what, if any, is the biblical warrant for excluding women...
Post on 03-Jun-2020
2 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Long version Alison Whittall
What, if any, is the biblical warrant for excluding women from some forms of ministry?
Jesus encouraged and welcomed ministry from women, but his church has resisted
it.1 Currently there is a participation scale ranging from full exclusion to full inclusion,
marked by the consecration of the first Anglican female bishop. However, the fact
that her consecration was interrupted by an objector saying it was unbiblical, and a
prominent Roman Catholic archbishop said that “The ordination of women to the
episcopate presents a further obstacle to achieving that unity among us for which Our
Lord prayed” shows how contentious and important this question is.2
This essay discusses six barriers to women’s full inclusion in ministry and argues that
they can all be overcome. I acknowledge my bias towards wanting to believe this, a
cultural background which increasingly accepts women at all levels of service in the
wider world, and a hermeneutic that assumes an overarching redemptive biblical
narrative of full equality and unity for all humans at Jesus’ return. We will first
consider cultural mindsets towards women, then the roles of Old Testament women,
particularly focussing on Genesis 1 – 3, followed by women in the New Testament,
first within the gospels and finally in the writings of Paul.
1: A presupposition that a hierarchy exists because of worldly cultural
mindsets, which leads to reading the whole biblical text from this bias.
It has to be acknowledged that even the best of us are ‘[taken] captive by philosophy
and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of
the world, and not according to Christ’ (Col 2: 8). In the West, we have been heavily
influenced by misogynistic Hellenistic philosophies; women are a curse, not to be
trusted, a source of evil, in the same category as animals and slaves, ‘merely
possessions to be won, pawns in men’s powerplays’.3 Rabbinical teaching, especially
at the time of Jesus, also perpetuated this view; men daily prayed, ‘Thank God I am
1 Elizabeth Carroll, “Women and Ministry,” Centre of concern, Washington DC, 663.
2 Joanna Moorhead, Historic ordination of first woman bishop in Church of England throws down
unity challenge. 30 January 2015 12:49 http://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/1688/0/historic-ordination-of-first-woman-bishop-in-church-of-england-throws-down-unity-challenge (01/02/15). 3 Homer quoted in Loren Cunningham & David Joel Hamilton with Janice Rogers, Why not women? A
fresh look at scripture on women in missions, ministry and leadership (Seattle: YWAM Publishing, 2000), 73.
Long version Alison Whittall
not a woman’.4 The Western church has largely accepted these philosophies,
ignoring the counter-cultural revolution that Jesus began. The power of these
mindsets in the history of biblical interpretation has not just damaged women, but
also men who may feel ‘proud’ of their superiority, affecting their intimacy with God
and women.5 These mindsets perpetuate the view of an unjust God, do not reflect his
true image, quench his Spirit, and limit the extension of his Kingdom.6
2: Belief that in Genesis 1 God institutes a hierarchical relationship.
These mindsets affect the way one interprets the pre-Fall state of humanity and this
is key, because whether we read it from the ‘complimentary egalitarian’ perspective,
or the ‘hierarchical’ perspective, we will see the rest of the Bible through that lens
(although many allow their reading of Paul to inform their reading of Genesis).
The primary argument is that woman was created in the image of God, ‘though in the
second degree’7 because she was created second. However, the man was not
created before the woman. First, God made ha’ adam, ‘the human’, from the
adamah (ground).8 Ha’ adam is not a name, reference to an individual or gender
specific.9 Then, from the human being’s tsela, God made male and female. The word
tsela ‘always refers to something connected with the side of a sacred structure, the
ark of the covenant, the tabernacle, the altars or the temple’ and here God ‘builds’
with it.10 Surely the point is that the human is a sacred structure and God is building
another equally sacred structure with him/her, which is closely linked to his presence.
