this matter.

 

• First, the Bible affirms that God is spirit (John 4:24) and has no

body or biological sex, as we do.

• Second, while the Bible often refers to God as male, this is the language

of comparison, employing simile and metaphor. We should

remember that Scripture refers to God as a rock and a fortress

(Psalm 31:2-3); Jesus refers to himself as a mother hen (Luke 13:34);

and God refers to himself as rot and a festering sore (Hosea 5:12).

These are examples of God condescending to explain himself by

comparison to forms we can understand. Yet these descriptions do

not alter the basic teaching that God is spirit.

• Third, the limits of human language limit our understanding. Most

languages do not have a neutral-gender pronoun (e.g., “it”) that

can successfully refer to a higher-order animate being (e.g., a human)

let alone a deity, even if that deity is perceived to be without biological

sex or gender. The lack of appropriate terminology limits

our ability to apprehend phenomena that is normally outside the

range of human experience. Lacking appropriate pronouns for God,

we substitute male pronouns, with the result that they sometimes

shape our perception of God in unintended ways, even while serving

to make God more personal.

• Finally, in Jesus, God assumed particularity. That is, Jesus was a

male Palestinian Jew. Yet neither his Jewishness nor his maleness

is meant to be a standard used to exclude Gentiles or women from

full participation in the Christian community. The New Testament

affirms that in this particularity Jesus becomes the one for all, the

one who draws all to him (John 12:32).3 It was on this issue that

Paul opposed Peter (Cephas) at Antioch when Peter withdrew from

fellowship with Gentile believers (Galatians 2:11-14). Paul believed

that the truth of the gospel is that old distinctions and divisions

ought to have no power or efficacy in Christ. The old, said Paul,

has passed away. The new has come (2 Corinthians 5:17).

 

Effects of Sin. Sin entered the world through both the man and the

woman. They were co-participants in the fall, and are equally culpable

(Genesis 3:6; Romans 5:12-21; 1 Corinthians 15:21-22).

 

One of the key results of sin was—and continues to be—the break in

unity and fellowship between humans and God, as well as between Adam

and Eve. As a result of sin, Adam began to rule over Eve (Genesis 3:16).

This hierarchy is an unwanted result of sin and is not God’s prescription.

It violates God’s original plan for unity, equality, fellowship, and community.

When in discussion with the authorities concerning the law of Moses,

Jesus laid down the principle that the standard is the original intention of

God found in Genesis 1 and 2 (Matthew 19:3-9).

 

Another unwelcome result of sin was the corruption of the ensuing

culture, which led to hostilities among people and culminated in the

oppression and exclusion of those considered to be weaker classes: the

poor, the sick, women, the unclean. The Old Testament records these customs,

as well as the longing for the day when all creation would be redeemed.

The redemption would include the elimination of barriers and reconciliation

between former enemies. Isaiah prophesies, “The wolf shall live

with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with the kid, the calf and the

lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them” (Isaiah 11:6).

The Old Testament prophets foretold the Messiah as the one who would

bring about a feast for all people; would heal the blind, the deaf, and the

lame; would proclaim release to the captives and freedom for the oppressed

(Isaiah 61). It is significant that Luke 4:16-21 records Jesus quoting this

very passage before announcing that in him it is fulfilled.

 

Additionally, the prophets pointed to a time when “You shall be called

priests of the LORD, you shall be named ministers of our God” (Isaiah

61:6), and to a time when God’s Spirit would be poured out on all believers

(Joel 2:28-29), both young and old, men and women. This was later

confirmed when Peter wrote, “like living stones, let yourselves be built

into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices

acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:5), and “you are a chosen

race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, in order

that you may proclaim the mighty acts of him who called you out of darkness

into his marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9). This is confirmed again in

Revelation, where it is repeatedly declared that all those who believe in

Christ will be priests: “To him who…made us to be a kingdom, priests

serving his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and

ever” (Revelation 1:5-6); “ you have made them to be a kingdom and

priests serving our God…” (Revelation 5:10); and “…they will be priests

of God and of Christ…” (Revelation 20:6).

