What follows is what I consider to be my finest research paper to date. The Ordination of Women is certainly the issue I currently feel most passionate.
Introduction
“Southern Baptist women hit a "stained-glass ceiling" during the 20th century.”
- Carolyn Blevins, associate professor of religion at Carson-Newman College
The social movements of every age seem to be used by God to force Christians to re-examine (and clarify) their understanding of what Scripture teaches. 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. Secular Women's Lib movements are forcing churches to distinguish carefully between attitudes toward women derived from traditions of the past and what the Bible actually teaches.
Since the beginning of Christianity, flawed hermeneutics have made the Bible serve selfish interests: theological, ecclesiastical, social, economic and political. The Bible has been used to justify slavery, racial injustice, and bloody wars. It has been used to elevate “clergy” above “laity” and state churches over nonconformists.
It is the purpose of this paper to outline the biblical teachings regarding the ordination of women to ministry. Specifically, we shall define the topics and terms generally associated with the Christian ministry as presented by the Bible. Furthermore, this paper will present and refute contemporary objections to the ordination of women from the egalitarian perspective.
Unfortunately, the majority of the proponents for the ordination of women have come from the more liberal side of Christendom, a side that increasingly has little regard for the authority of the written, God-breathed, record and revelation of the Bible. That they have no regard either for Scripture or tradition, so they appeal to neither Scripture nor tradition for the basis of or arguments for their position. For the conservative Southern Baptist who looks for doctrinal truth in the Bible and his hermeneutic in tradition, the arguments of liberal Christians hold no sway. In fact, when a liberal argues for his position on women in ministry, the conservative Christian sees the liberal’s position on Scripture, the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, the miracles of the Bible, eschatology and homosexuality, and automatically associates these positions with the issue of women in ministry. The issue of the ordination of women is guilty by association.
But like the issue of slavery, not all the proponents of the ordination of women are from the liberal or moderate wings of Christendom. Many conservative, Scripture-believing, Baptist inerranists have arrived at the conclusion that women be ordained. These conservatives have been unfairly labeled as liberals or even moderates for the courage of their convictions and their honest interpretations. Likewise, many who have held the position that women should not be ordained have been unfairly labeled as intolerant or bigoted by liberals. Most who hold a stricter view of ordination honestly believe that this is what God through His Word commands. They suffer not from hateful intolerance but from an incorrect tradition that serves as their hermeneutic. The traditions of men are not always of God (Matt. 15:9), and, while we should always be mindful of tradition, we should never allow it to exclusively govern our interpretations of the Bible.
There are several ways in which some moderate to conservative scholars justify the ordination of women. Some explain difficult passages by selecting verses and pointing out their cultural-historical background and then take the principle implied as their contemporary meaning. While this may be prudent in some cases, in other cases it is difficult and unwise to pursue such a hermeneutic. We shall therefore not employ such a hermeneutical method in the outline of our argument. We may mention in passing where such cultural incongruencies exist but we shall not place abundant evidential weight upon them.
Other more moderate scholars, while not denying the authority of the Scripture, will place doubt upon the recognized authorship of particular epistles, thereby hinting that their less authoritative than other parts of the New Testament. The arguments of this paper will proceed with the presupposition that all recognized Scripture is equally authoritative. Furthermore, issues of authorship will not be of concern. Whether or not Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles (though it is this paper’s presupposition that he did), the authority of Scripture rests not in its human authorship but its Divine authorship. And, finally, issues of textual variances, redactions, and original autographs will not be explored. The text will be considered diachronically.
If the inerrant and infallible Scriptures are the foundation for our orthodox doctrines, we must apply a hermeneutic style that takes into account the sinful nature of man’s attempts at arriving at Truth. With this in mind, we shall use history, experience and reason as hermeneutical perspectives in analyzing the Biblical revelation (tradition being a synthesis of history and experience). It is the hope of this paper that these three hermeneutical pillars will support the entirety of the thesis.
There is no reason for this paper to greatly argue the relative equality of women to men in terms of worth seeing that the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message notes that the “husband and wife (and by logical extension, men and women) are of equal worth before God.” God in His providence has directed history to fulfill His purpose in convincing much of Christendom to finally accept women as of equal value.
Furthermore, this paper will not spend more time than is necessary arguing for the admission of women into ministry for God and service in the church. The 2000 Baptist Faith and Message has noted that “both men and women are gifted for service in the church.” Likewise, God is fulfilling His purpose here as well. The bulk of this paper, then, will be to argue for which roles or offices in the church can be filled by women. Specifically, this paper wishes to answer the question: in which church offices can a woman be ordained?
In their apologetic for the “traditional” position, John Piper and Wayne Grudem express discomfort with the term traditionalist. They suggest that the position they advocate is based on the concept of “complementarily,” because it suggests both equality and beneficial differences between the sexes. The term egalitarian has usually been designated toward proponents of the full inclusion of women in ministry, so we retain the use of this term.
It must be stressed at the outset that the overwhelming majority of scholarly complementarians support the role of women in ministry. Furthermore, most of these same complementarians support the role of women in ministry in all offices save Pastor. One of the more recent positive developments for egalitarians is that the current Biblical interpretation concerning women in ministry held by the majority of scholars has moved from a severely limited role in no office to a highly active role in all offices except one. This recent progression suggests that the tide of scholarly influence is one the side of the egalitarians.
Ordination
Overview
It must first be stated that there is no uniform doctrine of ordination in Scripture. The word, cheirotonein, “to appoint,” is used in Acts 14:23 of the choice of elders. In 2 Cor. 8:19, Titus is appointed by the churches to travel with Paul and others. The original meaning of cheirotonein, “to choose, to elect by raising hands,” is seldom seen in the literature of the first few centuries. Cheirotovein is used of election in Josephus, but it is divine election: Saul is said to be king by the appointment of God.
Josephus also employs it in speaking of appointments to the priesthood. Philo uses cheirotonein of the election of jurymen, and of Pharaoh’s appointment of Joseph as a governor. The religious use of Cheirotobein prepared the word for its use in Christianity; the association with the divine choice was an important factor in the gradual replacement in ecclesiastical literature of xathistemi with cheirotoneo. Thus we read in the Didache: “Appoint [cheirotone] therefore for yourselves bishops and deacons. …” Ignatius used the cheirotoneio of the selection of officials to go on a mission to Antioch. There is no suggestion in any of these texts that the laying on of hands occurred in connection with these appointments.
Epititheio tas cheiras, to lay hands on, occurs five times in Acts in constructions that might be construed as indicating induction into ecclesiastical office through the laying on of hands: 6:1-6 (the Seven); 8:14-25 (the Samaritans); 9:10-18 (the conversion of Saul); 13:1-3 (Paul and Barnabas); and 19:1-7 (the Ephesian Twelve).”
When taken as proof-texts for formulating theological positions on baptism, confirmation, ordination, or the reception of spiritual gifts, these verses have proved to be manageable only if treated selectively, that is, only if some are ignored completely or are dismissed as not pertinent to the doctrine in question. Confusion over the teaching of Acts 19:1-7 is evident in the writings of Tertullian. By the third century, baptism and confirmation were becoming separate rights based on the interpretation of Acts 8:14-25; 9:10-18; and 19:1-7, as teaching two phases to Christian initiation. Acts 8:17 and 19:1-7 are still cited in support of confirmation, ordination, and the “second blessing” doctrine of Pentecostalism.
In defending or explaining their ordination rites, denominations generally quote one or two texts at the most. Baptists generally cite Acts 13:1-3, ignoring other texts in which the laying on of hands occurs. Those who favor a Presbyterian form of church government stress 1 Tim. 4:14; they may acknowledge Acts 6:6; 13:3; and 1 Tim. 5:22, but usually ignore 1 Tim. 1:6 or conflate it with 1 Tim. 4:14.
In traditional ecclesiastical thought, the ordained ministry serves a representative role within the church, summing up and presenting that ministry which comes from Christ through the church by the gift and power of the Spirit. It consists of “leaders” of the people of God who have received a special call and who have been given a special gift from the Holy Spirit to help the rest carry on the work of the Church more effectively.
It must be noted that the Bible gives no specific instructions as to whether women should or should not be ordained. Indeed, there is no clear mandate in the New Testament for the ordination of anyone. The writers of the New Testament simply did not view ordination as we do today. Basically what we see in the Bible is the recognition that a person possessed certain spiritual gifts that were necessary to do a specific needed job. The church then commissioned that person by the laying on of hands, at that time, for that specific task. A specific task could be anything from distributing food to widows to accompaniment on a missionary journey to a life time of service in a church office. In its simplest form, ordination could be defined as the church’s symbolic recognition of what the Holy Spirit has done or is doing. More on this later.
History and Confessions
At this time it is appropriate that we delve into the history of ordination as it specifically concerns Baptists in general and women in particular. It is helpful to understand our current positions in light of our past positions. The bulk of the material covered comes from McBeth’s Women in Baptist Life and Lumpkin’s Baptist Confessions of Faith.
The contrast between Baptist life today and in our past is striking. In 1885 women were excluded from the Southern Baptist Convention. For nearly a hundred years, women were not permitted to serve as messengers to the meetings of the conventions. For many more years they were not allowed to serve as trustees of the agencies or officers of the convention. In 1963 a woman was elected vice-president of the SBC, and in 1978 women composed 42 percent of its messengers. In 1901 a few women were allowed to sit in the back of the classroom at Southern Baptists’ only seminary, but they could not raise questions or write exams, and they could not receive degrees. In 1977 our six seminaries had more than sixteen hundred women students, plus women trustees, and women faculty, including at least two ordained ministers. It has been reported that about 1,300 Southern Baptist women today are ordained ministers.
From our earliest history Baptists had women deacons and deaconesses. Perhaps the earliest recorded comment on the role of Baptist women was by John Smyth, founder of the first identifiable Baptist church of modern history. In a 1609 work entitled Parallels, Censures, Observations, Smyth wrote that “the Church hath powre to Elect, approve & ordeyne her owne Elders, also: to elect, approve, & ordeine her owne Deacons both men & woemen.” The context shows that Smyth’s emphasis was on the power of a local congregation to ordain elders (pastors) and deacons. Ordination did not require the authority of a bishop. However, he clearly acknowledged the place of women deacons as well as men deacons. As early as 1607, before he led his church to adopt believer’s baptism, Smyth has expressed similar views. In a work entitled Principles and Inferences Concerning the Visible Church, he described the officers of a church and their duties: “The Deacons are officers occupied about works of mercy respecting the body or outward man … The Deacons are 1. men 2. women deacons or widowes. Act. 6, 2. Rom. 16,1 … Weomen deacons or widowes are of 60 yeeres of age, qualified according to the Apostles rule. 1 Tim. 5.9, releeving the bodily infirmities of the Saints with cheerfulness.” In The Short Confession of Faith In XX Articles By John Smyth, we see, interestingly, that the document was signed by forty-two individuals, 18 of which were women.