It also emphasises that very human being comes from the same ‘dust’, so there is no
arguing that one sex was made from a better piece of dirt than the other11 and there
can be no sexist reading either way: neither the man as the primary creation nor the
woman as the pinnacle of creation!12
4 N.T. Wright, Women's Service in the Church: The Biblical Basis, np and Philo quoted in Loren
Cunningham & David Joel Hamilton with Janice Rogers, Why not women? A fresh look at scripture on women in missions, ministry and leadership (Seattle: YWAM Publishing, 2000), 108. 5 Rogers, Why not women? , 16-17.
6 Rogers, Why not women? , 15-22.
7 Calvin quoted in Mary Evans, Woman in the Bible (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1983), 14.
8 Donald E. Gowan, Genesis 1 - 11 From Eden to Babel (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1988), 39. 9 Gowan, Genesis 1 - 11 , 28.
10 Gowan, Genesis 1 - 11 , 48.
11 Evans, Woman , 15.
12 Gowan, Genesis 1 - 11 , 48.
Long version Alison Whittall
Even if one believes that the man was created before the woman, this does not imply
superiority. One Rabbi said, ‘If a man’s mind becomes [too] proud, he may be
reminded that the gnats preceded him in the order of creation.’13 Even if one believes
that the concept of primogeniture originated here, this concept is overturned
throughout the Old Testament, beginning with Abel over Cain, which suggests that
this not a universal principle.14
Some may argue that the ‘man’ was complete without the woman, but God said his
isolation was ‘not good’ (Gen 2: 18). The creation of the woman ‘transformed Eden
into paradise’.15 The human, only now become ish (man), recognises this when he
sees the woman, and calls her ishshah (woman), the similarity of their designation
indicating their similarity of image and substance, presumably like the Trinity (Gen 2:
23).16 To suggest any subordination between the persons here creates problems with
regards to Trinitarian theology. It seems that their communion is so strong that they
have little self-awareness; they are naked and not ashamed (Gen 2: 25).17
We then come to the argument that the woman is the ‘helpmate of man, his
complement and partner...his equal, but secondary.’18 It is true that the woman was
made as a ‘helper’ (ezer keneged) but just because someone helps another, does
not mean they are subordinate.19 Also, ezer is used throughout the Old Testament to
refer to God’s help (e.g. Ps 121: 1-2), meaning ‘a more capable, more powerful, more
intelligent ally.’20 However, it is balanced by keneged, meaning ‘a help corresponding
to him...equal and adequate to himself’, someone suitable to serve with him,
alongside him as he ‘tills’ and ‘keeps’ the garden (Gen 2: 15).21 It is a picture of joint
leadership.
13
Rogers, Why not women? , 95. 14
William J. Webb, Slaves, Women and Homosexuals: Exploring the hermeneutics of cultural analysis (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2001), 134. 15
Rogers, Why not women? , 95. 16
Gowan, Genesis 1 - 11 , 49 and Rogers, Why not women? , 95. 17
Lori Hope Lefkovitz, “The Genesis of Gender Transgression,” The Jewish Quarterly Review 101 (2011), 408-409 and Gowan, Genesis 1 - 11 , 50. 18
T.C. Vriezen quoted in Evans, Woman , 16. 19
Evans, Woman , 16. 20
Rogers, Why not women? , 96. 21
Rogers, Why not women? , 96 and Evans, Woman , 16.
Long version Alison Whittall
It is also argued that even if the man and woman were created equal, they were
created to have different ‘roles’.22 However, they are not given separate roles beyond
their biological ones: ‘God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and
multiply...have dominion”’ (Gen 1: 28), clearly suggesting shared production of life
and leadership over creation. In Genesis 2 different roles are not mentioned, nor in
Genesis 3, unless one reads the consequences of the Fall as instituting these (Gen
3: 16, 17-19) which would, anyway, be a consequence of the Fall, and not how God
intended it.
The woman has also been blamed for the Fall, but the text says that the man was
with her (Gen 3: 6, 3-4).23 They are equally and individually responsible. Alternatively,
some argue that it was Adam’s fault, that he ‘forsook his responsibility, his headship’
by doing nothing,24 which is why Paul says that sin came into the world through one
man (Rom 5: 12), and why Christian men now need to make sure they exercise this
authority as part of restoring creation order. However, this now puts too much
responsibility on the man, and not enough on the woman. The point, surely, is that
neither of them exercised the authority they had both been given to have dominion
over the serpent.
