http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1407
Female Leadership and the Church
Amid the polarization that plagues American civilization in general,
and Christendom in particular, one chasm continues to widen between
those who, on the one hand, wish to conform to Bible protocol, and those
who, on the other, wish to modernize, update, adjust, and adapt
Scripture to a changing society. The cry of those who are pressing the
feminist agenda is that the church in the past has restricted women in
roles of leadership and worship simply because of culture and flawed
hermeneutical principles. They say that the church as we know it is the
product of a male-dominated society and that consequently it has
misconstrued the contextual meaning of the relevant biblical passages.
As attitudes soften and biblical conviction weakens, Scripture is being
reinterpreted to allow for expanded roles for women in worship. If one
who studies the biblical text concludes that women are not to be
restricted in worship, he is hailed as one who engages in “fresh,
scholarly exegesis.” But the one who studies the text and concludes that
God intended for women to be subordinate to male leadership in worship
is viewed as being guilty of prejudice and of being unduly influenced by
“church tradition” or “cultural baggage.” How is it that the former’s
religious practice and interpretation of Scripture is somehow curiously
exempt from imbibing the spirit of an age in which feminist ideology has
permeated virtually every segment of our society?
RELEVANT BIBLE PASSAGES
A detailed study of all of the relevant biblical texts in a single
article like this is impossible. However, God’s Word is understandable
on any significant subject in the Bible. In fact, it is the recently
emerging “scholars”—with their intellectual complexities and imported
seminary bias—that have contributed to the confusion over this subject
(see Osburn, 1993). For example, Carroll Osburn summarized his
discussion of 1 Timothy 2 in the words—“Put simply, any female who has
sufficient and accurate information may teach that information in a
gentle spirit to whomever in whatever situation they may be” (1994, p.
115). The reader is invited to give consideration to the following brief
summary of New Testament teaching on the subject of the role of women
in leadership in worship and the church.
1 Corinthians 11,14
Chapters eleven and fourteen of First Corinthians constitute a context
dealing with disorders in the worship assembly. The entire pericope of
11:2-14:40 concerns the worship assembly, i.e., “when you come together”
(cf. 11:17,18,20,33; 14:23-26). Paul articulated the transcultural
principle for all people throughout history in 11:3—“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.” “Head” clearly refers not to “source” but
to “authority” (see Grudem, 1985, pp. 38-59). Therefore, God intends for
women to be subordinate to men in worship. Corinthian women were
obviously removing their veils and stepping forward in the assembly to
lead with their Spirit-imparted, miraculous capabilities, i.e., prophecy
(12:10; 14:31) and prayer (14:14-15). Such activity was a direct
violation of the subordination principle, articulated by Paul in chapter
fourteen. In chapter eleven, he focused on the propriety of females
removing the cultural symbol of submission.
The women were removing their veils because they understood that to stand and exercise a spiritual gift in the assembly was an
authoritative act of leadership.
To wear a symbol of submission to authority (the veil) while
simultaneously conducting oneself in an authoritative fashion (to lead
in worship) was self-contradictory. Paul’s insistence that women keep
their veils on during the worship assembly amounted to an
implicit directive to refrain from leading in the assembly—a directive stated
explicitly
in 14:34. The allusions to Creation law (11:7-9; cf. 14:34) underscore
the fact that Paul saw the restrictions on women as rooted
in the created order—not in culture. Also, Paul made clear that such restrictions applied equally to all churches of Christ (11:16).
In chapter fourteen, Paul addressed further the confusion over
spiritual gifts, and returned specifically to the participation of women
in the exercise of those gifts in the assembly. He again emphasized the
universal practice of churches of Christ: “as in all churches of the
saints” (14:33). [NOTE: Grammatically, the phrase “as in all churches of
the saints” links with “let your women keep silence”; cf. the ASV, RSV,
NIV, NEB, NAB,
etc.] The women who possessed miraculous gifts were not to exercise
them in the mixed worship assembly of the church. To do so was
disgraceful—“a shame” (14:35). To insist upon doing so was equivalent
to: (1) presuming to be the authors of God’s Word; and (2) assuming that
God’s standards do not apply to everyone (14:36).
