Now to be perfectly honest, as vehemently as I disagree with free will theology and Dispensationalism, I can, to a degree, get past that. But there is one area of popular Pentecostal/Charismatic practice and belief that for me is a deal breaker. The reality is that most Pentecostal/Charismatic churches believe in the ordination of women to pastoral ministry¹. For example, the Assemblies of God in a position paper on their official website, states,
After examining the various translations and interpretations of biblical passages relating to the role of women in the first-century church, and desiring to apply biblical principles to contemporary church practice, we conclude that we cannot find convincing evidence that the ministry of women is restricted according to some sacred or immutable principle.
Similarly, the Association of Vineyard Churches, on its official website, says this:
In response to the message of the kingdom, the Vineyard Movement encourages, trains, and empowers women in all areas of leadership.
We believe that God calls and gifts leaders within the church as He chooses and that this is not limited by gender, age, ethnicity, economic status, or any other human distinction (1 Cor. 12:11; Gal. 3:28).
The role of the church community is to discern God’s gifting and calling for leadership and also to discern the maturity and character required for leadership (1 Tim. 3:1-13).
In the Jesus-following community, leadership centers around serving the body of Christ in humility and self-sacrificial love (Matt. 20:25-28).
In the New Testament church, we see a call to servanthood in imitation of Jesus – a call given to both men and women equally. We believe we are better together.
This last example is particularly relevant to me because I was previously involved in two different Vineyard churches. In fact, I was, for a time, a worship leader and a pastoral intern of sorts. I had hoped that I would eventually be ordained within the Vineyard family of churches. In many ways, I still very much miss Vineyard. However, the issue of Vineyard's egalitarianism - alongside other issues - led to my eventual departure from the Vineyard USA. While I still share with Vineyard a particular theological understanding of the Kingdom of God that includes miraculous signs, I believe that that the Bible teaches clearly that the governing and teaching offices of the church, such as Apostles and Elders are restricted to men only. I do not believe that the Scriptures sanction women as governing and teaching church leaders.
In the statement of faith of David's Throne Ministries, I describe my position as follows:
But before I continue, I feel that I should address the elephant in the room that will inevitably come up. Am I a sexist? A male chauvinist pig perhaps? I mean after all, why would I oppose women as pastors unless it somehow threatens my "toxic masculinity"?
In the beginning, God created the human race as both male and female, giving them dominion over the earth to fill it and subdue it. Because of this, men and women are equal in their essence before God. Through the Fall of Man however, discord and conflict have arisen between the sexes. Through the reconciliation brought about by Christ, men and women can again achieve harmony, however imperfectly, through sacrificial love and service.
The Bible teaches that God has given His Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit to both males and females in the Church. However, because of the original created order which Christ came to restore, there are certain functions and offices in the Church which God has specified that only males may perform. These offices are the governing and teaching offices, which are Apostles and Elders (Acts 2:17-18; 1 Corinthians 11:2-16; 1 Timothy 2:8-15).
But before I continue, I feel that I should address the elephant in the room that will inevitably come up. Am I a sexist? A male chauvinist pig perhaps? I mean after all, why would I oppose women as pastors unless it somehow threatens my "toxic masculinity"?
In all honesty, from a strictly personal perspective, I really don't care. I truly don't. I have always, as long as I can remember, had female authority figures in my life - from my mother, to teachers, to bosses, to police officers, etc... Why should a female pastor be any different? If I wasn't absolutely sure that the Bible disallows female pastors, I would be the first to support it. So the charge that I am somehow protecting my fragile male ego is predictable, but ultimately fails to measure up to the facts.
Now to be clear, I do believe that in this Kingdom age, the Holy Spirit has been poured out on both males and females who believe in Messiah Jesus (Joel 2:28-29; Acts 2:14-18). I believe that men and women alike may pray publicly as well as possess and exercise the gift of prophecy (1 Corinthians 11:4-5). I believe that men and women may both equally lead congregational singing (Ephesians 5:19). Lastly and most importantly, it is also clear from the New Testament that men and women share equally in the blessings of the salvation procured through Jesus (Galatians 3:26-28). Additionally, Jesus' kind, counter cultural treatment of women is well-documented.
But I just can't dismiss the two passages of Scripture which clearly and unequivocally indicate that leadership and teaching in the Church must be male. I am speaking of course of 1 Corinthians 11:3 and 1 Timothy 2:11-14. The former passage speaks thus:
This verse gives to us an authority structure for the home and for the Church. In those spheres, there is a divinely-originated male authority structure. But it must also be noted that all men are under the headship of Christ. Whatever authority I may have as a male, I myself am under the authority of Jesus. I submit to Jesus. And it must be remembered that Jesus submits to God the Father. While there is apparently some debate as to whether the Son submitted to the Father in eternity past², it is clear that at least during His earthly ministry, God the Son willingly rendered obedience and submission to God the Father, even though the Son is equal to the Father in every way (John 12:49; John 14:31; Hebrews 10:5-7). With that in mind, it becomes easier to see how males and females can have equality of essence, even as they are distinct in certain roles.