Only after the fall is there any disunity between the man and woman, starting with the
man blaming her (Gen 3: 13).25 They are now self-conscious, ashamed of their
nakedness, aware that they had been in close communion with each other and with
God, but no longer. Culture and conflict is ‘born here: in the fear of self-exposure in
relationships, in the need to hide,’ the need to self-assert and protect.26 Only after the
fall are they addressed separately by God, and mention of the man ‘ruling’ over the
woman appears (Gen 3: 16). She had been ishshah to his ish, but now he gives her
an individualised name, hawwah (life/Eve), thereby imposing his rule over her, as he
did over the animals (Gen 3: 20).27 The introduction of hierarchy is the result of the
fall, not a distortion of it.28
22
Lis Goddard & Clare Hendry, The Gender Agenda (Nottingham: IVP, 2010), 24. 23
Rogers, Why not women? , 97. 24
Hendry, The Gender , 41. 25
Lefkovitz, “The Genesis” The Jewish Quarterly Review , 411. 26
Lefkovitz, “The Genesis” The Jewish Quarterly Review , 419 and Gowan, Genesis 1 - 11 , 59. 27
Evans, Woman , 23 and Gowan, Genesis 1 - 11 , 60. 28
Webb, Slaves, Women and Homosexuals , 119.
Long version Alison Whittall
As Hamilton points out, the thrust of the creation stories is a shared origin, a shared
destiny, a shared tragedy and a shared hope;29 ‘It is remarkable that in the
patriarchal culture of ancient Israel such a message was heard and allowed to stand
as a part of the sacred writings, even though it may not have been acted on with
much effectiveness.’30 There is no basis here for excluding women from any form of
ministry, or seeing women as subordinate in any way.
3: Old Testament women were only given senior ministry roles because men
were shirking responsibility, or their ministry was in private.
In the rest of the Old Testament, there is evidence that women sometimes functioned
at every level of ministry (except of course the priesthood, which even most males
were excluded from). Webb calls these ‘breakouts’ from the social norms which
should alert the reader to God’s ultimate desires for a renewed humanity.31 The
general objection to this view is that ‘whenever God wishes to brand a man with a
mark of ignominy’ he raises up female prophetesses to shame them. But, Joel 2
suggests otherwise, and only false prophets, not female prophets, are condemned.32
Deborah, for example, was a head of state, judge, prophet, military leader and
songwriter (Judges 4-5). Some argue that she only judged in private, but she seems
to have held court as any other judge did.33 Some argue that she is not said to have
been raised up by God like the other judges; God only allowed her to be judge
because there were no suitable men, to rebuke men.34 However, the male judges
were not particularly ‘suitable’ candidates; Deborah was married but her husband
was not a co-judge; and there were other potential leaders like Shamgar (Judges 3:
31; 5: 6).35 Yes, Deborah encourages Barak’s leadership of the army and he is, in
effect, rebuked for not doing it, but this was his job, not Deborah’s, so this is logical.
Deborah’s leadership is not rebuked, she was very successful and the only judge
also called a prophet. To suggest that women like her are just left to ‘pick up the
pieces and assume a leadership role’ because men have failed to lead is to
29
Rogers, Why not women? , 99. 30
Gowan, Genesis 1 - 11 , 48. 31
Webb, Slaves, Women and Homosexuals , 91. 32
Calvin quoted in Evans, Woman , 30-31. 33
Hendry, The Gender , 46- 47, 50. 34
Hendry, The Gender , 47. 35
Webb, Slaves, Women and Homosexuals , 95-96.
Long version Alison Whittall
completely denigrate women.36 It is to ignore the evidence that women are God-
gifted leaders in all spheres of life. It is to place unfair pressure on men to be leaders
when this is not their gifting.
Huldah was another remarkable prophet. King Josiah sent a delegation of five
leaders to her for advice, and it cannot be argued that there were no men available
as she was active at the same time as Jeremiah and Zephaniah. Can an official
delegation of five be seen as only operating within the private sphere? This is the
problem with trying to limit women to a private sphere of ministry – where is the line?
