Women in Ministry

Right now I’m taking one of the most fascinating classes ever — Biblical Perspectives on Women in Ministry. Because I’m not done with the class I’ve been hesitant to post this–but I suppose as my view morphs I can just be honest about that and repost new thoughts.  This is my summary paper on the role of women in ministry based on the book Two Views of Women in Ministry (an excellent book!) which outlines the two views, Egalitarianism and Complementarianism, from four scholars.  You probably have to be somewhat familiar with the ongoing conversation in order to jump in, but hopefully if you at least read the sticky passages (1 Cor. 11:1-16; 1 Cor. 14: 34-37; 1 Tim. 2:9-15) you can get a picture of what all the fuss is about.  My thoughts (as you’ll see) are far from complete, but this is an attempt to connect the dots in my mind and land at a place where I can stand with conviction, at least for myself.  As you’ll see I haven’t even scratched the surface of the link between male/female roles and the roles within the members of the Trinity–that’s another whole topic I’m too timid to address.  I’d love to hear your thoughts …

—

 I love to ballroom dance.  But as a woman, the hardest part of ballroom dancing is learning to follow, especially when you’re the more experienced or gifted dancer and the male lead is struggling to keep time or doesn’t necessarily display characteristics of wanting to lead.  I recently spoke with a seminary student who taught dance classes for years.  He said, “The hardest thing about teaching dance is getting the men to lead and the women to follow.”  Could this indicative of a greater malady?
This analogy is not biblical, but what does it tell us about our natural inability to function successfully within our God-given roles?  Or, perhaps the real questions is, are there God-given roles at all?  Here we are, two species, male and female, wholly distinct and completely equal, who are called to partner together in this grand dance for the Kingdom of God.  Does it matter who does what?  Can we switch places?  Is there more value in leading or following?  What does the Bible say?  In this brief essay we will examine two primary views with regard to this question: Egalitarianism and Complementarianism.  These two views are outlined by four biblical scholars (Linda L. Belleville, Craig L. Blomberg, Craig S. Keener, and Thomas R. Schreiner) in the book Two Views of Women in Ministry.  I will summarize and critique each of the four authors, then summarize my own view briefly at the end, concluding with unresolved issues with which I’m still wrestling. 
Linda L. Belleville:  Egalitarian
 Beginning in the beginning, Linda Belleville sees no hierarchical structure in the Genesis account, insisting that if the law of primogeniture were at work then the animals would have the prime role, not man.  She rightly points out that man alone was called “not good” but man + woman was called “very good” by God (30).  Belleville then goes on to highlight the gifts exercised and roles played by women throughout the Bible.  Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Phoebe, and Priscilla stand out as significant.  She observes that women were patrons (or hosts) of house churches, prophets, teachers, deacons and overseers, although there is no clear instance of a woman overseer.  Belleville believes that Paul’s address to widows in 1 Tim. 5:9-10 was likely an address to female overseers or elders (62). 
 Belleville deals with 1 Corinthians 14:34-37 by looking to the cultural context and explaining that women, allowed to learn (which was revolutionary in that culture), were being disruptive in the corporate worship setting.  However, she argues that any group could be guilty of this, so the transferable principle has nothing to do with women per se, but has to do with being disruptive during church (75).  She sides with the Message’s reading of the passage which states: “Wives must not disrupt worship, talking when they should be listening, asking questions that could more appropriately be asked of their husbands at home.”  
 In 1 Timothy 2:9-15 Belleville stresses the word authentein, which is found nowhere else in the entire New Testament and only twice in the entire Greek Bible (82).  Her research has led her to believe it would translate “to dominate” rather than “ to exercise authority over” (86).  This would suggest that the error was not in women teaching or having authority, but in dominating or behaving in a domineering way (89). 
 With regard to the rigorous debate surrounding the meaning of head (kephale), Belleville follows the egalitarian viewpoint that defines this key word as “source” (100).  Because of this she sees that mutual submission is the order to be followed, with no restriction on the ministry roles of women (103). 
Craig L. Blomberg: Complementarian
 Craig Blomberg begins by admitting that a double standard has been shown toward women, allowing them to function as leaders on the mission field but not at home. He also asks the probing question about what is causing this new proposed change in our churches—a closer look at scripture or a desire to follow the trends of society (126)?