The earliest Baptists accepted women deacons. Apparently these women deacons were equal with the men deacons, with the same election, ordination, and duties. The respected Presbyterian minister Thomas Edwards described Baptist growth in England as a form of “spiritual gangrene.” One of his major accusations is that Baptists allow women to preach.
From this evidence, it is clear that Baptist women did preach in England in the early days of the denomination. It is also clear that most English churchmen found the practice appalling (along with Believer’s Baptism). Nevertheless Baptists opened the way for women preaching. For their views on the ministry, the English Baptists went directly to the Bible for their authority. Those women who preached and those men who allowed it thought they found adequate scriptural teaching and precedent.
In the earliest Baptist confessions, women were recognized as deacons, not deaconesses. For some people these were apparently convenient designations for men and women who performed the same task. This designation is entirely appropriate, as we shall see later. The Anabaptist Waterland Confession of 1580 is the first “Baptist” Confession to refer to ordination. The Confession speaks of the ministries to be exercised in the church, the order which is to be observed in the church about ministries, how the election to those ministries is accomplished, and the confirmation to the ministries. But the document does not take gender into consideration when assigning roles. Likewise the Baptist True Gospel-Faith of 1654 and the Baptist Standard Confession of 1660. Interestingly, 40 signatures are assigned to The Standard Confession, none of which were women. Likewise with the Second London Confession of 1677. The Mennonite Dordredcht Confession of 1632 gives a similar statement of belief but acknowledges the ministries of deaconesses and widows. Likewise with the English Declaration At Amsterdam of 1611. The Pioneer English Separatist-Baptist True Confession of 1596 is interesting in that it holds the 1 Timothy prohibition of “usurping authority” as applying to all but those called by the Church for ministry. Similarly, the ability to minister is given both to men and women.
Dan Taylor of the New Connection churches said:
“When a church undertakes anything of peculiar importance or difficulty in which the women may have occasion to be concerned; or to the expense of which the women may have occasion to be concerned; or to the expense of which they may have a call to contribute; or in the good, or bad effects of which they may be, at least, as much interested as the men are; it is right they should give their voice in it, and their advice concerning it; and it appears to be intolerant not to allow them this privilege.”
In early America some Baptist churches had deaconesses and elderesses. Morgan Edwards, who in the 1760’s served as pastor of First Baptist, Philadelphia, made several tours of the American colonies and reported on the progress and customs of Baptist churches. His book, Customs of Primitive Churches in 1774, shows that many of the Baptist churches had both deaconesses and elderesses; he also sought to defend the practice from the Bible. The work of elderesses he says: “consists in praying, and teaching in their separate assemblies … consulting with sisters about matters of the church which concern them, and representing their sense thereof to the elders; attending at the unction of sick sisters, and at the baptism of women, that all may be done orderly.” Apparently some of the American churches made the distinction between elderesses (“elder women” of 1 Tim. 5:2) and deaconesses (Rom. 16:1) and widows (1 Tim. 5:9). Edwards went to great lengths to defend the biblical authority for elderesses and deaconesses. Their election and ordination, he says, is much like that of deacons and elders. “The office of deaconess,” he said, “is of divine original and perpetual continuance in the church. It is the same in general with the office of deacon.
The Separate Baptists of the South, who formed the spiritual, theological, evangelical, and organizational basis for the Southern Baptist Convention. However, in one area Southern Baptists have generally not followed the Separates, and that is in the role of women in church. Separate Baptist women assumed a larger church role. The Separate churches regularly ordained deaconesses and elderesses. The most notorious aspect of Separate life, however, was not the deaconesses but the popularity of women preachers among them.
The Regular Baptists of the South allowed none of these privileges to women and looked askance at the Separates for doing so. Robert A. Baker in his The Southern Baptist Convention and its People 1672-1972 cites as major obstacle to the union of Baptists in the South, “the extensive ministry of women in the services” of Separates.
After the merger of Regular and Separates, certain traits of each survived. Unfortunately, Separate Baptist tradition concerning the role of women did not survive in the new group. After about 1800, one reads no more about Baptist women preachers in the South, though more often of deaconesses .Women generally did not speak out or testify in church, and in some churches women were not allowed to vote.
Yet, in 1846, one year after the Southern Baptist Convention was formed, R. B. C. Howell published an important book on The Deaconship, Its Nature, Qualifications, Relations, and Duties. Howell was a leading Southern Baptist, an architect of the Convention, and a writer of note whose influence among Southern Baptists was vast. Howell shows from the New Testament that early churches had deaconesses, citing Scripture from Romans 16:1, 1 Timothy 5:9-10, 1 Timothy 3:11, and others. Howell concludes: “Take all these passages together, and I think it will be difficult for us to resist the conclusion that the word of God authorizes, and in some sense, certainly by implication, enjoins the appointment of deaconesses in churches of Christ. …. Deaconesses, therefore, are everywhere, as necessary as they were in the days of the apostles.” As to the role of deaconesses, Howell argued that they were “female assistants to the deacons. … and their duty required them to minister to females, under circumstances in which it would have been manifestly improper that the other sex should have been employed.” While their moral qualifications were the same as for deacons, the deaconesses did have a different status in Howell’s mind, for “deaconesses were not, as deacons are, formally ordained.”
J. R, Graves, sometimes called “the most influential Southern Baptist who ever lived” was the primary founder of the Landmark movement, an ultraconservative movement among Southern Baptists in the nineteenth century. In an article on “Woman’s Work in the Church,” Graves said: “There is no doubt in the minds of Biblical and ecclesiastical scholars, that in the apostolic churches women occupied the office of the deaconship … Phoebe was a deaconess of the church in Cenchrea.” Graves concludes that “There is no good reason why saintly women should not fill the office of deaconess to-day in most churches. In fact, they often perform the duties of the office without the name.
B.H. Carroll was the long-time pastor of the First Baptist Church in Waco, Texas, where he had women deacons. In his discussion of 1 Timothy 2:8 to 3:13, he questioned that the word we usually translate “wives” (meaning wives of deacons) meant that at all. The context, according to Carroll, “required the rendering: ‘women deacons’.” He also said, “The Waco church of which I was pastor for so many years, had, by my suggestion and approval, a corps of spiritually minded, judicious female deacons who were very helpful, and in some delicate cases indispensable.
The evidence suggests that while women did not officially serve as minsisters in the nineteenth century, many Southern Baptists approved of deaconesses and regarded the offices as biblical.
Charles DeWeese points out that in the early years of Baptist life the deacon and deaconess ministered directly to people’s needs, but with the coming of the industrial revolution, gradually the work of the Baptist deacon shifted from ministry to management. He says “the diaconal function began to be viewed more and more in administrative, business, and management categories to the neglect of the more caring and supporting ministries.” Since women in America were not generally involved in secular business management, the churches were unwilling to put them into this role. The office of deaconess declined therefore because the office of deacon changed from ministry to management. MacBeth argues that part of the recent revival of deaconesses and women deacons may be “a result of a shift back toward the ministering concept of deacons.”
There are many reasons for the shift toward women ministers. Many Southern Baptists are unaware that women once exercised more church roles that they have in the past hundred years. Today’s resurgence of women to places of leadership in Southern Baptist churches and in the SBC may look more radical than actually is. It is one thing to discuss theoretically the leadership roles of the women in ministry when few women are prepared for the roles and fewer still desire them. However, when churches have an abundance of women eager and able to effectively serve, the question ceases to be theoretical.
McBeth makes the brilliant observation that the other reason for the increased role of Southern Baptist women is our expanded concept of ministry. There was a time when in Southern Baptist life “ministry” meant either becoming a preacher or a missionary. Those were the only roles available for a minister. Today roles for ministry have vastly expanded. Our churches today have ministers of education, ministers of music, ministers to youth, ministers to the aged, ministers of administration and finance. Other ministers serve as counselors or chaplains in hospitals, industry, retirement homes, the military, or schools. Most Southern Baptist women who are now engaged in the ministry are in nonpreaching and nonpastoral roles. Without the expansion in our concept of ministry, it is doubtful whether there would be as many Southern Baptist women in the ministry.
That the expansion of ministry roles has led to the expansion of roles for women has not gone unnoticed by those unaware of the history of Baptists. Many “traditionalists” (though not complementarians) have attempted to push back the recent work of women in the ministry. On January 16, 1983, the First Baptist Church of Oklahoma City voted 232 to 167 to allow women to become deacons. According to Baptist tradition, which had always gloried in the local church autonomy, the decision should have been nobody’s business but that of First Baptist Church. That was not the case, for its actions set off a controversy in the Capital Baptist Association. Bailey Smith, immediate past president of the SBC, was among those who condemned First Baptist Church for ordaining women as deacons. In 1994, the First Baptist Church of West Jefferson, North Carolina, was expelled from the Ashe Baptist Association for ordaining a woman deacon. In 2001, the ordination of a woman minister of education and students at Parkview Baptist Church in Gainsville, FL sparked a dispute within the Santa Fe River Baptist Association. Three churches alleged that the Gainesville congregation is out of fellowship with the Association and called for its removal. The churches say that the ordination goes against the new Baptist Faith and Message statement adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention the year before. The faith statement reads in part, "While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture." While members of the committee drafting the new language said it was intended to address only women as senior pastors, some are reading it as applying to all ordained ministers.
Regardless of our confessions and creeds, we must first understand what the Scriptures teach before we begin to break fellowship.
Priesthood of the believer
Priesthood
Any consideration of the significance of ordination must be set in the broad context of the doctrine of the priesthood of believers. We believe that Jesus Christ is our great High Priest. On the cross he was both priest and sacrifice. Now he is interceding for us at the Father’s right hand.
Nowhere in the New Testament is any Christian called a priest (iereus).There are, however, five texts in the New Testament (each of which is based on Exodus 19:6) which indicate that all believers have the standing of a priest before God. This doctrine speaks to the personal immediacy in that every believer has in relation to Christ.