Also, whilst women were generally limited in the ways they ministered, they were
allowed to hear the law being read, bring sacrifices and gifts to the temple, approach
the sanctuary, minister at the door of the tent of meeting, dance, sing, pray and make
vows.37 The combined evidence suggests an underlying spiritual principle of inclusive
access to all ministries, especially as in the New testament even the restriction of the
priesthood is opened to all men and women (1 Peter 2: 9).
4: If Jesus wanted women to be church leaders, he would have included them
in the twelve disciples.
Turning now to the New Testament, it is clear that Jesus was revolutionary; he
treated men and women equally.38 In terms of ministry, female disciples travelled with
Jesus (Luke 8: 1-3), so we might suppose that women were among the seventy-two
sent out to minister by healing and preaching (Luke 10: 1, 9), although of course
there are those who will argue that women just performed domestic duties. One could
argue that Jesus commissioned women as evangelists (John 4: 7-12), and Jesus is
seen preparing women to be teachers; Mary is described ‘sitting at Jesus’ feet’,
learning from Jesus just as Paul learned at the feet of Gamaliel (Luke 10: 38-42).39
One studied this way in order to become a rabbi oneself.40 Then there is the woman
who anointed Jesus (Matt 26: 12), perhaps showing greater theological insight than
36
Hendry in Hendry, The Gender , 47 and Rogers, Why not women? 52. 37
Evans, Woman , 26 – 29. 38
Evans, Woman , 146. 39
Wright, Women's Service, n.p. 40
Wright, Women's Service, n.p.
Long version Alison Whittall
the disciples,41 and Mary, Jesus’ mother, trusted with the greatest responsibility of
all.42
Evans concludes that the only difference in the way that Jesus relates to men and
women is that women have a larger role in the passion narratives, women are not
seen opposing him, and women were not among the twelve. So, despite the
overwhelming evidence for Jesus’ inauguration of a new equality for women, there
are those who appeal to this last point to suggest that even if women can be
permitted to perform most ministries, they should not be allowed to lead the church.
Whilst it is possible that twelve male disciples was meant to be of permanent
significance for church leadership, a temporary significance is more likely.43 If we
follow the permanency logic, church leaders must also only be Jews from Galilee
who speak Aramaic and were with Jesus. Jesus did not include gentiles either, and
they were clearly a group, like women, who were not to be ostracised in the post-
resurrection world.44 Also, there is a symbolic link to Israel’s twelve tribes, so Jesus
seems to be declaring that he is the expected Messiah, enacting a parable that
bridges the old covenant with the new,45 but after his resurrection, the point is to
‘make disciples of all nations’ (Matt 28: 19).
Whatever the reason, it is worth noting that when the twelve abandoned Jesus, the
women did not, and they were first see him resurrected, the first to preach the
gospel.46 Luke tells how the men did not believe them, used as they were to a culture
that ignored women’s testimony.47 Surely Jesus is making the point that if he trusts
women with crucial information, they should too. We only know some of the facts in
the passion narratives because of their testimony.48 As N.T Wright puts it,
This is of incalculable significance. Mary Magdalene and the others are the
apostles to the apostles. We should not be surprised that Paul calls a
woman named Junia an apostle in Romans 16: 7. If an apostle is a witness
41
Evans, Woman , 52-57. 42
Evans, Woman , 58. 43
Evans, Woman , 50. 44
Evans, Woman , 50 and Rogers, Why not women? , 54-55. 45
Goddard in Hendry, The Gender , 69. 46
Carroll, “Women and Ministry,” 664. 47
Evans, Woman , 53. 48
Evans, Woman , 53.
Long version Alison Whittall
to the resurrection, there were women who deserved that title before any of
the men.49
5: It cannot be proved that women in the New Testament who seem to have
teaching or leadership positions were in fact performing those functions in the
public sphere, if at all.