Now there are some egalitarians (as those who advocate for women's ordination are often referred to as) who will argue that the Greek word translated "head" ( κεφαλή, kephale) should rather be translated as "source" instead of "head", thus removing any hint of authority from the text. For example, the above mentioned position paper of the Assemblies of God suggests that "kephale" should likely be thus understood. I am not sufficiently trained in Greek exegesis to determine between the two translations. However, I would argue that it probably doesn't matter all that much anyway. Why? I say that because it should go without saying that the "source" of something has intrinsic authority over it. I am the "source" of my children (as is my wife). Therefore, I (and my wife) have authority over them. So even if Paul meant to say that man is the "source" of woman rather than her "head", it still follows that the man has some authority over her (within the divinely ordained sphere of home and church anyway; it does not to my mind suggest absolute male authority or that a woman can never, in any context, have authority over a man - see my above comments about female authority figures).
But the battleground over women's ordination always tends to come back to 1 Timothy 2:11-14. As usual, I lack space for a full examination and exegesis, so I will simply quote the text and make a few comments on it. First Timothy 2:11-14 states:
But I just can't dismiss the two passages of Scripture which clearly and unequivocally indicate that leadership and teaching in the Church must be male. I am speaking of course of 1 Corinthians 11:3 and 1 Timothy 2:11-14. The former passage speaks thus:
But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
This verse gives to us an authority structure for the home and for the Church. In those spheres, there is a divinely-originated male authority structure. But it must also be noted that all men are under the headship of Christ. Whatever authority I may have as a male, I myself am under the authority of Jesus. I submit to Jesus. And it must be remembered that Jesus submits to God the Father. While there is apparently some debate as to whether the Son submitted to the Father in eternity past², it is clear that at least during His earthly ministry, God the Son willingly rendered obedience and submission to God the Father, even though the Son is equal to the Father in every way (John 12:49; John 14:31; Hebrews 10:5-7). With that in mind, it becomes easier to see how males and females can have equality of essence, even as they are distinct in certain roles.
Now there are some egalitarians (as those who advocate for women's ordination are often referred to as) who will argue that the Greek word translated "head" ( κεφαλή, kephale) should rather be translated as "source" instead of "head", thus removing any hint of authority from the text. For example, the above mentioned position paper of the Assemblies of God suggests that "kephale" should likely be thus understood. I am not sufficiently trained in Greek exegesis to determine between the two translations. However, I would argue that it probably doesn't matter all that much anyway. Why? I say that because it should go without saying that the "source" of something has intrinsic authority over it. I am the "source" of my children (as is my wife). Therefore, I (and my wife) have authority over them. So even if Paul meant to say that man is the "source" of woman rather than her "head", it still follows that the man has some authority over her (within the divinely ordained sphere of home and church anyway; it does not to my mind suggest absolute male authority or that a woman can never, in any context, have authority over a man - see my above comments about female authority figures).
But the battleground over women's ordination always tends to come back to 1 Timothy 2:11-14. As usual, I lack space for a full examination and exegesis, so I will simply quote the text and make a few comments on it. First Timothy 2:11-14 states:
11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
Now I do not typically have a problem with being frank, so I will be frank here. I really don't see what is so difficult about this passage of Scripture. I mean really, what is so hard here? I can see how it offends modern Western sensibilities. So what? Since when has God ever altered His will to satisfy the fickle and changing whims of a particular culture? Is this not the same God who said, "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord. 9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts."? (Isaiah 55:8-9 NKJV)
The Scripture here states with a fair amount of clarity that a woman should not be in a position of ecclesiastical authority over a man. Please note the italicized adjective in the previous sentence. Again, I see nothing here that suggests necessarily that a woman cannot possess authority over a man in the realms of government, business/commerce, law enforcement, etc... As I see it, it is only in the Church where Paul's instructions in 1 Timothy find their place.³ And it should be further noted that Paul roots his instructions in the created order, before the Fall of Man. God's creation of Adam and then Eve has timeless ramifications that cannot be overturned. So, contra the Assemblies of God, there is in fact, a "sacred and immutable principle" of male leadership in the Church. Similarly, Eve's sin has affected all of womanhood, down through the ages. For these reasons, church leadership is male.
That said, it would violate the spirit of this text to suggest that a woman may fulfill the leadership and teaching office of elder, since that office explicitly has to do with ruling and teaching (1 Timothy 5:17). Similarly, Paul's lists of qualifications for elders (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9) assume that the office-holder will be male since the individual in question must be "husband of one wife". It is obvious that a woman cannot be "husband of one wife" (regardless of what modern trends may try to tell us).