 

The hierarchical, divisive, and patriarchal customs that developed

are not God’s ideal order. God’s ideal order, plainly stated through the

prophecies about the Messiah, is one of healing and reconciliation. God’s

ideal order eliminates the effects of sin, including class divisions, hierarchy,

and oppression. It restores the original unity, fellowship, and community

between God and humans, and between men and women. It

reestablishes the God-designed equality of women and men.

 

The Jesus Paradigm and Redemption. During Christ’s life,

he exhibited in his teaching and practices the very qualities that were

prophesied: he touched lepers, spoke to women, and consorted with taxgatherers.

By doing so, Jesus modeled the new kingdom and challenged

the prevailing sexist and divisive prejudices, tearing down the divisions

and restrictions that had arisen as the result of sin. Jesus saw women as

persons of equal worth to men and rejected existing practices that devalued

women (see Matthew 19:29; 26:6-13; 27:55-56, 61; Mark 5:21-43;

10:11-12; 15:40-41, 47; Luke 10:38-42; 11:27-28; 13:10-17; 24:10-11;

John 4:7-42; 11:2-45; 12:1-8; 19:25). This pattern is evident in his teachings

(a woman plays the role of God in the parable of the lost coin) and

his actions (in clear violation of Jewish tradition, Jesus invited both men

and women to receive theological and spiritual instruction from him).

 

Jesus also taught and practiced servant leadership and the empowerment

of others. According to Jesus, leadership is about servanthood, not

authority. Passages in the Gospels such as Luke 22:24-30 and John 13:13-

17 record Jesus’ teaching on this subject and show that Jesus ushered in

a paradigm that was counter to the existing culture of hierarchical systems

and authority. The remainder of the New Testament continues this teaching

of servant leadership, emphasizing that spiritual gifts are given to serve

others and build the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12; Ephesians 4:11-

16; Philippians 2:3-11; Galatians 5:13; 1 Peter 5:2-3).

 

Most importantly, Jesus Christ came to fully redeem all people, women

as well as men. Paul emphasizes that all who believe in Christ are redeemed

from sin and become new creations. Not only do we who believe become

the children of God, and equal heirs, but we also become one in Christ.

These blessings come through our faith in Christ, independent of our

racial, social, physical, or gender distinctions (John 1:12-13; Romans 8:14-

17; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 3:26-28).

 

In the world, characteristics such as “maleness” or “femaleness” function

as primary markers of personal definition and are used to assign rank,

status, and worth. In Christ, we are instead defined by being a new creation

in Christ. As a result of becoming a new creation, a believer’s primary

identity is his or her new life in Christ. Our old identities—those

of gender, race, or social class—become secondary to our true identity in

Christ. In our culture, like that of Jesus and Paul, maleness and femaleness

matter. But our beliefs and practices ought not to be determined by

earthly cultures, as our citizenship is in heaven (Philippians 3:20).

 

The domination of one group by another group is one of the

effects of sin that Jesus came to abolish. In its stead the New Testament

affirms Christian community as marked by mutual interdependence,

where differences are not to be of any advantage or disadvantage (Galatians

3:28). The result is a new community with new kingdom realities.

 

For believers to continue subordinating other humans is contrary to our

new identities in Christ and contrary to the new kingdom community.

We can choose to model the coming eschatological community (Thy kingdom

come, on earth as it is in heaven), or we can choose a hierarchical

model conformed to this sinful world.

 

The New Kingdom and the Church as a Fellowship of Believers.

The New Testament gives a model for the fellowship of believers. At

Pentecost, the Holy Spirit filled both women and men alike, with no distinction

made on any basis. The Holy Spirit is sovereign and distributes

gifts without preference and without regard to the strictures of a fallen

world (Acts 2:1-21; 1 Corinthians 12:7, 11; 14:31).