The mention of Junia brings us to early church women’s ministry. Some argue that
Junia, ‘outstanding among the apostles’ (Rom 16: 7), was either a man, or just had
an honorary title, or was unlikely to have performed the same function as male
apostles. However, even Chrysostom, who believed in the ‘superiority’ and ‘pre-
eminence’ of men, was convinced this was a woman.50
Women also had teaching ministries and appear to lead chuches. Priscilla is
recorded as teaching Apollos (Acts 18: 24-25) and leading a church with her husband
(Romans 16: 31). Detractors say she just taught in private,51 could only do it because
her husband was there to oversee her, or that she just ‘explained’ (ektitheimi- Acts
18: 26) which is different from ‘teaching’ (didasko - 1 Tim 2: 12).52 Where, though, is
the division between explaining and teaching? Where is the division between public
and private? Churches met in homes; it makes no sense if women were operating in
all ministries in house churches to say that they then cannot do the same in an official
building called a church. Priscilla’s name is mentioned first in the pairing, and whilst it
may be because her family was higher class than Aquila’s, Chrysostom
acknowledged that it seems to indicate ‘a greater godliness’ for the way she
instructed Apollos.53 Tertullian also recognised that ‘by the holy Prisca [or Priscilla]
the gospel is preached,’ suggesting that there was no division between teaching and
preaching.54
There are many women mentioned in association with churches in their homes, or as
Paul’s co-workers, such as Chloe, Lydia, Nympha, Euodia and Syntyche. All the
people whom Paul specifically mentioned as colleagues in ministry, whether men or
49
Wright, Women's Service, np. 50
Webb, Slaves, Women and Homosexuals , 257 and Evans, Woman , 124. 51
Hendry in Hendry, The Gender , 72-3. 52
Rogers, Why not women? , 144. 53
John Chrysostom quoted in Rogers, Why not women? , 144. 54
Tertullian quoted in Rogers, Why not women? , 146.
Long version Alison Whittall
women, were spoken of in identical ways,55 so if we assume that the men Paul
mentions in these capacities are operating in all areas of ministry, we must also
assume the same for women. Daniélou says that co-worker words refer to
‘participation in the work of evangelism’ and the expression ‘“to work in the Lord” can
only refer to apostolic tasks’.56 There are also female prophets mentioned: Phillip’s
four daughters (Acts 21: 9) and women prophesying in church (1 Cor 11: 5).
Women were also deacons; diakoneo is associated with seven women in the
gospels, and is the same verb used to describe the ministry of seven men appointed
to leadership in the early church.57 Phoebe is described as ‘diakonos of the church’ in
Cenchrea (Rom 16: 1) and if she was a man we would assume that she had an
ecclesiastical office. As we cannot be sure whether it was a specific office or general
term for servant, though, some argue that there is no reason to suppose she did.58
However, the fact that Paul has given her the responsibility of taking his letter to the
Romans as his ‘helper’ suggests a role of responsibility. Apparently, cognates of the
word ‘helper’ here, prostasis, are elsewhere used ‘to describe the activities of those
who exercise leadership in the churches’.59 So Evans concludes, ‘there is certainly
no reason to suppose that the help and service given by Phoebe as a diakonos, as
that of Paul, Tychicus, Epaphras and Timothy did not involve spiritual as well as
material responsibilities.’60
1 Timothy 3 also gives evidence that women could be deacons. Verses 8-13 outline
the qualities required for a deacon and whilst traditionally the beginning of verse 11
has been translated to say ‘Likewise, wives of deacons’, the literal translation would
be ‘Likewise, wives/women are to be worthy of respect’.61 Because Paul is talking
about leaders here, not marriage, it makes more sense to translate it as ‘likewise,
women [deacons] are to be worthy of respect’.62
I Timothy 3 also lists the qualifications for an ‘elder’ or ‘overseer’ (episkopos). They
are to ‘teach’ and ‘take care of God’s church’, so many see this as referring to
55
Rogers, Why not women? , 149. 56
J. Daniélou quoted in Evans, Woman , 127. 57
Rogers, Why not women? , 125. 58
Murray cited in Evans, Woman , 125. 59
R. Banks cited in Evans, Woman , 126. 60
Evans, Woman , 126. 61
Rogers, Why not women? , 229. 62
Rogers, Why not women? , 229.