Paige Patterson has concluded that the universal priesthood of believers implies certain important truths. Among these are: 1) it guarantees direct (or immediate) access for the believer to God, 2) it demands responsible service by the believer to the Lord, and 3) it emphasizes the evangelistic assignment of every believer for the Lord. The priesthood of all believers does not reduce the role of all believers does not reduce the role (or the need) of a representative leadership. It calls for the priesting of all believers, not the laicizing of all leaders.
Martin Luther made the priesthood of all believers a touchstone for the true Church and a mark of the Reformation’s faithfulness to an original Christianity too long subverted. Looking back across millennia in which the Church in Rome had come to distinguish sharply between clergy and laity, the Reformers could find no scriptural basis for this development.
In the New Testament there is no evidence of vocational difference. The New Testament word for clergy (kleros) refers not to a special order among Christians, but to all Christians. And the word for laity (laos) refers not to the pew-warming part of the congregation but to all Christians. All are called to one service, and all alike are God’s people. “And you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people (laos), that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9).
It is, of course, true that there were leaders and teachers, but they did no more than set forth the Biblical truth of every Christian’s obligation. An assembly of believers will select other believers to be their leader, but those people are priests only as are those who selected them. Since all Christians are priests before God, God’s requirements and expectations are the same for all.
This new idea of believer communities called for a new pattern of leadership. The key concept in the structuring of the new communities was to be service, diachonia. Service to God was no longer the prerogative of Levitic priest, but was to be the privilege of all believers. Jesus Christ had not only established a new community, but had set the example of perfect service. Just as voluntary humility (submissiveness) was typified by Jesus (Phil. 2:5-8), so also should all who take His name have the same spirit (Phil. 2:3-5). There was to be a mutuality of service, diachonia, pervading the body of Christ. “As each has received a gift, employ [diachonoutes] it for another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace” (1 Pet. 4:10).
The principle of mutual humility and service among believers is reflected in the vocabulary chosen by the New Testament writers. Words in secular Greek for civil and religious authorities are consistently avoided with regard to the ministries of the church. Time, for example, is used in secular Greek to describe the honor and dignity of office. Not once is it used of office holding in the New Testament, nor are arche or archon used in reference to leadership in the Christian community. Arche, always implies a primacy whether in time (“beginning,” “first principle”) or in rank (“power,” “authority,” “office”), means, in connection with office, a leading, a precedence or rule. The Septuagint does use the word in secular contexts and in religious ones. The New Testament uses it for Jewish and Gentile authorities and in a different sense for Christ (Col. 1:16), but never for Church ministries of any sort. Similarly the title archon (ruler, prince) is used for demonic powers, Roman and Jewish officials, and also for Christ (Rev. 1:5, “ruler of the kings of the earth”), but never for offices in the Church.
Words used of in Old Testament (iereus, leitoupyos) are likewise avoided in connection with the office of individuals in the Christian communities. Michael Green notes:
“It is simply staggering in view of the background of these New Testament writers, steeped as they were in the priestly system of the Old Testament, that never once do they use the word hiereus of the Christian minister. The Aaronic analogy for their ministry lay obviously to hand. But they refused to use it. It is hard to overrate the significance of this point when we notice that they did use it of the whole Christian community.”
Therefore, every believer is a priest before God. Each may enter the Father’s presence through faith in Christ alone. Each is also responsible to share his or her faith in a personal ministry. The New Testament church did not ordain people to positions of authority, (as we shall see more of later) but designated all people to the ministry of service.
Galatians 3:28
One of the most repeated arguments from the less informed opponents of women in ministry or ordained positions is that, “Jesus was a man and He chose twelve men to be his disciples. Therefore, only men should be ordained by church as its spiritual leaders.” Note, however, that the twelve included no Gentiles, nor no slaves, yet the New Testament church became predominately made up of slave and Gentiles - and women!
Primary in the meaning of the priesthood of all believers is the standing of the believer before God as a mature son with all of the attendant rights and privileges which sonship entails. Although it took time, most of the New Testament church leaders finally came, through the help of the Spirit, to realize that God makes no distinction between persons. God favors no person over another. God rejects no one who comes to God. In Galatians 3:26-28: “For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no ‘male and female’; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” In the Greek text arsen kai thelu (“male and female”) is more of an interruption than English translations would indicate. These words are the technical terms from Genesis 1:27 “male and female created he them,” and their technical character is clear as they are not the ordinary words for “man” and “woman” but actually “male and female.” The conjunction “and” also interrupts the “neither/nor” series. We therefore have good reason to put “male and female” in quotation marks. Paul shows that the Law has been transcended in Christ at the following points: (1) the boundary line between Jews and Greeks has been abolished, the wall of partition which God himself had risen through the Law. (2) The boundary line between slave and free, which also is well attested in the Law, is overcome. (3) And, finally, the most primary division of God’s creation is overcome, that between male and female – the terminology points directly back to Genesis 1:27 and in the direction of man as the image of God, beyond the division into male and female.
Frank Stagg has characterized Galatians as Paul’s “free manifesto.” In this letter Paul rejects bondage to the Mosaic law in favor of the freedom for which Christ freed us (Gal. 5:1). The cultic right of circumcision is not to be imposed upon anyone who knows the freedom of living by faith (3:11-14). Our common humanity and oneness in Christ are not to be obscured by such secondary distinctions as ethnic identity, legal status, or sexuality, for “there is not any Jew nor Greek, not any slave nor free, not any male and female; for ye all are one in Christ Jesus” (v. 28). This text does not deny the reality of sexual difference any more than it denies the reality of distinctions that are ethnic (Jew and Greek) or legal (slaves and free persons). There are such distinctions, but so far as our being “in Christ” is concerned, being male or female is not a proper agenda item.
Spiritual Gifts
In Rom. 12:3-8 the central thought is that of “charismatic gifts” within the church as the body of Christ (v. 6). Just as in a physical body there are many members with their different functions, “thus the many of us are one body in Christ, individually members of one another” (v. 5). At this point Paul turns to charismatic gifts, with a play upon the Greek word for “grace” (charismata kata charin). Charis is the Greek word for grace, and charismata are simply gifts of God’s grace. Any gift of grace is “charismatic,” hence there are no noncharismatic true believers. Eternal life itself is charisma (6:23). In 12:6-8 charismata include prophecy (preaching, proclamation, or discernment), service, teaching, comforting or exhortation, contributing to the needs of the saints, presiding or leading, and acts of mercy. Paul’s point is that charismata are indeed gifts of grace. Moreover, they are responsibilities. These spiritual gifts are to be employed. If one has the gift of preaching or prophesying, than one is to preach or prophecy, if one has the gift of teaching, that one is to teach. These charismatic gifts are seen here not as being special favors but as carrying special obligations.
Although Rom. 12:3-8 says nothing explicitly about women in ministry, its ideas are inescapable: the possession of a gift from God’s grace carries with it the obligation that it be employed within the church, in the service of the church, and that the church allow the gifted person to exercise their gift. Romans 12:3-8 thus is as significant as is the explicit affirmation of Gal. 3:28: “There is not any Jew nor Greek, not any slave nor free, not any male and female; for you all are one in Christ Jesus.”
The New Testament teaches that the church assemblies are to be places where all Christians employ their charismatic gifts. As mentioned previously, there is no division into two classes of people: clergy and laity. Alexander Strauch, author of Biblical Eldership, correctly notes:
“There were prophets, teachers, apostles, pastors, evangelists, leaders, elders, and deacons within the early church, but these terms were not used as formal titles. For example, all Christians are saints, but there is no “Saint John.” All are priests, but there is no “Priest Philip.” Some are elders, but there is no “Elder Paul.” Some are pastors, but there is no “Pastor James.” Some are deacons, but there is no “Deacon Peter.” Some are apostles, but is no “Apostle Andrew.” Rather than gaining honor though titles and position, New Testament believers received honor primarily for their service and work (Acts 15:26; Romans 16:1, 2, 4, 12; 1 Corinthians 8:18; 2 Corinthians 8:18; Philippians 2:29, 30; Colossians 1:7; 4:12, 13; 1 Thessalonians 5:12; 1 Timothy 3:1). The early Christians referred to each other by personal names—Timothy, Paul, Titus, etc.—or referred to an individual’s spiritual character and work: “…Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit…” (Acts 6:5); Barnabas, “…a good man, and full of the Holy Spirit and of faith…” (Acts 11:24); “…Philip the evangelist…” (Acts 21:8); “Greet Prisca and Aquila, my fellow-workers in Christ Jesus” (Romans 16:3); “Greet Mary, who has worked hard for you” (Romans 16:6); etc. The array of ecclesiastical titles accompanying the names of Christian leaders today is completely missing from the New Testament, and would have appalled the apostles and early believers.”
Ministry
As has been mentioned previously, all members of the body of Christ are called to serve the church, within the church. This fact being the case, it can scarcely be argued that women should be denied a place within the church for ministry. Since almost all complementarians do not deny the place of women in certain kinds of ministry we shall only mention in passing the biblical record of certain New Testament women in the ministry and the degree to which they were involved.
In Matthew 28:10 Jesus proclaimed: “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you.”
There is evidence here that Jesus was speaking to both men and women. While Matthew only mentions the 11 disciples were there to hear these words, in Luke 24:33, others are gathered with them that return to Jerusalem (24:52, Acts1:12). In Acts 1:13-14, we discover that some of these others were there (120 in the upper room) were certain women. These women included Mary and “certain women.” We cannot be certain who these certain women were, but, in all likelihood, they were Mary Magdalene and Joanna (Luke 24:10). If this be the case, we have circumstantial evidence that Jesus intended his proclamation for both men and women. In Acts 1:8, those whom he speaks to are told that they shall receive the Holy Spirit. In Acts 1:14; 2:1, 4, 16-18 we have the Spirit given alike to the female as to the male disciples.
In the life and letters of Paul we are given numerous women ministers of the church. They assisted in composing letters (Rom. 16:22; 1 Thess 1:1), carried apostolic messages to local churches (1 Cor 4:17; 16:10-11), sought to encourage the believers on Paul’s behalf (1 Thess 3:2), reported to Paul the status on congregations under his care (1 Thess 3:6) and even occasionally hosted house churches (1 Cor 16:19).