 Like Belleville, Blomberg begins his discussion in Genesis, highlighting the meaning of the word ezer.  It has been established by both sides that ezer means “helper” and does not signify an inferior person (129).  In fact, in the Hebrew Bible this term most frequently refers to God.  However, what Blomberg argues is that the common thread throughout all the contexts is that the ezer “comes to the aid of someone else who bears the primary responsibility for the activity in question” (130).  Therefore, he concludes that the term ezer certainly doesn’t suggest an inferior role, but rather one who aids the person who requires help.   
 Blomberg’s main point is the significant observation he makes of the entire Bible—women possess positions in every ministerial role except the one lead role of priest or elder.  In the Old Testament, women were prophets, judges, and helpers in the ministry. In the New Testament, women were hosts of house churches, intercessors, prophets, and deacons.  Women in both the New and Old Testament were gifted with a wide variety of gifts and abilities.  But Blomberg correctly observes that nowhere in the entire Bible are there examples of female priests or elders.  This, he would say, is telling.  In Blomberg’s opinion, it would have been easy for Jesus to change this if He had wanted to—He certainly had no trouble turning the social norm on its proverbial ear (145). 
  Blomberg sees the key issue of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 as behaving in a way that is culturally appropriate, sending the right message to the unbelieving world.  His key distinction, with regard to women preaching is summed up on page 158: 
One could thus be completely faithful to 1 Corinthians 11:5 by allowing a woman to preach, while at the same time insisting that the elders of the local congregation all be men, and that her authority to preach is a delegated one, with the elder board as the ultimate body of human leaders to whom the entire church (preachers included) is accountable.

Blomberg admits that kephale can mean many different things, including head, source, and authority.  What he points out, however, is that there has never been a single instance where the singular form of the word kephale has ever not included some sense of authority (156).  So he would sum up that this passage confirms male headship while allowing women to exercise their spiritual gifts in an appropriate manner. 
 First Timothy 2:9-15 is in many ways the key passage to discuss.  Blomberg insists that Paul cannot mean for women to be completely silent because he’d be contradicting himself!  He understands this to mean that women should behave in a cooperative and caring manner.  With regard to teaching and having authority, Blomberg explains that this is not the forbidding of two separate actions, but that the two verbs work “together to define one specific function or role” (169).   He would call this role “authoritative teaching,” and goes on to observe that the overseer is the only ministry position who is called both to lead (oversee) and to be “able to teach” (3:2).  This is the immediate context of the passage, which makes good hermeneutical sense.  Blomberg therefore concludes, “the only thing Paul is prohibiting women from doing in that verse is occupying the office of overseer or elder” (170). 
Craig S. Keener: Egalitarian
 Keener begins with a broad overview of the various ministerial roles women have played throughout the scriptures.  Primarily as prophets, judges (we know of one), and “laborers in the Word”, we see the women have obviously served God and been used for His glory.  Keener highlights Junia, whose name is debatable but generally accepted as a female who is listed as notable “among the apostles” (Rom 16:7).  He concludes that she held the office of apostle, perhaps with her husband or brother Andronicus (214).  The most likely explanation, according to Keener, is that like Aquila and Priscilla, Junia and Andronicus were “ a husband-wife apostolic team” (216). 
 The 1 Corinthians 14:34-37 passage, according to Keener, is about learning in an appropriate manner.  He explains that while this might sounds repressive in our culture, the opposite was true in theirs.  Far from being restrictive, this passage simply provided guidelines for the newfound freedom to learn that women had in the Christian faith (228). 
 Keener insists that 1 Timothy 2:9-15 was a situation specific passage. He again mentions numerous verses where direct instructions are obviously situation specific, including the command to beware of Alexander the coppersmith (2 Tim 4) (234).  He acknowledges the significance of Paul’s reference to the Old Testament but points out the fact that this same technique is used in reference to head coverings in 1 Cor. 11:8-9.  He would conclude, therefore, that it is hermeneutically inconsistent to insist that this reference to creation can mean one thing in one context and another elsewhere (240).