Long version Alison Whittall
bishops or church leaders. The argument for excluding women is the use of ‘he’
throughout the description, but Hamilton points out that if we are true to Paul’s
grammar in the opening to this section he says, ‘If anyone sets [his or her] heart on
being an overseer, [he or she] desires a noble task’ (v. 3, my italics).63 Also, if we
follow the logic that only men described in the text can be overseers, then they also
have to be married and have children, which we would think ridiculous.
6: Paul taught that women should be silent and never have authority over a
man.
We turn, then, to a closer look at Paul. From our discussion above, it appears that he
was happy to minister alongside women in all capacities, so when we consider other
passages where he may at face value seem to be contradicting himself, we should have
this in mind. We also need to bear in mind the emphasis Paul continually puts on unity
and the church being ‘one body’ (e.g. Col 3: 14-15), with ‘neither Jew nor Greek, neither
slave nor free, no male and female’ in Christ (Gal 3: 28). Whilst some argue this is only
equality in terms of salvation, Paul has actually been arguing that Peter’s behaviour in
returning to Jewish traditions goes against the gospel because it creates the barriers of
a social hierarchy, and Paul repeatedly undermines these social hierarchies (1 Cor 12:
13; Eph 2: 15; Col 3: 11).64
Another consideration is Paul’s view on gifting. In 1 Corinthians 12, Romans 12 and
Ephesians 4, we find lists of ministerial gifts. Nowhere in these passages does Paul
say that women are excluded from any of them, or that if they have them, they can
only teach other women, or do so in private, or in an ‘unofficial’ capacity. In fact, he
always reiterates that we are ‘one body’ and God gives gifts to each one as he wills.
Paul writes, ‘God has appointed in the church...’ apostles, teachers and leaders (1
Cor 12: 28). He does not say God has appointed men to these positions, and adds a
reminder not to be conformed to the pattern of the world (which excludes women),
and not to think more highly of oneself than one ought (Rom 12: 2-3). Like the body,
we are mutually dependent on all the members being allowed to exercise their gifts to
be whole.
63
Rogers, Why not women? , 227. 64
I am grateful to lectures with Ben Blackwell for the idea concerning Peter and hierarchy, TH7902 Paul in Contemporary Theological Perspectives. Cheltenham; Westminster Theological Centre, 31/01/15. Also, Webb, Slaves, Women and Homosexuals , 83-84.
Long version Alison Whittall
- Silence
In 1 Corinthians, having listed the gifts and talked about the whole church coming
together (v. 23, 26), ‘each one’ bringing a gift (v. 26) and ‘anyone’ speaking in a
tongue (v. 27), why would Paul tell half the church to be silent and not use them? In
chapter 11 he has talked about women praying and prophesying (v. 5), so why in
chapter 14 would he say that women should be silent? The verses in question are:
Let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church. What? Was it from you that the word of God went forth? Or came it unto you alone? (v. 34-36)
Hamilton comments that forty nine times in 1 Corinthians, Paul uses a tiny Greek
word (:ἤ) which could be translated as ‘What!’ or ‘Nonsense!’ to express his
disapproval of an existing situation.65 Many translations, sadly, do not include these,
but the ASV version above does; we can now understand that the section from
‘Women should be silent’ to ‘it is shameful for a woman to speak in church’ is
something that the Corinthians have been arguing and Paul is saying ‘Nonsense!’ to
this.66 He follows it with a double rhetorical question which ‘challenges those who
would limit Christian women’s right to speak. It is addressed to males; “only you” (eis
hymas monous) is in the masculine plural...Bluntly and forcefully he asks them, “Do
you presume to have an exclusive claim on the word of God?”’67
The other occasion where it seems Paul might be advocating women’s silence, and
not being permitted to teach men, is in 1 Timothy 2, 11-14:
Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I permit not a
woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness.
For Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam was not beguiled, but the
woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression...