Paul often speaks of women as his “co-workers” (synergos), his favorite term for those who aided him in ministry. This term, together with its equivalent, “hard worker” (kopion), appears to refer to a particular group of Christians. In Philippians 4:3 states: “And I entreat you also, true yokefellow, help those women which labored with me in the Gospel, with Clement, and with other my fellow-worker.” This Precisely the same terms are applied to Timothy, whom Paul styles a “minister of God, and his fellow-worker in the Gospel of Christ (1 Thessalonians 3:2).
Two women that Paul cited as his coworkers – Euodia and Syntyche (Phil 4:2-3) ministered in the church of Philippi, which traced it’s founding to Lydia’s conversion. Paul’s reference to these two women raises the question of what type of ministry they pursued together with Paul. To understand the role Euodia and Syntyche played, we must consider what Paul meant when he said “they have struggled beside me in the work of the gospel” (Phil 4:3). According to W. Derek Thomas, the term struggled or contended (synethlesan) provides an important clue. This word “meant ‘to contend,’ as the athlete strained every muscle to achieve victory in the games. So, with equal dedication these women had contended with all zeal for the victory of the Gospel at Philippi.” Thomas then draws this conclusion:
“The Apostle would scarcely have used this strong word if they had merely ‘assisted him with material help’ and hospitality, while remaining in the background. The word synethlesan suggests a more active participation in the work of Paul, probably even a vocal declaration of the faith. How far this is true is admittedly a matter of conjecture; what can be said with certainty, however, is that they had contended with the Apostle in the cause of the Gospel and had gained a position of such influence as to make their present conflict a risk to the well-being of the church.”
Victor Pfitzner’s research supports this conclusion: “The verb would seem to imply a more active role than the mere acceptance of the Apostle into their homes on the part of these women.”
So far there is little that has been asserted that most complementarians would find adverse. Indeed, the “helper” position is one that complementarians cling to earnestly. In Romans 16 is recorded an excellent list of the fellow-workers associated with Paul and his ministry. Prominent on the list are Aquila and Priscilla, who with Urbanus are called “fellow workers” (synergous). Mary and Persis are two women who Paul says “worked very hard” (polla ekopiasen). He calls Tryphaena and Tryphosa “workers in the Lord” (kopiosas en kyrio). But in verse 7: “Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the Apostles; who were also in Christ before me.” By the word “kinsmen “one would take Junia to have been a man; but Chrysostom and Theophylact, who were both Greeks, and consequently knew their own language better than today’s translators, say Junia was a woman. “Kinsmen” should therefore have been translated “kinsfolk.” Junia (a woman’s name) and Andronicus are described as apostles. Unfortunately most translations have made Junia into a male by adding the letter s to the name although there is no record in Greek or Latin literature of men being called her name. Almost all commentators on this text before the thirteenth century regarded Junia as female. The change has been justified on the grounds that since Paul calls this person an apostle, it could not have been a woman. This is one of the circular arguments that is often given in discussion of women in ministry. “Junia could not have been an apostle, because there were no women apostles.” “How do you know?” “Because nowhere in the Bible is a woman mentioned as an apostle.”
There are two important aspects to glean from the above designations. First, Paul readily affirms the ministry of women with the same words of approval and recommendation that he uses for men, indicating an active partnership of men and women in the ministry. Second, the terms Paul uses in context suggest the participation of women in all dimensions of the ministry. In fact, his language is reminiscent of his descriptions of his own hard work on behalf of others (compare 16:6 with Gal 4:11).
“Offices in the Church”
Deacon
A gray area tends to exist with reference to the differences between “ministry” and “deacons” in the New Testament. In English and in the practice of the church there is generally a clear distinction between “ministers” and “deacons,” especially where the subject of ordination obtains. This distinction breaks down in the Greek. The word most often rendered “ministry” is diakonia, simply a cognate of diakonos, which may be rendered “minister” or “deacon.” The Greek word diakonos appears as a technical term in 1 Tim. 3:8, 12, designating an office that of “bishop” and/or “presbyter” (1 Tim. 3:1; cf. Titus 1:5, 7, for interchange of “bishop” and “presbyter”). Even here the term is not fixed, for Timothy is a diakonos (1 Tim. 4:6). Another ambiguity appears in 1 Tim. 3:11, where gynaikos can mean “wives” or women,” i.e., wives of deacons or women as deacons. Outside the Pastorals, the term diakonos is so fluid that it may be used for anyone who serves in any way. Among those called “deacon” in the New Testament are included anyone who serves (Mt. 20:26), the servants who drew the water at the Cana wedding (Jn. 2:5), political rulers (Rom. 13:4), Christ (Rom. 15:8), Apollos and Paul (1 Cor. 3:5), and Timothy (1 Thess. 3:2). During the course of the first century and the realization of a more distant parousia, the term gradually acquired a technical usage for a specific church office (1 Tim. 3:8, 12; 4:6).
In Romans 16:1-2 we read: “Phoebe, who is a deaconess of the church which is at Cenchrea; that you receive her in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well.” Paul called Phoebe a diakonos. She is called a “deacon,” not a “deaconess.” The reference to Phoebe is unique, however, in two aspects.
First, Paul refers to her using the specifically masculine noun form diakonos, rather than some feminine alternative reflecting the more general idea of service. The term “deaconess” does not appear anywhere in the New Testament. In fact, the designation “deaconess” did not develop until the late third or early fourth century. This is significant because in Paul’s reference to women in 1 Timothy 3:11, the apostle does not use the word deacon (diakonos). His choice of a feminine noun (gynaikas) opens the possibility that he was referring either to women office holders or, less likely, to the wives of male deacons. If in the first century there existed no word for “deaconess” but only “deacon” (a word Paul applies to Phoebe), then to distinguish between men and women deacons Paul would have been without a word. Furthermore, if Paul had intended to speak of deacon “wives” he had a word to use which would not have been gynaikas.
Second, Paul places Phoebe’s ministry within a specific congregation, for she is a diakonos “of the church at Cenchreae.” This is the only New Testament occurrence of the word followed by a genitive construction linking a person’s service directly to a local church. Usually Paul uses the genitive appellation to denote a broader application as a “minister of Christ” (Col 1:7; 1 Tim 4:6). The idiosyncrasies of his commendation provide strong evidence that Paul intended to designate Phoebe as serving in some important official capacity in the Cenchrean church. She was a deacon, an office to which a congregation could appoint both men and women.
In reviewing Romans 16:1-2, a number of fascinating conclusions and questions emerge. “Phoebe, who is a ‘deaconess’ of the church which is at Cenchrea; that you receive her in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well.” 1) Phoebe is a “deaconess” of her church. 2) The Roman church is commanded by Paul to receive her in a Christian manner. 3) The Roman church is to help her in her ministry in whatever matter she may have need of them. If this be the case, then if she asks something of them are they to obey? Does obedience imply submission to authority? Does Phoebe, having been sent by an Apostle, have authority over the Romans? Obviously Paul implicitly trusts the judgment and decision making abilities of Phoebe. Why should he not? She has helped Paul and Paul knows her. 4) She has been a helper of Paul, now the Romans are to help her.
A further thought emerges: It is not impossible that the carrier of the Epistle to the Romans, the magnum opus of the Pauline Scriptures, the ultimate systematic treatise of grace and faith, the document that influenced Luther and Calvin and launched the Protestant Reformation to save Christianity from the Catholic Church, the Scripture that influenced Barth and launched the Neo-Orthodoxy movement to save Protestantism from German Liberalism, was entrusted to a deaconess named Phoebe. Obviously, Paul trusted her. Obviously, God trusted her.
McBeth’s argument that the expansion of ministry roles has led to the expansion of roles for women offers an intriguing and hopeful outcome to the debate about women’s ordination. Women who now serve in an unordained capacity are filling the roles that have opened as the ministry has expanded. All Christians are called to serve and some actually recognize this call. Ordination is like a baptismal ceremony. A Baptism does not make a person a believer; only the Holy Spirit makes a person a believer. Similarly, ordination is only a symbolic recognition for the church of what the Holy Spirit has already done or is doing. Whether or not the church ceremonially ordains women or not, the Holy Spirit will ordain who He wants and no tradition will impede.
Elder/Overseer/Pastor
Now we come to the heart of the argument of this paper: women can be pastors. Complementarians might welcome the conclusion that the New Testament church appointed women as deacons, which would be in keeping with their perspective on a woman’s place in God’s order – those called to serving/helping ministries. For complementarians, however, the possibility that women acted as elders is more problematic. Without question, women serving in this office would entail the “exercise of authority” that they would find incompatible with the male leadership principle.
From her study, Mary Evans concludes, “There is no woman anywhere in the New Testament who is ever described as and elder or a bishop.” This seems to confirm the complementarian contention. Evans and complementarians may be technically correct. With the possible exception of 1 Timothy 5:2, nowehere does a biblical author uses either of the Greek designations for this office (episkopos or presbyteros) in conjunction with specific women. But this must be placed within the context of two other considerations. As Evans herself then adds, “No man is ever described as being a bishop and the only men who are specifically referred to as elders are Peter (1 Peter 5:1) and the writer of 2 and 3 John, both of whom refer to themselves in this way.” As a result, we cannot build a case against women elders from the lack of personal designations in the texts. In addition, as with other “doctrines” of ordination, the New Testament nowhere directly prohibits the appointment of women to this office. Therefore, persons who would exclude women from the eldership on biblical grounds must develop their case from inferences.
It has generally been the case among Baptists that terms such as elder (presbyteros), overseer (episkopos), and pastor (“shepherd”) are synonymous terms for the same office or function within a local congregation. This view is based upon the Acts 20:17, 28. While many people and many denominations might separate the terms into separate offices, Baptists have tended to view the separate terms as describing a single office. This is much like the numerous names attributed to Jesus (the Christ, the Son of Man, the Second Adam, the Prince of Peace, etc.) All these designations refer to the same person but attribute to him different “functions.” If we then say an elder is a pastor is an overseer then we have at least simplified the discussion.
The term elder (presbyteros) (Acts 20:17; 1 Tim 5:17-18; Tit 1:5; Jas 5:14; 1 Pet 5:1-4) could refer either to chronological age or to a specific ministry within the community. The name suggests spiritual oversight, for elders fulfilled certain ministries such as anointing the sick (Jas 5:14) as well as preaching, teaching, admonishing and guarding against heresy (Tit 1:9).