Granted, 1 Corinthians chapters eleven and fourteen address a unique
situation. After all, spiritual gifts no longer are available to the
church (1 Corinthians 13:8-11; see
Miller,
2003), and veils, in Western society, no longer represent a cultural
symbol of female submission. Nevertheless, both passages demonstrate the
clear application of the transcultural principle (female subordination
in worship) to a specific cultural circumstance. The underlying
submission principle remains intact as an inbuilt constituent element of
the created order.
1 Timothy 2: The Central Scripture
I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy
hands, without wrath and doubting; in like manner also, that the women
adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not
with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is
proper for women professing godliness, with good works. Let a woman
learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to
teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam
was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman
being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved
in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with
self-control (1 Timothy 2:8-15).
The premier passage in the New Testament that treats the role of women
in worship is 1 Timothy 2:8-15. The remote context of the book is:
proper behavior in the life of the church (1 Timothy 3:15). The
immediate context of chapter two is worship, specifically prayer (1
Timothy 2:1,8). The context does not limit the worship to the church
assembly, but includes the general life of the church.
Paul affirmed that adult males (
andras) are to lead prayers
anywhere people meet for worship. “Lifting up holy hands” is a figure of
speech—a metonymy—in which a posture of prayer is put in place of
prayer itself. Their prayers are to usher forth out of holy lives. On
the other hand, women are admonished to focus upon appropriate apparel
and a submissive attitude. Notice the contrast set up in the passage:
Men need to be holy, spiritual leaders in worship while women need to be
modest and unassuming. “Silence” and “subjection” in this passage
relate specifically to the exercise of spiritual authority over adult
males in the church. “Usurp” (KJV) is not in the original text.
Authentein
should be translated “to have authority.” Thus Paul instructed women
not to teach nor in any other way to have authority over men in worship.
Why would an inspired apostle place such limitations on Christian
women? Was his concern prompted by the culture of that day? Was Paul
merely accommodating an unenlightened, hostile environment—stalling for
time and keeping prejudice to a minimum—until he could teach them the
Gospel? Absolutely not! The Holy Spirit gave the reason for the
limitations—a reason that transcends all culture and all locales. Paul
stated that women are not to exercise spiritual authority over men
because
Adam was created before Eve. Here, we are given the heart and core of God’s will concerning how men and women are to function and interrelate.
Paul was saying that God’s original design for the human race entailed the creation of the male
first
as an indication of his responsibility to be the spiritual leader of
the home. He was created to function as the head or leader in the home
and in the church. That is his functional purpose. Woman, on the other
hand, was specifically designed and created for the purpose of being a
subordinate (though certainly not inferior) assistant. God
could have created the woman
first—but He did not. He
could have created both male and female
simultaneously—but He did not. His action was intended to convey His will with regard to gender as it relates to the interrelationship of man and woman.
This feature of Creation explains why God gave spiritual teaching to
Adam before Eve was created, implying that Adam had the created
responsibility to teach his wife (Genesis 2:15-17). It explains why the
female is twice stated to have been created as a “help meet
for him,”
i.e., a helper suitable for the man (Genesis 2:18,20, emp. added). This
explains why the Genesis text clearly indicates that, in a unique
sense, the woman was created
for the man—not vice versa. It
explains why God brought the woman “to the man” (Genesis 2:22), again,
as if she was made “for him”—not vice versa. Adam confirmed this
understanding by stating, “the woman whom You gave to be
with me” (Genesis 3:12, emp. added). It explains why Paul argued on the basis of this very distinction: “Neither was the man created
for the woman; but the woman
for the man” (1 Corinthians 11:9, emp. added). It further clarifies the implied authority of the man over the women in his act of
naming
the woman (Genesis 2:23; 3:20). The Jews understood this divinely
designed order, evinced through the practice of primogeniture—the
prominence of the firstborn male. God’s creation of the man
first was specifically intended to communicate the authority/submission order of the human race (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:8).