 With regard to the issue of headship, Keener accepts the biblical text but explains that the correct emphases should be on mutual submission and servanthood.  He highlights the key reality: all are called to mutual submission but women are specified more explicitly; all are called to mutual love, but men are specified more explicitly (242).  This both and only sort of description seems appropriate to helping both genders understand how they are called simply to exhibit a Christlike characteristic, but Paul emphasizes different characteristics for the man and for the woman.  Further, Keener seems to be concluding that a form of male authority is the biblical model in the home, but not in the church (242). 
Thomas R. Schreiner: Complementarian
 Schreiner submits the most traditional viewpoint represented in this book.  He agrees with Blomberg on many points but remains more traditional.  He begins his discussion in a way unique to him, by addressing the historical and hermeneutical components of the argument before delving into the biblical evidence. He explains that the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of those who promote a new way of interpreting these difficult passages (i.e. Egalitarians).  Centuries of scholars, according to Schreiner, have read and understood a male-leadership model as biblical, therefore it is the role of the egalitarian to be able to prove, without doubt, that these interpretations have been wrong (267), especially since “the new interpretation follows on the heels of the feminist revolution in our society.” 
 A refreshing point from Schreiner is his argument that no single passages should be elevated beyond another, but that each should be read in its context and used appropriately within its setting.  For example, to elevate Galatians 3:28 or 1 Tim. 2:5-11 as the highest authority is erroneous.  They are from letters with completely different contexts, purposes, and recipients. Rather, each one should be weighed equally with regard to its context (269). 
 Schreiner also devotes time to discussing the importance of terms and understanding what we are truly arguing about.  For example, we may argue over women’s ordination, but in realty (as Belleville also pointed out) the true issue is whether women can fulfill the role of elder/overseer which we today would term “Pastor.”  Because of this, Schreiner narrows down his arguments to address this one key question:  “Are women called to function as pastors, elders, or overseers.”  His answer is no (271).
 Schreiner also gives a valuable overview of the way that God, in the Old Testament and through Jesus, displays the value and dignity of women.  A truly remarkable number of women are portrayed throughout the Bible.  Jesus often talked to, healed, ministered to, cared for, loved, and wept with women.  He loves them.  He was provided for (helped!) by women who supported him financially, and certainly didn’t find that below him or degrading.  He revealed Himself, in His resurrected body, first to women, and gave them the honor of declaring the good news.  So though He did not invite any to be in the inner twelve group of apostles, he certainly valued women (275).
 Schreiner takes issue with the egalitarian assertion that the gift of prophecy is the same as the New Testament role of teacher.  He sees prophecy as a “fresh revelation” whereas teaching is the communication of tradition and exposition from the Word of God.  He thinks the attempt to prove that women can teach just because they fulfill the role of prophet is to perform hermeneutical gymnastics and stretch the text (278). 
 As does Blomberg, Schreiner makes the distinction between gifts and offices in the church.  This seems to be a common thread throughout the complementarian arguments.  While Schreiner explains that naturally men and women will be gifted in the same manner with the spiritual gift of teaching, there is a distinction in the way that this gift should function.  He sees that nowhere in scripture is it said that women should fulfill the office of a pastor who regularly teaches the congregation (279).  Again, Schreiner draws the line, albeit a bit fuzzily, at a “regular teacher”, insisting that just because Priscilla instructed Apollos in a private matter on a single occasion certainly does not imply that she filled a pastoral teaching position (280). 
Kari Patterson: Complementary Egalitarianism (!)
 Each author presents a valuable perspective that helped shape and develop my position on this matter.  In my opinion, the Egalitarianisms drew some conclusions that seemed hermeneutically and logically erroneous and discredited their scholarship.  For example, in the Genesis discussion, Belleville discusses the 3:16 reference to a woman’s desire for her husband:  Belleville believes this refers to a physical desire in the context of intimacy (a common sense objection here would be Sarah Sumner’s interjection—“How realistic is that?!”).  She does not think that it can be compared to the use of the term in 4:7 because there sin was likened to a lion, which wants to eat, not rule, Cain (33).  However, this is a comparison.  Desire is like a lion, not a lion.  Her conclusion, therefore, is not valid because she’s dealt erroneously with the text. 
 I also found unconvincing her insistence that women were the leaders of the house churches just because they hosted the church in their homes.  It is a huge stretch, in my opinion, to think that just because a group meets at a person’s house that that person is necessarily the leader.  Many of the home groups in our church are hosted by people who don’t shepherd or oversee them. 