 

As a result of this unbiased indwelling of the Holy Spirit, women were

involved in all ministry positions and activities, including apostle (Romans

16:7); prophetic speaking (Acts 1:14; 2:15-18; 21:9; 1 Corinthians 11:5,

10); serving as ministers, leaders, elders, or governors (Romans 16:1);

coworkers (Philippians 4:2-3; Romans 16:3-5; Acts 18:2, 18-19); and gifted

teachers who instructed men (Acts 18:24-26).

 

The Bible also teaches that after Pentecost, both women and men

receive spiritual gifts without regard to their gender, both are called to

exercise and develop these spiritual gifts, and both are called to be faithful

managers of those gifts that have been freely given to them (1 Peter

4:10-11). Both men and women are to use these divine gifts to serve one

another without restriction (Acts 1:14, 8:4, 21:8-9; Romans 16:1-7, 12-

13, 15; 1 Corinthians 12; Philippians 4:2-3; Colossians 4:15).

 

Based on these examples, we conclude that spiritual authority comes

from God and is not determined by our gender. Authority is a spiritual

function not a function based on our physical attributes. The result of

ministering to one another according to our spiritual gifts is that the church

becomes a true fellowship of believers characterized by mutual participation

in and sharing of the new life in Christ.

 

How does the church understand biblical passages that seem to

restrict women’s ministry in the church?

There are passages that seem to advocate a restrictive view of women

and their place within the Christian community, such as 1 Corinthians

11:2-16; 14:34-35; and 1 Timothy 2:9-15. To ignore any of the passages

relevant to this issue is to damage the integrity of the biblical witness and

to abdicate our responsibility to be biblical people. However, these passages,

though not entirely clear, must not be interpreted in a way that contradicts

the rest of Scripture. Space allows only summary consideration

of these texts.

 

First Corinthians 11:2-16 is among the most obtuse passages in the

New Testament, yet its main instructions are sufficiently clear. Paul offers

instruction on the decorum of those who pray and prophesy. To “prophesy”

in the Bible is to speak God’s word. Most often this takes the form

of cogent teaching delivered to the faithful at the behest of the Holy Spirit.5

This is the case in 1 Corinthians, where the term “prophecy” is aimed at

instruction and exhortation (14:31).

 

It is worth noting that the New Testament identifies men (Silas in

Acts 15:32) and women (the four daughters of Philip in Acts 21:9) with

the role of prophet. The combination of “pray” and “prophesy” suggests

that Paul is referring to public leadership and instruction of the saints.

Paul asserts the clear teaching of “nature” is that women should have their

heads covered while men should be bareheaded when praying and prophesying.

He then claims that women should have their heads covered because

of the angels, and because man is the image of God, while woman is the

image of man.

 

While the meanings of the allusions to nature, angels, and creation

are difficult to discern, the central issue in the passage is not. The question

is how women should conduct themselves while they pray and prophesy,

not whether or not they should pray and prophesy.

 

Paul’s argument about nature appears not to reference the created

order (after all, Genesis 1 asserts that male and female together are the

image of God, and as a Jew, Paul was aware of the vow mentioned in

Numbers 6:1-7 by which men did not cut their hair but allowed it to grow

long), but rather the then common cultural order of Roman civilization.

This is confirmed in verse 11 where the “natural” pattern of gender hierarchy

is set in contradistinction to the very different pattern of the Christian

community in which woman is as essential to man as man is to woman.

Similarly, it is possible that the term “angels” is a symbolic reference to

local customs and culture (see Revelation 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14).