The designation bishop (episkopos) means “one who supervises” (see Acts 20:28; 1 Tim 3:1-7; Tit 1:5-9). Hence this office is “almost always related to oversight or administration.” Bishops directed the ongoing functioning of the congregation in the various aspects of its corporate ministry. They were to “shepherd” or guide the people of God (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:1-4). And by providing administrative leadership, they coordinated congregational ministry (1 Tim 3:5; 5:17).
The primary function of the elders is to be responsible for the caring and the teaching of the congregation. As “leaders” they give guidance and direction to the church. As teachers they oversee the life of the church, to preserve its faithfulness. Titus 1:9 say that the elder “must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to refute those who contradict it.” Elders are also the governing overseers. 1 Timothy 5:17 says, “Let the elders who rule well (or govern or oversee or manage well) be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching." So it is evident that there exists a diversity of functionality among elders. All must be able to handle the word of God and be able to recognize false doctrine and correct error; but some “labor especially in preaching and teaching.”
It is apparent from Scripture that there always existed more than one elder in each local congregation. In Jerusalem: Acts 15:22, "Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church to choose men and to send them to Antioch." In Ephesus: Acts 20:17, "And from Miletus [Paul] sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church." In all the towns of Crete: Titus 1:5, "This is why I (Paul) left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you." In all the churches James wrote to when he said, "To the twelve tribes of the dispersion": James 5:14, "Is any among you sick? Let him call the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord" (assuming that there are elders in every church). In all the churches in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia that Peter wrote to: 1 Peter 5:1, "So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed." Finally, in all the churches Paul founded on the first missionary journey (and presumably on the other journeys as well): Acts 14:23, "And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting, they committed them to the Lord in whom they believed."
It would appear that most churches today are unbiblical in that they have a single pastor or a single elder in final authority. This concept is completely foreign to the New Testament church. They always had pastors (plural) and elders (plural). No one person was ever given a final voice of authority. Elders reached unanimous decisions after much prayer and deliberation as to what the final teaching of the Scriptures meant.
W.B. Johnson, the first President of the Southern Baptist Convention (1845), wrote in 1846: “In a review of these Scriptures, we have these points clearly made out:
1. That over each church of Christ in the apostolic age, a plurality of rulers was ordained, who were designated by the terms elder, bishop, overseer, pastor, with authority in the government of the flock.
2. That this authority involved no legislative power or right, but that it was ministerial and executive only, and that, in its exercise, the rulers were not to lord it over God's heritage, but as examples to lead the flock to the performance of duty ...
3. That these rulers were all equal in rank and authority, no one having a preeminence over the rest. This satisfactorily appears from the fact that the same qualifications were required of all, so that though some labored in word and doctrine, and others did not, the distinction between them was not in rank, but in the character of their service...
4. That the members of the flock were required to follow and imitate the faith of their rulers, in due consideration of the end of their conversation, Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and today, and forever...”
Southern Baptists as a whole have significantly departed from Mr. Johnson's summary of New Testament teaching on this matter. Thankfully, the Holy Spirit is able to work around and even through our ecclesiastical interpretations. Just as there are many who serve as deacons but are not recognized or ordained as deacons, so are there many who serve as elders put are not recognized as such. If complementarians and egalitarians can agree on anything it should be that the epistles of Timothy and Titus tell us that the qualifications for appointing elders has nothing to do with professional skills or degrees. The qualifications all regard personal character and morality. Those elders who do lead, teach and preach well are due more respect, but it is not a necessary qualification. In short, eldership is based on spiritual maturity. While it may be common that an elder is of advanced age this is not necessarily so. Take a young church plant that has only young adults as members. If there are a few members who have been believers longer than the rest and exhibit spiritual maturity, even if they are in their late thirties, they are the elders. And length of belief may not necessarily be a factor. Some believers mature very quickly and might be looked upon by other believers who are older and have been believers longer. What is common in these two scenarios is that believers will be able to discern those who by their spiritual maturity are the elders of a church. Whether or not these people are officially recognized as such by the church is of no great spiritual matter. Like deacons, they fulfill their function despite contemporary ecclesiastical standards. This is why even if current Baptist standards to do not recognize the Biblical standard the Holy Spirit, despite our ignorance, makes the church go as He pleases.
Now with this in mind, if we go to 1 Timothy 5, we see both elders (presbutero) and elderess (presbuteras). In Titus 2, we have a slightly different word for elder (presbutas) and elderess (presbutidas). Both are adjectival forms of the terms of 1 Timothy 5. There is much debate on whether these words signify “elder” or merely the “aged.” In the context of the Pastoral Epistles and with regard to the similarity between the requirements of both the 1 Timothy 5 and Titus 2 chapters, it is safe to say that Paul is speaking of the same function. Therefore, a woman can be and elder. If we then assert the plurality of eldership expressed in the Bible and then assert the notion that elder, overseer, and pastor all refer to the same office, then we must assert that the Bible clearly teaches that women can be pastors.
We must further note that, as with the deaconship, whether or not women are recognized as elderesses by the church in the symbolic recognition of ordination, they are already serving the elder/pastor function. The Holy Spirit moves despite the contemporary traditions of men.
Ministries
Teaching
We move from “office” to function. As we have seen, the restrictions regarding the roles of women in ministry nullify the Great Commission of Jesus. Christ said, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” In the New Testament we find examples of women speaking in churches and teaching. We must understand those passages that prohibit these practices as particular to a certain time and place; either that or we are forced to say that in the New Testament churches we have examples of women breaking God’s universal laws. More on this subject later.
What then is teaching? Someone with some specific knowledge informs another without some specific knowledge that specific knowledge. But if a man asks a woman about directions to a library and she informs the man has she sinned by giving him information? Has he sinned for asking her in the first place? One responds, “That is not ‘teaching,’ as the Bible means it.” How so? “The Bible is referring to the church setting.” Or, “The Bible is referring to matters of doctrinal truth.” These are two counterarguments that are usually given. If a man learns in church something from a woman, however minute, like directions to the library, has that woman sinned? If, while in church, a woman informs a man that in the doctrine of the atonement, the “penal” in penal substitutionary atonement means that Christ bore a penalty when He died, has that woman sinned? Some will say, “Yes, the woman sinned for informing the man of the doctrinal truth. The man may have sinned in asking her. She should have directed him toward another man who could answer his question.” But what if the woman had said, “I’m sorry, I cannot answer your question. Doctrinally, I am not allowed to answer doctrinal questions.” If the man responds, “Gee, I didn’t know that,” the woman has sinned again. The strict among us would answer,” She should have kept silent. When a man asks you something concerning doctrine, keep silent.” But in John 20:17, Jesus tells Mary “go to my brethren, and say to them, “I ascend to My Father.” Jesus asked her to inform the disciples concerning the doctrine of the ascension. And implicitly she informed them concerning the doctrine of the resurrection. Would Jesus tell Mary to sin? “No,” responds the strict among us, “that was not teaching; that was informing.” A woman can inform a man of non-doctrinal matters. A woman can teach a man of non-doctrinal matters. A woman can inform a man of doctrinal matter. But a woman may not teach a man of doctrinal matters.
In Acts 18:24-26 we have a story concerning Apollos, Priscilla, and Aquila. “Now a certain Jew named Apollo, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John; and he began to speak out boldly in the Synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.”
The word used for “explain” in the Greek is ektithemi. This word is only used by Luke and exclusively in Acts. It means “to place, or set out,” “to expose,” “to exhibit,” and metaphorically “to set forth, declare, or expound.” Luke uses the word in Acts 11:4 to describe how Peter “explained” his vision at Cornelius’ house to the Jerusalem Church. This was the vision that led the church to realize that God was not limiting Himself only to Jews.
The other time Luke uses ektithemi is in Acts 28:23 to describe how Paul explained to the leading Jews in Rome by “testifying about the kingdom of God, and trying to persuade them concerning Jesus, from both the Law of Moses and from the prophets.”
If we take these verses at their face value, along with the qualifications of elders and elderesses, is apparent that women are allowed if not required to teach men if the circumstance warrants it. The complementarian rebuttal would be that in the case of Priscilla, either 1) she was not teaching (didache) only expounding/explaining, or 2) she was teaching but complementing Aquila, i.e. he had the authority in the situation.
The response to both of these assertions: 1) ektithemi and didache appear to be synonymous. Didache may refer to doctrinal teaching, but as the above examples indicate, so can ektithemi; 2) the text does not say that Priscilla complemented Aquila anymore than Aquila complemented Priscilla. Such an interpretation must be forced into the text, it does not naturally occur. Also, to say that Aquila had authority in the situation is also tenuous. The text does not say so, and any assertion to the contrary is based upon ideas of “natural male authority” and not upon the Scripture. More on this later.
But who did have the authority in this situation? Aquila or Priscilla? Both? The Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit and Aquila? Could we say that if authority existed in this situation (and nothing in the text explicitly or implicitly states so) that this authority came from the Word of God? Does the Word of God only have authority when a man speaks it? Does the Word of God lose its authority when spoken by a woman? What does this say about the Word of God? What about the written Word? Few people today would prohibit women from writing books that men read, even doctrinal books, although that is undoubtedly a powerful form of teaching. Some complementarians appear to be on the verge of neo-orthodoxy. The objective word of God becomes real only when spoken subjectively by a man but not subjectively by a woman.
Preaching/Prophecy
In most Baptist churches ordination is understood to mean the choosing of certain individuals to occupy positions of authority within the congregation. This qualifies them to preach, administer the ordinances and supervise the affairs of the congregation. Because of the special place of preaching in Baptist churches, the issue of ordination is very closely tied to that function.
One of the spiritual gifts of Romans 12 is prophecy. Some today would relegate this charismatic gift to be synonymous with preaching. This is unfortunate. The word we translate as “prophesy” is propheteuo. It is the Greek translation of the Old Testament word for “prophecy,” (naba). A Old Testament prophet (nabi) was “one who carried the word of God.” Part of his function was to also proclaim the word of God he carried. Now a prophet does proclaim or preach the word of God, but a preacher does not necessarily prophesy. The New Testament does make a difference. There are two words that we today translate as “preach.” The first is kerusso. It means “to proclaim, to herald.” The other word is euaggelizo. It means “to preach the gospel.” These words can be synonymous but do not have to be. One could “proclaim” themselves dictator. A woman could “proclaim” that a house is on fire. The term need not be doctrinal. And complementarians admit that there concern is doctrinal. We then focus on euaggelizo – this word always means “preach or proclaim the gospel.” It is the word we get evangelist from: “one who preaches the gospel.” But the clear distinction between prophesying, preaching, and preaching the gospel is not a necessary point to argue that a woman may do all three.