Finally, her use of 1 Tim. 5 to defend the view of women as elders was borderline fantastical.  The passage is clearly speaking of the age of eligible widows, and has nothing to do with church office in the context.  This strikes me as a clear example of hermeneutical eisogesis to the nth degree.
 Of the four authors, I would stand in the camp with Craig L. Blomberg who refers to himself a the most egalitarian of complementarians.  I prefer Complementary Egalitarian!  I agree wholeheartedly with his findings and conclusions.  He sees the distinction of office, not gifting, and would allow a woman to teach, as long as she is not fulfilling the office of overseer or teaching elder.  I understand this is a subtle distinction, but it seems the only way to reconcile the various passages with honesty and integrity.  The fact that throughout Scripture, the two primary leadership ministerial roles (priest and overseer in the OT and NT respectively) were reserved only for men is significant.  There is absolutely no biblical evidence given for women filling those roles.  I agree that many of the passages surrounding the restrictions put on women were given within a situation specific context.  However, when we consider the totality of scripture—woman as ezer, male priesthood, warnings toward women in authority, male headship in marriage, and the emphasis on wifely submission, it seems obvious that there is something going on with regard to God’s desire for order within the body of Christ.  No distinctions with regard to gifting or value, distinctions with regard to office—that seems the conclusion that is truest to the totality of God’s Word. 
 With that said, I would note that I see this in now way hindering women.  To the contrary, as John Eldredge has stated in Captivating: “Issues of headship and authority are intended for the benefit of women, not their suppression” (211).  In my marriage, I consider my husband the head and leader.  He uses this weighty responsibility to bless me, serve me, and promote me daily.  Yes, men throughout history have misused this authority.  Men have abused, perverted, and exploited this right.  They have used their strength for selfish gain.  But just because it has been misused does not make the model wrong.  Just because sex has been perverted and distorted through its misuse does not make it wrong!  Sex is still a glorious, God-glorifying, and marvelous act when used correctly. It is the same with gender roles within the church.  Yes, they have been misused, but that does not mean we throw them out.  We use our unique roles to bless each other, and most importantly to glorify God.  It is all about Him. It is not about our rights, not even about what we can and cannot do. 
 I’m still contemplating some of the issues raised, wondering how they bear weight in this issue.  For one, no one brought up the fact that we only have an example of Priscilla teaching alongside her husband.  What does that mean?  We don’t have a single biblical example of a woman teaching a mixed group by herself.  Is there a reason for this?  And is it possible that the two most prominent New Testament women ministered with their husbands (Junia and Priscilla)?  What about Phoebe?  If it is important for women to minister with the covering of their husbands, what does this mean for single women? 
The only other real question that lingers in my mind is the issue of whether a woman can be a regular teacher of the Scriptures in a church setting (as Sarah Sumner and Barbara Feil do in their churches).  And, if not, why is that different than an academic setting?  Is it possible to be a regular teacher without fulfilling the office of teaching elder?  I think it is, but why would I feel comfortable teaching a coed class at my church but not a sermon on Sunday morning?  Perhaps there is an important distinction, but I’m not sure what it is at this point.  I currently have no problem with a woman teaching in any setting (and I’m so thankful for my female seminary professors!), but would not support a woman fulfilling the role of lead pastor/elder. 
In closing, I would once more emphasize that I believe men and women have equal gifting and distinct roles.  Just because I cook dinner and Jeff does the dishes does not mean that one of us is more valuable than the other (we’d be in trouble if I let him cook!).  We are both made in the image of God, gifted, loved, valued beyond measure, and given distinct roles to play both in the home and in the body of Christ.  Some of these roles overlap, some do not.  Some are not clearly defined and are thus open for interpretation.  My husband would echo the sentiments of Blomberg who said, “ the principle of male headship [should] take every possible step to demonstrate to a watching world how loving and self-sacrificing it can be.”  May we, men and women, take every possible step to demonstrate how loving and self-sacrificing we can be to each other.  Let us, women, respect the men in our lives.  Let men value and love women.  We are broken, fallen people, but we can work together to perform this dance for the Kingdom of God, displaying His beauty and glory to a dying world.  This is my goal and aim as a Complementary Egalitarian.