Saturday, October 11, 2008

Women's Roles in the Local Church

OK, I know it has been too long since my last post. But I knew I wanted to get this one behind me, so I waited as I prepared. It's a little lengthy, but the subject demands some length. Here goes.


Let’s begin by affirming the role of women in ministry throughout all of history. I have said publicly several times I thank God for women picking up the load on a number of fronts in the church throughout history. And I don’t just mean exercising the gifts of diaper changing and kitchen duty. From a human standpoint, they have kept the Church of Jesus Christ moving forward at times when men have taken a passive role.

If Scripture (not culture or human opinion) is our authority (and it is) we want to think biblically about all areas of our lives and churches. What is the role of women in the church? Does Scripture in any way limit the role of women in the church?

There are two primary camps related to this topic. The Egalitarian camp believes women are equal to men in both essence and function. The Complementarian camp argues that women are equal to men in essence, but that men are to be the leaders in the church. As with most controversial issues, you have extremes of both camps.

Please allow me to be clear early in this post. This doctrine (role of women in the church) is not a cardinal doctrine. In other words, no one’s salvation hangs in the balance based on their view. However, this issue is very important to the health of the church (the Bride of Christ). In other words whether or not one holds an egalitarian or complementarian view, you may still be saved. But whether or how much growth can take place is in part due to how you handle this issue. What you believe about when the Rapture will take place has no impact on how we are to serve and minister together in the local church, but what we believe about this issue directly impacts how we behave in the local church.

The primary passages in question in most discussions on this topic are Galatians 3:28; 1 Timothy 2; and 1 Corinthians 14:34. Egalitarian tend to hold to what is called Trajectory Theology, which in brief, is a method of interpreting Scripture which finds progressive change in application of Scripture in the trajectory of time beyond the completion of the New Testament. That simply means rather than interpreting Scripture in light of it’s historical setting, they believe it should be interpreted and applied in light of the current culture. In light of that, they believe Galatians 3:28 was Paul’s “prediction” of the ultimate goal of men and women equal in essence AND in function. Trajectory Theology is full of holes. What is the finality to which we are to take the passage? Who has the authority to make these decisions?

On this issue specifically, there are several difficulties with this view. One of the major problems an egalitarian would have with trajectory theology related to Galatians 3:28 is that Galatians was not the last letter Paul wrote. In fact, many believe it to be the first letter he wrote. So his latest view would be 1 Timothy since it was written at a later date. But an even larger problem is the context of Galatians 3. The passage is obviously speaking of equality in salvation. All Jews and Gentiles, men and women are all one in the way we are saved and the opportunity to be saved. The entire context of Galatians 3 is access to God through faith. Our access to God has no distinction by class, race, or gender! To make Galatians 3 an argument for no role distinction is to take one of the great cardinal doctrines of Scripture and dims it’s meaning by using it to argue for a lesser issue.

Further, if this passage erases social hierarchies then logic would take it to all social hierarchies. Therefore children would not need to obey their parents. But even egalitarians won’t accept such an application. Though their logic calls for it.

For the sake of space, let me state my position (obviously not egalitarian) and reasons why I hold this position. It can be effectively argued that a woman may hold any position in the local church other than that of elder. No matter ones view of elders almost no one will argue that Senior Pastor is not an elder. See 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 for clear qualifications of elders. I will not go into the entire list, but only those which relate to this discussion.

Ephesians 5, 1 Peter 3 and other passages give us instructions that clearly indicate the male is the head of the household. 1 Timothy 3:4 and Titus 1:6 speak of an elder as one who manages his own household well and is the husband of one wife. Both impossible for women in the biblical structure of a home. One additional note here: While some women did prophesy in the Old Testament, never did a woman serve as a priest, which according to Leviticus 10:11; Deuteronomy 21:5; and Malachi 2:6-7 is where the people go to receive authoritative instruction. There are a number of arguments for male eldership in the local church which I won’t try to go into here due to space.

But there is one characteristic germane to the discussion of the roles of women in the local church and teaching. First of all, keep in mind the spiritual gifts are given by the Holy Spirit without regard to gender. This would include the gift of teaching. So what is the meaning of 1 Timothy 2 related to women and teaching? Keep in mind the bigger context. In the very next chapter (which was not originally in place) Paul goes into a long section of the letter on qualifications of elders. I believe Paul is setting up some of the argument he is going to make for male elders in chapter 3. I Timothy 3:2 says elders are to be able teachers. We know from Acts 15 that the elders were the ones to make doctrinal decisions for the body. This level of teaching and exhorting for the entire body is the responsibility of the elders. This expands the idea given in I Timothy 2:11-12. Women, whether in the home or in the church are not to be the ones with ultimate authority. Those roles are reserved for men.