The Bible clearly states that women were prophetesses: Miriam (Ex. 15:20, 21), Deborah (Judg. 4:4, 5), Huldah (2 Kin. 22:12-20), Isaiah’s wife (Is. 8:1-3), Anna (Luke2:36). According to the prediction of Joel (Joel 2:28), the Spirit of God was to be poured out on the women as well as the men, that they might prophecy (teach?). This prophecy came to fulfillment on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2). In Acts 21:9, “Philip the Evangelist has four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.” And women continued to prophecy from what Paul says (I Corinthians 11), where he lays down rules to regulate this part of their conduct while ministering in the Church.
Now, does a woman prophetess carrying the word of God have “authority” over a man? She does not have “authority” because she is a woman but because of the word she carries and preaches. Does a pastor have “authority” because he is a man? No, he has “authority” because of the position in which he functions and the word he preaches.
Now if we do distinguish between prophesy and preaching the gospel we must then deny women from proclaiming the good news. A woman could not recite John 3:16 to an unbeliever. But, again, in John 20:17, Jesus commands Mary to tell the male disciples that He has risen. In terms of Christianity, Mary was the first evangelist preacher.
Objections
Some have objected that though one can argue that scripture allows a woman to preach, prophecy, teach, have authority, and hold positions of minister, deacon, and elder, nevertheless, the verse of 1 Timothy 2:12 cannot be ignored. This is certainly true. Objectors state that this verse (or at least the traditional interpretation of this verse) outweighs all other verses that seem to contradict the traditional view of this verse. An appropriate analogy would be to argue that despite numerous versed to the contrary, Jesus was not deity because of Mark 10:17-18. These verses recall that when a man addresses Jesus as “Good Teacher,” Jesus responds to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.” While this verse does not directly reject Jesus’ deity it implies that He is not good. Since He is not good and only God is good Jesus therefore is not God. Now one can take numerous verses from throughout the Bible giving evidence for Christ’s deity. One can build a case from the Gospel of Mark! But despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Jesus never directly identifies Himself as God and Mark 10:18 cannot be ignored. Now obviously few but the most liberal theologians would hold to this hermeneutic. To do so would be to stubbornly hold to a preconceived notion as authoritative like a life raft in a sea of authoritative contradictions. We cannot construct our theology around one verse. We certainly cannot build and teardown the lives of other Baptist ministers based on one verse. And if Scripture overwhelmingly contradicts our established interpretation of a verse, we must then call into question the validity of that established interpretation.
Susan Foh explains: “If the Biblical material is in the form of a command to the church as a whole … it ought to be seen as valid for all time. If there is nothing in text to indicate that a command is limited to a special case or circumstance, we cannot presume to limit the text or to read Paul’s mind.
Unfortunately, those who espouse this view are unable to carry it out. For example, five times Christians are commanded (in the imperative) in the New Testament to “greet one another with a holy kiss.” There is nothing in any of the contexts to indicate that this command is limited to special cases or circumstances. Yet traditional churches rarely carry out this command. Furthermore, those who believe that 1 Timothy 2:12 forever bars all women of all time from teaching or having authority over men usually ignore the commands in the other six verse in this section. This is a classic case of “selective literalism.” If this passage is universal for all Christian women of all time, then no woman should ever wear pearls or gold (including wedding rings) or have braided hair or expensive clothing.
“Husband of one wife”
But before we deal with the primary argument for the prohibition of the ordination of women, let us discuss a secondary argument. 1 Timothy 3:1 states that any man aspiring to the office of overseer must be “the husband of one wife.” For much of the church the question of ordination to ministry for women is settled by this restriction also found in Titus 1:6. To many this Pauline proof text seems sufficient to exclude all women, for traditionally a woman does not have a wife. But the matter is not so simple.
What is interesting concerning both the 1 Timothy and Titus passages is that, as previously mentioned, the qualifications for elder or overseer concerns matters of character. In context, the phrase “husband of one wife” would seem to refer not to gender but to personal ethics. Although most scholars believe that both Jews and Gentiles were basically monogamous by this time, a man could legally still have more than one wife. No evidence exists, however, that a woman could ever legally have more than one husband. The writer of 1 Timothy addressed men who could have more than one wife; perhaps some men of the early church did. The writer said that the leaders of the church would practice the “one man, one woman, faithful to death” ideal of God, regardless of the world’s laws. There would have been no need to spell out that the women deacons could have only one husband, because they were not legally free to have more than one.
Further, if ordination is to be restricted to “the husband of one wife,” Paul himself would seem to be excluded, for he seems to imply that he was without spouse when he wrote 1 Cor. 7:7; and he clearly preferred that all single persons remain single (vs. 25-38). Excluded by this test also would be John the Baptist, Jesus, and all unmarried persons. In 1 Timothy 5:9, “a widow is to be “the wife of one man.” Does this mean that a man can not be a widower? If we pursue the logic of some interpreters of verse 3:2 then Paul has commanded that a man must not be a widower.
Now some might argue that unmarried people cannot be elders. Jesus was Christ. Paul was Apostle. John the Baptist was a prophet. Peter was an Apostle and an elder and was married. Therefore, elders and pastors must be married. But let us pursue this logic to its absurd conclusion. In the parallel passage of Titus 1:6 we read an elder as one who is “the husband of one wife, having children who believe.” To follow the above logic, an elder must be married and must have children. Not just one child, the Bible says children (plural). And both of these children must believe. So a person cannot become an elder or pastor until both of his children arrive at the age that they can make a confessional statement. And if an elder’s/pastor’s wife becomes pregnant, he must resign because he will soon have a baby child who will not yet believe.
It is more likely that Titus 1:6 is rephrasing 1 Timothy 3:4 about an elder being one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity. If not, we must adopt pedo-baptism to align ourselves with the logical extension of the above interpretation. Furthermore, it is most likely, that when Paul speaks in both letters concerning an elder being a “husband of one wife” he is not restricting gender but restricting immoral behavior.
“To teach or exercise authority”
For the foundational Pauline statement relegating women to subordinate roles in the church, most complementarians turn to 1 Timothy 2:11-15. But Paul’s injunction against women’s teaching or exercising authority over men is an exegetical challenge. Many commentators, whether complemenatarian or egalitarian, note the occasional nature of the three Pastoral Epistles, including 1 Timothy. Paul does not intend to “establish a blueprint for church structure,” but to deal with the circumstances that the church faced in Ephesus. His advice concerning women was not triggered by questions arising in our day, but by the conduct in worship assemblies of the first-century church.
What is unusual about 1 Timothy is the amount of space devoted specifically to women. This includes appropriate dress for women who lead in worship (1 Tim 2:9-10), behavior befitting women who teach (1 Tim 2:12-15), qualifications for women deacons (1 Tim 3:11), suitable pastoral relations with women (1 Tim 5:12), qualifications for women elders (1 Tim 5:9-10), correction of young widows (1 Tim 5:3-8, 16). In no other New Testament letter do women figure so prominently.
Quiet – 1 Corinthians 14
Here is the area of great controversy: "What part can a woman play in a church service, in its leading, its speaking, and its teaching?" According some translations, women should be "silent" in church. That word occurs twice in this passage: that a woman should "learn in silence" (Vs. 11), and, she is to "keep silent" (Vs. 12). Obviously it is wrong to interpret this verse to mean that women should not speak. The reason is because the same word that is translated "silent" here occurs also in adjectival form in Verse 2 of this same chapter. There we read that we are to pray for "kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life." The word "peaceable" is the same word which is translated "silent" here. But surely Verse 2 does not mean that we must lead lives of absolute silence. That is unless we are to be monks and takes vows of silence. It clearly means that we are to live a tranquil life, i.e., without a great deal of hassling and disturbance, etc., but a "peaceable" life. That is a good translation for this word, which, if carried over here to this section we are studying, changes the thought entirely. Furthermore, if you look at Second Thessalonians 3:12, the apostle uses this same word again. He says of certain persons who were busybodies, "Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work in quietness." There is the same word which is translated silent here. Paul is not telling people to work without speaking but to be peaceful about it, without a lot of public notice. So when we read this translation in that sense, then all that Paul is saying is, "Let a woman learn in a 'peaceful' way; she is to keep herself 'peaceful' and 'peaceable.'"
Some who argue for a woman’s “silence” in church will point to Paul’s admonition in 1 Corinthians 14:34: “As in all the churches of the saints, let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law also says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.” The context (vs. 35) makes it clear that the silence here stands in contrast to “asking questions,” not to preaching, teaching, or prophesying. That being so, there is not tension between this passage and the clear reference in chapter 11 to the fact that women may prophecy. In chapter 14, we get a glimpse of the worship in the early church. The members have been so caught up in enthusiasm that Paul must remind them that God is God of order rather than of confusion and that all things must be done decently and in suitable order. The first concern is that of the need to convey meaning in worship. While tongues are frequently an accompaniment of ecstatic devotion, communication through prophecy is more necessary. The word that is used in the prohibition for women is laleo, a term used by Aristophanes for the frivolous chatter of women. Differentiation is made in the text between nonintelligible speech, frequently designated by the verb laleo, and communication that conveys meaning to its hearers (lego). Paul places a far higher valuation on meaningful speech than on glossalalia, and there is an insistence that all may be edified. Only one person may speak at a time, and others must be allowed to take their turn. This contrasts with many of the mystery cults in which there was a jangling of musical instruments along with confused outcries, a phenomenon known as clamor. The worship of Cybele and Dionysus required the simultaneous use of diverse and unstructured sounds. In the orgies, women in particular were swept along into an altered state of consciousness. Dionysus was known as “the lord of the loud cry, the mad exciter of women.” (Maenads) Their abandoned state of mind led to raving and uncontrolled actions, as well as to ceremonial cries known as ululation. In this vein, Paul asks whether observers might not consider the Corinthian congregation mad – probably a reference to ritual madness of these cults rather than to insanity. In response Paul asks for a dignified and suitable approach to worship. A person who speaks in tongues must be silent if there is no interpreter; a person who is prophesying must desist if another if another wishes a turn. The third injunction to silence is directed to women. They are instructed to silence in exactly the same way as the one who has no interpreter and the one who must yield a turn prophesying to another. All are given the right to prophesy, so that it does not seem to be a prohibition against contributing a message of spiritual significance to the service of the worship. Rather, it is a prohibition against a disruption. This is the most widely held view among egalitarians. This problem in the Corinthian church focuses on certain women who were disrupting the worship services by making noise and or asking many questions. This position seems logical. If this position applies to all women in all places and times and not just certain married women in the Corinthian church how does a woman ask her husband if that husband is an unbeliever? For that matter, how does an unmarried woman ask her husband? Does this then mean that this passage has no bearing on women today? Certainly not! Women can speak in church but at the appropriate time. If this was the underlying problem Paul addressed, then the egalitarian interpretation follows. As Witherington declares,
“I conclude that a creation order or family order problem was not at issue in this passage but rather a church order problem caused by some women in the congregation. Paul corrects the abuse not by banning women from ever speaking in worship, but by silencing their particular abuse of speech and redirecting their questions to another time and place. Paul does wish the women to learn the answers to their questions. This passage in no way contradicts 1 Cor11:5, nor any other passage which suggests that women can teach, preach, pray, or prophecy in or outside the churches.”