 

Whatever else may be said of this passage, it is clear that Paul believed

the Spirit led both women and men to pray and prophesy. The rub, as

with the discussion of the Eucharist that follows, is that many in the

Corinthian congregation were using the church to pursue their own worldly

agenda. They celebrated the Eucharist in emulation of pagan feasts that

reinforced social status. Paul claimed this practice indicated they had not

understood the leveling effects of the work of Christ: differences exist but

are not to be of any advantage or disadvantage in the body of Christ. Socially

pretentious women at this time chose to go about in public with their

heads uncovered in an attempt to assert social superiority. The point Paul

makes here, as with the Eucharist, is that he will not brook efforts at self-glorification that seek to use the Christian community to achieve that end.

 

In 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, Paul writes that women should keep silent

in the churches, that they should be submissive, and that if they want to

be taught, they should ask their husbands at home. At first blush this seems

a rather unbending injunction. However, we must remember that Paul

has already argued that women may pray and prophesy (chapter 11). We

should also not fail to note that Paul has in view not women generally but

wives whose questions about Christian theology and practice have apparently

disturbed the worship service. Paul commends their interest but

urges them to seek instruction at home.

 

In what is generally regarded as the most restrictive passage in Paul’s

letters, 1 Timothy 2:9-15, Paul claims that he permits no woman to teach

or to have authority. While this passage frequently is used to support

the claim that Paul (or the Bible as a whole) is against women having

authority in matters of Christian faith and practice, this can only be maintained

if 1 Corinthians and Romans, among other New Testament documents,

are removed from consideration. If Paul did not intend this text

as a universal principle for all cultures at all times, then there is no case

for restricting women in ministry.

 

How can this be understood? As always, we must look at the historical

context and translation issues. There are several reasonable explanations

of this passage that do not lead to the conclusion that Paul restricts

women for all time.

 

First, the word for “authority” (authentein) is rare in Greek literature,

and often means, “to domineer.” This definition makes more sense in the

passage than “authority,” as it explains Paul’s recourse to Genesis: it is not

God’s plan for women to domineer men, after all Eve was not created first

(1 Timothy 2:13-14). It is significant that Paul does not go on to argue

that men, therefore, have the right to domineer women. First Timothy

4:3 and 2 Timothy 3:6-7 indicate certain women in the church at Ephesus

had come under the influence of false teaching. In light of the fact that

heresy was beginning to appear in the church, Paul may be trying to silence

the heresy, not women. For example, his intent may have been to say,

“When women are the source of heresy, they are not allowed to teach,”

which is no different than his silencing of male heretics in Acts 18. It is

possible that Paul is suggesting that these women (i.e., heretical women)

should not be allowed to teach and so to domineer/to have authority.

 

It is also quite possible, even likely, that Paul is employing a poetic

device parallel to that used in Matthew 6:20 “where thieves do not break

in and steal.” The purpose of the first action is to accomplish the

second, that is, one breaks in with the purpose of stealing. Read in this

fashion Paul’s intent is to say, “I permit no woman to teach if her aim is

to domineer.”

 

One can conclude that it is possible that in these passages Paul offers

injunctions against women in leadership roles within the Christian community.

But, if so, they stand in stark contradiction to other clearly authoritative

passages where Paul strongly supports, expresses appreciation for,

and advocates for women in leadership roles in the church. Since the totality

of Scripture must inform our thinking and practice, and since Paul’s

thought on women and ministry ought to be consistent throughout his

letters, the passages seem to make the most sense when read as suggested

above. To claim that Paul did, indeed, intend to restrict women in ministry

for all time and all cultures is to attribute inconsistency to Paul and

his teaching, which creates a greater burden of proof than does our conclusion,

which is as follows:

 

Based on our examination of the Scriptures as a whole, we humbly

conclude that qualified men and women, whether clergy or lay,

are free to exercise their God-given gifts in all ministry and leadership

positions in the church. As a result, the Evangelical Covenant

Church licenses, commissions, and ordains qualified men and

women. We encourage our pastors and congregations to recognize,

develop, encourage, and use the spiritual gifts of women

and men, clergy or lay, in all areas of service, teaching, and leadership,

including preaching and pastoral roles.