This is the most significant passage for those who want to deny women full
leadership and ministerial responsibilities.68 However, having already seen that
Priscilla taught men, and knowing Timothy himself was taught by female relatives
65
Rogers, Why not women? , 190. 66
Rogers, Why not women? , 191. 67
Raymond F. Collins, First Corinthians (ed. Daniel J. Harrington; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1999), 522. 68
Wright, Women's Service, n.p.
Long version Alison Whittall
(1Tim 1: 5), we have to ask whether there is a specific circumstance that Paul is
addressing here. He is telling Timothy to ‘command certain people not to teach false
doctrines any longer’ because ‘some have departed from these and have turned to
meaningless talk. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what
they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm’ (1Tim 1: 3-7). One likely
explanation, therefore, is that some women, or even a particular woman, have been
teaching false doctrines. Paul’s remedy is that they learn (Paul is being revolutionary
here!) so that they will not be deceived.69 Paul actually writes, ‘I am not permitting...’
which suggests a temporary sense of ‘at the moment’, another indication that this is
not a permanent prohibition.70
These verses say that women should learn in ‘quietness and submission’ and should
be ‘quiet’ in church. Some translate hē suchia (quiet) as ‘silence’, but the same word
is used in other instances where ‘silence’ is not appropriate (1 Tim 2: 2) and
quietness makes more sense in this context with respect to the behaviour expected
of any student or church member.71 N.T. Wright suggests that, having said women
should learn, Paul then says the equivalent of ‘but I don’t mean to imply that I’m now
setting up women as the new authority over men in the same way that previously
men held over women’, something that needed pointing out in a city where the
Artemis cult with all women priests held sway.72 Also, the word authentein, translated
to have ‘dominion’ or ‘authority’ here, is an unusual, strong verb with overtones of
usurping and domineering, so Paul is not necessarily stopping them from having any
kind of authority, just not usurping authority.73
- Submission and headship
Those who oppose women in leadership also use this passage to argue that Paul
upholds a hierarchical reading of Genesis 1. This, and his mention of ‘headship’
elsewhere, can be the final barrier for those who want to believe that women can be
church leaders, but genuinely want to be obedient to scripture. 74 As we have already
discussed, even if the woman was second in creation, this is not a convincing
69
Rogers, Why not women? , p. 213-221. 70
Evans, Woman , 102. 71
Evans, Woman , 101 and Rogers, Why not women?, 218. 72
Wright, Women's Service, n.p. 73
Evans, Woman , 103 and Wright, Women's Service, n.p. 74
Hendry in Hendry, The Gender , 96.
Long version Alison Whittall
argument for excluding her from ever having authority over a man. However, it is only
fair to include some discussion on ‘headship’ here.
The verses to consider are:
But I want you to understand that the head of every man/husband is
Christ, the head of a woman/wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is
God (1 Cor 11: 3).
and
‘Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is
the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and
is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives
should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives,
as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her...’ (Eph 5: 21-25).
Wives being subject to husbands has been used to justify male hierarchies and even
abuse of women, but it is clear in the Ephesians passage that Paul expects mutual
submission, and is followed by the husband’s responsibility to love his wife in a way
that places enormous value on her. This is the same in Colossians 3, where the
injunction is set within a chapter urging both men and women to ‘teach and admonish
one another’ in a way that creates harmony; clearly Paul is urging harmony in the key
relationships, not making a statement about hierarchy. As Barth says, it is
‘subordination but in such a way that the emphasis is on mutual adaptation and co-
ordination’.75 It is also significant that these passages do not say that wives should
‘obey’, whereas children and slaves should.76 Single men or women are not
mentioned here, so the injunctions do not relate to a universal principle that can be
applied to all men and women in ministry anyway.
Statements about the ‘head’ (kephalē) are more problematic. Paul does seem to be
saying that the head of the woman is the man, but it is easy to misunderstand what
he means and think he is promoting male dominance. Lucy Peppiatt proposes that
the Corinthians have misunderstood the nature of headship, and Paul is correcting
75
Barth quoted in Evans, Woman , 68. 76
Evans, Woman , 67.