As a response to a local problem, Paul’s injunction may have implications for similar situations today. But we cannot appeal to this text as providing the foundation for prohibiting women in ministry. Howard correctly concludes, “Sadly, what was a particular and local admonition in respect of a particular and local situation has become consistently interpreted by many sections of the Church as a general ban and thus the women members of the congregation have been denied their Christian rights.”
“I do not allow”
Important in this context is the grammatical shift between the command, “Let a woman learn” and Paul’s declarative statement “I permit no woman to teach.” On the basis of his choice of the present active indicative (epitrebo) rather than the imperative, egalitarians conclude that Paul is not voicing a timeless command, but a temporary directive applicable to a specific situation: “I am not presently allowing.”
This interpretation seems strenuous at best. Nevertheless, Liefield asks the question:
“Why does Paul use the indicative form rather than the making it a command by using the imperative? There can be little doubt that the reason he is telling Timothy what he does not permit is so that Timothy will follow the same practice. But read from the viewpoint of later generations, how significant is it that Paul does not issue a command such as, ‘Do not permit women to teach’ or ‘Women must not teach of have authority?’ Theologically it may be significant to observe that the Holy Spirit could have led Paul to use an imperative construction that might be interpreted as binding the church to follow that practice for all time, but instead led Paul to use a construction that describes his practice without making it permanently binding.”
Interestingly, Paul uses the present active indicative in 1 Cor. 7:7. In this verse, the apostle wills that all men were as he: unmarried.
“To teach”
As we have already seen, this is not an absolute prohibition against teaching. Paul does not say, "I permit no woman to teach, anywhere, anytime, to anyone, period!", although this passage has been taken to mean that. It is clear from other passages in the New Testament that women did teach. In fact, in his letter to Titus, Paul tells the elderesses to teach younger women how to love their husbands and rule their children, etc. So women were expected to teach. Also, as has been mentioned, there are instances in Scripture where women taught men.
“Exercise authority”
It would appear that the heart of the entire women’s ordination debate centers upon one verse or, more precisely, one verb. In 1 Timothy 2:12 we read: “But I do not allow a woman to teach of exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.” (NAS) The NIV reads “to have authority.” The NKJ reads: “to have authority.” The Scofield Reference Bible reads: “to usurp authority.” The Dios Llega Hombre reads: “ni tampoco dominar.” These are various translations of the Greek word authenteo, the word at the center of the present controversy. This word appears only here in the Bible and rarely appears in the secular Greek literature of the time. It has been variously translated as:
“one who with his own hands kills another or himself”, “one who acts on his own authority, autocratic”, “an absolute master”, “to govern, exercise dominion over one.” What is significant about this verse is that Paul does not use his regular word for authority, exousiazo, “to exercise authority”, “to have power or authority over”, “to be master of any one”, “to brought under power of another”(1 Cor. 6:12, 1 Cor. 7:4). One would assume that if Paul was intending to speak of regular authority he would have used his familiar term. While exousia is used 28 times by Paul it is not used in either Timothy epistles but does appear in Titus 3:1. Interestingly, in 1 Timothy 2:2, he uses huperoche for kings who are in authority. Among many egalitarians it is believed that authenteo holds a negative connotation. Grenze writes:
“The fact that Paul uses an unusual term generally carried negative connotations, rather than the more prevalent neutral verbs, should predispose us to anticipate a negative meaning.”
With this in mind, Spencer offers a plausible summary of the intent of these verses 11-12:
“Women are to be calm and to have restraint and respect and affirm their teachers rather than to engage in an autocratic authority which destroys its subjects. Paul here is not prohibiting women from preaching nor praying nor having an edifying authority nor pasturing. He is simply prohibiting them from teaching and using their authority in a destructive way.”
Catherine Kroeger makes a strong case for translating authentein (written by Paul in verse 12 as an infinitive) as “to involve someone in soliciting sexual liaisons” rather than as “to usurp authority, domineer, or exercise authority over.” Kroeger builds her case from uses of authentein in Greek literature from the period preceding the New Testament. The solicitation of sexual favors was apparently a major problem within the early church. Both the churches at Pergamum and Thyatyra were condemned for teaching sexual immorality (2 Rev. 2:14, 18). Kroeger finds evidence for sexually immoral behavior among various religious groups in the Wisdom of Solomon, where “cursed children” are mentioned along with authentein. These “cursed children” are presumed to be the offspring of the immoral liaisons. Clement of Alexandria complained about Christian groups who had turned the communion service into a sex orgy, and he calls people who participated in this form of religion authentai. Throughout the Greco-Roman world, it seems there were groups – some of them calling themselves Christian - which combined worship, teaching and sexual immorality. Related to these various cults and misguided Christian groups were the heresies which posited that women possessed superior intellectual and spiritual knowledge and priority in creation. If Paul is indeed responding to these “female” heresies, then his statements about creation make a great deal of sense.
Whether Kroeger is correct in her analysis we currently have no evidence to decide conclusively. Regardless of how we translate authenteo, we are obviously not dealing with the common idea of exousia as we understand “authority” in the rest of Scripture. Paul had exousia or one of its cognates to use but he chose not to employ it.
But we need not arrive conclusively at the meaning of authenteo in order to successfully refute the argument by complementarians that women cannot be ordained because they are not to have authority over a man. Let us proceed under the presumption of most complementarian arguments that authenteo and exousia are virtually synonymous.
The main problem that has surrounded this debate on the ordination of women is the presumption that a senior pastor has authority over others. Furthermore, a serious problem has existed in the church for two millennia in that Christians have presumed themselves as having authority over other Christians. This idea is foreign to the teachings of Peter and Paul and is soundly rejected by Jesus. In the Church, no one is to have authority over another.
In Luke 22, during the Last Supper, before Jesus is to be crucified, the disciples are arguing over who is the greatest. In verses 25-27 Jesus says, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and those who exercise authority (exousiazo) over them are called ‘benefactors.’ But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? But I am among you as one who serves.” In the parallel passage in John 13, Jesus then began to wash the feet of His disciples. What this demonstrates is that we are not to have authority over other believers. Specifically, leaders/elders/pastors are not to have authority over the “laity.” This is a radical concept that brings the priesthood of the believer into new light. Jesus is the only one who has authority over His body of the church. Jesus is the only one who has authority over the individual believer. He put it clearly in Matthew 23:8 (RSV): "One is your Master, and all you are brethren."
Paul is in complete agreement with Jesus, of course. Never, in any of the epistles, does Paul, an Apostle, authorize a leader’s authority over another believer. Paul’s Apostleship authority is only granted to him directly from Jesus (1 Cor. 9:1-5, 7:25) Never does Paul say that a man has authority over women. In 1 Cor 7:4 Paul writes, “The wife does not exercise authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.” The “likewise” in v. 3 is important. Here is the recognition that a wife has the same conjugal right and authority upon a husband as does the husband upon the wife. Each spouse has a certain “authority” over the other’s body (v. 4). The authority and power that Jesus demonstrates radically differs from the understanding prevalent in our world.
It may be argued that a preacher in the pulpit has personal authority, but this is not taught in Scripture (again, apart from apostolic authority). The authority is in the Word itself, not in the individual teaching it. What “authority” does a pastor have over his congregation? Can the pastor forbid them to leave in the middle of the service? Can he or she insist they believe or act on what the pastor says? Can the pastor forbid them to take part in a discussion? Can the pastor insist that his or her teaching is “authoritative” over that of others who also believe and teach the Bible? A pastor who did any of these things would soon be without a congregation. This is true in any Protestant denomination but more so in Baptist life where the “authority” rests within the congregation. In cases of church discipline church leaders usually recommend action which must be carried out by the church body. The work of elders/pastors, deacons and other church leaders is largely in the formulation of policies which must ultimately be accepted by the congregation. Actually, to be sure that no woman would hold authority over a man in the church, women would have to be denied the right to vote in churches.
Jesus said that disciples are to be servants of one another and the greatest is the one who is servant of all. By these words Jesus indicates that an entirely different system of government than that employed by the world should prevail among Christians.
Throughout twenty centuries the church has virtually ignored these words. It is clear from the Scriptures that the apostles were concerned about the danger of developing ecclesiastical bosses. In Second Corinthians 1:24a (RSV), Paul reminds the Corinthians concerning his own apostolic authority: "Not that we lord it over your faith; we work with you for your joy, ..." In the same letter he describes, with apparent disapproval, how the Corinthians reacted to certain leaders among themselves: "For you bear it if a man makes slaves of you, or preys upon you, or takes advantage of you, or puts on airs, or strikes you in the face," (2 Cor 11:20 RSV). Peter, too, is careful to warn the elders (and he includes himself among them) not to govern by being "domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock," (1 Pet 5:3 RSV). And John speaks strongly against Diotrephes "who likes to put himself first, and takes it on himself to put some out of the church," (cf, 3 Jn 1:9-10). These first-century examples of church bosses indicate how easily churches then, as today, ignored the words of Jesus, "it shall not be so among you.”
Is a woman to have authority over a man? No. Is a man to have authority over a woman? No. Is a pastor/elder to have authority over another believer? No. Is a believer to have authority over another believer? Again, no. Therefore, can a woman be ordained as pastor? Yes.