What about 1 Corinthians 14:34 that states women are to be silent? Let’s keep in mind the Corinthian church was a mess! They had chaos in every area. They were drunk at the Lord’s Suppers. They had divisions over leadership. They had confusion in their public worship services related to speaking in tongues and apparently the women were usurping the authority of their husbands in the public setting of the church.

The leadership of each local church must wrestle with these issues. In our church we do have women that teach mixed gender classes. As long as it is under the authority of our elders with me (as Senior Pastor) leading I think we have biblical reasons for favor to do operate in this way. I will say however, if the men of the church use this as an excuse not to teach, it is not healthy for a church. But nowhere in Scripture can we make an argument for women as elders which includes Senior Pastor of a local church. While this is not a complete discussion of the issues, I believe it will sets our position clearly.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thanks for your insight on this subject. I have two questions. . .

1. What is the distinction between elder / deacon? Specifically regarding Clearview, who are considered the elders? I am under the impression that deacons and elers aren't the same thing Biblically. If they aren't, then what about women as deacons, if they are then of course my question is already answered.

2. What about women preaching not in the role as Sr. Pastor but in the role of a teaching pastor or a visiting speaker who woulc be under the authority of the male Sr. Pastor who would invite her?

anne

Mark said...

anne,

Good questions. Let me see if I can back myself into a corner or two here :-).

1. Elders and Deacons are not the same. Elders have an administrative as well as lead teaching role. I Timothy 3 as well as Titus 1 are clear regarding responsibilities. Deacons, on the other hand, have the role of supporting the ministry of the local church through service. Acts 6 is the traditional passage used to look at the role of deacons. The word itself (diakonos) in the original simply means servant. ClearView is unique in the way we distribute the ministry of the deacons. Each small group (SS class) has a deacon as part of the class or they are assigned a deacon. It is the responsibility of this deacon to look after the pastoral care of the group.

The Executive Ministerial Staff at ClearView would be viewed as the Elders. This would be Michael Smith, John Duval, and myself as it currently stands. We would be the ones that carry out day to day administrative functions for the body. However, ClearView is traditionally a "congregational" body. This means all major decisions are taken to the body for affirmation (i.e., purchase of lang, building buildings, call of Senior Pastor, etc.).

The question of women deacons is probably a post in itself. I believe the stronger position (biblically) is against women as deacons. I am certainly aware of Phoebe and other passages that are argued in the affirmative for women deacons. However, I go to 1 Timothy 3:11-12 and find it impossible for a woman to be the husband of one wife. I know there have been arguments that the word is "women" rather than wives, but context clearly leads to "wives" as the proper translation. Bottom line: I definitely lean toward women not serving as deacons.

One other thought here. This was a question I was asked in a "town hall" Q & A as ClearView was considering calling me as pastor. Actually, the question of elders as the governing process as well as women deacons were asked. My answer was then (and still is) the church has precedence and history of no "elder" board and no women deacons. Both of these positions can be argued biblically and have been by many conservative scholars through history. Mark Dever makes a great arguement for congregational government (rather than elder led). Mark is an excellent conservative scholar. My point is that I stated neither issue is a hill I would die with conservative scholarship making excellent points on both sides.

2. Teaching Pastor is a role the early church really knew nothing about. It is a contemporary position for the most part. However, the early church did use a plurality of leadership (elders vs. elder). This I am very much in favor of. This would have looked much like a Senior Pastor (leader among equals) and several "teaching pastors" (the other elders). It would then follow that this would not be a position open to a female.

The final question (female guest speaker) is one I probably have not thought through completely. I will say this. I always tend toward the most conservative scholarship in all disputable matters. This would be one I would lean to the conservative side and not invite a woman to "teach" / "preach" a gathering of the entire congregation in a church I serve as Senior Pastor. However, as you know, we have women that read scripture as well as lead (vocally) in worship. The key for me is that I don't believe it is the better posture to have a woman teach / preach in an instance in which she would be teaching doctrine of any kind to a mixed gender group where it involves the entire congregation.