Observe that Paul next elaborated upon this principle in 1 Timothy 2:14
by noting an example of what can happen when men and women tamper with
God’s original intentions. When Eve took the spiritual initiative above
her husband, and Adam failed to take the lead and exercise spiritual
authority over his wife, Satan was able to wreak havoc on the home and
cause the introduction of sin into the world (Genesis 3). When Paul said
the woman was deceived, he was not suggesting that women are more
gullible than men. Rather, when men or women fail to confine themselves
to their created function, but instead tamper with, and act in violation
of, divinely intended roles, spiritual vulnerability to sin naturally
follows.
God’s appraisal of the matter was seen when He confronted the pair. He
spoke first to the head of the home—the man (Genesis 3:9). His
subsequent declaration to Eve reaffirmed the fact that she was not to
yield to the inclination to take the lead in spiritual matters. Rather,
she was to submit to the rule of her husband (Genesis 3:16; cf. 4:4).
When God said to Adam, “Because you have heeded the voice of your
wife...” (Genesis 3:17), He was calling attention to the fact that Adam
had failed to exercise spiritual leadership and thereby circumvented the
divine arrangement of male/female relations.
Paul concluded his instructions by noting how women may be preserved
from falling into the same trap of assuming unauthorized authority: “She
will be saved in childbearing” (1 Timothy 2:15). “Childbearing” is the
figure of speech known as synecdoche, in which a part stands for the
whole. Thus, Paul was referring to the whole of female responsibility.
Women may avoid taking to themselves illicit functions by concentrating
on the functions assigned to them by God—tasks undertaken with faith,
love, and holiness in sobriety (i.e., self-control).
Some argue that this text applies to husbands and wives, rather than to
men and women in general. However, the context of 1 Timothy is not the
home, but the church (1 Timothy 3:15). Likewise, the use of the plural
with the absence of the article in 2:9 and 2:11, suggests women in
general. Nothing in the context would cause one to conclude that Paul
was referring only to husbands and wives. Besides, would Paul restrict
wives from leadership roles in the church but then permit single women
to lead?
DEACONESSES
Those who advocate expanded roles for women in the church appeal to the
alleged existence of deaconesses in the New Testament. Only two
passages even hint of such an office: Romans 16:1-2 and 1 Timothy 3:11.
In Romans 16:1, the term translated “servant” in the KJV is the Greek
word
diakonos, an indeclinable term meaning “one who serves or
ministers.” It is of common gender (i.e., may refer to men or women) and
occurs in the following verses: Matthew 20:26; 22:13; 23:11; Mark 9:35;
10:43; John 2:5,9; 12:26; Romans 13:4; 15:8; 1 Corinthians 3:5; 16:1; 2
Corinthians 3:6; 6:4; 11:15,23; Galatians 2:17; Ephesians 3:7; 6:21;
Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:7,23,25; 4:7; 1 Thessalonians 3:2; 1
Timothy 3:8,12; 4:6.
The term is used in the New Testament in two senses. First, it is used
as a technical term for a formal office in the church to which one may
be appointed by meeting certain qualifications. Second, it is used as a
non-technical term for the informal activity of serving or attending to.
Additional words in the New Testament that have both a technical and
non-technical meaning include “apostle,” “elder,” and “shepherd.” To be
rational in one’s analysis of a matter, one must draw only those
conclusions that are warranted by the evidence. In the matter of
deaconesses, one should only conclude that a deaconess is being referred
to when the context plainly shows the office itself is under
consideration.
In Romans 13:4, the civil government is said to be God’s deacon. In
Romans 15:8, Christ is said to be a deacon of the Jews. In 2 Corinthians
3:6 and 6:4, Paul is said to be a deacon of the New Covenant and a
deacon of God. Apollos is listed with Paul as a deacon in 1 Corinthians
3:5. Obviously, these are all
non-technical uses of the term referring to the service or assistance being rendered.