Long version Alison Whittall
them; he says, ‘I commend you...But I want you to understand...’, going on to make
sure they see it in light of God being the head of Christ.77
I am not convinced by either the meaning that the man has ‘authority over’ the
woman, or that he is the ‘source/origin’ of her (referring back to Genesis 1), but am
more convinced by a link to what Paul is always talking about: the body and unity.78
So the man (head) and the woman (in this sense, the rest of the body) go together in
unity as does Christ and the church, and God and Christ. This then makes sense of
‘the head of Christ is God’ in way which does not suggest subordination within the
Trinity. However, it is possible that it is not just one of these ideas; Chrysostom, for
example, ‘thought that the point of the verse was...the union between the head and
the body, although he also saw the idea of origin being present.’79 Whichever way we
read this, it still does not suggest a universal principle that a woman must always
been under the authority of a man.
Easily deceived
When Paul says, ‘For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived,
but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor’ (v. 13-14), it has been
deduced throughout the centuries that Paul means ‘women are by nature so easily
deceived that they can never be trusted to teach’.80 This is perhaps not surprising
when we recall the Hellenistic world view that has permeated Western thinking, or
that women have rarely been educated to the same level as men, if at all.81 However,
Paul uses this same illustration to express his fear that both the male and female
members of the Corinthian church are being deceived (2 Cor 11: 3), and Ephesians
is also about both men and women being deceived.
If men were not equally likely to be deceived, why in Ephesians 5 does Paul urge the
whole church not to be deceived and to put on the armour of God in order to help
prevent this? If women are so easily deceived, why should they be allowed to teach
children and other women (2 Tim 1: 5; 3: 14)? Socio-scientific studies have now
77
Lucy Peppiatt, TH7901 & TH7905 H7 1 Cor 11-14 (Cheltenham: Westminster Theological Centre, 2014), 1. 78
Evans, Woman , 65-67. 79
Chrysostom quoted in Evans, Woman , 67. 80
B.S. Easton quoted in Evans, Woman , 104. 81
Newport J.D. White and John Knox quoted in Webb, Slaves, Women and Homosexuals , 267 and 265 respectively.
Long version Alison Whittall
proved that ‘gender is not considered a viable component’ in gullibility,82 so
patriarchal scholars now turn to stereotyping; it is not being easily deceived that
prevents women from being leaders and teachers, but women are ‘relational and
nurturing’, so less likely than men to ‘draw the line on non-negotiables, and thus
deception and false teaching will more easily enter the church’.83 However, there is
increasing evidence that this relational thesis is not credible either.84
Conclusion
In reading for this essay, I was particularly struck by Clare Hendry’s comment that
‘Despite believing in the biblical basis of headship and authority, I know my reaction
is still to kick against it.’85 I felt sad that she had put her struggle with this down to her
rebellious nature caused by the Fall, rather than believe that her Spirit, enlivened by
the Spirit of God, was reacting against injustice. Of course, I do not disagree that we
all struggle at times to submit ourselves to authority, but why should women have this
burden added to by being told they have to submit to men – can’t we all struggle with
this on an even playing field? And why should men have their struggle with pride
added to by thoughts of superiority, or inferiority struggles because they do not match
up to false expectations of leadership?
Of course my reading is biased, and I cannot believe in a God that would give gifts to
his daughters only to tell them they can’t fully use them. I cannot believe that telling
more than half the church that they can’t use their gifts at every level of public
ministry is doing any good to men or women, the world or the spread of the Gospel. I
cannot believe that the mutual submission without hierarchy that makes my marriage
so precious is not a glimpse of what God intends for all his children. But clearly, if we
cannot resolve this issue, the unity that Paul fought so hard for, and Christ died for,
will not be won, and the body he laboured to care for will never be whole.
82
Webb, Slaves, Women and Homosexuals , 267. 83
Thomas R. Shreiner quoted in Webb, Slaves, Women and Homosexuals , 221. 84
Webb, Slaves, Women and Homosexuals , 228-229. 85
Hendry, The Gender , 96.
top related