I was the key decision maker in an area with responsibility for an event known as Downpour. We had four teachers. Three were men (led by James MacDonald of Harvest Chapel in Chicago) and one was a woman (Beth Moore). We caught some heat for having Beth as part of the platform and many men refused to attend because of this. I really felt we were withing biblical guidelines as Beth was under the authority of the male leadership (including myself) for this event. I was also comfortable with the decision as this was not a local church meeting and I did not feel it put the unity of a local church in jeopardy. My position in disputable issues will be that no disputable matter is worth the unity of a local church. I am not aware that any of the Downpour event created disharmony in any local church.

Mark

Anonymous said...

Thanks for digging into answer the questions. I knew they were a little loaded but I really didn't have an agenda. I am just trying to discern what the word says and what the various prevailing thoughts on the issues are. Thanks for your leadership!

Anne

Mark said...

anne,

I just appreciate your reading the blog and entering dialogue. Healthier all the way around.

Mark

Buddy said...

Mark,
According to my understanding of your commentary, Egalitarians seek to interpret in light of todays culture. Complementarians hold to a literal interpretation of the scripture.
There seems to be another school of thought when considering women in church leadership roles, (and many other theological hot buttons).
There is another camp which holds to the view that scripture is to be interpreted with consideration for the context under which and to whom it was originally written. This camp seems to fall somewhere in between the two you have mentioned, although I belive that this camp also does respect the interpretation in light of the original historical setting.
We must always be cognizant of the potential for misinterpretation by any opposing camp, and be ever wary of the resulting potential for abuse. The most significant example I can muster is the literal "mis"-interpretation of 1 Timothy 6:1 in support of slavery.
I applaud you for tackling a tough issue. It might be interesting to track growth patterns in churches holding both viewpoints on a woman's role to see if there are marked differences between the two.
Buddy

Deidre Richardson, B.A., M.Div. said...

I am always fascinated by the attempts of many people to by-pass what the text actually says for what they actually believe. I think it's because of presupposition that this issue has become such a huge debate.

I've done extensive studies in Greek, and I think the problem is that people by-pass everything in 1 Timothy 3:1 for what is contained in 1 Timothy 3:2. They point to the phrase "the husband of one wife," but they deny verse 1 (which sets the stage for verse 2).
1 Timothy 3:1 literally reads, "If someone desires the office of a bishop." The word "someone," or "a man," is the Greek word "tis," referring to anyone-- regardless of gender. So when Paul says that to desire to be an overseer is a good work, it is a good work for a woman just as much as it is a good work for a man.

And this "someone" in verse 1 is the reference point for "husband of one wife" in verse 2. the word "desires" in verse 1 is written in the third person singular, which could stand for "he" or "she." When we read "the husband of one wife" therefore, we cannot, with proper study of the text, affirm that Paul is referring to only men. Why? because his language in the beginning is inclusive of the female gender. Male and female make up "mankind," not "womankind"-- and this "masculine" label for humanity is as inclusive for the female as it is for the male.

If Paul, then, opened the office up to "anyone" in 1 Timothy 3:1, just a few verses down from the debated verses of 1 Timothy 2, then it is the common view of 1 Timothy 2 that has to be reevaluated.

Last but not least, let me just say that not all egalitarians believe that their practice should match the culture. There are many egalitarians who have done Greek study, as well as research on this subject, and disagree with most conservatives on the issue because their research has shown them truth which is contrary to the conservative view.

Conservatives have tried to bump Deborah by stating that she wasn't a priest; but how does the priesthood hold up compared to prophecy when prophecy is among the gifts given to the church in Ephesians 4? And, since Pastoring is also a gift (from Eph. 4), how then, can someone tell a woman she can't have a God-given gift?

I think a good hermeneutical rule is, that when we find a verse that we use to trump lots of other verses, we need to wonder if our interpretation is wrong. In this case, many conservatives need to change their perspective from which they approach 1 Timothy 2. To place 1 Timothy 2 above all other passages (such as the "someone" for the office of overseer) is to pick and choose only parts of the evidence one wants to believe. In reality, how could Paul tell women they couldn't exercise gifts over men in the public assembly when he couldn't even merit his own salvation? By the way, he was a mass murderer and considered himself to be "the chiefest of sinners."

I don't usually go into all those things, but I want one question answered for me: How can complementarians look at 1 Tim. 2 and tell women they can't exercise their gifts over men when they also read in 1 Corinthians 12 that the Spirit gives the gifts "as He wills," as He decides to do? If some complementarian can answer that one for me, I just might change my view on this subject.

For further information, please see my blog here at blogger called "Men and Women in the Church."