Nothing in the context of Romans 16:1 warrants the conclusion that Paul
was describing Phoebe as an official appointee—a deaconess. Paul’s
phrase, “our sister,” designates her church membership, and “servant”
specifies the special efforts she extended to the church in Cenchrea
where she was an active, caring member. Being a “servant of the church”
no more implies a formal appointee than does the expression in
Colossians 1:25 where Paul is said to be the church’s servant.
Some have insisted that the term in Romans 16:2, translated “help,” implies a technical usage. It is true that
prostatis can mean a helper in the sense of presiding with authority. But this word carries the same inbuilt obscurity that
diakonos
does, in that it has a formal and informal sense. But since the verse
explicitly states that Phoebe was a “helper” to Paul, the non-technical
usage must be in view. She would not have exercised authority over Paul.
Even his fellow apostles did not do that, since he exercised high
authority direct from the Lord (1 Corinthians 14:37-38; Galatians
1:6-12; 2 Thessalonians 3:14). Only Christ wielded authority over Paul.
Romans 16:2 actually employs a play on words. Paul told the Corinthians to “help” (
paristemi) Phoebe since she has been a “help” (
prostatis) to many, including Paul himself. While the masculine noun
prostates can mean “leader,” the actual feminine noun
prostatis
means “protectress, patroness, helper” (Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p.
718). Paul was saying, “Help Phoebe as she has helped others and me.”
She had been a concerned, generous, hospitable, dedicated contributor to
the Lord’s work. Paul was paying her a tremendous tribute and
expressing publicly the honor due her. But he was not acknowledging her
as an office holder in the church.
The second passage to which some have appealed in order to find
sanction for deaconesses in the church is 1 Timothy 3:11. In the midst
of a listing of the qualifications of deacons, Paul referred to women.
What women? Was Paul referring to the wives of the church officers, or
was he referring to female appointees, i.e., deaconesses? Once again,
the underlying Greek term is of no help in answering this question since
gunaikas (from
gune) also has both a technical and
non-technical sense. It can mean a “wife” or simply a “female” or
“woman.” It is used both ways in 1 Timothy—as “female” (2:9-12,14) and
as “wife” (3:2,12; 5:9).
Five contextual observations, however, provide assistance in
ascertaining the meaning of the passage. First, a woman cannot be “the
husband of one wife” (3:12). Second, in speaking of male deacons from
3:8-13, it would be unusual for Paul to switch, in the middle of the
discussion, to female deacons for a single verse without some
clarification. Third, referring to the wives of church officers would be
appropriate since family conduct is a qualifying concern (3:2,4-5,12).
Fourth, “likewise” (3:11) could mean simply that wives are to have
similar virtues as the deacons without implying they share the same
office (cf. 1 Timothy 5:25; Titus 2:3). Fifth, lack of the possessive
genitive with
gunaikas (“of deacons”) or “their” does not rule
out wives of deacons, since neither is used in other cases where
men/women are being described as wives/husbands (Colossians 3:18-19;
Ephesians 5:22-25; 1 Corinthians 7:2-4,11,14,33; Matthew 18:25; Mark
10:2).
Insufficient textual evidence exists to warrant the conclusion that the
office of deaconess is referred to in the New Testament. Outside the
New Testament, Pliny, Governor of Bythynia, wrote a letter to Emperor
Trajan about A.D. 110 referring in Latin to two
ministrae. This term has the same ambiguity within it that
diakonos
has. He could have been referring to official appointees, or he just as
easily could have been referring simply to servants. In any case, a
passing reference by an uninformed non-Christian is hardly trustworthy
evidence. Christian historical sources from this same period do not
refer to the existence of female appointees even though they do discuss
church organization (Lewis, 1988, p. 108).
Not until the late third century in the Syrian
Didascalia do we
find a reference to deaconesses. Their work consisted of assisting at
the baptism of women, going into homes of heathens where believing women
lived, and visiting the sick (ministering to them and bathing them). A
full-blown church order of deaconesses does not appear until the
fourth/fifth centuries. Again, their responsibilities consisted of
keeping the doors, aiding in female baptisms, and doing other work with
women (Lewis, pp. 108-109). Those within the church today who are
pressing for deaconesses and expanded roles for women, hardly would be
content with such tasks.