Grounded in Creation
Some who would continue to use 1 Timothy 2:12 to ban women from positions of leadership say that this text “is grounded in creation” (that Adam was created before Eve) and therefore is binding for all time.
Verses 13-15 of Timothy has confused many scholars, both complementarians and egalitarians. Is Paul arguing that all women from Eve till today have been easier to deceive than men? If this is true, it would appear that Paul is guilty of reading into the text of Gen. 3 something that is not there. To draw such a conclusion from this text would be improper and illogical. What Gen. 3 justifies the opinion that women are more easily deceived than men? The passage only teaches that Eve was in fact deceived. It nowhere asserts that this weakness has become endemic to the feminine sex.
Any proper interpreter who tried to prove such a disturbing point from an isolated occurrence would be rightly criticized for committing a serious logical error. For instance, it would be as easy to argue that all first-born sons are violent because Cain was. In both cases, a universal trait is being attributed to an entire class of people on the basis of a single incident, without any logical or exegetical reason.
Possibly Paul had a special revelation indicating that women are more easily deceived, but this does not appear to be the case. Rather than appeal to a revelation that he has received, he appeals to Genesis 3 for his evidence, and expects us to understand what he sees there. Thus we would expect to see him exhibit hermeneutical tools to derive meaning from the text.
Furthermore, how could Paul adduce the principle of deception-proneness for women from Gen. 3 when it occurred before the fall of mankind? If women had innately the flaw of deception proneness, then it would seem that they had this flaw by virtue of the way God created them.
Therefore, according to traditional thinking, Eve would seem to be the product of a flawed design by God. But God said that His creation was “very good.” These problems disappear, however, if we conclude that Paul is not arguing that women are more easily deceived than men.
Many egalitarians, Kroeger in particular, have argued that the sitz im leben of the Ephesian church in 1 Timothy focuses on the heresies that had crept into the church. They argue that these heresies were incipient Gnosticisms being taught by the women of the church. Gnosticism and other heresies included many erroneous beliefs about sex and creation. Some Gnostics taught that truly spiritual women should not marry and have children. Others taught that, since matter is evil and spirit is good, what a person did with the body was irrelevant to what went on in the inner spirit. To these Gnostics, sexual immorality was acceptable and could even be pleasing to God. Some Gnostics said that Eve was created before Adam and that she enlightened him by her superior knowledge. If this scenario is the case it would explain why Paul admonishes women teachers and states that Adam was formed first, Eve was deceived, and women will be preserved through childbearing. This scenario may be correct but it appears to be impossible to know for sure.
Isolated, the “rib story” of Genesis 2 does appear, at first glance, to subordinate woman to man; but we do not have this story in isolation. We have it only as it appears in Genesis as a whole. There are at least two creation stories in Genesis, the rib story in Chapter 2 being enveloped by a newer story in 1:1-2:4a, echoed in 5:1. The story in Chapter One is free of any subordination of male and female to the other, and this story gives new perspective on the rib story.
But what then is the purpose of the rib story? The self-evident fact that man is birthed from woman had led to the existence many fertility cults in the ancient world. These pagan religions worshipped mother goddesses and feminine nature deities as mother of all that lives. While still denigrating women, these cults stated the matriarchal view that woman was first and the creator of all the living. This belief clashes with the Israelite belief in primo geniture. In antiquity it was widely held that chronological priority meant superiority. In the first chapters of Genesis, the author or authors are refuting many of these pagan gods and goddesses and simultaneously refuting their creation stories. In Genesis 1, God creates the world not by an epic struggle like the gods in the Enuma Elish but by His deliberate, creative word.
Furthermore, the sun and moon are not regarded as gods, only lights in the sky that God as created and fixed. In Genesis 2, the superiority of woman is refuted by showing her source is from Adam. But in 3:20, the superiority of man is refuted by showing that Eve is the mother of all the living. In no way is this story intended to exhibit superiority of the man and the subordination of the woman. The story is intended to show how God created mankind male and female and how he created them equal. We can see this clearly in Chapter 2. Verse 24 is in two parts, the first part as matriarchal as the rib story is patriarchal, “For this cause a man shall leave father and mother and cleave to his wife.” The second part overcomes the patriarchal and matriarchal perspectives, “and the two become one flesh.” This gives new direction to the rib-story, explaining the drive of the sexes toward one another, this taking priority over even a man’s relationship with his parents. This is also the reason why man has authority of the woman’s body and the reason why woman has authority over the man’s body.
It was the effect of the fall of mankind that led to the subordination of women to men. This is a “curse” that was redeemed for us in Christ. We might expect the unbelieving world to hold to the subordination of women, but for believers in Christ to hold to such a view is unbiblical. If we are to say that a woman must continue to bear the brunt of the fall, we might as well deny a woman’s access to drugs that lessen the labor pains of childbirth. We then should remove all technology that lessens man’s toiling of the ground.
When Paul alludes to the creation story he is not referring to man’s superiority over woman but man’s equality with woman. If we look back at Galatians 3:28, when Paul says “neither male nor female” not “man nor women,” he is referring back to the Genesis 1 story and mankind’s sexual equality.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it should be clear through history, experience, reason and, all-importantly, Scripture, women are both permitted and encouraged by God to fill any “office” or role that is mentioned in Scripture. Furthermore, it should be evident that despite the lack of recognition given by the church through ordination, the Holy Spirit continues to empower women to serve God in the church in all roles and “offices.”
Complementarians argue that women cannot serve in the ordained office because the pastorate entails a leadership function that is appropriate only to men. In addition, they oppose the ordination of women on the basis of the teaching authority bound up with the pastoral office. Their difficulty here is not that teaching itself is inappropriate for women. Indeed, complementarians know that the Bible encourages women to teach in certain circumstances (see, for example, Tit 2:3-5), and some acknowledge that women can even teach men. Rather, they do not allow women to teach when it violates the so-called biblical principle of male leadership and female subordination. Hence complementarians conclude that the Bible prohibits a woman from publicly teaching men in the religious realm and exercising authority over men in the Christian community. Piper and Grudem write:
“We would say that the teaching inappropriate for a woman is the teaching of men in settings or ways that dishonor the calling of men to bear the primary responsibility for teaching and leadership. This primary responsibility is to be carried by pastors or elders. Therefore we think it is God’s will that only men bear the responsibility for this office.”
Complementarians bar women from the ordained office in the church because it encompasses the authority to teach men. Egalitarians, in contrast, find nothing in Scripture which prohibits women from exercising this prerogative. They also point out the absurdity or permitting women to teach impressionable children and other women but not men who should possess the spiritual acumen to discern heretical statements.
One of the problems that face those who would interpret the Scriptures as forbidding the ordination of women is that no such prohibition is directly made. In each example sited in Scripture the purpose of the verse is concerning an issue unrelated to the topic of the ordination of women. As evidence of the Bible’s prohibition against women’s ordination, at best the prohibition is implied by default.
When studying our history it becomes readily apparent that during times of great Baptist expansion and spiritual awakenings, women inevitably become active in preaching, teaching, and leading the assemblies of believers. It is only during spiritually dead and inactive periods when Baptists fall into extreme liberalism and conservatism that we see a rush to diminish the roles of women in ministry.
We see growth both in spirituality and converts corresponding with a greater role for women during the 17th century, the New Connection, the First and Second Great Awakenings, and the mid-twentieth century. Likewise, we see a decrease in converts and spirituality corresponding with a lesser role for women at other times. This is not to say that the roles for women in ministry are a cause of spiritual rise and decline: it is a symptom.
Success may not be a criterion for sanctifying a task and making it right, but success in ministry can help us to see where and when our interpretations of Scripture may be at fault. When the disciples saw that the Holy Spirit had come to the Gentiles (Acts 11), they were confronted with an experience that made them question their interpretation of the Old Testament and their hermeneutical traditions. The Scriptures were not at fault but there interpretations were. Atheists often laugh at the Bible when it speaks of the four corners of the earth as if it suggests a flat earth, but at the same time use the word “sunrise” as if the sun actually rose. When scientists began to question the Ptolemaic model of the solar system, many Bible-believing Christians yelled charges of “heresy,” saying that the Bible plainly spoke about a geocentric solar system. When new experiences contradicted this interpretation, Christian scholars went back to the Bible, reexamined the Scriptures and came to the conclusion that the Bible nowhere makes the claim that the earth is the center of the solar system. No new form of exegesis uncovered this fact of God’s creation from the Scriptures; experience as a hermeneutical tool (among others) furthered our understanding of how magnificent a universe God created and how amazingly perfect is the revelation of the Bible.
Yet proponents from both sides of the controversy are often guilty of using the question of women in ministry as a “litmus test” of conservative Christian orthodoxy. The expanding gulf over women’s roles is likewise evident in recent decisions by several churches to rescind their previous openness to women serving in lay leadership roles and in professional ministry staff positions. Some groups have enacted stricter limitations on women than at any previous time in their history. New directives prohibit women from chairing committees, teaching mixed gender adult classes, serving on the governing bodies of local congregations or being considered for nay positions on pastoral staff. This stinks in the nostrils of God.
Dr. McBeth wrote in 1979:
“If Southern Baptists wanted to arrive at an official position on ordination of women, it is doubtful they could do so. Southern Baptists accept no ultimate authority this side of the Bible and the lordship of Christ. But those who accept the Bible as the authoritative Word of God may yet disagree about its interpretation. Southern Baptists have no official creed or list of accepted doctrines and practices to which all must subscribe. The Southern Baptist Convention is a voluntary body made up of elected representatives (messengers) from churches that voluntarily cooperate in missions, evangelism, and Christian education. The Convention cannot speak officially for the churches; neither can the churches speak for the Convention.
In 1925 and again in 1963 the Convention voted to adopt a doctrinal statement of “Baptist Faith and Message.” However, this is a confession of faith and not an official creed. It was designed as a statement of what a group of Baptists believe and practice at a given time in our history. In no way can it replace or supplement the authority of the Bible, nor was it intended.
This means that any Southern Baptist individual or group has perfect freedom, under the lordship of Christ and their liberty to interpret Scripture, to favor or oppose the ordination of women as they feel the facts warrant. However, such individuals and groups have no freedom to impose their views and practices upon all Southern Baptists or to announce their preference as “the” Southern Baptist position. Ordainers and nonordainers can and should be in full fellowship among us.”