There are, of course, other lines of argumentation that are often used to try to argue for women's ordination. Some will attempt to suggest that Junia is a female apostle (Romans 16:7). Now there are those who espouse my position who will attempt to say that Junia (a woman) was actually Junias (a man). I don't know if I buy that really. On that subject, I would say two things. One, the much clearer texts I referenced above should not be set aside due to one (possible, but very debatable) interpretation of a more obscure text. Secondly, I don't think that Junia is actually called an apostle here. The key is the preposition "among". Now it is possible grammatically to say the Junia is "among" the Apostles as meaning that she is an apostle. But I suggest to you that the proper way to see this text is to understand that preposition as saying that "among" or within the closed circle of the Apostles (Paul, Peter, John, et al.), Junia is well thought of. That is, the Apostles think highly of Junia, though she herself is not an Apostle.
Still another line of argumentation is that Jesus was kind to women and so we should ordain women to pastoral ministry. This is what is known in logic as a non sequitur. It does not follow. Everyone agrees that Jesus was compassionate to women, children, gentiles, tax collectors, lepers, etc... But none of that overturns the created order nor the order with which God has established the Church.
The need of the hour in Western culture today is for strong men of God who are not ashamed to be men. The need is for men of courage, responsibility, compassion, leadership, and conviction. While there is always the danger of an irresponsible, overly exaggerated machismo, the equal danger is overcompensating to the kind of wet noodle "beta male" mentality that many of the cultural elites would foist upon our civilization. I for one, by God's help and grace, strive to be the kind of husband, father, and churchman (and perhaps one day Lord willing, elder) that other men would want to imitate. Amen.
That said, it would violate the spirit of this text to suggest that a woman may fulfill the leadership and teaching office of elder, since that office explicitly has to do with ruling and teaching (1 Timothy 5:17). Similarly, Paul's lists of qualifications for elders (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9) assume that the office-holder will be male since the individual in question must be "husband of one wife". It is obvious that a woman cannot be "husband of one wife" (regardless of what modern trends may try to tell us).
There are, of course, other lines of argumentation that are often used to try to argue for women's ordination. Some will attempt to suggest that Junia is a female apostle (Romans 16:7). Now there are those who espouse my position who will attempt to say that Junia (a woman) was actually Junias (a man). I don't know if I buy that really. On that subject, I would say two things. One, the much clearer texts I referenced above should not be set aside due to one (possible, but very debatable) interpretation of a more obscure text. Secondly, I don't think that Junia is actually called an apostle here. The key is the preposition "among". Now it is possible grammatically to say the Junia is "among" the Apostles as meaning that she is an apostle. But I suggest to you that the proper way to see this text is to understand that preposition as saying that "among" or within the closed circle of the Apostles (Paul, Peter, John, et al.), Junia is well thought of. That is, the Apostles think highly of Junia, though she herself is not an Apostle.
Still another line of argumentation is that Jesus was kind to women and so we should ordain women to pastoral ministry. This is what is known in logic as a non sequitur. It does not follow. Everyone agrees that Jesus was compassionate to women, children, gentiles, tax collectors, lepers, etc... But none of that overturns the created order nor the order with which God has established the Church.
The need of the hour in Western culture today is for strong men of God who are not ashamed to be men. The need is for men of courage, responsibility, compassion, leadership, and conviction. While there is always the danger of an irresponsible, overly exaggerated machismo, the equal danger is overcompensating to the kind of wet noodle "beta male" mentality that many of the cultural elites would foist upon our civilization. I for one, by God's help and grace, strive to be the kind of husband, father, and churchman (and perhaps one day Lord willing, elder) that other men would want to imitate. Amen.
¹ That is not to suggest that only Pentecostal/Charismatic denominations/movements ordain women to pastoral ministry. The Church of the Nazarene for example, is part of the Wesleyan-Holiness tradition and essentially non-charismatic, but does practice the ordination of women.
² I have not followed this debate with any closeness so I do not currently have a conviction concerning the eternal submission of the Son to the Father. Presently however, I do not think it has too great a bearing on the main thrust of the issue of women's ordination.
³ Elsewhere, both Paul (Ephesians 5:22-24; Colossians 3:18) and Peter (1 Peter 3:1-6) instruct wives to submit to their husbands, but that is in the sphere of the home. The present discussion is specifically about the sphere of the Church, although the two spheres do overlap.
Appears God ordained men to preach where there is an assembly of men and women. However, women have a role in preaching to other women and children?!
ReplyDeleteAs far as I can tell, that is permissible. I wouldn't want to place restrictions where no restrictions exist. Part 2 will delve into the more practical aspects of men and women as well as some historical issues.
ReplyDelete