Even if women were deacons in the New Testament church, they would not
have functioned in any sort of leadership or authority position over
men. They were not to be appointed as elders. If Acts 6:1-5 refers to
the appointment of deacons (the verb form is used) in the Jerusalem
church (Woods, 1986, p. 199), they were all males, and their specific
task entailed distribution of physical assistance to widows.
The evidence is simply lacking. The existence of a female deaconate
within the New Testament cannot be demonstrated. Those who insist upon
establishing such an office, do so without the authority of the
Scriptures behind them.
A final word needs to be said concerning the fact that both men and
women must remember that Bible teaching on difference in role in no way
implies a difference in worth, value, or ability. Galatians 3:28
(“neither male nor female”), 1 Timothy 2:15 (“she shall be saved”), and 1
Peter 3:7 (“heirs together of the grace of life”) all show that males
and females are equals as far as their person and salvation status is
concerned. Women often are superior to men in talent, intellect, and
ability. Women are not inferior to men, anymore than Christ is inferior
to God, citizens are inferior to the President, or church members are
inferior to elders. The role of women in the church is not a matter of
control, power, or oppression. It is a matter of submission on the part
of
all human beings to the will of God. It is a matter of
willingness on the part of God’s creatures, male and female, to
subordinate themselves to the divine arrangement regarding the sexes.
The biblical differentiation is purely a matter of function, assigned
tasks, and sphere of responsibility. The question for us is: “How
willing are we to fit ourselves into God’s arrangement?”
CONCLUSION
A massive restructuring of values and reorientation of moral and
spiritual standards has been taking place in American culture for over
forty years now. The feminist agenda is one facet of this multifaceted
effacement and erosion of biblical values. Virtually every sphere of
American culture has been impacted—including the church. Those who
resist these human innovations are considered tradition-bound, resistant
to change, narrow-minded, chauvinistic, etc.—as if they cannot hold
honest, unbiased, studied convictions on such matters.
If the Bible authorized it, no man should have any personal aversion to
women having complete access to leadership roles in the church. Indeed,
many talented, godly women possess abilities and talents that would
enable them to surpass many of the male worship leaders functioning in
the church today. However, the Bible stands as an unalterable, eternal
declaration of God’s will on the matter. By those words, we will be
judged (John 12:48). May we all bow humbly and submissively before the
God of heaven.
REFERENCES
Arndt, William F. and F. Wilbur Gingrich (1957),
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press).
Grudem, Wayne (1985), “Does
kephale (‘head’) Mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority over’ in Greek Literature? A Survey of 2,336 Examples,”
Trinity Journal, 6 NS, 38-59.
Lewis, Jack (1988),
Exegesis of Difficult Passages (Searcy, AR: Resource Publications).
Miller, Dave (2003), “Modern-Day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation,” [On-line], URL:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2569.
Osburn, Carroll, ed. (1993),
Essays On Women in Earliest Christianity (Joplin, MO: College Press).
Osburn, Carroll (1994),
Women in the Church (Abilene, TX: Restoration Perspectives).
Woods, Guy N. (1986),
Questions and Answers: Volume Two (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).
How
should a sinner react to the gift of salvation freely offered by Jesus?
What is man’s appropriate response to learning about the crucified
Creator and Savior of the world?
You
may have heard of the field of science known as synthetic biology. In
this highly advanced area of science, engineers utilize their
understanding of biology to “create” new life forms not found in nature.
According to SyntheticBiology.org, synthetic biology involves
“the design and construction of new biological parts, devices, and
systems” and “the re-design of existing, natural biological systems for
useful purposes” (“Synthetic Biology,” 2012). Perhaps this conjures up
in your mind, as it does in the minds of many others, images of Dr.
Frankenstein sewing pieces of dead tissue together into a monster on his
laboratory table and bringing it to life. Is this what goes on in
synthetic biology? Can scientists create life?
